February 7, 2025
|

Let’s save some time and kick off today’s USAID discussion with the stipulation that this entity (like ActBlue, which we’ve profiled in the past) sure looks like a giant money laundering apparatus for Democrats. This is why they’re losing their minds, as you’ve seen this week. We already knew there was a gigantic slush fund operating for Democrats and “progressive” causes but didn’t quite know the mechanics of it until now. Thank you, Elon Musk and DOGE, for lifting the curtain.

As Scott Adams observed during his Wednesday podcast, the situation with USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development) is somewhat complicated because, of course, they’ve done some spending that most people can agree is good. The idea behind that was to hide the corrupt spending under what could be called “unimpeachable initiatives,” issues that could reasonably be viewed as win-wins for both our country and some other part of the world. But much of the spending --- likely most of it --- “was dedicated to absolutely corrupt behavior, just 100 percent corrupt.”

There are thousands of NGOs (non-governmental organizations) receiving taxpayer money through this financial set-up. And when these groups get money from USAID, there’s just no guarantee of where that money ultimately lands. It might end up being channeled into some unrelated cause, or even some faraway candidate’s coffers. It might end up at a different NGO or spent by groups affiliated with other campaigns.

And their goals are nefarious. As Mike Benz of the Foundation for Freedom Online has noted, USAID has funded NGOs that exist to censor U.S. citizens. In Adams’ words, “Basically, everything you don’t want to happen --- if it’s something you didn’t want, and it was corrupt --- somewhere...it was happening. It’s like this grab-bag of corruption.”

When you see money being channeled into some particular issue, “probably it’s just a way to launder money into something that they really want to do.” Who knows where it goes?

The people pocketing money from this are about “98 percent Democrats,” according to Adams, “which means they’re part of the [anti-Trump] resistance.” (Actually, we would say that NONE of them are real Republicans, though some who purport to be might be affiliated with the Lincoln Project and other such anti-Trump groups --- also part of the resistance.)

“They just did another sting,” Adams said of O’Keefe Media Group, “and got one of the USAID employees to say on [hidden] camera...that they were gonna basically try to burrow in and thwart everything that Trump wants, and just wait him out.”

This sounds very much like the hidden camera video we brought you earlier in the week, which captured a mid-level employee at the Department of Homeland Security saying the politically appointed Secretaries don’t run the agencies; the permanent bureaucracy does.

“Exactly what you thought was going to happen,” Adams said. Employees can do this just by slow-walking Trump’s orders.

“Basically,” he observed, “the bureaucracy says, ‘We’re just gonna thwart you.’” They’re going to pretend they’re going along with the President but quietly use sabotage to oppose him. It’s a practical impossibility to ferret out this deep-level subterfuge, so there’s really only one thing that can be done: SHUT THE WHOLE THING DOWN.

“And that’s what Trump’s gonna do,” Adams said. “Close the whole thing.” Apparently as a preliminary step, it’s been taken in as part of the State Department by newly sworn-in Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Before that, USAID was sort of amorphous, working for the State Department, the Pentagon, the CIA, whoever.

“So,” he continued, “if you didn’t have people who understood that the only way to fix it is to break it, you wouldn’t have leadership.” It’ll have to be messy for a while, and there will be a lot of screaming, but this has to be done. We’ve stocked up on earplugs.

Adams rightly called USAID “the beating heart of most of their [the Democrats’] corruption,” which explains all the screaming.

He went on to cite examples of people “in the Democrat world” who are in a state of unprecedented panic about the exposure of USAID. One said, “This is worse than 9/11 for Democrats. USAID is the primary vessel they used to achieve their political agenda. USAID is and always has been the primary source of funding for their influence-peddling schemes and for their indirect source of income.”

Another: “Based on the reactions within the party, it seems to me that dismantling USAID is Trump’s biggest political victory to date. It was his enemies’ golden goose.”

And, yes, it’s even a bigger bank than George/Alex Soros. Soros is only their SECOND biggest, with USAID providing twice as much funding for the “progressive” prosecutors being bankrolled around the country.

But our challenge with them hiding expenditures within those “unimpeachable initiatives,” Scott said, “is that the thing you have to get rid of is the thing that looks the most like something you’d want to keep, ‘cause that’s where they’re gonna hide the good stuff.” (How can anyone be against, say, AIDS prevention?)

Also, Mike Benz has expressed concern that we’re celebrating too soon, because this is an “octopus” that has long tentacles and will be putting up a huge fight. But we’ll know who is the most corrupt by who takes the lead in the pushback. MSNBC is already hugely vocal in its support of USAID, which should tell you something. Van Jones on CNN, too. In Congress, there’s Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, who is so shameless that anyone else who stands up with him on this is inescapably tarred as well. AOC has also been particularly shrill. (Recall the story about the “star search” by progressive Democrat organizations that recruited her for her initial run for Congress; this appears to have been funded at least in part by USAID.)

Scott poses the question --- and let’s hope we’re just talking hypotheticals --- what happens if there’s a vote in Congress about shutting down USAID and some (so-called) “Republicans” don’t vote for that? Well, for one thing, it certainly shows us who’s in favor of continuing this corrupt gravy train. As he says, “There is no way any Republican can be in favor of keeping USAID at this point unless they’re part of the corruption.”

He argues that this is way too serious for Republicans to break ranks. “Trump’s gonna have to put ‘em into retirement or [if they broke laws] into jail,” he says. “But pretty much all of them are breaking some law,” he laughed. With what we know about USAID at this point, he said, anyone who insists on supporting it had better get ready for retirement. “Or at least lawyer-up.” As expensive as that fight will be, he said, “it’ll be the worst decision you ever made in your life.”

…..

It already appears that THE NEW YORK TIMES and POLITICO have been recipients of millions in our tax dollars. We found this out after staffers at POLITICO didn’t receive their paychecks this week. As it turns out, this “payroll issue” emerged after President Trump put a freeze on USAID funding. So, is there a connection?

Enterprising sleuths looking into this found that POLITICO received up to $27 million (by some counts $32 million) from various U.S. agencies during the Biden years. We were completely unaware of this. Why on earth is POLITICO getting money from the U.S. government?

Is it possible they were paid (even indirectly) for pushing the now-infamous “classic earmarks” letter about Hunter’s laptop? Because they sure did. We would bet the NEW YORK POST never got any money from the U.S. government.

It’s amazing how money can be hidden. Another sleuth found this, as reported by SLAY NEWS: “Listed under a ‘disaster emergency fund,’ over half a million dollars was paid by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to POLITICO for ‘37 POLITICO pro subscriptions.’” Elon Musk noticed this himself and commented, “This is odd.”

Even more shocking, THE NEW YORK TIMES received $3.1 in taxpayer funds, while the U.K.’s BBC received $3.2 million. (We assume these figures also are from the Biden years.) Again, why in blazes would these media outlets be receiving money from the U.S. government?

(We’re starting to wonder if fashion magazines were paid NOT to put Melania on their covers.)

Apparently, “legacy” media is being propped up with money from a U.S. government slush fund while conservative opinion media has been targeted by other NGOs for financial starvation and shutdown. (Heck, we already knew that firsthand; that’s why we’re so grateful for your paid subscriptions.)

The piece at SLAY NEWS is a must-read…

https://slaynews.com/news/federal-government-funneled-millions-tax-dollars-leftist-news-outlets-politico-ny-times/

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked about this on Wednesday, and assured us that the more than $8 million in taxpayer-subsidized subscriptions to POLITICO “will no longer be happening.”

“The DOGE team is working on canceling those payments now,” she said. Don’t miss her full comments on this, here…

https://rumble.com/v6hdgzj-wh-press-sec-karoline-leavitt-responds-to-news-politico-has-been-bankrolled

RELATED: See Mike Shellenberger here (it’s recommended you follow along with the transcript for clarity) on how USAID was involved in the first impeachment of Trump. Never mind that it was highly illegal for them to be involved in this way in our own country.

Recall that the impeachment was supposedly triggered by a CIA analyst-turned-whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella. He had relied on reporting by an “independent” news organization called the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), which we now learn was operating as an arm of USAID. Read the detailed transcript, and you will see that, as Shellenberger reports, “...it appears that CIA, USAID, and OCCRP were all involved in the impeachment of President Trump in ways similar to the regime change operations that all three organizations engage in abroad. The difference is that it is highly illegal and even treasonous for CIA, USAID, and its contractors and intermediaries, known as ‘cut-outs,’ to interfere in US politics this way.”