Speaker 1: Welcome to the nonprofits.
Speaker 2: In our second segment this week, we look at one
Speaker 2: of the latest cabinet level nominees that has a concerning history.
Speaker 2: Our newest nonprofit ejector Seat is here to tell us
Speaker 2: all about it.
Speaker 1: EJ.
Speaker 3: So, today we have a story from Mother Jones by
Speaker 3: Isabella Das Russell Vaught, head of the Center for Renewing
Speaker 3: America think tank, was confirmed as the head of the
Speaker 3: Office of Management and Budget for the United States of America. Today,
Speaker 3: I want to bring you a look at what this
Speaker 3: office does, what they're responsible for, and possible ramifications. Of course,
Speaker 3: a quick background on vot himself so we can see
Speaker 3: who is at the helm of this beheamoth a man
Speaker 3: with links to Project twenty twenty five and has openly
Speaker 3: sided with anti constitutional, anti human and even as evangelical
Speaker 3: types tend to do anti Christian values. This will be
Speaker 3: a roller coaster, so.
Speaker 1: Strappan definitely, definitely a roller coaster there. So EJ.
Speaker 2: So, let's set aside for a moment that this person
Speaker 2: and would have the ear of the person in the
Speaker 2: White House. What other than that, Other than have that,
Speaker 2: I mean, that's a huge thing right there. But setting
Speaker 2: that aside what specifically would fall under his control as
Speaker 2: director of the OMB.
Speaker 3: So as leaders of the OMB, the OMB has a
Speaker 3: critical role in the executive branch, overseeing and managing the
Speaker 3: president's budget. However, the policies and programs of federal agencies,
Speaker 3: including everything from the Department of Defense to the North
Speaker 3: American Space Agency NASA, are also firmly in its wheelhouse.
Speaker 3: This means that the OMB has a thinker in every
Speaker 3: federal pie, which means any federal work can be defunded
Speaker 3: or stopped by the OMB or the head of it.
Speaker 3: This in addition to the federal grants, which can be
Speaker 3: revised or scrapped based on the omb's recommendations or direct action.
Speaker 3: This includes grants for things like low income housing, food stamps,
Speaker 3: and many more things millions of Americans rely on to live.
Speaker 3: A quote from grants dot gov goes as follows be,
Speaker 3: along with other bodies, has continued to play an important
Speaker 3: part in interpreting and implementing the laws among the federal
Speaker 3: government awarding agencies. Today, coding grant policies have been largely
Speaker 3: shaped by a range of statutes, regulations, executive orders, and data.
Speaker 2: All Right, so it sounds like fingers and lots of
Speaker 2: pies there, fingers and lots of pies and lots of
Speaker 2: strict control over that kind of thing.
Speaker 1: Next, I want to go over to down to Helen
Speaker 1: real quick.
Speaker 4: Here.
Speaker 2: What kind of baggage does Vought himself? What kind of
Speaker 2: baggage is he bringing to the table.
Speaker 5: Oh oh, there's so much I can talk about.
Speaker 1: Let me let's just start.
Speaker 5: Let's just start. Okay, everybody. This is from his Wikipedia page,
Speaker 5: So I highly encourage all of our wonderful viewers to
Speaker 5: go look this up.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 5: Also, John Oliver on his recent episode of Last Week
Speaker 5: Tonight also talked about mister Vought highly recommend that you
Speaker 5: should do both things because this mofo. Oh my god.
Speaker 5: So the Center for Renewing America combats CRT critical Theory
Speaker 5: will provide the ideological ammunition to saying Trump's political movement
Speaker 5: after his departure from the web House in twenty twenty one.
Speaker 5: So this is something they were planning, you know, when
Speaker 5: Trump was president and when he left office. In October
Speaker 5: of twenty twenty four, pro Publica reported that Vaught's proposals
Speaker 5: included plans to reshape the government by using military force
Speaker 5: against protesters if it deemed necessary. So that goes against
Speaker 5: our freedom to assemble right defending agencies like the US
Speaker 5: protect Environment Invitation Agency to reduce federal influence, and casting
Speaker 5: silver servants as obstructive to conserve conservative agendas. His cra
Speaker 5: aims to enact an aggressive policy approach, and he talked
Speaker 5: about this on John Oliver the other night, cutting bureaocracy
Speaker 5: and focusing on trumbleline conservative governance. He said he would
Speaker 5: aim for a shadow office of legal counsel anything. When
Speaker 5: I heard somebody says shadow, right, please be aware that
Speaker 5: that is not a good thing.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 5: In July of twenty twenty four, Smoke candily to journalists
Speaker 5: team is to a guest conservative donors. They pose I
Speaker 5: saw this interview. They pose those conservative donors to get
Speaker 5: him to talk about what his plans are. And the
Speaker 5: tour interview he revealed the details of his plan to
Speaker 5: take control over the government through presidential power. He send
Speaker 5: up his core belief as Christian nationalism. Please watch this interview.
Speaker 5: You just don't put in void journalist interview with just
Speaker 5: look it up, it will come up. You need to
Speaker 5: watch this. It is very important to because this guy's
Speaker 5: in charge of our budget. Everybody, he needs to be
Speaker 5: aware he is a self subscribed Christian nationalist. Oh my god, yikes, yikes, yikes.
Speaker 2: Right yeah, wearing that as a badge right right on
Speaker 2: the front, just you know, proud of it, proud of it.
Speaker 2: Even that's that's definitely disturbing. They're definitely disturbing.
Speaker 1: I want to jump back to EJ for a second here. EJ.
Speaker 2: Helen was talking about some troubling things, obviously about Russell Vott.
Speaker 2: Can you add anything to what she said or can
Speaker 2: you give us your perspective on his past and his
Speaker 2: intent his intentions with this new found power.
Speaker 3: Of course, what is now heading the unb a beheamoth
Speaker 3: of wealth, red tape and bureaucrats. So let's see how
Speaker 3: this man wishes to wield the sword has been given
Speaker 3: mentioned above. He heads a think tank, which are organizations
Speaker 3: that are usually used to obfuscate donations and heavily pushed agendas,
Speaker 3: called the Center for Redeing America. This think tanks mission
Speaker 3: statement as as follows. Our mission is to renew a
Speaker 3: consensus of America as a nation under God fuck off
Speaker 3: with unique interests worthy of defending that flow from its people.
Speaker 3: Institutions and history where individuals enjoy free, enjoy freedom, enjoyment
Speaker 3: of freedom. Sorry, it's predicated on just laws and healthy communities.
Speaker 3: Their website also contains quite a large graphic frond and
Speaker 3: center on the home page saying for God, Country and Community,
Speaker 3: which reminds you of a certain regime from Europe a
Speaker 3: while ago. And I don't know.
Speaker 1: These rings some bells. I think does ring some bells?
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: It's almost as if there's some sort of comparison to
Speaker 2: be made there that escapes me figure anyway.
Speaker 3: Sorry, They make it known that their calls are for
Speaker 3: an American Christian theocracy and dismantling of organizations like the
Speaker 3: Cybersecurity and Infra Infrastructure Security Agency CISEA, which is put
Speaker 3: in place or at least had a lot of power
Speaker 3: after there was some attacks on the grid showing how
Speaker 3: how weak America's infrastructure power infrastructure was through physical and
Speaker 3: CyberSecure it means, you know, which is something we quite need, right.
Speaker 3: But they also want to get rid of the Consumer
Speaker 3: Financial Protection Bureau the CFPB. I'm sure I don't have
Speaker 3: to explain why that's a bad idea for anyone who
Speaker 3: is a billionaire. Has also made comments saying that Trump
Speaker 3: is sent by God because apparently the fucker run out
Speaker 3: of locusts. What has also helped co author Project.
Speaker 2: Sorry, sorry, I'm just picturing like, so, he's the eleventh plague,
Speaker 2: is what you're saying?
Speaker 6: Yeah, little Lucus's face, it's terrible, like CGI, Okay, I
Speaker 6: don't blame you, but also helped co author Project twenty
Speaker 6: twenty five.
Speaker 3: How much of it I was unable to ascertain though,
Speaker 3: which detailed plans on cutting federal funding by acting things
Speaker 3: like social welfare, energy solutions, and more, along with defiling
Speaker 3: for schools and the abolition of subjects which teach includesivity diversity,
Speaker 3: along with the hampering of reproductive rights. You know, could
Speaker 3: you imagine if there was an agency that could do that,
Speaker 3: that manage things like money and budgets, You really shouldn't
Speaker 3: put them in charge of something like that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, shit, jeez.
Speaker 3: Yeah. However, Trump in the House of Congress have given
Speaker 3: a man with clearly horrid intentions film control over such
Speaker 3: an eggragency which regulates and controls many federal agencies through
Speaker 3: policy and money. I wonder how this can go wrong?
Speaker 2: Well, just I suppose we'll just have to ride this
Speaker 2: one out right, see you? Assuming we can continue riding right, Steven?
Speaker 4: Yeah. Can I ask a questions?
Speaker 1: Please?
Speaker 3: Do?
Speaker 4: Like, because I hear that Congress controls the purse strings
Speaker 4: and that's why everything that the boys are doing in
Speaker 4: the White House is really unconstitutional.
Speaker 6: What how?
Speaker 3: What?
Speaker 4: What's How does this balance that we've got this guy
Speaker 4: who's in charge of money stuff, but also it's Congress
Speaker 4: who is in charge of money. What's how does that work?
Speaker 2: I think it's a Congress is and I'm definitely not
Speaker 2: an expert in this in this area, so this is
Speaker 2: just my thoughts on it. I think Congress allocates the money,
Speaker 2: and I think the OMB is in charge of putting
Speaker 2: that into effect.
Speaker 3: If I may so, please do. While I was researching this,
Speaker 3: I thought the same thing because I've heard similar things. So,
Speaker 3: as far as I understand it, their whole argument is
Speaker 3: that the budget is given to them, and how they
Speaker 3: allocate it is mostly up to them. It's also why
Speaker 3: Trump wants to do things like get rid of the penny,
Speaker 3: which is a bit the only good idea he's had.
Speaker 2: So the budget is given to so the O and
Speaker 2: B is acting on behalf of the president. So so
Speaker 2: Congress basically hands the money to the OMB.
Speaker 3: What you're saying, as far as I understand it, yes,
Speaker 3: they give the OMB money and they tried to Well,
Speaker 3: they should try to work with what Congress has given. However,
Speaker 3: evidently rules that were written before any of us were
Speaker 3: born haven't taken into account that it could be hijacked.
Speaker 1: Okay. Is is it something along the lines of like laws?
Speaker 2: I mean, because Congress makes the laws and then the
Speaker 2: executive branches in charge of executing those laws and enforcing them.
Speaker 1: Is it kind of a relationship similar to that or.
Speaker 3: Kinda so with policies sot inter agency policies and stuff,
Speaker 3: a lot of it goes through the executive branch, and
Speaker 3: thus the UNB they have general say on stuff like well,
Speaker 3: you want to and you want to have best policy,
Speaker 3: will allocate so much funding so they can essentially just
Speaker 3: strip agencies away by saying we're going to severely underfund
Speaker 3: you to where you can.
Speaker 1: Do your job right right? All right? All right?
Speaker 2: Yeah, thanks, I learned something new today, EJ. I do
Speaker 2: want to jump over to Steven here real quick. I
Speaker 2: want I want to get your opinion on this as
Speaker 2: a Canadian. I want you to lend us your your
Speaker 2: Canadian eyes here. I mean, how does this look from
Speaker 2: from up north? What does what's your take on this?
Speaker 4: It's it's it's wild, it's weird, it's strange, Like I
Speaker 4: am very it just it makes me really cognizant of
Speaker 4: the fact that I have never had to worry about
Speaker 4: like things like social welfare and healthcare being jeopardized because
Speaker 4: of the religious beliefs that influence one given political party.
Speaker 4: Like it's just so hardbak into our structure, into our
Speaker 4: systems that of course we won't have healthcare. Of course
Speaker 4: we're going to be looking out for the social well
Speaker 4: being of people. That that isn't up for grabs, that
Speaker 4: isn't on the table to be negotiated with. It isn't
Speaker 4: a chip that can be put into can be anted
Speaker 4: up to get what someone wants. So it's just it's
Speaker 4: it's wild, and it makes me really appreciate. Like here
Speaker 4: in ours we have multiple parties that run for a
Speaker 4: federal office, and since two thousand and eight, sorry since
Speaker 4: the year two thousand eight, of our years have been
Speaker 4: controlled by a minority government. Means that one of the
Speaker 4: one of the political parties has gotten the most votes,
Speaker 4: but they haven't gotten the majority of the votes. So
Speaker 4: if they want to get anything done, if they want
Speaker 4: to get a majority, they have to work with other parties.
Speaker 4: They have to get other people on board, they have
Speaker 4: to be making their coalitions, and there's no chance under
Speaker 4: a minority government for one party to make all the
Speaker 4: rules and snowplow their way through what the other parties
Speaker 4: are representing, what they're wanting. And it just makes me
Speaker 4: really grateful that we have a system that allows for
Speaker 4: that kind of diversity and then shakes up the ability
Speaker 4: for one party to be the ruling party, and in
Speaker 4: some cases it's not. In every case, we had a
Speaker 4: conservative government for a great number of years and that
Speaker 4: was an authority and that's something that we all fear.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 4: Sorry, that's what a lot.
Speaker 2: So you're saying there's advantages to having a multi party system, right,
Speaker 2: it's so that way, if it's one on one, it's
Speaker 2: always going to be kind of one lopsided one side
Speaker 2: over the other one, right.
Speaker 4: YEA, well yeah, and like that, and especially as an outsider,
Speaker 4: like that's all that I see when I look towards
Speaker 4: the South at the system there, and it's always like
Speaker 4: a forty nine fifty one percent split, and especially in
Speaker 4: recent years, it's always going to be Okay, well, we're
Speaker 4: going to either completely stop you from doing anything that
Speaker 4: you want to do, or we're just going to do
Speaker 4: exactly what we want to do and you be down
Speaker 4: and it's weird and disheartening.
Speaker 1: Interesting.
Speaker 2: Interesting, Well, we're fortunate enough today to have two non
Speaker 2: Americans on our panel today. So Stephen, as we mentioned,
Speaker 2: is Canadian and ejector's seat is from Scotland, and so EJ.
Speaker 2: I would like to hear as someone from Europe, a
Speaker 2: part of the world that has kind of been through
Speaker 2: the whole fascism authoritarianism thing before. I mean, what's your
Speaker 2: what's your take on this?
Speaker 3: So, first of all, I've seen marches in America. We're
Speaker 3: openly fascist groups feel freedom, and I am horrified of that.
Speaker 3: In Europe. The last time we allowed fascist to march,
Speaker 3: we marched them to the galops. It's not fair on
Speaker 3: Americans to allow these to allow horrible people like this
Speaker 3: to be out like in public and saying that their agendas,
Speaker 3: which usually involved the deaths of millions, if not hundreds
Speaker 3: of millions, is completely fine to do, and that they
Speaker 3: feel comfortable doing it with the current government, and I'm
Speaker 3: sorry that you all have to go through this. Europe
Speaker 3: and many other nations will always stand against the fight
Speaker 3: of fascism. We've been through it. We know what we're
Speaker 3: going we know how to help. We're not going to
Speaker 3: let America fall to an elness we thought we got
Speaker 3: rid of in forty five. There's already political machinations at
Speaker 3: work inside America and outside of it working to put
Speaker 3: a stop to this in any way we can keep
Speaker 3: your chin up. This can't last forever.
Speaker 2: That does That is kind of reassuring. Actually, I mean
Speaker 2: knowing that you know, the world has our back kind of,
Speaker 2: or at least much of the world. That that that
Speaker 2: is very That is very reassuring. I do want to
Speaker 2: jump down to Helen now here, down, I say, down
Speaker 2: on my screen. They're all vertical out here, all right
Speaker 2: over here, over this way, this way here, this way over.
Speaker 1: To Helen here.
Speaker 2: So in the previous section, I asked whether or not
Speaker 2: the new regime in Washington was merely giving lip service
Speaker 2: to religion, or if it really did take religious perspective seriously.
Speaker 1: Now, let's flip that.
Speaker 2: Do you think Russell Vott is hitching his cart to
Speaker 2: this particular wagon merely out of convenience, or do you
Speaker 2: think their ideologies aligned? Do you think Vought is in
Speaker 2: alignment with the current regime, or do you think that
Speaker 2: it's just a it's a.
Speaker 1: You know, my enemy of my enemy is my friend
Speaker 1: kind of situation.
Speaker 5: I mean, he was part of Project twenty twenty five
Speaker 5: that is like uber religious and like this is the
Speaker 5: thing about like this whole governmental structure. I don't know
Speaker 5: where the griff ends and the belief begins. I don't know.
Speaker 5: Because you can be a very conservative want all all
Speaker 5: the power to go to the executive branch and not
Speaker 5: buy into the religious crap, or the religious crap aligns
Speaker 5: with your politics. I don't know anymore. I honestly do
Speaker 5: not know, because we've obviously with Trump, who by definition
Speaker 5: reminds me of the Antichrist if you've read Revelations. So
Speaker 5: that's happened. But a lot of Christians think that he
Speaker 5: is their you know, embodiment of their Lord and Savior.
Speaker 5: So again I don't know anymore, and I don't and
Speaker 5: at this point, I don't think if fucking matters.
Speaker 1: I honestly don't think it matters. This dude is terrible.
Speaker 5: The fact that he wants all the power to go
Speaker 5: to the executive branch, which is a real problem because
Speaker 5: that was against our constitution and the whole way that
Speaker 5: we said up our country that we do not have
Speaker 5: a monarchy, we do not have a king, we don't
Speaker 5: have a theocrisy, we don't have a god you know,
Speaker 5: god given right king. That is very important to point out,
Speaker 5: and I think it's very concerning when we're looking at
Speaker 5: this from that lens.
Speaker 1: And as each a pointed out, they've.
Speaker 5: Been through this, They've been through these people that think
Speaker 5: they are given God given powers, you know, or they're
Speaker 5: like super special boys, and you know, they get to
Speaker 5: have all the power and it usually blows up in
Speaker 5: their face, which gives me hope because fascism does not last.
Speaker 5: It never does, It never ever does. And I and
Speaker 5: I'm sorry people like this is what we're facing right now.
Speaker 5: And though it the reason why he does not last,
Speaker 5: because the rest of us stand up to it, we
Speaker 5: say like no, sorry, uhh, that's not a thing. And
Speaker 5: Void wants to be part of that regime because he
Speaker 5: thinks is even if he is not, you know, a
Speaker 5: religious person, his politics align with Project twenty five because
Speaker 5: guess what helped me helped write it?
Speaker 6: Right?
Speaker 1: Okay, So it was like you watch my back or
Speaker 1: you scratch my back.
Speaker 5: Yeah, because biggest stick together. I'm sorry, they stick together.
Speaker 5: And he wants he wants an authority in government. Like
Speaker 5: I've watched him. I've watched this interview people. He he's
Speaker 5: in it to win it.
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, EJ. Did you want to add something
Speaker 1: onder what Helen was saying there?
Speaker 3: Yes, just on the Revelations prophecy. It says that there
Speaker 3: will be a false Messiah who comes and tracts most
Speaker 3: Christians and they will wear his brand on their forehead.
Speaker 3: And I've never seen a Bible Bible prophecy is right,
Speaker 3: but fuck me if there's one.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying, maybe that's the evidence we need, right,
Speaker 2: that's the evidence we've been waiting for.
Speaker 1: There is a God and he's a fucker.
Speaker 5: Right now, I'd be like, actually, your prophecy is true.
Speaker 5: Blah blah blah blah blah.
Speaker 2: Now all right, I have one more question and I'll
Speaker 2: direct this one to Stephen first. So is this this
Speaker 2: one nomination and confirmation? Is this the result of a
Speaker 2: democratic process?
Speaker 1: If not, how is it not? But if it is,
Speaker 1: shouldn't we respect that?
Speaker 2: I mean, as as people that support democracy and you know,
Speaker 2: that want to see democracy prevail in the world. If
Speaker 2: this is a democratically the process here, right, the confirmation process,
Speaker 2: the nomination process, and all that kind of thing, are
Speaker 2: we actually by standing by, you know, talking against this
Speaker 2: nominee this, or actually he's not a nominee anymore, he's
Speaker 2: a cabinet member. By by talking against this, are we
Speaker 2: poo pooing the whole democratic process or what?
Speaker 4: Well? Yeah, you've got forty five in office there that
Speaker 4: was allegedly democratic. Yeah, Like the system is broken, absolutely,
Speaker 4: But it's a system of defunding and not prioritizing education
Speaker 4: that I think has really played a big role in
Speaker 4: allowing people to be manipulated and brought to this place.
Speaker 4: So is a democratic Yeah? Is it broken?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 4: It doesn't need to improve.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: How many people have to die before that happens?
Speaker 2: Time will tell, right, Right, Well, I think that's excellent,
Speaker 2: an excellent point to end at. Right there, that's a
Speaker 2: very poignant thought to bring up, and so I think
Speaker 2: we'll just stop there. So I want to thank all
Speaker 2: of you for being on the panel with me here
Speaker 2: I want to thank all of you for watching us