Once upon a time – back in the 1970s – there were only a handful of places to get news – and one of them was National Public Radio. Today, Americans have access to thousands of diverse news stations on radio, TV and smartphones. None of them cost taxpayers a dime.

NPR is at best unnecessary and at worst so left leaning that it sounds like a daily mouthpiece for the progressives.

As you’ve probably heard, the CEO of NPR, Katherine Mayer, called President Trump a “Deranged, racist sociopath.” Maybe she thinks that language plays to NPR’s listeners.

Uri Berliner, a former NPR senior business editor who resigned last year over its increasing bias, found that in D.C. (where NPR is headquartered), there were 87 registered Democrats working in editorial positions and zero Republicans. Fair and balanced.

The hundreds of millions of federal tax dollars that subsidize public TV and radio represent a wealth transfer from poorer Americans to the significantly wealthier audiences who tune into them. If NPR is of any value, surely the rich and famous niche audience who virtue signal by listening to it can afford to pay for it themselves. Or they can turn on MSNBC or CNN for their daily fake news.

Stephen Moore

Wednesday afternoon, while many were riveted by the heartbreaking remarks of Rachel Morin’s mother at the White House Press Briefing, the Department of Justice released information from Kilmar Abrego-Garcia’s 2019 arrest and deportation proceedings that should put a lot of the whisperings about the “Maryland Father’s” gang affiliations and alleged lack of due process to rest.

Abrego-Garcia was detained by Prince Georges County, Maryland officials on March 28, 2019 in a Home Depot parking lot in Hyattsville, Maryland. Here are the highlights of that encounter and a subsequent bond hearing, as found in the documents:

• Abrego-Garcia was loitering with three other men either known or suspected MS-13
• One of the men had an extensive and violent criminal history, including a conviction four months prior for MS-13 gang activity
• Abrego-Garcia and another man at the scene were “detained in connection to a murder investigation.”
• Two bottles with marijuana inside were recovered at the scene
• Abrego-Garcia was in attire associated with MS-13 members, those being a Chicago Bulls hat and a hoodie with rolls of money covering the eyes, ears, and nose of the presidents on the separate denominations (meaning, hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil – in other words, don’t snitch)
• A confidential informant advised Prince Georges County investigators that Abrego-Garcia was a member of the MS-13 Westerns clique
• The confidential informant said that Abrego-Garcia held the rank of “Chequeo” and the “moniker of ‘Chele.'”
• Abrego-Garcia admitted that he entered the US illegally in 2012 through McAllen, TX, and was a citizen of El Salvador.
• While no criminal record was found, Abrego-Garcia had received numerous traffic violations for which he never appeared in court.
• One section of the report says Abrego-Garcia did not claim to be fearful of returning to El Salvador, but another section states that he did claim to be fearful.

As part of that encounter, ICE ERO agents were called to the Prince Georges County jail. They arrested Abrego-Garcia for violating Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and transported him to the Baltimore Field Office for processing. The next day, he was served with a Notice to Appear on that charge.

RELATED: Startling New Info Emerges on Deported MS-13 Illegal—and It Makes Chris Van Hollen Look Even More Foolish

On April 24, 2019 a bond redetermination hearing was held in which the immigration judge determined that “no bond was appropriate in this matter,” because he had not met his burden of showing that he would not pose a danger to others and that he would not be a flight risk. That judge admitted the Prince Georges County gang information sheet into evidence and found that Abrego-Garcia was affiliated with MS-13 based on both the clothing he was wearing and the information from the confidential informant, who was a “past, proven, and reliable source of information” to authorities.

Abrego-Garcia appealed that decision, but it was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals, part of the US Department of Justice, on December 19, 2019.

The fact that one of the forms (the I-213) mentions that Abrego-Garcia was detained in relation to a homicide investigation is interesting, especially since only two out of the four men at the Home Depot parking lot were mentioned as being part of that investigation. There is no other information in the documents about what case that might be in reference to, but we are investigating.

Read the full document drop below.

 Kilmer Abrego Garcia Documents  by Jennifer van Laar

The onus is on those whose favored policies have left us imperiled to present a better plan than Trump’s to defend America’s interests.

If the status quo in global trade were to persist, would America remain the world’s dominant power, or would we more likely be eclipsed by our worst adversary, Communist China?

That is the key question the globalists, financiers, and their corporate media mouthpieces who ginned up hysteria and market panic in the days following President Donald Trump’s announcement of reciprocal tariffs on dozens of trade partners should have to answer.

For they have developed and been the primary beneficiaries of a distinctly unfree and unfair trade architecture that has left America reliant on other nations, namely China, for critical military components and the necessities of life. They have also eroded our dominant position in manufacturing and industry, created vulnerable supply chains, and hollowed out our country’s heartland with generational consequences for our people.

While this de facto China First policy has played out, the U.S. has continued to provide a security umbrella to myriad countries that have not only slapped tariffs and imposed non-tariff barriers on us but have also grown more economically and politically intertwined with Communist China and other foes.

Trump laid much of this out in his “Liberation Day” executive order and subsequent amendment to it, justifying reciprocal tariffs on the grounds that the trade deficits resulting from the status quo “constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States.” His critics have largely failed to grapple with this argument, suggesting a bad-faith position that favors their own self-interest over America’s national interest.

The administration has dramatically ratcheted up tariffs on Chinese goods. It has also threatened to impose significantly higher rates on other trade partners, only to freeze them at 10 percent as a reported 75-plus countries rushed to the negotiating table. These maneuvers have made clear the three goals of Trump’s trade policy.

First, the president wants to develop a bloc of genuine free-trade partners not only to benefit America’s economy but to serve our geopolitical aims by forming a unified front against China. The threat of heightened tariffs effectively separated the wheat from the chaff in this regard. As the president noted in his April 9 executive order modifying the tariff regime, the clamoring of dozens of nations, including those in China’s immediate orbit, “to address the lack of trade reciprocity in our economic relationships and our resulting national and economic security concerns” constituted a “significant step by these countries toward remedying non-reciprocal trade arrangements and aligning sufficiently with the United States on economic and national security matters” (emphasis mine).

Second, and relatedly, in breaking and rebalancing the global trade architecture that has served China’s grand strategy at America’s expense, the administration is isolating Communist China and creating great pressure on its regime. To what end, we will have to wait and see. The president is a dealmaker and values flexibility. But if there is no deal to be had that would leave America better off, we could well be looking at meaningful decoupling, which the tariff policy should only accelerate — a decoupling in which America is far better positioned to thrive than it would be under the status quo.

Third, the president wants to incentivize the reshoring of critical industries and reassert American dominance in manufacturing as an economic and national security imperative — while tilting toward Main Street over Wall Street. This is about ensuring American independence, which our freedom rests on, and doing right by those wronged under the globalist policies of the last several decades.

It is worth remembering that the president’s use of tariffs to drive freer and fairer trade and secure our vital interests comes amid a slew of other policies aimed at unleashing America’s economic might in the way of tax, deregulatory, and energy policy. For the same people who promised us the trade policies of the last several decades would not lead to substantial job losses, an eroded industrial base, or the empowerment of China to now claim with certainty that Trump’s trade policy will lead to cataclysmic effects represents a total lack of self-awareness and continued hubris.

We simply do not know how all the administration’s bilateral trade negotiations will shake out, nor what the collective effects of the president’s policies will be on our economy and national security. But we do know that the prevailing policies he inherited have threatened America’s viability.

To be sure, any attempt to restructure a trade architecture built up over decades will rankle markets to some extent by creating uncertainty and causing significant shifts in how companies operate. But that short-term or even medium-term dislocation is a small price to pay if it ensures America’s long-term ability to thrive.

The onus is on those whose favored policies have left us so imperiled to present a better plan than Trump’s to defend America’s economic and national security interests. Their unwillingness to do so suggests they are content to subordinate such interests, a position that would put us on the road to ruin.

Ben Weingarten is editor at large for RealClearInvestigations. He is a senior contributor to The Federalist, columnist at Newsweek, and a contributor to the New York Post and Epoch Times, among other publications.

https://artfuldilettante.com/2025/04/15/mark-twain-on-our-idiot-politicians-and-our-current-predicament/

Barely a day goes by in my office when I don’t hear the word “materialism”. Interestingly, it’s often uttered in a negative tone, and my response is met with varying levels of acceptance. In short, I don’t believe there’s such a thing as “materialism.” All of us need and want material things. It’s only a matter of degree. “Need and want” can be exceeded when one becomes a slave to their possessions.

Material things exist for our pleasure, not the other way around. It might sound crazy to suggest that objects can control people, but material things control some people simply because they allow them to. It’s perfectly fine to celebrate life by enjoying physical possessions. But it’s quite another to feel like you’ve got to have more and more “stuff” in order to keep up. That’s when the things start to control you.

This issue can become more apparent during hard economic times. Some people struggle to keep food on the table and the mortgage paid, while others just cut back on discretionary spending. I’m not making light of bad economic times, but how well you cope with cutting back is an indication of how trapped you are by your trappings. Again, this is not a lecture on the “evils” of materialism. I don’t buy into that. We all need to experience progress, and economic setbacks shouldn’t be the norm. Progress like we currently enjoy is certainly a good thing in a society where people are committed to being free, productive and self-responsible. But progress should be for ourselves, not for the sake of the things we own.

Dependence on material things can result from feelings of inadequacy. An article in Psychology Today described a woman in Manhattan who “believes her own materialism is rooted in shameful feelings about her home life: She grew up poor, raised by grandparents with Depression-era values who forced her to wash tinfoil for reuse. Her outstanding abilities [in sports] gave her entrée to exclusive team clubs, and through those [she] was exposed to the lifestyles of wealthy people. She felt inadequate in comparison. Buying the right things became a way for her to attain a sense of parity.”

Feelings of inadequacy can drive people to acquire material things in order to appear better than others, or because of an irrational fear of rejection. Things exist for your pleasure. They are to be owned. Once they own you, you’re in trouble.

Another unhealthy reason for acquiring material things is to reduce anxiety. Buying what you need is a good way to distract yourself and relax. But shopping shouldn’t be a way to ignore what’s causing you to be anxious in the first place. If you’re buying things you can’t afford, ask yourself, “What am I really anxious about?” Hide the credit cards until you figure it out.

Capitalism and business get the blame for people’s shopping compulsions. That’s like blaming air for the fact that people say stupid things. Getting rid of air is not the solution for stupid statements, just as getting rid of capitalism and freedom isn’t the solution for foolish spending. Businesses exist to please customers and make a profit. If customers decide something is no longer profitable, businesses will stop doing it. The fault lies with our own actions. Blaming others is just an easy way out.

Should you sometimes spend money on things you like? Of course! Material things have their place, but they’re not the only way to be fulfilled. It’s not about “making do with less”; it’s about becoming less dependent on money as the way to enjoy life.

People are always concerned about living within their means, and making sure objects don’t control you is a way to ensure that you can do that. If you must have unlimited access to spending in order to be happy, then you’re going to eventually run out. Why live that way? The trappings of life can be a big part of life — but be careful not to get trapped by the trappings.

Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Charleston SC). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on X at @MichaelJHurd1, drmichaelhurd on Instagram, @DrHurd on TruthSocial. Dr. Hurd is also now a Newsmax Insider!

Most Democrats want their party to “become more progressive,” and say they agree with the more aggressive stance being taken by lawmakers like Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who are calling on the party to take a “more aggressive stance” against President Donald Trump and his administration, according to new polls.

A poll from Survey USA, taken from April 2-6 of 859 Republicans and 885 Democrats, showed that 50% of Democrats want their party to become more progressive, with 24% wanting it to stay the same, and 18% calling for it to become more moderate, reports Real Clear Polling.

Among Republicans, 40% said their party should become more conservative while 44% said it should remain the same.

The polling comes after the Democrats’ losses of both chambers of Congress and the White House, leaving the party looking at how to move forward.

Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sanders, I-Vt., representing the progressive wing of the party, have been drawing crowds of tens of thousands with their “Fighting Oligarchy Tour,” which has them speaking in Democrat-heavy locations such as Los Angeles and Denver and in Republican states such as Idaho and Montana.

Their tour also appears to be paying off for Ocasio-Cortez’s fundraising efforts. She raised $9.6 million in the first three months of this year, more than double what she raised in her second-highest quarter, reports Politico.

She now has more than $8 million in cash-on-hand, according to fundraising reports from the Federal Elections Commission filed Tuesday.

Progressives are also calling on her to launch a primary challenge in 2028 against Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have been speaking out in part in their rallies against the roles of Elon Musk and other billionaires in Trump’s administration, and polls are showing that many Democrats are skeptical of massive cuts in government spending.

In a Harvard-Harris poll taken on April 9-10 among 2,236 registered voters, 62% of Democrats said their party should oppose the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce government expenditures. However, independents, by 61% said they think Democrats should join in efforts to cut government spending.

The Harvard-Harris poll also asked respondents if they prefer Democrats like Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, “who are calling on Democrats to adopt a more aggressive stance towards Trump and his administration and fight harder,” or moderate Democrats “who are willing to compromise on Trump issues important to their base.”

The poll showed that 72% of Democrats say they prefer more progressive party members like Sanders and AOC.

Republicans, however, said they support moderate Democrats who will compromise with their party, and independents, by 56%, said they would support the more moderate Democrats over hardliners.

The preferences are also showing in favorability polls on the lawmakers, according to recent Economist/YouGov polling.

Schumer scored a 42% favorability rating among Democrats, but AOC’s favorability was at 66%. Sanders’ rating was even higher, with 80% of Democrats and 42% of independents having a favorable opinion of him. Only 11% of Democrats and 32% of independents had a negative opinion of the Vermont senator.

Sandy Fitzgerald ✉

Sandy Fitzgerald has more than three decades in journalism and serves as a general assignment writer for Newsmax covering news, media, and politics. 

Pope Francis’ recent appearance in St Peter’s, which stunned the world, is the latest and most striking demonstration of how, in complete contrast to his predecessor, he has lived his pontificate at the service of his own ideas. A systematic deconstruction of the papacy.

The image of Jorge Mario Bergoglio in a wheelchair, wearing a white long-sleeved vest half covered by a striped poncho, his hair dishevelled and black trousers, is perhaps the most eloquent expression of how he – and his entourage – have understood the papacy, and the umpteenth, perhaps the last, blatant contrast with Benedict XVI.

The latter was aware that Joseph had to disappear so that the Lord could protect his Church through Benedict. He had to be totally absorbed in his ministry, he had to serve this ministry; Ratzinger knew that the Pope no longer had a private life, and even after his resignation he wanted to emphasise that he would not return to a private life. The one chosen to be the successor of the Apostle Peter must “disappear” behind the white robe; his personal thoughts and particular sensitivities no longer count: he, more than any other baptised person, must allow himself to be absorbed by the thought of Christ.

This is how Ratzinger understood his episcopate and his vocation as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; he was no longer a simple theologian – who must also place himself at the service of Revelation and not dominate it – but the guardian of a doctrine that is not his own. And this is how he understood his priestly ministry, especially in its liturgical aspect: the priest is the servant of the mystery he celebrates; his individuality is buried under the sacred vestments so that the rite is preserved and transmitted in all its holiness and purity, without any contamination of personal taste. The way he bowed his head during the celebrations, the correctness of his gestures, the precision of the rubrics, the seriousness of everything, showed the whole world what it means to be a servant of God.

Francis has always done the opposite. He has used his papacy to promote his own ideas and to sideline those he perceives as opponents of his personal agenda. The “Church of Francis” expresses itself in the same way: the priestly and episcopal ministry is mostly experienced as a catwalk for self-promotion, a role of power to impose one’s own desires. The liturgical sphere is no exception: no matter which church you go to, you will find the same Mass, with priests who pour their frustrations into the sacred rite and mould sacred places and rites in their own image and likeness.

There hasn’t been a month since 13 March 2013 in which Francis hasn’t wanted to bend the papacy to serve him and his ideas, sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly. And not only the papacy: justice, doctrine, the structure of the Church, everything has been transformed to serve the project and the person of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. This presentation of himself as a simple man in a wheelchair in the Vatican Basilica – whether it was his decision or not, it doesn’t matter – is just the logical conclusion of one of the most narcissistic pontiffs in the history of the Church. Benedict XVI, perhaps wrongly, wanted to keep the white cassock until the end of his life, even after renouncing the Petrine ministry, in order to emphasise that he continued to be at the service of the Church, totally united to it; Francis wanted to abandon it while he was still Pope, showing how uncomfortable he was wearing the sign of total submission to God and the Church.

Because the beginning and the end of authority in the Church is precisely this: total submission to God. And all the more so for the Successor of Peter, who must always remember that the faith he is called to confirm does not come from flesh and blood, and that it is precisely when humanity prevails that Peter deserves to be called “Satan” by the Lord (cf. Mt 16:13-23).

If there is a sovereignist in the world, it is the Pope”, Gian Franco Svidercoschi – a well-known Vaticanist, certainly not suspected of ‘backwardness’ – said with great clarity when he was a guest of Giovanni Minoli on the popular Italian television programme La Storia Siamo Noi on 2 April. Under the guise of the Synodal Church, a degenerate stepchild of conciliar collegiality, Francis has created the most absolutist pontificate in history, trampling on cardinals and bishops as if they were nothing more than a footstool. Svidercoschi also destroys another myth, answering the question of whether Francis’ pontificate has led to a more inclusive Church with a resounding no. And he adds, just to dot the i’s and cross the t’s, that “the Church of Francis has lost a lot, a lot, a lot of moral authority”. A Church that is not only less inclusive, but also more divided: “There are supposed reforms or changes that he has made that have broken the Church… Whereas before there was a division at the top, now there is a division among the people of God’.

But Svidercoschi really got to Francis when he delivered the epigrammatic verdict on the pontificate now in decline: “For ¾ of his pontificate, the absolute was missing. God was missing’. Not exactly a detail for the Vicar of Christ on earth. Strong words, but true. Francis’ desire to be the centre of attention has ended up obscuring God and degrading the papacy, and this new stunt of appearing in public in his “pyjamas” is further confirmation of this, after the various good mornings and good evenings, the appearances on Fazio, the little jokes about nuns being spinsters and parents having children like rabbits.

We make a plea to the Cardinals: choose a man who will serve the Papacy and not a man who puts the papacy at his personal service.

Luisella Scrosati, Daily Compass

Another federal circuit judge has blocked President Trump from doing … fill-in-the-blank. It really doesn’t matter. This was all planned during the Obama and Biden regimes, to appoint lawless, totalitarian judges in case a Republican who meant business ever occupied the Oval Office again.

Deport her. Deport all of them. These judges enjoy no individual rights under the Constitution. They are at war with our Constitution, explicitly and openly. They are obliterating our rights and undermining every attempt we make to restore America to its original foundation — or even to where it was in 1990, or 2000.

“We can’t do that,” you say. “It will mean we are a dictatorship.” Wrong. It’s a dictatorship now. Right now, we are living under the rule of these radical, totalitarian judges reinforcing the power of the dictatorship and oligarchy we thought we got rid of in November.

Arrest, deport and stop them. Treat them as enemy combatants, because they are. Remove totalitarians from office. If we don’t, America is finished and the last election did not matter.

*******

Democrats: The champions of human traffickers, gender dysphorics, violent gang members and economic feudalism.

*******

It’s not “authoritarian” to stop giving Harvard and Columbia millions to teach young people to be America-hating totalitarians.

*******

Words and anger will not defeat totalitarians taking over America. Only action will. President Trump, you are our last chance.

*******

Trump has called on Congress to completely defund NPR, PBS.

Congress has no business sending taxpayer money to any media network, ever. Nothing in the Constitution requires or permits it. Still, some insist we “need” public broadcasting. Why? We already have TONS of left-wing, statist, fascist, totalitarian-supporting media. To name a few: NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, MSNBC, The New York Times, and virtually every newspaper, and college media, in America. Not to mention the free airtime to socialist, woke causes given by nearly every rock star, actor, celebrity and sports figure in America.

When will leftists ever feel they have enough?

Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Charleston SC). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on X at @MichaelJHurd1, drmichaelhurd on Instagram, @DrHurd on TruthSocial. Dr. Hurd is also now a Newsmax Insider!

Back on February 14, I had a post titled “How Much Of This Has Been Paid For By The U.S. Taxpayer?” The post asked that question about a sample of issues held dear by the Left: migrant caravans, services in the U.S. to illegal aliens, DEI and climate alarm.

Over the intervening weeks it has become clear that the general answer is “a lot of it,” but the details will be slow to emerge. For example, you can go to the website of DOGE and get an endless list of hundreds of contracts and grants that have been reduced or canceled. But they all seem to have legitimate headlines or titles, even if they were wasteful. How much of this money was getting diverted to an NGO, and from there to another NGO and then another until it ended up funding migrant caravans or pro-Palestinian propaganda or some other such cause. There is very little indication.

Certainly, you can count on the biggest left-wing grant recipients to be less than honest in defending their fiefdoms. Consider, for example, Harvard University. It’s been big news the past couple of days that Harvard has refused to knuckle under to President Trump’s demands that it rein in anti-semitism, in order to retain its many hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars of annual federal funding. Harvard President Alan Garber defended the university’s position in an email addressed to the “Harvard Community” that is publicly available here. Here’s how it starts out:

For three-quarters of a century, the federal government has awarded grants and contracts to Harvard and other universities to help pay for work that, along with investments by the universities themselves, has led to groundbreaking innovations across a wide range of medical, engineering, and scientific fields. These innovations have made countless people in our country and throughout the world healthier and safer. . . . These partnerships are among the most productive and beneficial in American history. New frontiers beckon us with the prospect of life-changing advances—from treatments for diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes, to breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, quantum science and engineering, and numerous other areas of possibility. For the government to retreat from these partnerships now risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals but also the economic security and vitality of our nation.

It all looks like mis-direction to me. How much of Harvard’s federal funding goes to the widely-supported subjects that Garber lists — Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, diabetes, AI, quantum science and engineering? Clearly a small minority. And how much goes to garbage like, for example, climate alarm? Garber won’t even mention that one, nor will he provide a quantitative breakout of how much federal taxpayer money Harvard sends down that particular rathole. If you wish, you can go to the Harvard website, where you will find an unbelievable profusion of climate alarm initiatives, for example the Harvard University Center for the Environment/Climate, Harvard University Climate Solutions, Harvard Business School Confronting Climate Change, the Harvard Radcliffe Institute Climate Change Initiative, Harvard School of Public Health Center for Climate, Health and the Global Environment, etc., etc., etc. There are many more. It is a fair bet that all of these are majority federally funded, and that few if any of them would exist at all without the federal largesse.

More generally, here is an article from Harvard Magazine in 2022 that breaks down the faculty of Harvard’s “Arts & Sciences” divisions between science, humanities and social sciences. (“Arts & Sciences” excludes the professional schools like Law, Medicine and Business.). In round numbers, it’s 40% science and 60% humanities and social sciences. Garber doesn’t even try to defend anything in the majority consisting of humanities and social sciences. A huge percentage of that is America hatred and Marxism. Granted, the humanities and social sciences get far fewer federal grants; but they benefit from the gigantic “overhead” allowances that Harvard has attached to its science and medical grants.

And I haven’t even gotten to Harvard’s tolerance of anti-semitism. On that subject, the Harvard Jewish Alumni Association commented today on X: “Harvard’s fighting the Trump administration harder than it’s ever fought antisemitism.”

On the question of federal funding for the migrant invasion, again nothing yet coming out of DOGE-land enables any kind of overall quantification. Glenn Reynolds (of Instapundit) has an op-ed in today’s New York Post that compiles some prior Post reporting on the subject. The title is “How Democrats used NGO’s to end-run voters.” Reynolds:

[A]s we’ve learned recently, partly as the result of Department of Government Efficiency digging, many “non-governmental” entities are really just fronts for government activities that Americans would never stand for if Washington attempted them directly. For example, America’s border crisis was funded in large part by President Joe Biden’s government, which sent large sums of money in the form of grants to various NGOs that helped train migrants on how to get to the United States — and how to claim asylum when they arrived.

Most significantly, Reynolds links to this February 1 Post piece reporting that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had terminated some $1.4 billion of funding for 2025 to some 15 UN agencies and 230 (!) NGOs that were involved in some way in providing services to the migrants. That is undoubtedly the tip of the iceberg.

A huge and barely-explored question remains, which is how much federal funding finds its way via various NGOs to Democrat-supporting political groups? A tantalizing hint emerged on March 27, when a gun-control group called March for Our Lives suddenly laid off 13 of its 16 paid staffers. March for Our Lives is the group founded by anti-gun activist David Hogg, the same guy who got elected Vice Chair of the DNC on February 1. The stated mission of MFOL is “voter engagement” on the gun control issue. Go to the tax filings of MFOL, and you will not find any disclosures of who the donors are. At a Facebook page called “Donald Trump for President” (I’m not sure that this is a valid Trump page) it is alleged that MFOL suffered a “drastic collapse in donations via ActBlue immediately following Trump’s closure of USAID.” So, was MFOL funded via funds laundered from grants originally coming from USAID? It is certainly a reasonable hypothesis, although at this point I cannot find definitive confirmation. Maybe one of the readers can find that. I do not know of any other reason why funding for an anti-gun group, let alone one so high-profile as MFOL, would suddenly evaporate shortly after Trump’s inauguration. You would think that Trump’s inauguration would be energizing the anti-gun groups, rather than the opposite.

So let’s all be on the lookout for Democrat activist groups seeing their ActBlue or other such funding suddenly disappearing. I highly doubt that MFOL will be the only one.

Manhattan Contrarian, Francis Menton

Well-meaning liberal Americans sympathize with the Arab-Palestinian cause because of the group’s determined, decades-long struggle against Israel’s superior military might. Recently, that favoritism among Democrats for the first time shifted to a majority who support the Palestinians over Israel.

But if supporters of the Palestinians knew the whole truth, as the Palestinians tell it, they might reverse their sympathies. Indeed, when we listen to what the Palestinians say, and what they do, their underdog image is betrayed by belligerent goals, cruel methods and values anathema to Western civilization.

Understandably, liberals sympathize with the Palestinians out of “humanitarian” instincts. To them, the Palestinians are an oppressed group fighting bravely for their freedom. These defenders see Israel, the Palestinians’ foe, as having, for 78 years, tried to deny innocent people self-determination and their rightful share of a Middle East homeland.

But this sympathetic portrait of Arab-Palestinians is purely the product of Western projection–an imagined assignment to the Palestinians of motives, goals and values characteristic of a Western mindset. Western liberals are often shocked when they’re exposed to the portrait Palestinians paint of themselves–as Arabs and as Muslims–which embodies characteristics in direct contradiction to peace-loving Western values and aspirations.

Perhaps the most significant reason the Palestinians are still fighting is that Israel and its Western allies continue to offer what we think the Palestinians want–or should want–rather than what they actually do want. Westerners have steadfastly believed that

Palestinians want a state and to live in peace with Israel, and that Israel is preventing the Palestinians from achieving this goal.

The problem turns out to be ours. Palestinians tell us what they want and pursue what they want, but we ignore their message. We prefer our enlightened translation. To gain insight into this contradiction, it helps to highlight exactly what the Palestinians tell us–and what they tell themselves–about their goals and values.

To get a handle on this disconnect, let’s compare Westerners’ two greatest myths about Palestinian goals and values with what Palestinians say and do regarding the major issues affecting peace in the Middle East.

Myth #1: Palestinians want their own state, living in peace beside Israel. The Palestinians flatly reject any Jewish rights to sovereignty in “Palestine,” because they reject the Jews’ historical connection to the Land of Israel. For example, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, in 2018, bizarrely called Israel a “colonial project” having no basis in history and disconnected from Judaism.

During the Camp David summit in 2000–an attempt by President Bill Clinton to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with a two-state solution–former PLO chief Yasser Arafat asserted that “Solomon’s Temple was not in Jerusalem, but Nablus.” Clinton was flabbergasted at this outright lie, but Arafat refused to back down, just as he refused the Israeli and American offer of statehood.

Hamas, still the Palestinians’ leading political and military force, maintains in its charter that “The land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf (endowment) consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day.” The concept of waqf in Islam implies that it belongs to Muslims exclusively and cannot be shared with infidels, especially Jews.

Furthermore, recent polls show that most Palestinians reject a two-state solution, preferring a single, Arab-ruled state.

Given this religious and political opposition to a Jewish state, it’s no wonder Palestinians teach their children from birth to hate, conquer and kill Jews. Many videos exist on social media that show children saying they want to fight and defeat the Jews.

In short, the notion that Palestinians want a peaceful state next to Israel is betrayed by countless statements from Palestinian political and religious leaders, as well as curricula at every educational level.

Myth #2: Israel is preventing the Palestinians from forming their own state. The United Nations and Israel, with America’s backing, have offered the Palestinians many opportunities to achieve statehood, but the Palestinians and their fellow Arabs have flatly refused every time. 

They rejected the 1947 U.N. partition plan. Following the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel offered land it had seized in exchange for peace with its Arab neighbors. The Arab reply? The three “no’s”: no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel and no peace with Israel.

In 2000, 2001 and 2008, Israel again offered the Palestinians statehood–in all of Judea and Samaria (AKA the “West Bank”), with a capital in eastern Jerusalem–but again, the Palestinians said no. Later attempts by U.S. Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump were also rejected.

Israel has also attempted numerous programs to assist and build trust with the Palestinians, including inviting hundreds of thousands of Palestinian workers into Israel and providing medical care, water and electricity to Palestinians.

Unfortunately, no Palestinian leader has arisen who advocates prosperity for the Palestinian people and peace with Israel. There is no Gandhi, no Mandela, no peace movement. Rather, Palestinian leaders focus on what they call the “resistance”–the codeword for continued terror, whose goal is the conquest of Israel.

Claims that Israel stands in the way of a Palestinian state are contradicted by a 78-year history of generous offers from Israel to help the Palestinians create one. However, while Israel has never started a war with the Palestinians, it has been forced to defend itself from countless attacks–from terrorist murders to outright wars–by an opponent determined to destroy it.

The liberal West would be smarter to believe what the Palestinians say and do, and not our naive projections. We want to believe that the Palestinians want a state that will exist peacefully alongside Israel. However, the Palestinians themselves tell us they reject Jewish sovereignty in what they view as exclusively Arab-Muslim land.

Westerners also assume that Israel is preventing the Palestinians from achieving self-determination. But history proves otherwise. Israel has made many offers to the Palestinians, who said “no” to each one. Indeed, more often than not, they and their Arab brethren followed up their rejections with violence and bloodshed, forcing Israel into 76 years of defensive actions.

Originally published at JNS.org

James Sinkinson