If you thought your tax dollars spent by the federal agency US Aid for International Development have been hard at work saving the Third World you're excused, but you were wrong

/

he’s gone, sirs, he’s gone

The Dirty Truth Behind Bill Kristol's 'Private' Funding

Stephen Green:

"Can't stop the signal," the phrase popularized in the 2005 sci-fi flick "Serenity" has today been supplanted by "Can't hide the data," courtesy of Data Republican (small-r)'s ever-improving Federal government grant award search. For example, how does a private figure like William Kristol get taxpayer money to fund his political activities?

Answer: it's complicated. But I can show you the way. 

Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors received nearly $38 million in grants last year, nearly evenly divided between USAID and the State Department. Because the Rockefellers don't have enough of their own money, I suppose.

RPA gave significant sums (the Data Republican chart did not make clear how much, but I'm still digging and will update this column if I can find the number) to The Hopewell Fund. What does it do? According to its site, Hopewell has been around only since 2015 and "is a 501(c)(3) public charity that specializes in helping donors, social entrepreneurs, and other changemakers quickly launch new, innovative social change projects."

That's a whole lot of words saying not much. However, I did see that the organization's Economic Security Project provides "management for nearly a dozen contracts and grants management for community-based organizations, think tanks, advocacy organizations, and NGOs in the United States."

Slush, meet funds. Your taxpayer dollars became "private" funds via Rockefeller that then went into a whole host of progressive causes via groups like Hopewell. I'm using Hopewell as an example because one of its beneficiaries — to the tune of $2 million last year — is another organization called Defending Democracy Together.

That's one of the great mic-drop moments in social media history.

Defending Democracy's president is Bill Kristol and its directors are Mona Charen, Linda Chavez, and Sarah Longwell. Judging by Kristol's presence and its directors, Defending Democracy is essentially the nonprofit arm of Kristol's post-Weekly Standard/anti-Trump project, The Bulwark. 

Whatever it is that Defending Democracy Together does, it doesn't seem to do much of it in public. The group's website doesn't appear to have been updated since 2021. Although the Donate button seems to work. 

Honestly, Kristol is probably among the least of our problems. What, if any, influence he still has is bolstered by an amount of money that's piddling by USAID/State/NGO standards. I use him as an example only because as someone who's been around Washington and power his entire life, he's a public figure I was sure you'd be familiar with.

Following the spaghetti-like trail of money from your taxes to USAID to private groups like Kristol's was nearly impossible before Data Republican built her database. But we also have a man now on the inside, Elon Musk.

Trump agrees. "I actually checked with him a few times. Said 'Are you sure?' Yes, so we're shutting it down," Musk said.

This is vitally important.

USAID had a budget of about $50 billion in 2023, the last year for which full figures are available. While $50 billion is a drop in the bucket — it's less than 1% of federal spending — it has an outsized effect. That's billions of dollars going every year to left-wing causes (some of them dressed up as RINOs) that are too unpopular to gain private support.

It's largely NGOs, armed with your tax dollars, funding the migrant invasion, pushing gender confusion on a global scale, etc.

If Bill Kristol or whoever is behind organizations like Hopewell can raise funds privately, that's their business. But the parade of public tax dollars to private causes has to stop. 

Trumplomacy notches another win; Canada next?

/

we’re all friends now

Panama caves

Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino on Sunday, making it clear that the U.S. won’t tolerate China’s growing influence over the Panama Canal.

“Secretary Rubio informed President Mulino and Minister Martínez-Acha that President Trump has made a preliminary determination that the current position of influence and control of the Chinese Communist Party over the Panama Canal area is a threat to the canal and represents a violation of the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal,” the State Department said in a statement. “Secretary Rubio made clear that this status quo is unacceptable and that absent immediate changes, it would require the United States to take measures necessary to protect its rights under the Treaty.”

The news had barely settled before another bombshell dropped: Panama has backed down. 

Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino announced that after his meeting Rubio, his government will not renew its 2017 memorandum with China on the “Belt and Road Initiative.” He also stated that Panama will seek to terminate its agreements with the Chinese government ahead of their scheduled end dates in 2027 and 2028.

“One important thing, which is a decision I made and communicated to you, is that the 2017 MoU on the Silk Road, the Bell and Road Initiative, will not be renewed by my government. That is the case,” Mulino said according to a translation of his remarks.  “We are going to study the possibility of whether it can be finished earlier or not, but I think it is due for renewal in one or two years, because it is every three years. So that initiative that was signed when it was signed, at the time it was signed, will not be renewed by my government. I think "that this visit opens a path to build a new stage of relations.”

He continued, “That's how I see it, that's how I felt from Secretary Marco Rubio, and at the same time, we're trying as much as possible to increase U.S. investments in Panama. I explained to him a series of infrastructure projects that the government has in its portfolio, in the hope that they'll be aware of them and that when the time comes, the bidding process that will begin very soon will be done, so that they can get involved.”

They’re not just refusing to renew their 2017 deal with China; they’re scrambling to cut ties ahead of schedule. China’s influence over the canal is coming to an end.

I’m still not convinced that Canada can do much to harden its border that will make a significant difference, but a number of articles I’ve read since Saturday claim that Trudeau and his fellow commies are doing nothing whatsoever to stop the drugs and cartels that are operating freely in the land of the beaver, so what the heck; at the very least, it will add another knot in the media’s knickers.

More on Hogg, just because he's available, and it’s fun

/

Bullshit artists make money, bare-faced liars make money, nieve hoggs get slaughtered

Let's not get cocky, but we may want to start mapping out what we're going to accomplish in the next 12 years

/

There’s lots of enjoyable coverage of the DNC’s weekend lovefest all over the Internet, but this Red State headline sums up my own reaction.

DNC Holds a Wild Candidate Forum, and Republicans May Never Lose Another Election

And over at PJ Media, Stephen Kruiser hails the new morning in America that may may be with us for a while: Good News — Dems Prove They Learned Nothing From 2024 Election

After losing an election because the American electorate thought that the Democratic Party had lost its way on every front — especially when it came to radicalism — the Dems elected Minnesota's Ken Martin to be its new helmsman. Nothing says, "We understand the concerns of regular Americans in flyover country," like choosing a member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party from the state that's given us Keith Ellison and Ilhan Omar. 

It's true that the Dems are commies now, but most of them like to be coy about it. The Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party is one big communist freak flag-flying festival. Once the word "labor" is added to a political party's name, Karl Marx is allowed a play date in Hell. 

For most of my 40-plus years of conservative political activism, the Democratic National Committee was a well-oiled political machine to be feared. The Democrats were brilliant at playing the long game, always being several steps ahead of the Republicans, even when the Republicans were winning. 

Count the immediately past and present DNC hierarchy among the many people that Trump has broken. 

…. [It] was the Republican Party that came out on top after this DNC election. Not only did the Dems choose to respond to 2024 by becoming even more commie, they elected Low-T Prince of the Short Bus David Hogg as vice chair of the party. They're doing everything but go door-to-door begging people to not vote for them. 

I've said and written this several times in the last month, and I'm not being flippant when I do: I'm not sweating the 2026 midterms right now. The Democrats have been so clueless about why they got their non-binary a***s handed to them last November that I really don't see them changing any hearts and minds. True, midterms historically don't go well for the party in the White House, but we've pretty much been ditching historical political trends and tendencies since 2016. 

*One a still brighter note, this particular mioron has promised to remove himself from the gene pool, so there’s that:

I'm not sure that's possible, but okay …

/

Did someone sayt deep statE? CIA chief John Brennan can, but won’t, tell you all about it

LEAKED Email Shows John Brennan and Other 50 Intelligence Agents Were Even MORE Corrupt Than We Thought

The more we learn about John Brennan and the other swamp creatures, aka the 50 intelligence agents who signed off on the Hunter Biden laptop letter, the more we understand why and support Trump removing their security clearance. …

Especially when you see leaked emails like this one where Brennan admits everything they were doing was to help Biden.

Is it worth reminding viewers that at the time these people produced this fake document for Biden’s use, they had known for over a year that the FBI had determined that the laptop and the material it contained were authentic, and not Russian disinformation?

There's no need to execute all PETA members — yet — but the topic might be added to the menu

/

Are the cows at Oakridge Dairy in Ellington happy? That's the question behind a recent dispute between the family farm and national animal rights group. 

But customers of Oakridge and its Modern Milkman delivery service will no longer be reading website content about the emotional state of the dairy’s herd of 3,000 cows. After criticism from animal rights group PETA, the dairy has taken down statements on its website describing its farm as “an optimal living habitat” for the bovines.

“We just want to avoid further drama,” said Oakridge CEO Seth Bahler, the fifth generation of his family to run the dairy operation at 76 Jobs Hill Road.

…. The drama over Oakridge’s advertising kicked up last month when the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals publicly released a letter to the dairy alleging “false and misleading marketing claims.”

ENTER THE GREENS

Starting in 2023, Oakridge started turning its cows’ manure into biogas with a methane digester project, a form of renewable energy pitched as the “farm of the future.” In order to harvest that manure, cows must be kept indoors.

PETA plans to keep its webpage on the dairy up and continue its critiques of Oakridge’s operation, said PETA Associate Director Colin Henstock. “Calling it a family farm doesn't guarantee that they're not confining animals in factory-farm conditions,” he said.

Bahler countered that Oakridge’s cows are well cared for and get consistent veterinary treatment.

“I don’t like (PETA) saying that our cows aren't happy — I think they’re super, super happy,” Bahler said. “They’re an activist group that wants to end all animal agriculture, and I don’t agree with what their philosophy is.”

Now that Oakridge has removed its claims about the cows’ conditions, PETA is focused on other allegations around the Ellington dairy, Henstock said.

Farms with methane digesters often expand in size to increase production of biogas, worsening conditions for the animals, Henstock said. Some large farms also mean more methane is created in the form of cow burps, a potent greenhouse gas. 

“Cow’s milk will always be bad for the environment no matter how a company tries to spin it,” Henstock said. “People who care about the environment and care about animals should really avoid all animal-derived milks and foods.”

Animal welfare added to green energy equation

The seeming clash between promised environmental benefits and the welfare of animals is an increasing concern reflecting a trend across the industry as the world seeks a sustainable path forward, said Daina Bray of the Law, Ethics & Animals Program at Yale Law School. Founded in 2019, the program looks at the intersection of environmental and animal issues from a legal perspective.

Another example of a clash is the shift from red meat to chicken and fish, which may save resources and alleviate the suffering of some animals, but result in the harming of many more smaller animals, Bray said.

“There are some examples of where sometimes humane treatment of animals and environmental protection may seem to be at odds,” Bray said. “But focusing on those clashes misses the larger point, which is that these intensive systems of animal agriculture like large dairy production facilities with biogas digesters … they have a whole array of externalized harms.”

Environmental scientists have found that biogas operations can cause pollution due to unwanted emissions of methane and ammonia, according to published studies. 

Dairy leans on community support

As the debate over biogas and animal welfare continues, Bahler at Oakridge Dairy said that the Ellington community and his customers remain supportive. The dairy has not lost any business since the PETA campaign and received dozens of positive emails and comments on media stories, he said.

Farmers as a group feel embattled as costs and criticism of their work continue to rise, Bahler said. “Two percent of America is farming and trying to feed the world, and we’re under attack every single day. It’s frustrating.” 

Then there’s Just Stop Oil. Combined, and the two groups share the same dark money master groups’ funding, we’ll have no heat, and we’ll walk to neighboring towns by shank’s mare, if we’re allowed to leave our villages at all. Of course, because we’ll have no food, we’ll be too weak to walk anywhere anyway. Paradise.

The WSJ calls this “one of the dumbest trade wars in history” — I won't argue with that (UPDATED)

/

Trump imposes tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico and China: 'National emergency'

On the same day, Trump told reporters the U.S. may also increase tariffs on imports from the European Union, arguing the tariffs would make the U.S. "very rich and very strong." 

The WSJ is opposed:

President Trump will fire his first tariff salvo on Saturday against those notorious American adversaries . . . Mexico and Canada. They’ll get hit with a 25% border tax, while China, a real adversary, will endure 10%. This reminds us of the old Bernard Lewis joke that it’s risky to be America’s enemy but it can be fatal to be its friend.

Leaving China aside, Mr. Trump’s justification for this economic assault on the neighbors makes no sense. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt says they’ve “enabled illegal drugs to pour into America.” But drugs have flowed into the U.S. for decades, and will continue to do so as long as Americans keep using them. Neither country can stop it.

Drugs may be an excuse since Mr. Trump has made clear he likes tariffs for their own sake. “We don’t need the products that they have,” Mr. Trump said on Thursday. “We have all the oil you need. We have all the trees you need, meaning the lumber.”

Mr. Trump sometimes sounds as if the U.S. shouldn’t import anything at all, that America can be a perfectly closed economy making everything at home. This is called autarky, and it isn’t the world we live in, or one that we should want to live in, as Mr. Trump may soon find out.

Take the U.S. auto industry, which is really a North American industry because supply chains in the three countries are highly integrated. In 2024 Canada supplied almost 13% of U.S. imports of auto parts and Mexico nearly 42%. Industry experts say a vehicle made on the continent goes back and forth across borders a half dozen times or more, as companies source components and add value in the most cost-effective ways.

…. “Maybe Mr. Trump will claim victory and pull back if he wins some token concessions. But if a North American trade war persists, it will qualify as one of the dumbest in history.”

Tariffs intended to pressure trading partners to lower their own and not penalize US goods might make sense, but what is Canada supposed to do to change American drug users’ habits? And Mexico barely has a functionig government — hurting its — our, actually — car industry will help Mexicans wres control of the country from the cartels, how?

So those are our “friends; why is our enemy China to be treated so much better than Canada?

The other issue here is Trump’s declaration of a “national emergency” to bypass the legislative branch and enact these tariffs unilaterally. The power to impose by fiat what cannot be passed by Congress has always tempted the man in the executive office, but these declarations seem to be increasingly frequent these past couple of decades. From opening the borders to closing down the country, from simply erasing $100 billion in student debt, to, today, imposing 25% tariffs on former allies; in the past, these actions wouldn’t have been taken merely on the command of a single man; today, if Congress won’t act, the president will. That’s not progress.

Hell, even Herbert Hoover had to get Congress to enact that other contender for stupidest trade war, the Smoot-Hawley Act; yiu remember Smoot-Hawley, don’t you? Anybody? Anyone? Bueller?

UPDATE: Amy Curtis has thoughts on executive orders

It would be much easier, and probably more legally sound, to have Congress pass legislation addressing foreign aid and the USAID. I understand that the process will take time and political capital Trump and Republicans may not want to spend.

To that end, EOs can be used as stop gaps or to address issues of immediate need and urgency, and that's fine.

As we've seen in the last several administrations, almost all of the EOs Trump signed on his first day in office will be undone on January 20, 2029, if a Democrat is elected to the White House.

No legislation is written in stone. Some laws are harder to repeal and amend than others, but it can (and has) been done; it at least requires effort to change, repeal, or introduce new legislation that is absent in EOs. 

Today, for example, it is the official policy of the U.S. government that there are only two genders.

Four years from now, hypothetical President Gavin Newsom or Gretchen Whitmer could scrap that EO and say there are 47 of them instead.

It's the power and privilege that comes with the presidency. Which is why it should be wielded with prudence and an eye towards lasting legislation.

For the sake of the republic, we need to stop using issues like immigration, gender ideology, and foreign aid as political footballs to be punted back and forth, their future wholly dependent on who is occupying the Oval Office. It creates an uncertainty that is unsustainable and adds unnecessary tensions to America's political climate.

The fact we are having this debate at all demonstrates the importance of returning Congress to its role as legislators so they can transform EOs into laws that will make it more challenging for future administrations to undo.

Thus far, Donald Trump has done good work in his second term. I'd like to see it last beyond his final day in office.

UPDATE II — a clarification

I have no objection to retaliatory tariffs that are designed to force other countries to play fair — sauce for the goose, and all that — what I don’t like about this latest tax plan, besides it being imposed by executive fiat, is that it’s not intended to force Canada and Mexico to drop their tariff rates to match ours, but instead is demanding that they limit the illegal export of drugs into the U.S. Maybe border controls can be tightened, and perhaps the two countries can fund a “Just Say No to Drugs” campaign for U.S. school children that will kill the demand for fentanyl among sixth graders, but otherwise, what’s the point?

On the other hand, if we really want to increase our tariffs, here’s a ripe target: