Welcome to another edition of the morning newsletter.
__________
A quick note for this Monday.
Ever come across the saying, “hell hath no fury”?
Do you remember how it finishes?
THE GREAT DISAPPEARING TRICK
If there’s anything on your time travel bucket list, stopping baby Hitler should be up there, but convincing MacKenzie Scott to sign a prenup might be close behind.
Scott, who was previously married to Jeff Bezos, made headlines this weekend due to her significant charitable contributions towards various progressive causes.
After her divorce in 2019, she gained around $40 billion and has given away nearly $26 billion since then (don’t fret, she’s still very much a billionaire). Her aim is to distribute all of her wealth before her passing.
Liberals are thrilled with Scott’s generosity—and honestly, it’s easy to understand why.
Katie Miller might be exaggerating a bit when she says “almost entirely,” yet a conservative estimate likely attributes about half of Scott’s donations to distinctly leftist agendas.
Scott has openly expressed a desire to advocate for “racial equity,” immigration rights, and LGBTQ+ causes. For instance, she allocated half a billion to racial justice organizations, including the “Movement for Black Lives,” which supports prison reform. Additionally, she funded groups like the Center for Election Innovation & Research (CEIR) and the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL), both of which actively campaign for “voter access”—a term often used for lenient voter registration and mail-in voting. Then there’s her estimated $50 million donation to the Trevor Project, which some criticize as promoting ideas about gender to young people. Add another approximate $250 million to Planned Parenthood, and you can see the trend. And I haven’t even covered the funds sent to organizations advocating for open borders or addressing climate change.
More specifically, her spending seems aimed at policies that would eliminate police presence, borders, and traditional energy sources, while promoting hiring practices based on race, and controversial topics like transgender issues in minors.
In summary: It appears to be a project aimed at destabilizing western values.
On the flip side, she has also supported genuinely commendable organizations such as Big Brothers and Sisters and Habitat for Humanity. This leads to a question: Instead of funding multiple layers of non-profits that eventually (maybe) help those in need, why not directly invest in companies that actually provide housing and food solutions?
I guess that’s too capitalist?
Kleiner Perkins made a legendary decision when they invested in Amazon back in 1996, giving Bezos $8 million. If they had sold when Amazon went public the next year, they’d have made around $60 million.
If they still held their shares, it’d now be worth between $50-100 billion—about what Scott received from her divorce.
Once her money leaves her hands, it seems to vanish into various non-profits, coming out the other end with possibly a 50% chance of actually helping to reverse trends detrimental to society.
And as for creating something lasting? That doesn’t seem to be the case with the vast amounts she’s donating.
Someone noted that Andrew Carnegie achieved much more with far less funding.
At least the buildings he funded are still standing.
What’s going to remain from Scott’s donations? Probably not much.
MORE LINKS
Markwayne Mullin Educates Jake Tapper on the Meaning of ‘TPS’
A memorable moment on TV.
Chilling Conditions: Reports Show Eurocrats Turning Off Air Conditioning for Staff — But Not for Top Officials
Making employees endure extreme heat without AC seems inhumane.
‘We’re All Going To Hell!’: Texas Democrats Rally Around ‘Gay, Tofu-Eating Vegan’ Nominee James Talarico
I mean, does he even stand a chance?
