USAID Funding
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
How USAID and Internews Orchestrate Global Media Control
One might initially dismiss such claims as hyperbolic, but the evidence is staggering. In Ukraine alone, Internews has trained 5,000 journalists. Globally, it has indoctrinated 38,000 media educators, reporters, and fact-checkers on the purported mission of combating "misinformation"—a term increasingly deployed to delegitimize viewpoints that deviate from left-wing narratives. Behind the benign facade of media training lies a targeted effort to shape public discourse by ensuring that only select ideological perspectives receive legitimacy. Internews does not seek merely to report the news but to curate what is permissible as news.
Internews’s funding sources betray its true objectives. It is no accident that USAID, the CIA's tool for ideological influence operations, provides up to 90% of Internews’s budget. USAID's historical entanglement with regime-change operations and the promotion of progressive social policies should alone raise suspicions about the kind of "independent media" that Internews claims to support. But even more telling is the financial backing from George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, a network infamous for bankrolling leftist movements under the pretense of fostering democracy. The confluence of Soros’s globalist agenda and USAID’s interventionist ethos ensures that Internews operates not as a neutral media entity, but as a propaganda wing for international leftism.
Internews has played a direct role in creating political upheavals across the world, particularly in Venezuela, Kazakhstan, Myanmar, and Afghanistan. In each of these nations, CIA and USAID foreign policy interests have leveraged Internews to foster dissent, support opposition movements, and ultimately engineer instability. By flooding these regions with Internews-trained journalists and media networks, the organization has been instrumental in shaping narratives that align with U.S. geopolitical objectives, undermining sovereign governments in favor of pro-Western factions.
One might initially dismiss such claims as hyperbolic, but the evidence is staggering. In Ukraine alone, Internews has trained 5,000 journalists. Globally, it has indoctrinated 38,000 media educators, reporters, and fact-checkers on the purported mission of combating "misinformation"—a term increasingly deployed to delegitimize viewpoints that deviate from left-wing narratives. Behind the benign facade of media training lies a targeted effort to shape public discourse by ensuring that only select ideological perspectives receive legitimacy. Internews does not seek merely to report the news but to curate what is permissible as news.
Internews’s funding sources betray its true objectives. It is no accident that USAID, the CIA's tool for ideological influence operations, provides up to 90% of Internews’s budget. USAID's historical entanglement with regime-change operations and the promotion of progressive social policies should alone raise suspicions about the kind of "independent media" that Internews claims to support. But even more telling is the financial backing from George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, a network infamous for bankrolling leftist movements under the pretense of fostering democracy. The confluence of Soros’s globalist agenda and USAID’s interventionist ethos ensures that Internews operates not as a neutral media entity, but as a propaganda wing for international leftism.
Internews has played a direct role in creating political upheavals across the world, particularly in Venezuela, Kazakhstan, Myanmar, and Afghanistan. In each of these nations, CIA and USAID foreign policy interests have leveraged Internews to foster dissent, support opposition movements, and ultimately engineer instability. By flooding these regions with Internews-trained journalists and media networks, the organization has been instrumental in shaping narratives that align with U.S. geopolitical objectives, undermining sovereign governments in favor of pro-Western factions.
I wonder how many heads exploded when they realized they were being epically trolled?
The girl trying not to laugh...
Chris Coons Gets Wrecked After He Tries to Desperately Defend USAID Spending
Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) tried that tactic on CNN with Michael Smerconish. Smerconish asked if funding an Iraqi version of "Sesame Street" was a "judicious use of soft power." Coons argued it was a show that "helped teach values."
The dismantling of a malevolent empire
This has triggered claims that vital humanitarian work has been brought to an abrupt halt, threatening the lives and health of millions of people all over the world. In fact, emergency food aid and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” are reportedly being allowed to continue.
Far more alarming information has now surfaced suggesting that USAID has been a major contributor to extremist and subversive activity. The Washington Free Beacon reports current and former US officials who worked closely with the aid group, saying they watched for years as it funnelled millions of dollars to bodies engaged in anti-Israel advocacy and that were linked to terrorism.
At the start of this month, the Middle East Forum reported that USAID had awarded “millions of federal dollars” to “organisations directly in Gaza controlled by Hamas”. In one Biden administration-era case, the agency funded an “educational and community center in Gaza” controlled by a local group called the Unlimited Friends Association.
The MEF wrote that this group is a Hamas proxy that works to reward the “families of martyrs” in Gaza with cash handouts and “promotes violently antisemitic rhetoric across its social media pages”.
BOP
Well-Known Member
Number 1, even I figured out pretty quickly that the Demonrats meant something different by "democracy" than the rest of us mean, and have been saying so ever since the beginning of the election cycle. That is their M.O., is to take words like that and give them a different meaning, because who can argue against a "threat to democracy"?
Number 2, Not only do the Demonrats mean something entirely different by "democracy," as even bright boy points out, they constantly shy away from calling it what it is, a constitutional republic. They only appeal to the Constitution when it's convenient.
Right on schedule, as I predicted, it blew up on the launch pad. NBC ran a terrific story yesterday headlined, “Judge gives go-ahead for the Trump administration to gut USAID's workforce.” The sub-headline explained, “The decision comes after the judge had temporarily paused efforts to place thousands of USAID employees on administrative leave following a lawsuit by labor groups.”
Following the hearing on the preliminary injunction, Judge Terry Nichols dissolved his earlier temporary restraining order. “Weighing plaintiffs’ assertions on these questions against the government’s is like comparing apples to oranges,” the judge wrote. “Where one side claims that USAID’s operations are essential to human flourishing and the other side claims they are presently at odds with it, it simply is not possible for the Court to conclude, as a matter of law or equity, that the public interest favors or disfavors an injunction.”
Womp, womp. Judge Nichols apparently either didn’t feel like playing hero for bureaucrats, or he decided that this case wasn’t the best case to test the unitary theory of executive power on appeal.
As I’ve explained, short-term TROs are relatively easy. Longer-lasting preliminary injunctions are brutal.
The judge explained he could not find sufficient irreparable harm — an extremely difficult showing for employees getting laid off. “Plaintiffs have presented no irreparable harm they or their members are imminently likely to suffer from the hypothetical future dissolution of USAID,” Nichols wrote. He added, nor is it “clear why the speed of proceedings in the relevant agencies would be insufficient to address the only actions that have already happened and are presently ripe for review: administrative leave placements, expedited evacuations, and other changes to working conditions of the sort those bodies routinely confront.”
The plaintiff unions vowed to appeal. If there is a harder case to appeal than the denial of a preliminary injunction, I’m not sure what it could be. But if they do appeal, it will only play right into Trump’s lawyers’ hands, who are praying for a window to launch challenges over executive powers toward the Supreme Court.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
Following the hearing on the preliminary injunction, Judge Terry Nichols dissolved his earlier temporary restraining order. “Weighing plaintiffs’ assertions on these questions against the government’s is like comparing apples to oranges,” the judge wrote. “Where one side claims that USAID’s operations are essential to human flourishing and the other side claims they are presently at odds with it, it simply is not possible for the Court to conclude, as a matter of law or equity, that the public interest favors or disfavors an injunction.”
Womp, womp. Judge Nichols apparently either didn’t feel like playing hero for bureaucrats, or he decided that this case wasn’t the best case to test the unitary theory of executive power on appeal.
As I’ve explained, short-term TROs are relatively easy. Longer-lasting preliminary injunctions are brutal.
The judge explained he could not find sufficient irreparable harm — an extremely difficult showing for employees getting laid off. “Plaintiffs have presented no irreparable harm they or their members are imminently likely to suffer from the hypothetical future dissolution of USAID,” Nichols wrote. He added, nor is it “clear why the speed of proceedings in the relevant agencies would be insufficient to address the only actions that have already happened and are presently ripe for review: administrative leave placements, expedited evacuations, and other changes to working conditions of the sort those bodies routinely confront.”
The plaintiff unions vowed to appeal. If there is a harder case to appeal than the denial of a preliminary injunction, I’m not sure what it could be. But if they do appeal, it will only play right into Trump’s lawyers’ hands, who are praying for a window to launch challenges over executive powers toward the Supreme Court.
☕️ CANCELATION NOTICES ☙ Saturday, February 22, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
Pentagon purge begins; media swallows Trump's Maine bait; Kiev's haggling backfires from orbit; Pelosi building goes up for sale; judge nixes TRO and okays USAID layoffs; much MAHA progress; more.
www.coffeeandcovid.com