Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

Liberals, globalists flip out after Trump orders USAID freeze

Published

9 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Stephen Kokx

How many Americans even knew what USAID was until this week? I’m guessing less than one percent. 

For the uninformed: USAID was started by President John F. Kennedy in 1961. Officially named the United States Agency for International Development, it spends over $40 billion in taxpayer dollars every year on various initiatives overseas; most of which are a complete waste of money, as Elon Musk and others have pointed out in recent days. See here:  

Whatever good intentions Kennedy may have had for the program, it has morphed into a slush fund for the Deep State to spread wokeism and to spark revolutions in countries that resist its tyrannical decrees. All of this is done in the name of “defending democracy” mind you. 

Under Joe Biden, USAID was run by World Economic Forum functionary Samantha Powers, who weaponized the agency to funnel boatloads of cash to Ukraine, among other futile projects.   

That fact was pointed out by Balázs Orbán, the son of Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, on X this week. 

 

A CIA front group that promotes LGBT ideology overseas 

President Trump has had enough of this. In his continued effort to drain the swamp, he signed an executive order empowering the newly created Department of Governmental Efficiency to dismantle USAID. 

“I love the concept, but they turned out to be radical left lunatics,” he said about the agency in the Oval Office on Monday.   

USAID’s website has already been shut down, and many of its liberal employees have been fired or barred from entering its headquarters in D.C., causing Democrats to hold a rally outside of it; because nothing shows the American people that you care about them more than defending a program designed to spend their money in foreign lands. Talk about being out of touch.  

 

 

Oddly enough, left-wing Jesuit priest James Martin also defended the agency by claiming that Jesus would support it as well. He was rightly called out by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò on X.  

 

Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been named USAID’s interim director. He told the media this week that its rogue behavior has come to an end.  

“USAID has a history of ignoring [the national interest of the United States] and deciding that they’re a global charity. These are not donor dollars, these are taxpayer dollars,” he said. 

 

Other lawmakers and mainstream pundits have jumped on the bandwagon as well. 

“To my friends who are upset, call somebody who cares. You better get used to this. It’s USAID today, it’s gonna be Department of Education tomorrow,” GOP Senator John Kennedy said.  

 

“It’s not foreign aid — it’s a foreign slush fund,” Fox News’ Laura Ingraham has argued, as has Glenn Beck 

Trump’s “Rapid Response” X account joined in on the fun by highlighting some of the many ways the agency has wasted your and my money on LGBT and DEI causes abroad. 

 

Democrats melt down as Trump takes aim 

Liberals have been unable to control themselves. News that fewer tax dollars will be spent promoting their woke religion has left them apoplectic.  

This is a “coup,” thundered an emotional Joy Reid on MSNBC. 

Fellow MSNBC anchor Jen Psaki ludicrously claimed that the agency helps with “humanitarian” causes and “works to combat corruption.” 

Van Jones said on CNN the rolling back of funding is Trump telling the world to “go die.” 

Total nonsense.  

Like Freemasonry, USAID may feed the poor and help some impoverished people, but that is just cover to hide its true aim, which is to sow discord in countries that reject the NATO and U.S. empire.  

USAID has done this for decades, primarily by funding non-governmental organizations (and even extremists) that cause headaches for leaders who refuse to be slaves to the West. This has been the case in the nation of Georgia over the past several years. See here:  

 

 

CNN’s Scott Jennings, a Republican, made a comment about how USAID has been appropriated by liberals that really hits the nail on the head with what has gone wrong with it. 

“There is a difference between soft power and soft stupidity. So whether you’re funding DEI musicals in some country or transgender surgery somewhere or whatever, that is not what most Americans would say is an effective part of U.S. foreign policy.” 

USAID funded the Wuhan lab in China 

Perhaps the most attention-grabbing headline that has emerged with the USAID story is the revelation that the agency funneled $40 million to a lab in Wuhan, China, to study bat coronaviruses. 

“Records prove that Ben Hu — COVID’s likely ‘Patient Zero’ — is a Wuhan white coat funded directly by Fauci, NIT & USAID to conduct dangerous coronavirus gain of function experiments on animals!” watchdog group White Coat Waste Project posted on X today.  

Fauci has long denied being involved in such measures, but GOP Senator Ran Paul has never backed down from disputing his claims. He likewise challenged Samantha Powers about USAID money going to Wuhan as well.  

 

Last week, Paul announced his intention to continue digging into the matter, given Biden’s preemptive pardoning of Fauci.  

 

Today, Paul re-shared an X post from political activist Matt Kibbe that suggested he is on the cusp of blowing the whole thing wide open.  

“NIAID and USAID were money-laundering puppets for agencies prohibited from doing dangerous gain-of-function bioterrorism research. Now, Rand Paul and Elon Musk are poised to expose the whole scheme,” Kibbe said.  

 

USAID has misspent taxpayer money in countless other ways as well. Many of the downright bizarre programs are being shared on X. Here are a few of them:  

 

 

 

It should be noted that Rand Paul’s father, former Congressman Ron Paul, has been a critic of the Deep State for decades. In a recent video message, he called on the government to audit USAID and then shut it down. Elon Musk re-shared the video, calling it an “interesting” proposal.  

 

That’s good advice. I hope Elon and Trump will take it and follow through on it. Ending USAID is long overdue. 

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Agriculture

Canada’s supply management system is failing consumers

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Sylvain Charlebois

The supply management system is cracking. With imports climbing, strict quotas in place and Bill C202 on the table, we’re struggling to feed ourselves

Canada’s supply management system, once seen as a pillar of food security and agricultural self-sufficiency, is failing at its most basic function:
ensuring a reliable domestic supply.

According to the Canadian Association of Regulated Importers, Canada imported more than 66.9 million kilograms of chicken as of June 14, a 54.6 per cent increase from the same period last year. That’s enough to feed 3.4 million Canadians for a full year based on average poultry consumption—roughly 446 million meals. Under a tightly managed quota system, those meals were supposed to be produced domestically. Instead imports now account for more than 12 per cent of this year’s domestic chicken production, revealing a growing dependence on foreign supply.

Supply management is Canada’s system for regulating dairy, poultry and egg production. It uses quotas and fixed prices to match domestic supply with demand while limiting imports, intended to protect farmers from global price swings and ensure stable supply.

To be fair, the avian influenza outbreak has disrupted poultry production and partially explains the shortfall. But even with that disruption, the numbers are staggering. Imports under trade quotas set by the World Trade Organization, the Canada-United States Mexico Agreement and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership are running at or near their allowable monthly share—known as pro-rata
levels—signalling not just opportunity, but urgency. Supplementary import permits, meant to be used only in emergencies, have already surpassed 48 million kilograms, exceeding total annual import volumes in some previous years. This isn’t a seasonal hiccup. It’s a systemic failure.

The system, designed to buffer domestic markets from global volatility, is cracking under internal strain. When emergency imports become routine, we have to ask: what exactly is being managed?

Canada’s most recent regulated chicken production cycle, which ended May 31, saw one of the worst shortfalls in over 50 years. Strict quota limits stopped farmers from producing more to meet demand, leaving consumers with higher grocery bills and more imported food, shaking public confidence in the system.

Some defenders insist this is an isolated event. It’s not. For the second straight week, Canada has hit pro-rata import levels across all chicken categories. Bone-in and processed poultry, once minor players in emergency import programs, are now essential just to keep shelves stocked.

And the dysfunction doesn’t stop at chicken. Egg imports under the shortage allocation program have already topped 14 million dozen, a 104 per cent jump from last year. Not long ago, Canadians were mocking high U.S. egg prices. Now theirs have fallen. Ours haven’t.

All this in a country with $30 billion in quota value, supposedly designed to protect domestic production and reduce reliance on imports. Instead, we’re importing more and paying more.

Rather than addressing these failures, Ottawa is looking to entrench them. Bill C202, now before the Senate, seeks to shield supply management from future trade talks, making reform even harder. So we must ask: is this really what we’re protecting?

Meanwhile, our trading partners are taking full advantage. Chile, for instance, has increased chicken exports to Canada by more than 63 per cent, now accounting for nearly 96 per cent of CPTPP-origin imports. While Canada doubles down on protectionism, others are gaining long-term footholds in our market.

It’s time to face the facts. Supply management no longer guarantees supply. When a system meant to ensure resilience becomes a source of fragility, it’s no longer an asset—it’s an economic liability.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain. 

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

Business

Prairie provinces and Newfoundland and Labrador see largest increases in size of government

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

recent study found that Canada has experienced one of the largest increases in the size of government of any advanced country over the last decade. But within Canada, which provinces have led the way?

The size of government refers to the extent to which resources within the economy are controlled and directed by the government, and has important implications for economic growth, living standards, and economic freedom—the degree to which people are allowed to make their own economic choices.

Too much of anything can be harmful, and this is certainly true regarding the size of government. When government grows too large it begins to take on roles and resources that are better left to the private sector. For example, rather than focusing on core functions like maintaining the rule of law or national defence, a government that has grown too large might begin subsidizing certain businesses and industries over others (i.e. corporate welfare) in order to pick winners and losers in the market. As a result, economic growth slows and living standards are lower than they otherwise would be.

One way to measure the size of government is by calculating total general government spending as a share of the economy (GDP). General government spending refers to spending by governments at all levels (federal, provincial, and municipal), and by measuring this as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) we can compare across jurisdictions of different sizes.

recent study compared the size of government in Canada as a whole with that of 39 other advanced economies worldwide, and found that Canada experienced the second-largest increase in the size of government (as a share of the economy) from 2014 to 2024. In other words, since 2014, governments in Canada have expanded their role within the economy faster than governments in virtually every other advanced country worldwide—including all other countries within the Group of Seven (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Moreover, the study showed that Canada as a whole has exceeded the optimal size of government (estimated to fall between 24 and 32 per cent of GDP) at which a country can maximize their economic growth. Beyond that point, growth slows and is lower than it otherwise would be.

However, Canada is a decentralized country and provinces vary as to the extent to which governments direct overall economic activity. Using data from Statistics Canada, the following charts illustrate which provinces in Canada have the largest size of government and which have seen the largest increases since 2014.

The chart above shows total general government spending as a share of GDP for all ten provinces in 2023 (the latest year of available provincial data). The size of government in the provinces varies considerably, ranging from a high of 61.4 per cent in Nova Scotia to a low of 30.0 per cent in Alberta. There are geographical differences, as three Atlantic provinces (Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick) have the largest governments while the three western-most provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia) have the smallest governments. However, as of 2023, all provinces except Alberta exceeded the optimal size of government—which again, is between 24 and 32 per cent of the economy.

To show which provinces have experienced the greatest increase in the size of government in recent years, the second chart shows the percentage point increase in total general government spending as a share of GDP from 2014 to 2023. It should be noted that this is measuring the expansion of the federal government’s role in the economy—which has been substantial nationwide—as well as growth in the respective provincial and municipal governments.

The increases in the size of government since 2014 are largest in four provinces: Newfoundland and Labrador (10.82 percentage points), Alberta (7.94 percentage points), Saskatchewan (7.31 percentage points), and Manitoba (7.17 percentage points). These are all dramatic increases—for perspective, in the study referenced above, Estonia’s 6.66 percentage point increase in its size of government was the largest out of 40 advanced countries.

The remaining six provinces experienced far lower increases in the size of government, ranging from a 2.74 percentage point increase in B.C. to a 0.44 percentage point increase in Quebec. However, since 2014, every province in Canada has seen government expand its role within the economy.

Over the last decade, Canada has experienced a substantial increase in the size of total government. Within the country, Newfoundland and Labrador and the three Prairie provinces have led the way in growing their respective governments.

Continue Reading

Trending

X