The jig is up.

Evidently if you go to the front page the word jig in my first post is truncated? LOL

Your post seems fishy.. 

This is the sort of stuff an independent media used to thrive on. Now they just want to ensure they keep getting some of the loot. 

According to USAID most of our MSM isn't very independent.

Now it's,

Reporter: we have a story coming out about insider trading by Congress, would you like to comment?

Congress: We have a vote on funding for NPR and media coming up.

Reporter: are Story is about how there is no evidence of insider trading.

Congress: we are adding a zero to the funding.

The ACTUAL HEADLINE & DISCLAIMER from the Seeded Article

• The US Treasury Spent HOW MUCH Illegally? Now You Know Why the Left Wants to Stop DOGE

• JOIN VIP
• LOGIN

Thankyou for telling us what we all knew. Now i will say there is no evidence Redstate's opinion is state sponsored like many of our mainstream media organizations as recently revealed with USAID transparency. 

Thanks for sharing an opinion on an opinion. LOL

Red State. Townhall, et al, are pretty much all conservative sites with conservation authors. Do you agree with the topic of that article?

The author identified as "streiff" with a small s is an unknown entity. Other than being a German word for attack there in nothing there!

RedState is a misinformation rag.

From mediabiasfactcheck.com :

Overall, we rate RedState borderline Questionable and strongly Right Biased, based on story selection that always favors the right and use of emotionally loaded (sensationalized) headlines. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to poor sourcing of information and several failed fact checks.

This article is no exception, with a sensationalized and emotionally loaded headline including a highly dubious claim of illegality.  

A search of my own turned this up in no time: (link)

Appropriations in the Absence of Authorizations

As the Comptroller General of the United States has explained

Where authorizations are not required by law, Congress may, subject to a possible point of order, appropriate funds for a program or object that has not been previously authorized or which exceeds the scope of a prior authorization, in which event the enacted appropriation, in effect, carries its own authorization and is available to the agency for obligation and expenditure.

Historically, as well as in recent years, Congress has on occasion appropriated money to fund programs with expired authorizations of appropriations. Because the distinction between authorizations and appropriations is a construct of congressional rules, it applies only to the consideration of legislation. If Congress appropriates funds for a program whose funding authorization has expired, that appropriation provides sufficient legal basis to continue the program during that period of availability absent indication of congressional intent to terminate the program.

A few statutes, however, explicitly require that funds to carry out particular activities may not be appropriated unless they have been specifically authorized. For example, the Department of Energy Organization Act included a provision requiring that “Appropriations to carry out the provisions of this Act shall be subject to annual authorization.” The Foreign Assistance Act of 1971 included language stating that “no money appropriated to the Department of State under any law shall be available for obligation or expenditure with respect to any fiscal year commencing on or after July 1, 1972 … unless the appropriation thereof has been authorized by law enacted on or after February 7, 1972.” Such statutory requirements for prior authorization are effectively congressional directives to itself, which Congress is free to follow or alter in subsequent legislation. Thus, if Congress were to appropriate funds to a department in the absence of an explicit authorization, the appropriation would be just as valid, and just as available for obligation, as if the requirement had been satisfied or did not exist.

People can of course argue whether any specific item should be funded or not, but funding for items lacking an explicit requirement for updated authorization is a matter of Congressional discretion, appears to be rather normal in certain circumstances, and is NOT ILLEGAL.

The article offers no details whatsoever regarding explicit authorization requirements for anything on the list, and considering the source, it's a very safe bet that the claim of illegality is unadulterated bullshit.

We'd be so much better off as a country if people would hold their sources of information to a higher standard, instead of instantly believing emotionally-charged misinformation from sources so obviously operating under a 'manufactured outrage' profit model.

"We'd be so much better off as a country if people would hold their sources of information to a higher standard,"

You mean CNN, MSNBC. ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, and THE VIEW

The View? LOL. Sure. And especially wherever you get your information from, considering the alternate universe you seem to live most of the time, where things like a sitting president trying to subvert the Republic, or his goons attacking the US Capitol to further that subversion either didn't happen, or if they did are no big deal. 

Chuck looks like he is finally stroking out.