From LifeSiteNews

By Steven Mosher

USAID’s promotion of DEI, gender ideology, and population control around the world, along with its efforts to undermine democracies in Europe and Latin America, have greatly damaged America’s standing in the world.

The closure of a corrupt government agency is always cause for celebration.

Not that it happens very often. As President Ronald Reagan once remarked, “The closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program.”

In the case of the now-defunct U.S. Agency for International Development, its shuttering will save U.S. taxpayers some $54 billion a year.

But Trump’s closure of the rogue agency is about far more than reducing the size of government or balancing the budget. We are not even talking about simply ending waste, fraud, and abuse, although there were bucket loads of that going on.

READ: Trump’s dismantling of USAID is his biggest blow against the Deep State yet

Under its former director, Samantha Powers, the agency had been transformed into a slush fund for woke fever dreams. No project was too wacko to throw money at.

You want funding to convince Peruvian girls they were born into the wrong body, or to promote LGBT activism in Serbia? USAID had a check for you.

You need money to fund sex changes in Guatemala or to open a transgender surgery clinic in India? You had but to ask.

But as corrosive to the sensibilities of normal people – and to America’s image overseas – that this reckless promotion of DEI and gender ideology was, our overseas aid agency was engaged in far more nefarious schemes.

It turns about that many millions of dollars of aid to the Middle East made their way into the hands of Hamas and Hezbollah. From funding the college education of al-Qaeda terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki to sending $2 billion to Gaza over the past two years, our tax dollars have been used to underwrite terrorism.

An estimated 90 percent of our aid to Gaza ended up in the hands of Hamas post-October 7, 2023. Without the constant infusion of U.S. funds, it is doubtful that the terrorist organization would have survived.

Equally egregious is USAID’s undermining of democracy. As Marjorie Taylor Green just noted at a congressional hearing, “What we have learned is that USAID has been used by Democrats to brainwash the world with globalist propaganda to force regime changes around the world.”

Roughly half a billion dollars went into one organization alone. It was called the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, and billed as a global network of investigative journalists. But it had as much to do with promoting globalist narratives and undermining populist politicians as it did with exposing corruption, perhaps more.

If you want to know why populist Jair Bolsonaro is no longer president of Brazil, why the conservatives lost in Poland, or why the democratically elected president of Romania – another populist – has now been arrested, look no further than USAID’s massively funded propaganda campaigns against these and other anti-globalist politicians.

As in Xi Jinping’s China, where the Chinese dictator has been purging his political enemies under the guise of an “anti-corruption campaign,” USAID’s anti-corruption campaign was ultimately not about corruption at all.

Like Xi, who was, as the Chinese say, “hanging up a goat’s head, but selling dog meat,” the agency was motivated by a hidden and deeply corrupt purpose – undermining democracy in order to promote globalism.

Victor Orbán of Hungary, whose government has survived years of similar onslaughts, is now vowing to crack down on all of the foreign-funded NGOs operating in his country. He will find that his opposition was chiefly funded by our tax dollars, judging from the many trips to that country that Samantha Powers took over the past few years.

As ruinous as all this is for America’s standing in the world, there is even worse news. Many of the tens of billions of dollars that the agency was flushing down the toilet didn’t go overseas at all, but was spent in and around the Washington, D.C., swamp.

And almost all of this – well over 95 percent – went to Democrat-controlled groups.

How much of the incessant lawfare against Trump that began as soon as he announced his candidacy for president in 2015 was funded indirectly by our tax dollars?

How much of Kamala’s $2 billion campaign coffer came from our own pockets, laundered by USAID through well-connected NGOs and leftist politicians?

Despite the mounting evidence of corruption, there are still those who claim that USAID does much good and should be reformed, not shuttered. “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater,” one recent headline read.

The problem is that USAID was never primarily about feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty or, for that matter, saving babies. In fact, from the very beginning it was designed to be an instrument of population control.

Its stated goal was “population stabilization.” To this end, it busied itself reducing the number of babies born, all in the name of fighting “overpopulation,” “eliminating poverty,” and, more recently, “saving the planet.”

This is spelled out clearly in Richard Nixon’s National Security Study Memorandum 200, which made it clear that foreign aid was to be used to bribe or bludgeon countries into reducing their birth rates.

Even today, USAID was – until a few weeks ago – promoting abortion in Malawi, doing abortion referrals in Uganda, and pressuring Sierra Leone to legalize abortion as a condition of receiving foreign aid.

Supporters of USAID argue that its programs create goodwill, but it’s hard to see how telling African women and men they would be better off sterilizing themselves and aborting their children accomplishes this end.

And how would Americans feel if China, say, were funding a program to vasectomize American men? Think about that for a second.

USAID’s promotion of DEI, gender ideology, and population control around the world, along with its efforts to undermine democracies in Europe and Latin America, have greatly damaged America’s standing in the world.

But the crime that calls for the complete destruction of the agency is that it was striking at the very roots of the republic itself.

Using the taxes paid by a free people to undermine their freedom is, by anyone’s definition, treason.

Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute and the author of The Devil and Communist China.

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

The federal government could save up to $10.7 billion this fiscal year by ending eight ineffective spending programs, finds a new report published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“Canada’s federal finances have deteriorated markedly over the last decade, largely due to a rapid run up in spending, deficits and debt,” said Jake Fuss, director of fiscal studies at the Fraser Institute.

“As previous governments have done before, a comprehensive line-by-line review of Ottawa’s spending is required to identify those programs or initiatives that are not fulfilling their purpose, or are not providing good value for tax dollars.”

The study, Identifying Potential Savings from Specific Reductions to Federal Government Spending, highlights eight federal programs where government spending
does not appear to be accomplishing its stated goals, or where government funding is unnecessary:

– $1.5 billion — Regional Development Agencies
– $1.7 billion — Federal support for journalism
– $587.6 million — Federal support for electric vehicle production and purchases
– $340.0 million — Two Billion Trees program
– $3.5 billion — Canada Infrastructure Bank
– $2.4 billion — Strategic Innovation Fund
– $202.3 million — Global Innovation Clusters
– $530.0 million — Green Municipal Fund

Critically, eliminating these eight programs could reduce federal government spending by $10.7 billion in 2024-25: “Though just a starting point, a savings of $10.7 billion would meaningfully improve federal finances and help Ottawa put the country’s finances back on a stable footing,” Fuss said.

This study is part of a larger series of collected essays on federal policy reforms, Federal Blueprint for Prosperity, edited by Fraser Institute Senior Fellows Jock Finlayson and Lawrence Schembri.

The essay series, also released today, details federal policy reforms in health care, environmental and energy regulations, tax policy, immigration, housing, trade, etc. to increase prosperity for Canadians and improve living standards.

To learn more and to read the entire collected essay series, visit www.fraserinstitute.org.

Identifying Potential Savings from Specific Reductions in Federal Government Spending

• A marked deterioration in the state of Canada’s finances, driven largely by rapidly increasing spending, has created a need to review federal government spending to identify programs that are inefficient and/or ineffective. This study highlights eight spending areas that have easily identifiable problems, and should be a starting point for a more comprehensive review.
• The eight spending areas identified are: Regional Development Agencies, Government Supports for Journalism, Federal Support for Electric Vehicle Production and Purchases, the 2 Billion Trees Program, the Canada Infrastructure Bank, the Strategic Innovation Fund, the Global Innovation Clusters, and the Green Municipal Fund.
• These programs represent instances where government spending does not appear to be accomplishing the stated goals, and where government involvement is questionable.
• For instance, despite research suggesting business subsidies do little to promote widespread economic growth, the seven regional development agencies report vague objectives and results that make it difficult for government officials or Parliamentarians to assess the efficacy of the spending.
• Since the Canada Infrastructure Bank was first established in 2017, it has approved up to $13.2 billion in investments across 76 projects, but only two projects have been completed. These projects represent just $93.2 million (or 0.71 percent) of the total approved investments.
• The federal government could save $10.7 billion in 2024–25 alone if it eliminated spending in these eight areas. This amount would be impactful in improving the state of Canada’s finances, and more savings could be achieved through a comprehensive review of all spending.