The Art of the (USAID) RuseLegacy Media Propaganda and 'Servants' of the People

Do you ever indulge in the guilty pleasure of hate-watching Legacy Media?

I do. I know I shouldn’t. It’s neither healthy nor informative. But, much like a stale donut left sitting in the breakroom, sometimes you just can't resist—despite knowing it’s going to leave a bad taste in your mouth.

And let me tell you, I overindulged this past weekend. I turned on CBS News, and boy, did I get my daily dose of propaganda carbs.

On a single Sunday, I watched CBS “News”…

• Blame “weaponized free speech” for the Holocaust (a not-so-subtle jab at Vice President JD Vance’s recent address in Munich).

• Cheer on German authorities for kicking down doors at dawn over social media posts.

• Run an "interview" with fake USAID workers to whitewash USAID corruption.

I’m in Europe right now, so I’m itching to talk about JD Vance’s speech, which sent European elites into a tailspin—and I will, later this week.

But the USAID corruption story is getting bigger every day—like a rotting carcass in the sun—too big, too foul, and too obvious to ignore. So let me deal with that first…

Below is a video excerpt from the 60 Minutes “interview” I mentioned earlier. Be advised—this is what they want you to believe is a heartbreaking story, so keep your box of tissues handy.

Here’s the short version in text, if you’d rather read:

"I think that, you know, 12 days ago, people knew where their next paycheck was coming from. They knew how they were going to pay for their kids' daycare, their medical bills. And then—all gone overnight."Offscreen narration:”All gone overnight for Kristina Drye and Adam DuBar, fired this month in the chaotic shutdown of foreign aid distributed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).”

Ok, so a silly lie right off the bat. 60 Minutes wants you to believe that both of these people were USAID employees. In reality, neither were part of the career staff.

Take Kristina, for example. Her case is particularly interesting. She worked as a contractor through XLA & Jefferson Partners, providing “speechwriting and communications services” for none other than USAID ex-chief Samantha Power.

Wait a minute… Samantha Power?

The same woman who somehow grew her net worth by millions under Biden—all while earning between $183,000 and $212,000 per year?

There’s an old saying in Eastern Europe that’s been passed down through generations: "Want to live better than the people? Become a servant of the people."

It seems Samantha Power took that wisdom to heart.

Later in that same CBS “News” interview, Samantha’s speechwriter, says something interesting:

“DOGE was in the building. We took down our pride flags. I took out any books I felt would be incriminating.”

Incriminating, you say?

That’s an interesting choice of words—because it’s exactly what comes to mind when looking at some of USAID’s spending priorities recently revealed by DOGE. Among them:

• $2 million for Moroccan pottery classes.

• $2 million to promote tourism in Lebanon.

• $20 million for a Sesame Street show in Iraq.

• $1.5 million for DEI in Serbia.

• $70,000 for a DEI musical in Ireland.

• $47,000 for a transgender opera in Colombia.

• $32,000 for a transgender comic book in Peru.

• $2 million for sex changes in Guatemala.

• $6 million for tourism in Egypt.

• $1 million to help disabled people in Tajikistan become “climate leaders.”

• $15 million for "contraceptives and condoms" in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

Could it be that USAID is just a giant money-laundering scheme?

Could it be that these people send foreign aid to select nonprofits of their choice—nonprofits that, in turn, kick a percentage of that aid back to them?

Could it be that our government officials and politicians are better at laundering money than the Mexican cartels?

And could it be that, despite all the lofty rhetoric about "democracy" and "development," the real goal isn’t helping the world—it’s helping themselves?

Funny thing about rhetorical questions—they stop being rhetorical when the answer is obvious.