2-4-25 - 7am - USAID It All Adds Up

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Please help us understand this. The city of Denver in
January twenty three bought the Stay In for nine million
dollars under the idea that they were going to turn
this hotel into housing for the homeless. Now two years later,
they're trying to sell the hotel for ten dollars and
the buyer has to promise to make this supportive housing

(00:23):
for the homeless. How does this happen? That's nine million
dollars gone?

Speaker 2 (00:30):
Yeah, do better? Denver tweeted about that. I'll maybe I
can get that to that today. It's just not on
the agenda yet today, but I'll look at it. Let's
go to yesterday, the five over own Fox had a
somewhat serious debate about USAID. Let me explain first a

(00:56):
little bit about the history of USAID, the United States
Agency for International Development. Now, thing about the acronym us AID.
When you just look at the acronym is USAID. So
it's a great marketing tool anytime that. In fact, after

(01:22):
several trips with the Secretary of State Colin Powell, I
noticed that there was always either the director of USAI
D or the or his designee, and several staff members
that were almost always on any trip that we made together.

Speaker 3 (01:42):
And I finally kind of asked one time.

Speaker 2 (01:44):
Like, why is USAID always on these trips? And the
answer I got, not necessarily from Colin Powell, but from
staffers was they're always looking for ways to pass out money.
I mean, I just putting as bluntley as I can't,

(02:06):
They're always looking for ways to pass out money. So
when they're with the Secretary of State on a you know,
on a trip somewhere, they go along because that allows
them because the Secretary, you know, they're they're in that
kind of bubble, and so they get to hear stories
about it, and then they can go back and they can,

(02:26):
regardless whether the Secretary once it or not, they can
decide that they're going to start passing money out, not
in furtherance necessarily of the Secretary of State's objectives, but
in fulfillment of what they believe to be their mission.
USCID was created in nineteen sixty two sixty one, I

(02:48):
forget what year it was, by Executive Voter of John F.

Speaker 3 (02:52):
Kennedy. It was. It's much like it started.

Speaker 2 (02:57):
If you want another example of how government programs are,
like a metastatic cancer, USAID is a perfect example of that.
In addition to creating the Peace Corps, Kennedy creates USAID
as a mechanism by which he can, through his discretion,
provide resources to countries for humanitarian purposes, almost like an

(03:22):
international FEMA that would would provide, you know, money to
you know, there's there's a famine somewhere, or there's you know,
there's a huge natural disaster somewhere. Well, then Kennedy could
take USAID and he could fundel money through that incident
over to a foreign country. Well, it then gets you know,
it morphs into a congressionally mandated organization that still exists

(03:49):
within the executive branch, but it has morphed into an
organization that operates on its own. It's really unanswerable to
me anybody. Now, when you're unanswerable to anybody, you can
do things on your own, and you can do things

(04:10):
for whomever comes knocking on your door asking for a handout.
You can just decide whether or not you want to
do it or not. And there's not a lot that
a member of Congress or that a president or anybody
else could do or it would be willing to do.

Speaker 3 (04:23):
Be the better way to phrase it.

Speaker 2 (04:25):
There's not much that a president or a secretary of
State would be willing to do. And of course Congressmen
who go because they need favor somewhere that you know, listen,
I'm gonna I'm you know, I just came back from
a trip to Ethiopia, and I think that we ought
to be doing X, Y Z and Ethiopia. And if
you're a Democrat congressman, whether those Democrat bureaucracts are going
to love that idea and they're going to start doing it.

(04:48):
At one point, Judge Piro yesterday on the five just
pointed out something about NGOs. Now, you know, if you've
been listening to this program for any length of time,
that an NGO, a non government organization, is simply a
way for either cronies of elected officials or former government

(05:15):
officials who have left the federal government to go start
an organization because now they have a funder back in
Congress that will appropriate money to whatever department or agency.
In this case, we're talking about USAID, where USAID will say,
you know what, we really do need a program in Ethiopia,

(05:36):
but we don't have because all we are doing. All
we do is we just write checks USAID doesn't really
do anything. They contract out with NGOs to do their
work for them. This is such a great scam. And
don't get me wrong, it's just that USAID is the topic.

Speaker 3 (05:58):
Dusure.

Speaker 2 (06:00):
I could just spend the rest of worle in February,
and I could spend the rest of this calendar year,
every week going through an agency that does exactly the
same thing that USAID does. Homeland Security and all of
its components, the Department of Commerce all of its components,
HHS and all of its components. I mean, you think

(06:21):
about h NIAI D all of what they do in
terms of grants and NGOs. Come on, this is nothing
new for you for this audience. If you're just like,
I'll give you an out. If you're new to this audience,
then maybe you don't quite understand this. So let's take
USAID as an example. So people that go to work
for USAID decide, Look, I'm making one hundred and seventy

(06:45):
five thousand dollars a year here and I got great benefits.
But I can make one point seven million dollars a
year if I go out and form an NGO that
is helping starting people around the world. And then your
cronies back at you. CID will give you a ten
million dollar grant, and of that ten million dollars you take,

(07:07):
you know, a couple of percentage points for your own
to pay your own salary, and of course then to
build up your staff. So you take ten million dollars.
And you know, if this were subject to the same
type of charity navigator that goes and looks at how
much money do you raise? How do you raise it?
You know, what do you spend it? Do you spend
it on programs or do you spend it on fundraising costs,

(07:29):
or do you spend it on whatever? This These would
all fail. These would all get an f because while
their fundraising is very efficient because they don't have to
spend any money fundraising and they just maybe hire a
lobbyist or two, or they just pick up their friends
they're still working the agency and say hey, we need
some money, and so they send you the check and
you get a big ass check. Now, they then take

(07:50):
that money and spend the majority of that money, not
in all cases, but most of the time, they spend
the majority of that money funding their own organization, their
own NGO. And then they take some because they got
to spend some money, you know, actually helping people they
are starving to death somewhere in a famine or a
drought or whatever. So they will go into some country
and they will do that. But what will they do.

(08:11):
I mean, they're again like a metastatic cancer is the
only way to describe it. Because then they'll go into
those countries, and inside those countries they will also form
NGOs that will be kind of the you know, the
NGO in this country's kind of like the wholesale, they're
kind of like the distributor. And then in the foreign
countries they have inngos they kind of become the retail outlet.

(08:34):
And so this all this money, these billions of dollars
get sent out to do things that Congress never really authorized,
and it's completely.

Speaker 4 (08:44):
Out of control, addictive towards some of these organizations. You
know what, here's the problem. US taxpayer moneies should go
for US national interests. Okay, to the extent that there
are US national interests supported by USA organization that in
twenty twenty three spent forty two forty three billion dollars

(09:07):
on global humanitarian operations. If we spend some of that money,
on our senior citizens, on our veterans, on people in
the hurricane areas. The problem with this is that this
clearly I don't care how long this agency has existed.
We need information, we need transparency, and the ninety day

(09:29):
pause should not be a problem for the Democrats, who
we're always supporting transparency. No agency should be free of
being monitored, and they should. These special interests end up
taking over when no one is monitoring, and then when
they think that no one is looking, it inevitably leads
to corruption. I mean, that's how you see in something

(09:52):
that was started out positively turns out to end up
being a criminal organization when no one's looking. That's problems.
So let me finish, Let me finish this. This country.
This group has given money mostly to like an NGO,
to Ukraine, Ethiopia, Jordan, Somalia, Syria.

Speaker 3 (10:16):
What is all this about?

Speaker 4 (10:18):
And part of this stuff has drag shows in Ecuador,
atheism in Nepal, transcomic books in Peru. So you know,
let's keep tallying that up. That doesn't do anything for
my country where we were funding atheism in Nepa.

Speaker 3 (10:33):
In Nepal, that's an interesting thing.

Speaker 4 (10:35):
Yeah, I So we've been talking a little bit about
how democrats were finding ways to funnel money to their cause.

Speaker 2 (10:42):
Now let me give you some examples, and then I'm
going to go back and I will walk through the organization,
the agency itself. So here just here's some examples. One
point five million dollars to advance diversity, equity and inclusion
DEI in Serbia's workplaces in business communities. Seventy thousand dollars

(11:05):
for production of a DEI musical in Ireland. Now, as
I give you these examples, I want you to think,
what interest, what American interest does that support or advance?
Two point five million dollars for electric vehicles in Vietnam.
Vietnam wanch electric vehicles do yourselves. Forty seven thousand dollars

(11:31):
for a transgender opera in Colombia. Thirty two thousand dollars
for a transgender comic book in Peru. Two million dollars
for sex changes in LGBT activism in Guatemala, six million
dollars to fund tourism in Egypt.

Speaker 3 (11:49):
Hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Speaker 2 (11:51):
For a nonprofit link to designated terrorist organizations, even after
the Inspector General and the State Department launched an investigation.
He continued to do so millions to this income. As
a surprise to you, Eco Health Alliance, which was involved
in the gain of function research in the Wuhan Lab,

(12:13):
hundreds of thousands of meals that went to al Qaeda
affiliated fighters in Syria. Funding to print personalized contra sevity
birth control devices in developing countries. In other words, you
need a particular diet i UD, or you need a

(12:35):
particular birth control pill or a certain medication.

Speaker 3 (12:38):
You know, we'll design it particularly for individuals.

Speaker 2 (12:43):
Hundreds of millions of dollars to fund irrigation, canals, farming equipment,
even fertilizer to support the unprecedented poppy poppy cultivation and
heroin production in Afghanistan, which obviously benefits the teleban. But
this just goes on and on, and it's been going
on for decades. And now that someone is and this

(13:06):
is what we voted for, This is exactly what we wanted.
And now that it's happening, oh my god, heads are
exploding all over DC. The dominant media, the cabal is,
they're they're imploding on themselves. They do not know what
to do. In fact, what do they do?

Speaker 3 (13:23):
They will.

Speaker 2 (13:23):
They, as joy Read explains, they're undermining democracy, they're undermining
national security. They're they're well, they're taking over USA I D.
It's five alarm fire, according to Alexander at Cossier Cortez,
and of course the typical trope about, hey, we elected
Donald Trump and be president, not Elon musk With. He's
an unlucky billionaire, he's an oligarch. He's got his own

(13:46):
foreign debts and he's got his own motives. He's he's
using classified information. He's a grave threat to national security.
That's all, according to ABC News, a senior USA i
D executive, You've told ABC News the warp speed of
this mafia like takeover has shaken USAID staff to the core,
to which I say, halleluja and amen, this is what

(14:10):
we wanted. Don't be deterred by all of the noise
you hear about how awful this is, because there was
nothing illegal, there's nothing unethical, there's nothing inappropriate about the
Department of Government Efficiency walking in and doing an audit.
How many of you have you know, we keep hearing
that the Pentagon fails audits. We keep hearing from libertarians

(14:33):
we want an audit of the FED. We keep hearing
from inspector generals about how they try to do audits
and government agencies, and they get forwarded all the time.
And so now we've got somebody else which is now
an official part of the Executive Office of the President.
So it's not like DOGE, which I you know, I

(14:53):
love and hate the name. It's not a department. It
is an office within the West Wing. So I wish
they'd rename it something else. And all Elon Musk is
is an advisor. Now does he have access to the
West Wing. Yes, but people at that level that are

(15:14):
advisors or that are actually operating some offices, they all
have access to the West Wing. I have access to
the West Wing, I mean DFD whatever. But just we
elected Trump, who then appointed Musk to oversee those and
Trump has the right to do that. So Musk said

(15:39):
on X with regards to the USAID stuff, I went
over with the President in detail and he agreed that
we should shut it down. Now, despite all of the
exclamations that Musk is somehow access seeing classified information, which

(16:02):
is what he's like what AOC implied, there's no evidence
of that whatsoever. If you listen closely to the news
stories on the networks and on the cables. They don't
present you the evidence. They just present you the allegation.
There's no evidence at all. I I spent an inordinate
amount of time last night trying to find evidence that

(16:25):
somehow Elon Musk has access to classified information. He does
not not at least this is not not, at least
not this information. And what's mafia come on, as, what
what's mafia like about this? They're trying to as quickly
as possible take control of the agencies that the executive

(16:48):
branch is ostensibly supposed to control. You know, back in
in Trump one point, oh, he tried to merge USAID
with the State Department to give them Secretary of State
Rex Tillerson some operational control over USAID. Don't you think

(17:10):
that if someone's operating in a foreign government that they
ought to be in concert with the policies of the
commander in chief as implemented by the Secretary of State.

Speaker 3 (17:23):
I think so.

Speaker 2 (17:25):
But then I think that we have a unified executive
and the commander in chief desires policies whatever is what
the branches is, what the departments and agencies in that
branch should be doing now, it could be that Congress
will have to approve of any dissolution of USAID, since

(17:46):
once it was done by executive voter, and then Congress
actually implemented that by statute.

Speaker 1 (17:52):
But Mike, I believe Doge is actually properly pronounced doug.

Speaker 3 (18:00):
Logy loggy.

Speaker 2 (18:03):
So Dragon raised a great point during the break, and
that was, you know, I gave you that litany of
of stupid things we spent money on. When you add
up everything that USAID spends, their budget is fifty billion
dollars a year, fifty billion a year, and they even

(18:23):
fund in g o's. You know who Bill Crystal is,
the neo con so Bill Crystal actually gets money for
his propaganda through a USAID grant that goes to an
ng O. Now, and many journalists actually get grants through

(18:44):
NGOs that are funded by USAID. But go back to
some of those examples, seventy thousand, I've they go back
and find.

Speaker 5 (18:54):
Here, I got you somewhere, one point five million for
Dei and Siberi Serbia, seventy thousand for Dei musical in Ireland,
forty seven thousand for Transgender Opera in Colombia, and thirty
two thousand for transgender comic book in Peru.

Speaker 2 (19:11):
And Dragon's question was do we during the break? To
me was do we really care about those numbers? Absolutely,
we care about those numbers.

Speaker 3 (19:20):
Let me tell you, well, just in comparison you said.

Speaker 5 (19:24):
Fifty billion dollar organization, this doesn't even equate to two million.

Speaker 2 (19:33):
And why this is important is you start with the
most obvious, you start with the most absurd. I guarandemn
to you is I've done myself. I have walked through
my house or been digging in my desk for something,

(19:54):
and I find something that I spent I don't know,
let's just say a hundred bucks long, and I haven't
looked at used. In fact, I found it buried in
the bottom of a drawer somewhere, and I thought to myself, well,
that was a waste of money. It was only one
hundred dollars. But you do that over time and suddenly

(20:15):
you realize, wait a minute, now, first you think about
one hundred dollars, that's one hundred dollars that I don't
have my pocket right now. I'd happily give up whatever
that stupid thing was that I spent one hundred dollars
on to have a hundred dollars bill in my pocket
right now. And if I do that over time, I

(20:35):
look at and I realize, oh, over twelve months I
spent let's just pull a number out of my butt.

Speaker 3 (20:41):
I spent ten.

Speaker 2 (20:41):
Thousand dollars in stuff I didn't need to spend money on. Wow,
I'd like to have that ten thousand dollars right now
instead of buying stuff I could have invested that. I
I mean, I sound like Dave Ramsay right now, right,
I mean I could have done something else with it,
but no, I do stupid things with money and it
all begins to add up. But more importantly than the

(21:02):
dollar amount is the direction, is the pathway because for
most of DC it is always This is why budgets
so important. We don't have a budget, so every year
they just pass a continuing resolution that says, hey, here's
what you spent last year. You can spend that amount

(21:24):
plus five percent more or ten percent more, whatever they
come up with. And so we never do baseline budgeting.
We never do zero based budgeting, which goes back and says, hey,
last year, you spent fifty billion dollars, so we're going
to wipe that out completely. And we're going to rebuild
the department entirely, and you tell us what you really need,
and you justify everything that you spent, and we'll come

(21:47):
up with a new figure. Well, if you start whittling
away at seventy thousand here, a million, yere, two million there,
pretty soon, as Everett Dirkson once said, you know centuries ago, uh,
you know, a million here and a millionaire, and pretty
soon you get talking about real money. Well, today we're
talking about you spend a million here and a billion here,

(22:07):
and pretty soon you're spending a billion dollars. And now
you're talking about real money, and fifty billion dollars. Fifty
billion dollars. Now, I know, mathematically in a three four
five trillion dollar budget, that still doesn't amount to a lot.
It's about the direction, and inside the Beltway, the direction.

Speaker 3 (22:30):
Is always more and more and more and more.

Speaker 2 (22:32):
And we elected Trump to come in and say, wait
a minute, stop, it's no longer going to.

Speaker 1 (22:36):
Be more and more and more.

Speaker 2 (22:38):
Or if it is going to be more, it's going
to be on those things that I as president, believe
are things we should be spending money on. National security,
national defense, securing the borders, you know, doing the things
that we need to do to help Americans, not help
foreign countries or not help you know stupid uh, you know,

(22:58):
DEI programs and Ireland or wherever it might be. So
that's the importance of what's going on here. Now, let's
let's not forget. And I think this is an important date.
So Kennedy establishes USAID back in the sixties. What happen
who was president in nineteen ninety eight? You know, come on,

(23:22):
it's an easy question, Bill Clinton. What did Bill Clinton
do post presidency? The Clinton Foundation, which got money from USAID,
And so Bill Clinton continued the graft the grift that
he was doing during his presidency by getting Congress to

(23:43):
put USAID into law in nineteen ninety eight. And yes,
I agree that only Congress can reverse that. But while
Congress can reverse or eliminate USAID, Trump is currently in
charge of USAID, so he has the power to pause

(24:07):
the grants, shut down their communications. He can take as
he did with the director and the or the the
director and the deputy director. He can put them on
administrative leave. He can kick all he can tell all
of those people working, stop working, stay home while we

(24:29):
come in. Because he has the right to do this
as the executive and send in his own people to
start looking at what are we spending money on. It's
the only way you're going to get to the truth.
Do you think the people who are trying to preserve
their own jobs are going to tell you the truth
about what they're spending money on.

Speaker 3 (24:48):
Of course, they're not going to do that.

Speaker 1 (24:52):
Trump.

Speaker 2 (24:52):
All Trump does, All he has done is put his
people in charge of usai D. He has said, don't
spend any more money until my people can figure out
what you're spending money on. And that is this tiny
little example of USI AID has caused, at.

Speaker 3 (25:10):
Least this week, it'll be something different next week.

Speaker 2 (25:13):
Has caused the cabal to just blow up in a
mushroom cloud of a nuclear explosion.

Speaker 3 (25:18):
Oh my gosh, you're going the wrong dirrection. You can't
do this.

Speaker 2 (25:20):
You can't do this. Yes he can, He absolutely can
do it. Now, we might have a legal question of
whether or not he can dissolve USAID on his own. I
happen to fall on the side that it's been established
by Congress. It will take Congress to disestablishment to disestablish it. However,

(25:40):
he has under his executive authority that you know what,
I'm not going to spend this money or I'm going
to change it and I'm going to spend the money
on something else that I think is in our national
security and is in our national interests. That's why we
elected him freaking president. To begin with, Researchers have caught

(26:05):
USAID even before Trump, of abusing its powers, including funding
everything from censorship, which the government is prohibited from doing
by the First Amendment. So they're using USAID to accomplish
which they are prohibited from doing themselves, which is unconstitutional,

(26:27):
to outlandish things like funding the Wuhan Institute of Virology,
which did the research the resulted in the COVID pandemic
between twenty four and twenty twenty two twenty twenty two.
During that time period, USAID was the largest government funder
of the Eco Health Alliance, which then sub awarded grant

(26:50):
funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Now, let me
explain what that means. We gave money through usai ID
to Eco Health, which then gave grants to Wuhan fifty
four million dollars during that period. Now we're talking about

(27:11):
some serious money, which was even more than the forty
two million dollars that they got from the Pentagon. I
know it's ancient history, but ran Paul alleged back in
twenty twenty three that quote. Some of the research proposals
in twenty eighteen were the Wuhan Institute of Virology asking

(27:32):
for money to create a star like coronavirus with a
fear and cleavage site. That's exactly what COVID nineteen turned.

Speaker 3 (27:39):
Out to be.

Speaker 2 (27:40):
Samantha Powers, who used to work for Barack Obama in
the White House, became the director of USAID under Obama,
and she evaded the question. She refused to answer the question,
and so Ran Paul accuses Powers of withholding information. You see,
Congress cans yell and scream all they want to, but
all they do is conduct oversight the executive branch. The

(28:02):
president can actually take action, and that's what he's done.

Speaker 3 (28:09):
And now you've got the cabal heads are exploding. You know.

Speaker 2 (28:15):
I think just the evidence of withholding information from Congress,
I think that's sufficient to remove the agency's leadership and
to stop funding. After all, they may continue to be
to be funding dangerous gain a function research and not
informing Congress. So Congress can't effectively do their oversight. And
not only can they not do it, I maintain they

(28:39):
won't do it. They don't want to know. You know why,
because there are benefactors too, because they're preferred constituents, they're
preferred countries, they're preferred NGOs are getting this funda.

Speaker 3 (28:53):
So they don't want to they don't want to know.

Speaker 2 (28:54):
No no monkey see, no monkey new no monkey here,
no no, no, no no no. Now are the risk
to this, of course, and it's because of what I
just said. And that's because Congress itself is deeply a
mesh in these programs. Think about well, think about this

(29:16):
after the break.

Speaker 3 (29:17):
Warn't Michael.

Speaker 6 (29:18):
In regards to the politicians saying things that are so stupid,
they believe they have to sound that stupid to make
sense to the voters. The sad thing about it is
half of the votership, half of the population of this country.

Speaker 3 (29:37):
Really is that stupid they are?

Speaker 2 (29:41):
I mean, after all, we keep electing these people. Do
you know that the USAID funds the BBC. He gives
nearly two million pounds a year for the BBC, the
British broad Casting Corporation, to train reporters in more than

(30:03):
thirty five countries and how to serve Washington, you know,
talking about politics making strange bedfellows. Norm Chomsky, a self
avowed communists, probably the one of the great not greatest,
I don't mean greatest, isn't good, but one of the
most prominent leftists in this country, also opposes USAID because

(30:27):
USAID is basically used for a regime change, and it
goes against what many countries one. In fact, a lot
of countries don't want the money that we spend because
oftentimes that money is being used to destabilize a country
or is in direct contradiction to the domestic policies of

(30:50):
that country. The president of El Salvador, who's doing amazing things,
wrote on x most governments don't want usa ID funds
flowing into their countries because they understand where much of
that money actually ends up. While marketed as support for development, democracy,

(31:11):
and human rights, the majority of these funds from USAID
are funneled into opposition groups or NGOs with political agendas
and destabilizing movements. At best, maybe this is the president
of El Salvador. At best, maybe ten percent of the
money reaches real projects that help people in need. Then

(31:32):
there are such cases, but the rest is used to
fuel descent finance protests undermine administrations that refuse to align
with the globalist agenda. Cutting this so called eight isn't
just beneficial for the United States, is also a big
win for the rest of the world. When you have
a non Chomsky over here on the left saying that,

(31:53):
you know, this is all about regime change, and you've
got people like me over here on the right saying
this is a waste of money. We're not doing what
the president's agenda is. This is in contradiction to what
our own foreign policy is. But Congress loves it because, oh,
I'm about to say something that may piss people off.

(32:15):
Congress doesn't always represent America's best interest. Congressmen tend to
represent their own financial interests. And if you're opposed to
regime change, which is one reason why we voted for
Donald Trump, then this is one of the places where

(32:36):
you got to start.

Speaker 3 (32:39):
You know.

Speaker 2 (32:39):
The agency USAID also tries to engage in censorship. It
tries to engage in propaganda. The agency promoted pre bunking,
not debunking. Pre bunking, which is kind of what the
Asmen Institute to program journalists and social media companies to

(33:04):
learn how to censor stories like the Hunter Biden laptop,
as well as strategic silence, which is similar to what
the Assmen Institute promoted to journalists in the summer of
twenty twenty before The New York Post published its first
story about the laptop. USAID, the United States Agency for

(33:30):
International Development, has funded the Assmen Institute in the past.
What are we doing here? Oh the member of the
Homeland Securities Disinformation Governance Board, Oh yes, got lots of advice,
help and personnel from USAID. They also funded a group

(33:57):
called Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Object. What did that
organization do? It investigated Rudy Giuliani. Yes, shut it down.
That entails risks, but some fights are worth having and
this is a good start.