t it was, right? That's somebody who works there at a high enough level that they would know exactly what CNN wants as a corporate entity. Yes. So if you thought that CNN was news, you were wrong. They were propaganda.

Let's talk about MSNBC. Joy Reid's being useless again. So she's attacking Musk because he's a private citizen. Oh, we can't have a private citizen, even though he's got top security clearance, we can't have private citizens looking at our records and trying to be productive and make the country survive when we have no path to survival unless we cut massively.

And it made me think, I remember when I thought that MSNBC was trying to be a news channel and I also thought CNN was trying to be a news channel. But then I would think, ah darn it, the way you're covering the story seems wrong. And I would get all mad at them because I thought, don't you know you're a news entity? You're a news entity. That's not the news. It's all biased. But once you realize that they're primarily and maybe exclusively a propaganda organ, then everything just looks funny. Like it just completely changes your perspective. Oh, I get it. It's a propaganda network.

So what's the propaganda people saying? That the big problem is that Musk is a private citizen. Well, Joy Reid, allow me to ask the following question. If you don't like a private citizen getting in there and auditing and cutting costs, what would be the elected person who did it? Is there an elected position to do this? I don't believe there is. I believe that even if the government did it, it would be somebody who was hired by the president who is not elected. The GAO, I'm not sure that it's really their job to audit, but suppose it was. That would be a private citizen who has a job but was not elected.

So the most normal thing that happens in our government is people who are not elected do important things. USAID is entirely run by people who are not elected. Who is the elected person at USAID? None. So it's beyond stupid to say that Musk as a private citizen is a problem. It's way beyond stupid. Now again, if I thought that they were trying to be a news channel I'd be up in arms. I'd be like, oh, can't you tell that you're distorting the story? That really everybody's, most of the government is not elected, and the people who are elected are not going to be auditors. They're not going to be going in there. They're going to be senators or whatever, but they're not going to be doing this. This is a totally specialized kind of work that very few people in the whole planet could do, certainly not any elected people. That's how I would have said it before. Now I just think it's funny. It's funny that they don't have any argument, and watching them flail. Little baldy Joy Reid.

So apparently Trump's Pentagon, I guess this would be Hegseth, probably gave the order. They've removed from the Pentagon CNN, NBC News, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico, The Hill, and NPR. Why did they remove them? Because they would be considered propaganda and not news. I love this. They're not being removed for being biased. They're being removed for just being propaganda that pretends to be news.

They've replaced it with Newsmax, OAN, New York Post, Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, and Breitbart. So certainly all of these new entities that are going in are right-leaning entities. I would say it's fair to say that they have a right-leaning bias. But you know what seems different, and I could be wrong about this, I could be completely wrong about this because it'd be easy to be fooled. It seems to me that the actual propaganda only comes from one side. Bias comes from both sides roughly the same amount, but proper propaganda where you say to yourself they know that's not true but they keep saying it anyway, that's different. Because you don't see that on the right. On the right, when somebody says something happened and it's wrong, they believed it was real. They were just wrong. And being wrong is not really the biggest crime in the news world when everything's moving so fast and there's a fog of war. We're all wrong. Being wrong is pretty ordinary. But being wrong and in a biased way is not in the same category of waking up and saying how can I get rid of President Trump. That's really different. One is propaganda because you know you're doing it. The other is just it's a messy world. People make mistakes. People are biased.

Well, here's what David Sacks said about USAID. You know, I try to get you the best explainers and then just quote them because it's so hard to summarize USAID and you know what's right and wrong about that place unless you've got really good communicators. So here's another really good communicator, David Sacks. He says, quote, we're in debt almost 40 trillion, and anytime anyone tries to cut anything in Washington the whole city screams bloody murder. The question is why? Well now we know the money is all going to them. New York Times getting paid, Politico getting paid, Bill Kristol perennial warmonger getting paid, Ukraine. Like 11 out of 12 publications getting paid.

Victor Orban, the prime minister of Hungary, was saying his political opposition is funded by USAID, and that's an ally. In Poland the left-wing political opposition is funded by USAID. BBC in the UK. Every left-wing organization in the world seems to be getting paid by this slush fund of USAID, which distributes 50 billion a year. That's a billion dollars a week, which Sacks tells us is a lot of money. That's a lot of money.

Now that is, I don't think that describes the entire situation because the MSNBCs are just propaganda networks so they're going to be against whatever Trump's doing. It doesn't really matter what he's doing. They're just going to be way against it. But I do think that this is a huge part of it, that the money is essentially laundered through different NGOs, these entities, until it gets to literally the fake news. So the fake news is funded as fake news by the propaganda funding people. They're literally the people whose job is to create propaganda. The USAID. All right, but it's supposed to be aimed at other countries. Some of it is. But then we also know, as Mike Benz points out, that there was a huge effort through USAID to create censorship entities in other countries that would have the job of censoring American social networks. So they couldn't, the government couldn't directly censor American companies, but we could create foreign entities that look legitimate but are not, that create this need to censor everywhere. And if the social networks can't operate in Europe, it's some gigantic part of their profitability. So yes, every part of USAID seems dirty.

According to one observer on the X platform, let's say you count on X, here's a little summary of some other USAID things. Did you know that USAID took about half a billion in taxes from Americans and sent it to an NGO called Internews Network? Have you ever heard of that? No, you haven't. Because the way they hide all the bad stuff is in the complexity. Whenever there's a lot of complexity there is major fraud in every domain every time. Complexity equals fraud. So if you say to yourself, Scott, I can't follow all these thousands of NGOs and how they're connected and all the various things they're doing, that's the point. That's how they hide it. So if you didn't have massive complications and complexity you couldn't get away with this stuff. It would just be so obviously wrong anyway.

Now what does this Internews Network do with a half billion dollars of your tax money? They work with over 4,000 outlets to train journalists. That's the actual phrase they use: train journalists and quote tackle disinformation. I think you all know what that means. What does it mean to train a journalist? Do you think they're teaching them how to write? Are they improving their grammar? No, no. It's propaganda. They're bribing them or they're either bribing them or brainwashing them to do what they want. This is a total brainwashing bribery operation that has corrupted most of the journalism in the world, it looks like. And the address for this entity that takes half a billion a year is an abandoned building. Sometimes things are exactly the way they look. It's an abandoned building. The level of corruption and just plain is just through the roof.

I think this is also something Mike Benz tells us, that USAID also rigged the Brazil election. And of course they called it aid because that's what USAID does. They try to control other countries and if you question them they say oh we just curing their AIDS or oh we're just helping them with their free speech or oh we're just helping them get rid of disinformation. I don't know what you're talking about. Yeah, so that's how they do it. That's how they do it exactly the way it was done in Brazil. So USAID didn't just send aid to Brazil. It funded censorship, backed left-wing activists, and maybe helped rig the election. I don't know what rig means in this case. So millions of dollars flowed into the other team in Brazil. So Brazil was corrupted by the United States and the USAID.

As one observer says on the X platform, he observes that the DOGE has forced Democrats into the position of defending waste, fraud, and abuse. Yes, in much the way that Trump claiming common sense as the Republican organizing principle, you know what would you say organizing principle? The organizing principle is just common sense. Once you take the flag of common sense, the people on the other side are going to look a little silly because they're literally arguing against common sense, or at least on the surface it looks like that.

But here too, when DOGE is finding all these sketchy expenses that should easily be cut, it forces the Democrats to support fraud, waste, and abuse. Now they'll say it differently. Do you know what they'll say so it doesn't sound like they're in favor of fraud? They'll say, oh why is a private citizen, why a private citizen? That's all they got.

Now of course you're seeing the most bought-off people in the world. The people pretty much get direct funding from USAID or they're part of the intelligence community or they work with them. So they're screaming that if you cut USAID it will kill children. Don't you know these vital services have saved children all over the world? Children will die. Well that's what fraudsters say. If you don't give me money, children will die.

Let me tell you my how-to. If you get a chance to have a conversation with somebody who's saying but they're cutting charity, children will die, if that's all they know, here's what you say. They are not a charitable organization. We only give charity where we're trying to control the country where that charity is, and they use it as a vehicle to move our CIA into the country under the cover of the charity. And the charity is selected specifically for countries that we want to control. If it were a real charity, if it were a real charity, the giving would look completely different because the giving would be based on where the biggest problem was. Do you think that's what you're seeing? No. You're seeing the giving completely directed where we want to control the country. It's just a coup. If you can't tell the difference between charity and a coup attempt, you shouldn't be in the conversation at all.

Now if you say to yourself, well come on, okay, maybe one or two times that's happened within USAID. No, let me say it again. It's the only thing they do. They don't do charity and then also separately they do some coups and things that are good for America. It's not separate. It's exactly the same mechanism and it's always the same because that's the whole job of the USAID. It's not about charity. It's about using charity to take over countries. And it works really well because the country is going to have a hard time saying no, don't help us with our AIDS epidemic or something like that.

So now just ask how the charity would look different if simply helping people was what you wanted to do. I talked to my smart Democrat friend that I often talk about, and he was like most Democrats completely unaware of what I just said. That USAID is well documented and known to be really in the coup business and the projecting power business and that the charity part is just artificial.

Now here's the thing. I could be wrong. I mean it's happened before. Suppose that's not what USAID is doing. But that's not my point right now. My point is that's what the most, let's say the Republicans who are following things the most, that's what we think because we've been educated. I think it's educated. And the big story here is that his news sources, CNN and New York Times, will never tell him what the other side thinks and why they're motivated. What we think is this is stuff we don't want to be paying for and we're motivated to get rid of it. What they think is oh you're just trying to get rid of our charities and kill children.

So if you watch CNN you will never hear what I just said. The USAID is basically for projecting power and the charity is a fake thing on top of it. Now even if you think that's not true, keep in mind, remember when Q was a big thing, 2016 or so, when Q was a big thing, CNN and MSNBC would talk about it because they say those crazy Republicans, they believe in this thing called Q, right? So they will generally show both sides when the Republican side has something embarrassing. Then you'll hear what the Republicans think. Oh they believe in Q. What wing nuts.

But as soon as we believe in something that makes complete sense and is well documented, which is that USAID is this giant money laundering, power projecting thing masquerading as a charity, as soon as we have that, they act like it doesn't happen. Like that's not even the argument. They simply pretend the argument is a different argument and then they argue the argument that's not the argument. And their readers will never hear what Mike Benz has to say, for example. They'll never hear it.

All right, meanwhile, and the other thing I would say about for the people who think it's a charity, if we wanted to be a charity that's all it would be. That's all it would be. But it's a lot of other things. So anyway.

The National Institutes of Health is going to reduce their overhead from 27% down to 15%. Now of course the scientists are squealing we can't possibly do any science with that low an overhead. But of course we don't believe anybody. Anytime you cut anybody's budget they will say you can't cut this budget, children will die, it's the end of the world, science will be destroyed. That's what they all say. But that's why you don't send an elected person to cut a budget. If you send an elected person to cut a budget, what's going to happen? Every budget you cut will be a bunch of voters and they'll say hey don't cut my budget, I will vote against you. Don't cut my budget, I will vote against you. Then don't cut my budget because I will vote against you. You can't send an elected person to cut a budget. You have to send somebody who doesn't give a what you think about them in the short term, is playing a total long game, and can put up with the shame and embarrassment and all of that.

Now I'm going to go further and say why you're watching with DOGE. You know, even though it's a very specific character, Elon Musk an