reSee.it - Related Post Feed
@laurenboebert - Lauren Boebert
Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi’s trillion-dollar spending spree has ruined our economy. It’s time to get America back on track! https://t.co/Gi8Qug8rXa
Video Transcript AI Summary
Since Biden and Pelosi took control, the economy has taken a hit. Inflation has risen from 1.4% to 8.3%, mortgage rates have increased from 2.65% to over 7%, and rent prices have gone up by over $400. Real wages are declining, and energy prices have skyrocketed by 15%. This means your income is down and costs are way up. The speaker promises to fire Nancy Pelosi, cut federal spending, and get America back on track.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let's talk economy. Since Biden and Pelosi took control, they've been on a $4,900,000,000,000 spending spree, and you're paying the price. Inflation was 1.4%. Now it's 8.3%. 30 year mortgage rates were 2.65%.
Now They're over 7%, and the average price for rent per month is up over $400. Real wages were increasing. Now they're declining. Energy prices were increasing by 1.5%. Now They're skyrocketing by 15%.
You get it. Your income is down and your costs are way up. Vote for me and I'll fire Nancy Pelosi, See? Cut federal spending, and together, we'll get America back on track.
@stillgray - Ian Miles Cheong
“…and the Russians are dying. That’s the best money we’ve ever spent.” — Lindsey Graham. https://t.co/mzM5DUOd25
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: Free or die?
Speaker 1: Free or die.
Speaker 0: Now you are free.
Speaker 1: Yes. And we will be. And the Russians are dying. It's the best money we've ever spent. Thank you so much.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Free or die?
Speaker 1: Free or die.
Speaker 0: Now you are free.
Speaker 1: Yes. And we will be. And the Russians are dying. It's the best money we've ever spent. Thank you so much.
That was
reSee.it AI Summary
Zelensky, Biden, and others are misusing our tax money in Ukraine. They even spend it on lavish dinners with celebrities. I'm not taking sides, but let's stop sending our hard-earned money abroad. Who agrees?
@w_terrence - Terrence K. Williams
I HATE TO BREAK THE NEWS! We are being Pimped out by Zelensky, Biden and everyone else sending Ukraine our MONEY! We work hard and they use our Taxes to launder money and Zelensky is using our money to have dinner with celebrities I’m not Pro Putin or Pro Zelensky, I’m Pro not sending our money to another country! Who’s with me
Video Transcript AI Summary
We're being pimped by Zelensky and the US government. Our hard-earned money is being sent to Ukraine, and when Zelensky gets it, he says it's not enough. We can't even afford basic necessities here, yet we're sending billions to Ukraine. Zelensky is having steak dinners with celebrities while our veterans sleep on the streets and children go hungry. It's infuriating and makes no sense. If people want Ukraine to have money, they should send their own. We need to take care of our own problems first.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Y'all, listen up. I hate to break the news, but we get pimped. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. Zelensky is a PIMP. We are getting pimped around here. Okay?
I'm sorry to let you know, but I'm getting pimped. You are getting pimped out. Okay? Because we working hard, paying taxes, and they are using our money To send to another country, to send to another man in a whole another country. And then when he get the money, he said it ain't enough, mother.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. What the it ain't enough. It no.
It's too much, partner. Run that money back. Send us our money back. And Gillespie ain't the only one pimping around here. We getting pimped by the United States government.
We getting pimped by Joe Biden. They they over here making us think that this money is helping is helping the Ukrainians and Helping Zelensky and somehow is helping us. How in the hell Is hold on. I'm I'm not it sounds so stupid. I'm trying to figure this out.
So sending our money to a whole another country is somehow helping us. That don't make no sense because right now in this country, people can't even afford to buy eggs. People can't even afford to buy chicken wings. And we sending 1,000,000,000 of dollars to Ukraine? And then Zelenskyy over here having steak dinners with celebrities?
We getting pimped around here. And then we got stupid excuse my stupid ass Americans They are happy are happy with with Biden sending Ukraine money. What? If you if you want Ukraine to have money, go to your bank. Okay?
Withdraw all your money. Withdraw all your money. Take it all out. Cash out on your money. Okay?
And then send it to Ukraine. Okay? Send them your money because they don't no. I don't want them to have mine. No.
No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. We got veterans sleep on the streets right now. We got veterans that go hungry every day.
Children in America who need help. And we sending them money? And what they doing with the money? What are they doing with the money? Not a damn thing.
Zelensky flying all over the damn world, having a good old time. Why is he meeting with celebrities During a war. Russia supposed to be taking your country, but you over here inviting celebrities down to Ukraine. I this is the this is the most yeah. You know what?
I shouldn't get riled up like this. I shouldn't get riled up like this, but it's pissing me off because it don't make no damn sense at all.
reSee.it AI Summary
The US deficit surpassing $1.5 trillion, we lack funds for Ukraine. Borrowing from China seems illogical. Rand Paul questions the ongoing $113 billion expenditure. Urgent attention needed for pressing issues in the USA.
@WallStreetSilv - Wall Street Silver
"It's as if no one has noticed that we have no extra money to send Ukraine" "Our deficit this year will exceed $1.5 trillion" "Borrowing money from China to send it to Ukraine makes no sense" Rand Paul … $113 billion and counting. Will it ever end? We have a lot issues in the USA that need attention.
Video Transcript AI Summary
We don't have any extra money to send to Ukraine, considering our massive deficit of over $1.5 trillion. Borrowing money from China to support Ukraine doesn't make sense. We don't have a rainy day fund with trillions of dollars just sitting around. Instead, we would have to borrow the money, which leads to inflation. Since Russia's war in Ukraine began, American taxpayers have already provided $113 billion to Ukraine. We have many issues in our own country that need attention before we borrow more money to fuel a war in another nation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's as if no one has noticed that we have no extra money to send to Ukraine. Our deficit this year will exceed $1,500,000,000,000. Borrowing money from China to send it to Ukraine makes no sense. It's not as if we have some sort of rainy day fund sitting around Trillions of dollars at a pot of money. We're just going to send that to Ukraine.
We're going to borrow it. When we borrow it and create new money to pay for that borrowing, We create the inflation that is plaguing our economy. Since the beginning of Russia's war in Ukraine, The American taxpayers provided Ukraine with $113,000,000,000. There's a lot of things that we need to fix in our country before we borrow money to try to perpetuate a war in another country.
reSee.it AI Summary
US taxpayers fund salaries of all 57,000 Ukrainian first responders. We also subsidize Ukrainian seeds, grain, and small businesses. But shouldn't we prioritize American farmers, small businesses, and border patrol agents? Let's be mindful of our spending. Not one more dime.
@charliekirk11 - Charlie Kirk
Did you know: US taxpayers are paying the salaries of EVERY first responder in Ukraine—all 57,000 of them. We’re also paying Ukrainian seeds and grain, which have been flooding nearby Poland. Oh and we’re subsidizing Ukrainian small businesses to keep them in business. Pretty sure there are some American farmers, small businesses, and border patrol agents that could use that money. Or better yet, let’s not spend money we don’t have! Not one more dime.
Video Transcript AI Summary
American taxpayers are not only funding weapons, but also providing support to Ukraine in various ways. This includes buying seeds and fertilizer for Ukrainian farmers, covering the salaries of all 57,000 first responders, and funding rescue operations after Russian strikes. The US also supports divers who clear unexploded ammunition from rivers, making them safe for swimming and fishing. Due to Russia's invasion, Ukraine's economy has shrunk by about a third, and to help sustain it, the US government is subsidizing small businesses.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: American taxpayers are financing more than just weapons. We discovered the US government's buying seeds and fertilizer for Ukrainian farmers and covering the salaries of Ukraine's first responders, all 57 thousand of them. That includes the team that trains this rescue dog named Joy to comb through the wreckage of Russian strikes looking for survivors and the US also funds the divers who we saw clearing unexploded ammunition from the country's rivers to make them safe again for swimming and fishing. Russia's invasion shrank Ukraine's economy by about a third. We were surprised to find that to keep it afloat, the US government is subsidizing small businesses.
@ElonMuskAOC - Elon Musk (Parody)
“Inflation in America is man-made, and that man’s name is President Joe Biden…” Do you agree?
@bennyjohnson - Benny Johnson
Senator Kennedy unleashes the most BRUTAL Senator Kennedy takedown of Biden over hyper-inflation disaster: "It's gutting the American People like a fish. It is a CANCER!" https://t.co/KtfvaEDSe5
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker expresses concern about various global issues, including conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East, and the Indo Pacific. They believe that China, Russia, and Iran are working together to dominate different regions. The speaker condemns Hamas and criticizes President Biden's handling of inflation, stating that it is hurting the American people. They provide specific examples of rising prices for consumer goods and argue that wages have not kept up with inflation. The speaker blames the Biden administration for the inflation problem and calls for action to address it. They conclude by emphasizing the importance of not losing sight of domestic problems amidst global challenges.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I think we're all aware, mister president, that, that parts of our world are on fire. The world is on fire in Ukraine and Eastern Europe. The world is on fire in the Middle East. I wouldn't describe the world as being on fire in the Indo Pacific, But there's certainly embers and they are smoldering. And I think it's it's, it's clear to most Americans, mister president, that, President Xi in China, President Putin and Russia and the Ayatollah in Iran are working together, And their objective is to have Russia dominate Central and Eastern Europe, To have the Ayatollah in Iran dominate the Middle East, The Ayatollah, of course, is funded and supports Hamas.
There's no cause in the world. None that can justify what Hamas did to the innocent people of Israel. The people of Hamas are so evil, they will kill you and drink your blood out of a boot. And President Xi and President Putin and the iatollah and Iran are just fine with that. And the 3rd objective of China, Russia, and Iran is to allow China to dominate the Indo Pacific and be free to make moves in Sub Saharan Africa and in South America.
Parts of the world are on fire. America is about to find out what it is made of, because the world I just described is not a world that's safe for America. But as we meet these challenges, mister President, and by God, we will meet them. We will meet them. While we're doing that, mister president, I don't want Us to forget about our homeland.
We've got a lot of problems domestically That and I don't want us to lose sight of them. I think about them every day. I know you do too, mister president. We still be be we still have millions of Americans who are too poor to be sick, despite the fact that we have the best quality of health care in America, in all of human history. Notice I didn't say that we have the best way of delivering that healthcare, but we have the best quality of healthcare in all of human history.
But we've got people in this country, many of them are middle class, were too poor to be sick. Since the Affordable Care Act passed, we were told it was gonna make our lives better. It was gonna It was gonna make health insurance more accessible and cheaper since the Affordable Healthcare Act is passed. Health insurance premiums have tripled. We also know domestically, mister president, that our border is an open bleeding wound.
It is an open bleeding wound. And it is within the power of this Congress to fix that. But none of those domestic problems that I just described, and I could continue with others as I know you could too, mister president, It's hurting the American people as much as President Biden's inflation, not a single one. President Biden's inflation is gutting The American people like a fish. It is a cancer, a cancer on the American dream.
In my state alone, In Louisiana, we're not a wealthy state. My people were Pretty middle class. They get up every day. They go to work. They obey them all.
They try to do the right thing by their kids, try to save a little for retirement. The median household income for a family of 4 in my states, $55,000 a year. A lot of states are above us, some are below us. President Biden's inflation, which is man made, and that man's name is Joe Biden, It's costing my people, the average Louisiana family, $806. Not a year, a month.
$806 a month, that's $9,700 a year. Now imagine if you were making $55,000 Year. And you've got to come out of pocket with an extra $9,700 a year. You both through your savings, you max out your credit card, you borrow from your children's College education plan, you borrow from relatives, and then what do you do? Now I know what some of my colleagues are thinking, but, Kennedy, we're doing better on inflation and we are.
And I am so thankful. A year ago, inflation in this country was 8.2%. Today is 3.7%, and I am so happy, and I hope it continues to go down. But it it is important for us to remember what that means, a reduction of inflation from 8.2% To 3.7%, which is still, of course, too high, just means that inflation is rising less rapidly. We still have inflation.
Prices prices are still high. They're just not going and they continue to go up. They're just not going up as quickly as they were. Now that's a good thing, But it doesn't solve the problem. That's what we call disinflation.
When inflation is rising and we stop it from rising so quickly, that's called disinflation. But that's not what most Americans care about, though that's important to them. What they care about is the prices going down And that's deinflation. And we do not have deinflation. The point I'm trying to make is we're stuck with these high prices.
If they get inflation down to 0, those hot prices are not going down. They're gonna remain the same, mister president. They're just going not going to rise as quickly. We are stuck. The American people are stuck with these high prices because of the Biden administration.
Now I could I could cite you, mister president, all the sterile statistics you would like. But I want I want I want to I want to try to describe in Specific terms, what it's like for my people to go to the grocery store. To have to this is an exaggeration but not by much. To have to think about, well, do I have to sell blood plasma today in order to go to the grocery store? Do I have to to draw down on the on the the 2nd mortgage on my home in order to go to the grocery store.
Since president Biden has been in office, Consumer goods in the United States of America are up seven 15%. Electricity is up 25%. Eggs are up 29%. They're not going down, folks. Even if inflation goes to 0, Those prices aren't going down.
Potato chips, up 30%, bread, up 28%, Coffee, 30%, rice, 26%, flowers, up 28%, milk, 18%. A half gallon of ice cream, 21%, chicken, 20%. When you look at larger categories, this is what's happening to the American people. Since President Biden took office, Since president Biden took office, all goods and many services And the wealthiest country in all of human history are up 17%. Food's up 20%.
Housing is up 17%. Clothing is up 12%. Used cars and trucks are up 25%. New cars and trucks are up 20%, And mortgage rates are up a 174%. A 174%.
Now some may be saying, well, but wages are going up too. Thank goodness. In some cases, wages have gone up. But the average wage of the average American has gone down after inflation. You don't look the best the the appropriate way to look at wage increases is not to look At the raw or the aggregate increase, it's to look it it's it's it's looking at the the, the increase after inflation.
And if you take all of the average wage increases in the United States of America And you look at the average inflation in the United States of America, workers have actually lost ground. Workers today in November of 2023 are actually making less per hour after inflation than they were of February 2021. So don't let anybody tell you that wages have made up for this. They haven't kept up with inflation. And don't let Anybody tell you, mister president, that we're winning the war on high prices.
We are getting inflation down. No thanks. No thanks to the Biden administration and quite frankly, the United States Congress. That's thanks to the Federal Reserve. They have tightened interest rates, which has hurt a lot of people, but they have gotten inflation down.
They've had to do it with 1 arm tied 1 arm tied behind their backs because the other way you attack inflation and the only way we've ever Trustfully gotten down is to have Congress do its part and that and reduce the rate of growth of spending and debt accumulation. But we haven't done that. We haven't done that. In fact, since 2019, the population of the United States of America is up 1.9%. Our country's grown 2% since 2019.
You know how much our budget has grown? 55%. This inflation is man made And the man's name is Joe Biden. And we need to address. So as we fight a a hostile world, which day by day is becoming less safe for the for the American people.
I don't want us to lose sight, mister president, of another problem, an equally important problem That is stealing the American dream and is called President Biden's Inflation. Mister president, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
reSee.it AI Summary
Tucker Carlson criticizes neocons advocating for continued funding for Ukraine, highlighting that we've spent over $6 billion in Afghanistan since our withdrawal, raising questions about the expenditure. He notes that interest on our debt may soon surpass military spending, hinting at impending bankruptcy. Carlson points out that we've allocated more than double the amount for Ukraine than for our own infrastructure. He emphasizes that our tax dollars are supporting salaries of politicians in Ukraine, including those who may not even exist, and mentions the $5 trillion printed during Covid.
@MJTruthUltra - MJTruthUltra
https://t.co/xsfOiora1y Tucker Carlson eviscerates all the neocons still pushing the funding for Ukraine Thomas Massie dropped a nugget that Special Inspector General in Afghanistan shared that we’ve spent $6 Billion in Afghanistan since we left. ON WHAT? I specifically liked his debt clock pin that he was wearing. 👀 • The interest on all this is going to overtake all of our military spending, soon paying more interest on the debt than all of our military— Tucker: “Another word for that is bankruptcy.” 👀 • We’ve spent more than double in Ukraine that we have on our own roads and bridges • Our tax dollars are paying the salaries of politicians and their pensions in Ukraine. • Our tax dollars are funding salaries if people that don’t even exist • We printed $5 trillion dollars during Covid out of thin air and borrowed it from ourselves, filtered through the banks to legitimize it.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Apologies are often harder for those responsible for larger tragedies. While minor accidents prompt immediate apologies, significant actions, like wars, lead to denial of responsibility. The ongoing war in Ukraine exemplifies this, as support from the U.S. has not yielded the promised outcomes. Instead, it has weakened the U.S. while prolonging a conflict that many believe Ukraine cannot win. Congressman Thomas Massie highlights the financial irresponsibility of U.S. spending on Ukraine, which exceeds federal infrastructure budgets. He criticizes the military-industrial complex's influence on Congress, suggesting that funding is often tied to political interests rather than genuine support for Ukraine. Additionally, he raises concerns about the implications of recruiting foreign nationals into the military and the monopolization of the meat industry, advocating for legislation to allow local farmers to sell directly to consumers.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Ever notice how the bigger the tragedy is, the harder it is for the people responsible to apologize? If I rear end your car and crease your bumper, I'm happy to jump out and say, I'm sorry. I can't believe I did that. But if I were to say invade Iraq under false treat pretenses and kill a 1000000 people and spend a 1,000,000,000,000 of your dollars doing it, I wouldn't say a word. I would never admit that was a bad idea.
I couldn't. It implicates me too profoundly. The same goes for if I say locked your kids inside for a year and destroyed their brains and prevent them from getting an education or if I say forced you to take a vax that didn't work that very well might have hurt you. I could never admit that I did that. I just couldn't because if I admitted it, I'd have to suffer the consequences.
Something very much like that is happening with the war in Ukraine, which has been in progress now for almost 2 years. We were told at the beginning that our support would allow Ukraine to beat Russia and keep Russia from invading the rest of Europe or something. Well, almost 2 years in, none of that has turned out to be true. Ukraine is not going to beat Russia. The only person who's been beaten in this is the United States.
The US is weaker, measurably weaker because of our support for Ukraine in this war. That's just true. The verdict is in, and honest, rational people admit that no matter what their previous position. But the Biden administration cannot admit that, and neither can the US Congress. And so now there is, believe it or not, an effort in progress to get the US government to send another 60 odd $1,000,000,000 to the oligarchs in Ukraine.
So another generation of Ukrainian men, this one probably in their fifties, can die in a pointless war on the battlefield. They're not going to win, but the US Congress would like to keep this conflict going anyway. So you'd think someone would stand up and say this is awful, but almost nobody has. Why? Because the position of the administration is if you're not in favor of this, sending under $60,000,000,000 to the oligarchs in Ukraine, then you're working for Vladimir Putin.
Watch the national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, say that out loud. I wanna ask a question about Ukraine. Are you saying that any member of congress who votes against aid to Ukraine is voting for Putin?
Speaker 1: I believe that any member of congress who does not support funding for Ukraine is voting for an outcome that will make it easier for Putin to prevail. That is a vote against supporting Ukraine is a vote to improve Putin's strategic position. That's just an inescapable reality. That's not speaking to someone's motive, why they chose to vote against it. That's just speaking to the outcome of their vote.
A vote against supplemental funding for Ukraine will hurt Ukraine and help Russia. It will hurt democracy and help dictators.
Speaker 0: These people cannot see themselves. A lady in a mask, presumably not on her way to rob a liquor store, but wearing it for health reasons, asked the national security adviser about the moral implications of a vote in the congress, and he says with a straight face, anyone who doesn't support this legislation is helping Putin. It's insanity, but it's intimidated almost the entirety of the US congress and certainly the Republican leadership, which is foursquare on the side of the Biden administration to continue this tragedy. There are very few members of congress who dissent, and one of them who has done so consistently and in the most articulate possible way and on principle has been congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky who we wanted to talk to about this and also to thank for his bravery and steadfastness. Congressman, thank you so much for coming on.
It might I mean, I have so many questions, but it well, why don't you just tell us why you're not voting for this?
Speaker 2: Well, we can't afford it. Look. At, some point, I realized we had spent more in Ukraine than we spend on all our roads and bridges in the United States, and I tweeted that. And Newsweek did a fact check on me, and what they found out is it was true. And, you know, when you get the fact checkers to admit that a conservative when they give them a, mostly true rating, it's a metaphysical certainty.
And since then, we've spent twice as much in Ukraine as we do on all of our roads and bridges federally in the United States. That is money that could have gone to double our infrastructure, yet we're blowing up infrastructure that we're gonna end up I hate this, but they're gonna tell us that we have to rebuild it when this is all over with.
Speaker 0: It it the scale of this insanity is is hard to digest and I think whatever empire comes after ours will spend time studying it, you know, what not to do. But you gotta wonder, like, why is the leadership of your party, the Republican Party, in favor of this? Why the new speaker seems like a nice guy, but also like a child? What why why would his first act as speaker be to endorse this? I'm confused.
Speaker 2: Well, I hope he doesn't, but, you know, Biden's budget director, the head of the OMB sent a letter yesterday to speaker Mike Johnson imploring him to spend more money in Ukraine and what they said is they wanna revitalize our defense industrial base. It's, that's the new acronym, DIB for the MIC, the military industrial complex, and they sent a list of states that would get money when we spend, you know, money on deadly munitions because they have to be manufactured in Alabama or Ohio or Texas. And so, you know, they're saying the quiet part out loud that congressmen tend to vote for this stuff because a lot of this federal spending that goes to Ukraine is actually laundered back to the military industrial complex. And in some ways, not very efficiently, but in some ways, it enriches people in their districts and the stockholders, some of whom are congressmen.
Speaker 0: I you sort of that's also grotesque, but it's also straightforward. You know, people are getting rich, so let's do it. Okay. That's an argument. It's an immoral argument, but it is one.
But that's not the argument they're making in public. They're saying we have a moral obligation. You're a bad person. You just heard the national security adviser say that you're a bad person if you're against this, but no one ever mentions that we have abetted the killing of an entire generation of Ukrainian men that will not be replaced to fight a war that they cannot win. They literally cannot win.
We prevented a peace deal, and we extended the war, and we killed all these people. And so all the ones running around with their little Ukraine flag pins, they're implicated in that. Has anyone apologized?
Speaker 2: No. To support this money, you have to be economically illiterate and morally deficient. Those are both conditions of voting for this. Because to say that we're gonna grind down Russia, that we're gonna deplete their own soldiers by expanding the lives of Ukrainians knowing that in the end, we're gonna leave them holding the bag. That in the end, they can never prevail.
They're not gonna take back Crimea even though we we say that's one of the goals, when when we can get them to state goals, which usually they won't. So it's it's morally reprehensible to say that you should fund this. And by the way, he says I'm a friend of Putin because I won't vote for this money. Well, I would say that I'm a friend of Americans and I'm putting America first, but he's part of, I would say, Putin's reelection, campaign because Putin is a cold war relic that was elected in response to our cold war relic, which is NATO. By expanding NATO, the neo cons and the the liberals where every time they push NATO closer to Russia, they help people like Putin get elected.
Speaker 0: It's, you know, outside our borders, it's very obvious that the whole world is resetting and that American influence is in very rapid decline. Thanks in large part to this war in Ukraine, and that Russia is now joining this coalition, which will be the majority of the world's population and economy and military strength aligned against us. So this is resetting the world to our disadvantage. Again, leave the country. It's obvious your first day that this is happening very fast.
Does anyone in Washington see that?
Speaker 2: No. There are very few. You know, I've been voting against these resolutions in Ukraine and the money going to Ukraine since 2014. In 2014, we helped to overthrow their elected government and we were saber rattling against Russia. And I said, listen, these sanctions and this saber rattling and these resolutions, they're gonna have consequences and they have had consequences.
Almost nobody in Washington DC will admit this through their voting record. Now they know it but they won't admit it and they won't vote that way.
Speaker 0: Do do you think it's strange that, you know, the single maybe the single most consequential voice in this entire debate is a woman called Toria Nuland, who's the undersecretary of state, who's a driving force behind the war in Iraq, which was, of course, a disaster and hurt the United States. She was never punished for that. In fact, she she rose within the bureaucracy, and now she's running this war in Ukraine. And no one ever says her name. She's never held to account for all of this.
She has far more influence on it than the entire United States Congress put together. What how do we allow unelected lunatics like Toria Nuland, who clearly hates the United States and always has, to have this power over our lives and our children's future.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I feel like some of these deep state bureaucrats, they're like the kids who had no friends in high school and somebody did something bad to them long ago and now they got some power and they realize how to to grab it and they're gonna they're gonna have retribution on everybody else. Victoria Nuland was at a at a classified briefing to all members of congress just a few weeks ago and I thought and this was on Israel. And I thought, wait, she's failed multiple times. Why are you dragging her out to she has no credibility.
Why are you having her brief congress right now?
Speaker 0: I mean, she's responsible or shares responsibility in the deaths of more people around the world than maybe any other living American, and yet she's in a classified briefing. I mean, I'm not saying she should be in prison, though you could certainly make a case for that, but she certainly should not have a security clearance and be briefing members of congress. Did anybody say, wait a second. There's nobody more discredited than you are, Toria Nuland. Did anyone say that?
Speaker 2: Nobody did. By the way, these classified briefings are basically propaganda spoon fed to members of congress directly from the deep state and from the administration. So, we're gonna have one today, in fact, on Ukraine. We will we will all file into an auditorium and leave our cell phones at the door. And, we're just, you know, I'm sure this is gonna be sort of a psyop or struggle session to get us to vote for more money to go to Ukraine.
Speaker 0: I just I don't understand why the coequal branch of government, the legislative branch, the congress allows itself to be manipulated by the intel agencies and the National Security Council. It seems like really crazy and masochistic even.
Speaker 2: Well, listen. A lot of this money too isn't just going to leave late anymore. We're propping up the government. We're paying salaries of of politicians in Ukraine and we're paying pensions of politicians in Ukraine. Yesterday, I met with the inspector general special inspector general over Afghanistan, and I found out we spent $6,000,000,000 there since we left.
There's still money going to Afghanistan and I and he said, you know, you really need he doesn't want the job, but he said you really need a special inspector general over Ukraine. And I said, what do you think where where could they be hiding some of this money or where could it be going? And he said, well, look at what they did in Afghanistan. 30 or 40% of the special, you you know, the police in Afghanistan, their security forces didn't exist. We were paying salaries for people who were on the payroll, but they weren't real people.
And now that we're paying salaries in Ukraine, how do we know that those are real people? As a matter of fact, we saw with the PPP program in the United States, people were getting money to pay people that weren't even on their payroll. So there are lots of obvious places to look for waste, fraud, and abuse. I wouldn't be funding it to start with. But if we are gonna fund it, we need to have somebody auditing this.
Speaker 0: I it's such a humiliating way to end the American empire such a self destructive way. I don't think people fully understand just how deep in the hole we are. I noticed that on on your blazer, you've got some kind of device which I I think tells us the answer. Can you explain it?
Speaker 2: Yeah. So, you know, I went to MIT. I'm electrical engineer and I wondered how I could use my degree here in congress and I decided to build a debt clock that I could wear all the time. I wear it on the floor. I wear it in every hearing and the the design goal was to induce anxiety.
You know, we have congressmen and senators who have pacemakers. I thought they needed it. Their their heart shouldn't be normal. It should be skipping beats and rhythmic. So I built this to induce that anxiety.
It's working pretty well so far. In fact, some congressmen, they vote, they put their voting card in, they press yay to spend the money, and then they look at my lapel to see, if it if it's immediate enough to show the impact of their vote. But really, we need more people to be concerned about the debt. The interest on this is now gonna overtake all of our military spending. We'll soon be paying more for interest on the debt than we do for our entire military.
Speaker 0: So that's another word for that is bankruptcy. It can't I mean, because these are math questions. It can't continue indefinitely. In fact, I think we can see the end of it on the horizon. Is anyone afraid?
Speaker 2: No. I don't think so. I think, the only way we're gonna get any kind of austerity or reality in our spending is when the people who loan us the money quit loaning it to us. Right. And what we'll go into is a spiral there.
Like we did during COVID, we printed $5,000,000,000,000, created it out of thin air and borrowed it from ourselves to make it look legitimate, filtered it through the banks so they could get some of the money too. And, that's why we're why we have inflation. I'm sorry. It's that simple. Again, you have to be economically illiterate if you think that throwing another $5,000,000,000,000 into the money supply isn't gonna cause inflation.
That's what we have. It's it's long lasting. Now, you know, the Fed was supposed to be the firefighter but they're really the arsonist and they're coming in and they're raising interest rates and they've raised them to the point where it's gonna be hard to, you know, buy a car or move into a house.
Speaker 0: So I don't think you'll make us feel better when you answer this question, but is Ukraine funding I mean, this will become law, I assume.
Speaker 2: I don't see any way to stop it. There is some discussion here in congress about tying it to security on our border. The problem is I think if you give Biden more money for the border, he'll just process more illegal so called refugees into the United States quicker. There is talk about limiting it to just lethal aid and telling Europe that you've got to prop up the government of Ukraine, but I doubt that'll happen. You know, there may be some they may try to try tie some strings to it, but I think the money is gonna go through anyway, and I'm worried about that.
It's just gonna again, 60 what what Biden has asked for? $60,000,000,000? That's how much we spend federally on all roads and bridges in a year in this country.
Speaker 0: I I have to ask you an unrelated question. I don't I don't know if you're prepared for it or not. But so the the military has a problem, with recruitment, and the military said pretty clearly we don't want any more white men who, you know, fought all of our wars. We don't want any more of them, and then drove a lot of people out with with the COVID requirements, with the mandates. Now we have tens of millions of military age foreign nationals here illegally.
There have been calls in the congress for those people to join the military to fill the gap. So you could wind up with the military filled with people who are not Americans and have no loyalty to this country or knowledge of American history or affinity for the culture, and then and then you're Rome and then you collapse. Do you think that you will hear more calls in the congress to solve the recruitment crisis with illegal aliens?
Speaker 2: I think you will, and I think it's a horrible idea. And you you characterized the the vaccine mandate correctly. That was a purge. That was an ideological purge of our military. It was it was a, loyalty test to a liberal agenda.
It's sort of like taking the the sacrament, in the in the religion of COVID. And if you wouldn't take the sacrament, then you had to, you know, leave the military and now they're dealing with that. A lot of good people were forced out. I mean, pilots who had 1,000,000 of dollars of training, special operators, you know, and it's sad now that, like you said, we're bringing in people with a different loyalty or no loyalty at all if that if those senators get their way.
Speaker 0: It's it's absolutely terrifying. Last question, a topic that most people aren't thinking about, I certainly don't understand, but I know you're focused on it, so it's probably important. And that's meat. And you've got a piece of legislation that will address what you think is a problem with the way the US government regulates meat. Will you tell us what it is?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely. I've got a bill called the Prime Act and it's in response to the fact that 85% of the meat that served in the United States is processed by 1 of 4 meat packers and one of them is owned by China, one of them is owned by Brazil. So there's this monopoly on the meat industry. And the irony is farmers can't sell directly to consumers in their own counties, in their own states.
They have to ship these things across the country. And, it's it's affecting the nutrition of our food, the safety of our food. So what my bill says is if the farmer is and the consumer and the local processor are all in the same state, if there's no interstate commerce involved, then get the feds out of it. And, I've got some good news to report. We're making some progress on the PRIME Act.
I may get some portion of it in the farm bill. I've been fighting for this for 5 or 6 years ever since they got rid of country of origin labeling on meat in the United States. I I realized that this was something that I needed to get done. So we're working on it. We got good success.
And, even working across the aisle, I've got Democrats who are helping to sponsor this. In fact, the main sponsor in the senate, you, you may be able to guess this, is Angus King. He actually sounds like a a a beef offering at at one of the local fast food places.
Speaker 0: He does actually. Foreign control of our food supply is a bad idea and I hope everyone recognizes that. I mean, come on. Yeah. K.
Congressman Look.
Speaker 2: This would be in the bill of rights if it weren't so obvious.
Speaker 0: Well, that's exactly right. It ought to be. It's great to see you. Thank you for your bravery and the clarity of your positions, and I I hope people listen to you. Thomas Massey of Kentucky.
Thanks.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Rand Paul gets it: "Borrowing money from China to send it to Ukraine makes no sense. It makes us weaker, not stronger." https://t.co/VX0WKMVdfd
Video Transcript AI Summary
Borrowing more money to send to Ukraine is irresponsible and weakens us. Congress doesn't care about the debt because it's not their money. Milton Friedman's statement holds true: nobody spends someone else's money as wisely as their own. The big spenders in Congress won't use their own money. Americans should take notice and blame these wasteful spenders.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But it's irresponsible to simply borrow more money. To borrow the money from China simply to send it to Ukraine makes no sense and makes us weaker, not stronger. But let's be honest, most of Congress doesn't seem to care about the debt, doesn't seem to care how much money we shovel out the door and out of the country. Why? Because it's not their money.
Every day, Milton Friedman statement is proven correct that nobody spends somebody else's money as wisely as their own. I doubt the big spenders in Congress will ever consider spending any of their own money, but Americans across the land should sit up and notice and attach blame to these profligate spenders.
@hodgetwins - Hodgetwins
Y’all realize how crazy it is that Biden just sent another $200 mil to Ukraine? We’re $33 trillion in debt 🤡 https://t.co/nafAsdflMH
Video Transcript AI Summary
I just signed a $200,000,000 drawdown from the Department of Defense for Ukraine. It will be coming quickly. Thank you.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you. And before the press Before the press Before the press Woah. Woah. Hush up a second. Okay?
Got one more thing to say. I just signed another $200,000,000 drawdown from the Department of Defense for Ukraine, And that'll be coming quickly. Thank you. Thank you. Well, that
reSee.it AI Summary
We provide significant funding to Ukraine, covering various expenses including teacher and janitor salaries, not just military support. It's important to remember that the salaries of everyone in our country are funded by taxpayers. However, some argue that we should stop sending money to Ukraine, claiming they have already lost.
@WallStreetSilv - Wall Street Silver
"We are funding one-third of Ukraine's government" "That includes teacher salaries and janitor salaries, not just the military" "Everybody's salary is funded by the US taxpayer" "The people in our country are deciding between food and medicine" 🔊 … 🚨🚨🚨 Stop sending our $$$ to Ukraine. It is over, they lost.
Video Transcript AI Summary
We fund one third of Ukraine's government, which includes salaries for teachers, janitors, and everyone else, not just the military. Meanwhile, people in our country are struggling to afford basic necessities like food and medicine. We need to focus on our own problems instead of paying for their government. Our priority should be to stop the killing and provide American leadership, rather than giving more money without any conditions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We are funding 1 third of Ukraine's government. That includes teacher salaries, janitor salaries, everybody's not just the military. Everybody's salaries are funded by the US taxpayers as the people in our country are deciding between food or medicine.
Speaker 1: Right now, people in Ohio can't afford
Speaker 0: just Food. Young people can't
Speaker 1: afford to buy homes. We're paying for their government. You're exactly right. We've gotta focus on our own problems. And, Laura, just The thing that is in our best interest is to get the killing to stop.
That's what we should be doing with American leadership, not writing more blank checks to enlist people.
Speaker 0: Lecture, lecture your
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
When US senators get together in private, do any of them ever admit that sending half a trillion dollars to Ukrainian oligarchs is a bad idea? As it turns out, no they don’t. JD Vance explains. https://t.co/4GCORwdGVc
Video Transcript AI Summary
The war in Ukraine is in a destructive phase, with Russia having the advantage. The Biden administration is now reducing military funding for Ukraine, aiming for the country to eventually stand on its own. However, the idea of Ukraine rebuilding its industrial base seems unrealistic. JD Vance, a US senator, pointed out Ukraine's corruption and questioned the massive financial support it receives. He estimated that the war could cost the US around $500 billion, with no significant progress made. Ukraine's population has decreased, and the country relies on welfare from the US and NATO. Vance criticized the notion that NATO would cover the expenses, as it is unlikely.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The war in Ukraine has officially entered its pointlessly destructive phase. And, of course, anything that is pointlessly destructive is by definition evil, but that's where we are. Ukraine can't win. Russia has a much larger population and much deeper industrial capacity. That was obvious within hours of the outbreak of the war, And it's undeniable now.
That leaves the Biden administration in a very strange place because, of course, Joe Biden has pledged Your support, your money, potentially your children, to Zelensky for quote as long as it takes. But that doesn't make any sense. United States has no more money to give Ukraine or anyone else. And so That promise has to be walked back and slowly it is being walked back. So the State Department spokesman the other day was asked, How long do we support Ukraine, and what does that support look like?
And he said, well, actually, we're gonna start giving Zelensky less money. Here it is.
Speaker 1: We have always made clear that we want Ukraine to be an independent country, and that means that can stand on, that can stand on its own 2 feet. We will continue to support Ukraine. It is the policy of the United States as it takes? As long as it takes. That does not mean that we are gonna continue to Support them at the same level of military funding that we did in, 2022 and 2023.
We don't think that should be necessary because the goal is To ultimately transition Ukraine, to use the language that you, repeated back, to to stand on its own feet and to help Ukraine build its own industrial base and its own military industrial base so it can both finance and build and acquire, munitions, on its own. But we are not there yet. And that is why it is so critical that Congress passed the supplemental funding bill because we are not yet at the point where Ukraine can defend itself just based on its own.
Speaker 0: Do you see that? It's almost worth watching that twice. Notice that he looks down, which is what you do when you're lying, which of course he is. Here's what's not a lie. And Crane's gonna rebuild its industrial base.
Really? An entire generation has been slaughtered. The country is a wreck. How is that going to happen? Oh well BlackRock will rebuild its industrial debates and lots of other donors to the Democratic Party that's the real point of course.
So this is super obvious to anyone who's watching. The weird thing is no one in Washington is saying it out loud, except really for 1 US senator from the state of Ohio called JD Vance. And recently he pointed out what has been again obvious for 2 years now that Ukraine is the most corrupt country in Europe, nobody denies That except in this country and that Zelensky whatever his merits is probably not the guy you should send 100 of 1,000,000,000 of dollars to. Well his colleagues went crazy. They love Zelensky.
They love him on a personal level. These are people with very weird sex lives who are transferring in some cases some of their Personal desires on to Zelensky that adorable little bear. So they got mad at JD Vance for saying that. Watch this clip and ask yourself does JD Vance deserve that rage or was he telling the truth?
Speaker 2: We're getting easily a half a $1,000,000,000 in the whole for the Ukraine conflict by the time this is done and Steve at the very same time you have people in this town saying we need to cut Social Security. There are people who would cut Social Security throw our grandparents into poverty. Why? So that one of the Zelensky's ministers can buy a bigger yacht. Kiss my ass Steve it's not happening.
Speaker 0: So they hated when he said that. In fact one of his colleagues who gets along with apparently pretty well immediately denounced that as bullshit, But of course didn't in any way rebut it and of course when they get mad it's usually because you're telling the truth. We thought we would ask J. D. Vance directly.
Senator Vance Joins us now. We're happy he is. Senator, thanks so much for coming on. So the most striking thing about that exchange you had Was the number that you put the price tag that you threw out there. Can you just slowly explain what you think this war will cost the United States all in?
Speaker 2: Yeah. So, of course, Tucker, it's impossible to say because every single day this goes on, we we spend more money. Not just the money that's obvious and and meets the headlines, But also the stuff that we're putting ourselves all in for for rebuilding costs and so forth. So let me just give you a sense of of what I mean here. The headline number of what we spent on Ukraine is a $120,000,000,000.
The Biden administration is asking for another $61,000,000,000, and a lot of senate, even Republicans seem hell bent On giving him that money, that's a $180,000,000,000 just right there. Now what that doesn't include is if this thing goes on for a year or 2 beyond that, It also doesn't include what's called presidential drawdown authority, where let's say, Joe Biden gives weapons that were manufactured in the United States or somewhere else, Gives them to to to Zelensky. They can use weird accounting gimmicks to understate how many resources have actually been given. So If we've given a $120,000,000,000 at a headline number thus far, it's probably closer to a 150 or even a $160,000,000,000. That is partially a guess, but it's an informed guess.
The other thing, Tucker, is that we we're gonna we we've already told people in no uncertain terms that we're gonna rebuild this Country, you hear things like a Marshall Plan for Ukraine, whether it's implemented by BlackRock or overseen by BlackRock. We're talking about an an Additional 200, 300, maybe $400,000,000,000, to rebuild this country. Already, Tucker, the Ukrainians are unable to pay their pensioners. They're critical Parts of the Ukrainian state, you know, things like fixing the roads, ambulance services, pension provisions that the Ukrainians can't provide for themselves at this point. So When you when you take this all in, Tucker, I I really think that even if the war ended, let's say, 6 months from now, the all in cost of the American tax spare is gonna be about a half a $1,000,000,000,000.
Again, that it is that is a guess, but it's an informed guess based on what we've already spent and what we might be expected to spend in the future. It's a catastrophic sum of money. When you think about Tucker, what it's accomplished, which is that we basically turned Ukraine into a rump And this can't be overstated. The goal here was always to turn Ukraine into an independent ally They could stand against the Russian. Now set to the side whether, this is this is a goal worth spending $500,000,000,000 for.
I don't think that it is, but but even if you assume that goal as the policy of the United States of America, we have not accomplished anything close to it. The country has gone from about 40,000,000 people to 28,000,000 people. A ton of prime age men. I mean, men in the in the prime of their lives here, have been killed or wounded or maimed. They'll never be functional people ever again, and that is what we have accomplished It has become a rough state that will become a permanent welfare client of the United States of America and of NATO, but but I I I I I joke almost when I say that NATO is gonna pick up the tab here because we all know they won't.
@Baklava_USA - 🇺🇸 ʟᴇғᴛ ᴄᴏᴀˢᴛ ᴠᴀɢʀᴀɴᴛ 🇺🇸
Rand Paul has had enough: "Open the champagne, pop the cork! The Senate Democrat leader and the Republican leader are on their way to Kyiv! They're taking your money to Kyiv!" https://t.co/v4MGV4iQ5y
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Senate leaders are heading to Kyiv with $61 billion, possibly in cash, while our border is being invaded by 800,000 illegal immigrants in the last month. They had no time or money to address the border issue, but managed to prepare the money, load the planes, and get ready for their trip to Kyiv.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Pain, pop the cork. The senate democrat leader and the republican leader are on their way to Kyiv. They've got 60 $1,000,000,000 they're bringing. I don't know if it'll be cash and pallets, but they're taking your money to Kyiv. Of.
Now they didn't have much time, really no time and no money to do anything about our border. We're being invaded. A literal invasion's coming across our border. 800,000 people came illegally in the last month, and and all they had time to do in the senate was get the money, get the cash pallets, load the planes, get the champagne ready, and and fly to Kyiv.
@RochelleAz - Rochellemaryn 🌹🕊️
Tucker Carlson on X Ep. Just dropped. JD Vance is trying to stop another $60 BILLION of American Tax payer dollars from going to Ukraine. Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell should hang there heads in shame for trying to deceive Americans. Listen 👇🏻👇🏻 https://t.co/k3mNOvHfyn
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ukraine cannot win its war against Russia, even with extensive Western support. The situation is dire, with a significant loss of life among Ukrainians. Recently, the U.S. Senate proposed sending an additional $60 billion to Ukraine, despite its corrupt government and ongoing issues. There's a chance to stop this legislation in the Senate, but if it passes, the House could potentially improve or reject it. This funding not only supports Ukraine for 2024 but also ties future presidents' hands, limiting their diplomatic options. Many senators seem to believe prolonging the war serves Ukraine's interests, ignoring the reality that it leads to further destruction and suffering. Ultimately, the motivations appear to align more with military contractors than the well-being of Ukrainians.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It became very clear to anyone paying attention several months ago that Ukraine cannot win its war against Russia. The Ukrainian military will not be able, even with western backing 100 of 1,000,000,000 of dollars of it, to expel the Russian military from parts of Eastern Ukraine. Ukraine doesn't have the industrial capacity, neither does NATO or the United States, and it doesn't have the people. Russia has a 100,000,000 more in population than Ukraine does. And that means that further support from the West for the Ukrainian military only means more dead Ukrainians and a further degraded Western economy in the US and in Germany, particularly.
So it's not simply a fool's errand. It's self destruction. It's insane. It's cruel. It's abetting the killing of an entire generation of Ukrainians.
This is very obvious. No honest person at this point will deny it. And yet somehow the United States Senate, which is always several years behind reality and its perception just a few weeks ago decided to send another $60,000,000,000 to the Ukrainian government, which is both corrupt and authoritarian. They've canceled elections. They banned an entire Christian denomination, and then they killed an American journalist for noting any of this.
And yet, the United States Senate proposed under Mitch McConnell a plan to send another $60,000,000,000 to Ukraine. Well, imagine the surprise. Well, all rational people around the world to wake up this morning and discover this could actually happen. And so with that in mind, we thought it'd be worth talking to one of the very few Republican senators who's bothered to make the counter case, and that would be JD Vance of Ohio who joins us now from the United States. Senator, thanks so much for coming on.
If you wouldn't mind telling us where this legislation is right now, what you expect to happen, and what you think should happen.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Tucker. So there are 2 big things that will happen here. So tonight, we will clear a major procedural vote or we won't. So this is really the best opportunity tonight to kill this legislation. Encourage everybody to do everything that they can, contact everyone they can to ensure that we actually do kill the legislation.
It is very close. The Democrats have banded together with 17 Republicans. We only need 8 of those Republicans to flip their vote to kill this thing, and I think that we'll get at least 1, who will in fact flip their votes. So that that that's where it sits in the Senate. The second thing and frankly, the best opportunity we have to kill this is in the house, and that's part of what I'm trying to do is notify people about how bad this legislation is, so that after it clears the Senate, if it does, then it goes to the House and the House has a real opportunity to at least make it better, but hopefully kill it.
And I I wanna say just just a couple of things here, Tucker, that are extremely important to know about this legislation. Number 1, is that it sends $61,000,000,000 to Ukraine to fund, as you said, a hopeless war in Eastern Europe that will decimate the Ukrainian population even more than it's already been decimated. So it's a terrible terrible piece of legislation on the policy. The second thing I wanna say, Tucker, though, is that it doesn't just fund Ukraine in 2024, and this is the most important point. It actually funds Ukraine in 25 and 26.
Now, what's the problem with that? Say, for example, that we have a new president in 2025, that president would be handcuffed by the promises that we are making in law to Ukraine today. If you go back to to 2019, Tucker, to sort of give you a sense of why this matters. In 2019, the US House impeached then President Donald Trump on the theory that they had appropriated money to Ukraine and Donald Trump refused to send it to Ukraine. So if Trump is elected President again and become President on January of 2025, he will conduct diplomacy and if that diplomacy does not include sending additional 1,000,000,000 to Ukraine, there is a theoretical argument, a predicate, if you will, for impeaching Donald Trump because they have tried to tie his hands.
And the final point I'll make on this, Tucker, is that the Washington Post has already has already said, based on leaks from inside the intel community, the purpose of this legislation is to tie a future President Trump's hands. We're not just sending 1,000,000,000 to Ukraine in 2024, we're trying to make it impossible for the next president to conduct diplomacy on his terms. It's anti democratic and it will lead to endless war in the all over the world.
Speaker 0: So the political calculation behind this seems incredibly dark, so does the humanitarian effect. I noticed that no one on Capitol Hill seems interested in finding out how many have died in this war. Reliable estimates in the area, these are not partisan, are that about 400,000 Ukrainians have died. That's about as many Americans has died in the entire second World War over the entire duration, and it's, of course, a much smaller country. So how do senators, Republican senators, get away with saying we're doing this on behalf of Ukrainian people, on behalf of democracy when it's destroying an entire generation and it's not a democracy?
Like, what's the thinking here?
Speaker 1: Well, Tucker, they bought into the propaganda that what is in the best interest of Ukraine is to prolong this war. And so Zelensky comes to Washington. You know, he's tougher than a lot of them are, and I think they get, you know, a a little bit of excitement from that. And Zelensky tells them a story that his war is in the best interest of the whole of Ukraine. Now never mind that there are people within Ukraine protesting the draft, never mind that the average age of a soldier there is pushing 45 years old, and never mind that the 650,000 wealthiest Ukrainians left the country at the beginning of the war, they didn't stay and fight.
So the idea that this is unanimously supported by the Ukrainian population is, of course, preposterous and absurd. No one believes it. But but here's here's the really crazy and I and I think ultimately the very cynical thing that's going on, Tucker, is that everyone knows that this war will lead to the destruction of Ukraine. I've had conversations with democratic colleagues where they get this sort of dark look in their eyes and they say, effectively, that they wanna fight Russia to the last Ukrainian drop of blood. I I I think if you really ask these guys, they recognize that this is not in the best interest of Ukraine.
This is fundamentally in the interest of military contractors and people who think that America's most pressing challenge is to defeat the Russians. Of course, that's not a preoccupation that I share. I don't think Russia should have invaded, Tucker, but I also think that we gotta be much more focused on more pressing problems, like the demographic collapse of the United States, like the open borders, and like what's going on in East Asia. So it's a massive campaign, Tucker, to distract people from the real problems in the world and the real problems that exist in this country.
Speaker 0: And underlying it all, as you just said, is is an impulse that's that's indefensible and I think deeply immoral. So I I'm so grateful for you having the courage to talk about this in public, and I and I hope common sense in your position prevails. Senator, JD Vance of Ohio. Thank you. Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization.
Societies are defined by what they will not permit. Local blockchain is the total inversion of virtue.
@sues86453 - Sue Knows Best
No more money to Ukraine! These focking losers want to send another 8 billion with zero oversight! https://t.co/B0Tksp2lUX
Video Transcript AI Summary
We have an abundance of money for funding war machinery and foreign aid, like $8 billion to Ukraine. We also support Ukrainian businesses and banks with taxpayer funds. Humanitarian aid often ends up in corrupt hands due to lack of oversight.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Good lord. When it comes to funding the machinery of war, we have money. We have money. We have money that we couldn't possibly dream of. We can run the presses indefinitely if it's going to go overseas.
If we're going to be paying foreign governments, Why? We've got enough money apparently to send $8,000,000,000 direct to the Treasury of Ukraine. My goodness, we have enough money to make 100 of 1,000,000 of dollars of our taxpayer funds available to the private sector in Ukraine. We are now literally funding their businesses, their banks, Lord knows what. Pensions.
We've got enough money for so called humanitarian aid that gets funneled away from, siphoned off into any manner of corrupt uses. We won't know because we don't have a special inspector general to oversee this money, but that's a different story. Oh, no. We've got plenty of money.
@RepClayHiggins - Rep. Clay Higgins
All Democrats waiving Ukrainian flags on your House floor when the bill passed sending another 60B of your treasure to fund the war machine. 100% deficit money. Borrowed on the backs of your children. Wake up America. https://t.co/p0ZhDsLY36
@WallStreetSilv - Wall Street Silver
It’s funny how Congress doesn’t know how to balance the federal budget, but somehow many of them are multi-millionaire stock traders. 🔊 https://t.co/dfKbRbxZEK
@atensnut - Juanita Broaddrick
This old hag, Yellen, is announcing another $20 Billion of your tax dollars will be going to Ukraine. FCK her and FCK This SHT!!! https://t.co/yHI2x4aEsq
@johnrich - John Rich🇺🇸
We gave another 50 Billion to Ukraine today. Meanwhile, people in East TN and N. Carolina are living in squalor from the hurricanes. The White House is laughing at us, but the hammer is coming. They better enjoy it while they can. I'm so mad I could SPIT.
@cosminDZS - Cosmin Dzsurdzsa
Just the other day @RandPaul tore into Chrystia Freeland and Justin Trudeau in front of the entire U.S. Senate for using emergency powers to debank Canadian citizens and trample peaceful Freedom Convoy protesters. https://t.co/ygjKHcJg2N
Video Transcript AI Summary
Emergency powers can be abused, as seen in Canada. In early 2022, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked emergency powers during protests against COVID-19 restrictions, allowing him to freeze the bank accounts of protesters without due process. This included taking funds raised through crowdfunding to support the truckers. The Emergencies Act of 1988 granted the government significant authority to act against dissent. Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland warned that financial institutions could freeze accounts without a court order if vehicles were used in protests. This situation highlights the dangers of excessive presidential power, which can target citizens unexpectedly. If such actions can occur in Canada, they could potentially happen in the U.S. as well.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If anyone doubts that emergency powers can be abused, just look to Canada. As Gene Healy of Cato Institute wrote, America's neighbor to the north offers a cautionary tale about the risks that broad emergency powers could be turned inward against political dissent. In early 2022, Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, faced a mass protest against COVID nineteen restrictions, in which Canadian truckers obstructed key border crossings and effectively shut down the capital city with their rigs. Instead of simply clearing out protesters and punishing them via conventional legal means, Trudeau invoked emergency powers broad enough to permit the financial unpersoning of anyone participating in the protest. He went to their bank accounts and took their money.
When people raise money voluntarily through crowd financing to help these truckers, he stole that money as well through martial rule. Without any rule of law, he took the money. No transaction with the protesters. He took their money. People were locked up under martial law.
Canada's 1988 Emergencies Act gave the Trudeau Government staggering powers to subject individual protesters to debanking without due process. This is the danger of presidential power, of excessive presidential power. Isn't about any individual president, it's about all presidents of either party because men and women will succumb to the desire for power. It's inherent in all. That's why we must have checks and balances.
Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, Chrystia Freeland put it this way in describing Trudeau's martial law. As of February 2022, in a warning to the truckers, as of today, a bank or a financial service provider will be able to immediately freeze or suspend an account without a court order. The Government of Canada, essentially Trudeau, could freeze a bank account without a court order, without due process of law. We are today serving notice. If your truck is being used in these protests, your corporate accounts will be frozen.
The insurance on your vehicle will be suspended. Send your trailers home. And while native born Americans may think that emergency powers are to be used to target others, I would venture to guess that the Canadian truckers protesting COVID era mandates didn't expect that their government would treat them as foreign adversaries and freeze their accounts. If it can happen in Canada, it can happen in the US.
@libsoftiktok - Libs of TikTok
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY: DEMS PUT SPENDING PORN AHEAD OF TAXPAYERS! "They mismanaged COVID, the economy, inflation, the debt, Afghanistan. They support illegal immigration over the law, trans athletes over women, Hamas over Israel. https://t.co/Qn9H6gs3A9
Video Transcript AI Summary
If my Democrat friends asked for advice, I'd tell them to try harder not to fail. Over the last four years, they've mismanaged Congress, COVID, the economy, inflation, the national debt, and Afghanistan.
In opposing Trump and Musk, they've sided with bureaucrats and excessive spending over taxpayers, just like they support illegal immigration over the rule of law, transgender athletes over women's sports, and Hamas over Israel.
Not all Democrats are like this, but the party is controlled by online activists who believe men can breastfeed, are triggered by race, and get upset over pronouns. Most Americans see this as extreme, and that's what's hurting the Democrats.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I've got a lot of friends who are Democrats, and they haven't asked me for advice. But if I did, I'd tell them, look. You just gotta try harder not to suck. I mean, think about it. Over the past four years, the Democrats mismanaged Congress.
They mismanaged COVID. They mismanaged the economy. They mismanaged inflation. They mismanaged the national debt. They mismanaged Afghanistan.
More recently, in their opposition to president Trump and mister Musk, the Democrats have chosen to support the bureaucrats and the spending porn over the American taxpayer, Just like they support illegal immigration over, over the rule of law. Just like they support transgender athletes over women's sports. Just like they support Hamas terrorists over Israel. All Democrats are not like this, but the the party is controlled right now by people who majored in online activism with a minor in puberty blockers. I I know these people.
They think women they they think men they think men can breastfeed. They're triggered by race. They cry if you if you use the wrong pronoun. And and most fair minded Americans look at this and they go, these people are about 10 exits past normal. And and that's what's killing the Democrats right now, in my opinion.
@libsoftiktok - Libs of TikTok
$425B in gold sits in Fort Knox, yet it doesn’t even get a yearly review. I’ve spent 10 years trying to see it and verify it’s there - Sen. Rand Paul https://t.co/rghXmbl6yk
Video Transcript AI Summary
I've been trying to see the gold at Fort Knox for about ten years. I think more transparency is better, and it brings attention to the fact that gold still has value. Gold implicitly gives value to the dollar; that's why central banks have it.
This year, the deficit's going to be $2.2 trillion. If you want money for the border, take it from somewhere else in the budget. The Doge Committee, Elon Musk, has found billions of dollars. The way you save money is they send it back to Congress in something called a rescission package, and then we vote on it with a simple majority.
I've told the negotiators if they want my vote, they have to talk to me about the numbers. There's a trillion dollars difference between the budget document and what we're going to spend this year. If it's not honest accounting, I don't want to vote for a rubber stamp that leads to increased spending.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Morning to talk about going for the gold. Elon Musk and Doge setting their sights on the country's largest gold reserve, Fort Knox in Kentucky, as its own senator reveals that $425,000,000,000 of a gold supply doesn't even get a yearly review. Kentucky senator Rand Paul joins us now. So, senator, I didn't know it was that much money there, and I was even more surprised that there's been no review.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, I've been trying to go down and see the gold, make sure it's all there for about ten years. During the first Trump administration, I got permission. You have to get permission all the way up to the secretary of treasury. And then the secretary of treasury said, well, I wanna go down there too. And then he said, I wanna go down there when there the eclipse is coming through Kentucky too so I can see the eclipse and the gold at the same time, but they came when I wasn't there.
So I tried for ten years. I set up the appointment. And then because they want to see the eclipse, they changed the appointment. I didn't get to go down. But the secretary of treasurer and the senior senator from Kentucky did go down and attest that they believe they saw the gold down there.
Speaker 0: So what do you think the problem is?
Speaker 1: You know, I I think some of them may not think it needs to be out at all the time, but I think the more some like the better, more transparency the better. Yeah. And also it brings attention to the fact that gold still has value and implicitly, not explicitly, but implicitly, gold still gives value to the dollar. Yeah. That's why we don't get rid of it.
You know, we've got it. The IMF has it. The World Bank has it. Most of the central banks around the around the world have gold, and it's an implicit trust that the dollar still has some backing.
Speaker 0: So, senator, I wanna switch gears through with you. I wanna talk about the since we're talking about money, the GOP budget resolution that is apparently in jeopardy of a concern from the moderates as well as Democrats about the budget. Talk about it. I mean, you are your father's son, and so I I know you've had these objections to it. What are they now?
Speaker 1: Well, this year, the deficit's gonna be $2,200,000,000,000. In March, both parties will come back and probably spend $300,000,000,000 more in California for wildfires, and it will be borrowed, not paid for. We just spent another hundred billion dollars in North Carolina. It never seems to end, and we don't borrow it. So what I would say is for border, if you want money for the border, take it from somewhere else in the budget, but let's still have a new spending bill.
So this budget is setting up a new spending bill. And, ultimately, this year, there'll be a $2,200,000,000,000, and people will be scratching their head saying, what about all the cuts? What about all the things? The Doge Committee, Elon Musk, has found billions of dollars. The way you save money and it has to be done is they send it back to Congress in something called a rescission package, and then we vote on it with a simple majority.
So Republicans alone can cut the spending that DOJ is finding. Senator. They're doing a great job and they're going through it with rapidity, but it's gotta come back to Congress. If I started seeing that, I might be more inclined to go along with them.
Speaker 0: I'm almost out of time, but I gotta quickly ask you. Why aren't you in the room? Because as I've said, you haven't changed your position. You're still reasonable, though. Do you understand you're not gonna get everything?
I believe your support of a bill will get some of the folks in the house. You'll get Chip Roy. You'll get Thomas Massa's support if you were involved in the negotiation. So I think Thune has been doing a a fairly good job compared to McConnell, but why haven't you been involved with the negotiation?
Speaker 1: I've told the negotiators from the very beginning if they want my vote, they have to talk to me about the numbers. They have to be believable numbers, and we have to adhere to them. If the numbers in the budget resolution will be adhered to by the Appropriations Committee, I could be inclined to support the budget. But so far, I've seen no indication. For example, there's a trillion dollars difference between the budget document and what we're gonna spend this year.
So it becomes a fiction. And if it's not honest accounting and they're not honestly gonna do it, I don't wanna vote for a rubber stamp that actually leads to increased spending.
Speaker 0: I think that's fair. Hopefully, they bring you in because I think some good can be done. Senator, thanks so much for giving us, some time this morning.
@GuntherEagleman - Gunther Eagleman™
Lisa Murkowski, who has some REALLY shady ties to Ukraine, says that Trump is wrong about Zelenskyy and that he's not a dictator. I cannot wait for @DOGE to audit the funds sent to Ukraine. Lisa has voted EVERY TIME to fund them without auditing. https://t.co/AJFuIhBjYN
Video Transcript AI Summary
Regarding the President's recent comments about Ukraine, I need to see the full context. I would never refer to President Zelensky as a dictator. If I called him a dictator, it was in reference to not holding elections. I need to review the direct quote to be certain of the context.
Furthermore, I would never say that Zelensky started the war. It was Russia, under Putin's direction, that initiated the conflict. There should be no confusion about who is responsible for starting the war in Ukraine.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Questions before I came in. Just quickly on Ukraine, and the president's comments on that. He just called Felicity a dictator. Do you what do you think of those comments? Do you think that it's I would like to see that in context because, I would certainly never refer to, President Zelensky as a dictator.
I called him a dictator for not holding elections. Dictator without elections was the Well, I will look at the direct quote quote, but I certainly would not call. I think it's almost a dictator. Last night, he was kind of blaming Zelensky for the start of this war rather than Putin. Do you think that that was too far?
I absolutely would not say that Zelensky started the war. It is quite clear who started the war. It was absolutely Russia that Putin's directive. I don't think that there should be any confusion with that.
reSee.it AI Summary
I expressed my concerns about U.S. taxpayer money being spent in Ukraine, specifically the $4.8 million allocated for social media influencers. I questioned the rationale behind funding a leader like Zelensky, whom I compared to other authoritarian figures, such as the general in Egypt, where elections are absent. I highlighted the inconsistency in supporting leaders who do not face electoral accountability, emphasizing the need to reconsider financial aid to what I view as dictatorial regimes.
@CollinRugg - Collin Rugg
Rand Paul says U.S. taxpayers have spent $4.8 million in Ukraine for "social media influencers," says the U.S. should not be funding a "dictator" like Zelensky. "$4.8 million [has been] spent in Ukraine for social media influencers." "Over the years, we've given Egypt nearly $60 billion. Who runs Egypt? A general where there are no elections..." "Kind of like Ukraine where it's a 'president' but he doesn't have to run for re-election because he has canceled the elections." "Why in the world would we give money hand over fist to dictators?" 🔥
Video Transcript AI Summary
President Trump's administration is uncovering wasteful spending, like millions on sex changes in Guatemala, girl-centric climate change in Brazil, and social media influencers in Ukraine. Even worse, hundreds of thousands were spent on sending designers to a Paris fashion show.
Instead of funding these crazy projects, let's redirect that money to secure our border. Fiscal conservatives are proposing to increase spending, but there's a way to cut it. It's called rescission. The administration can bundle savings and send it to us for a simple majority vote, no Democrats needed.
There's a debate about whether our biggest threats are internal or external. I believe they're internal. We don't need unlimited military spending or to be everywhere in the world. If we want more money for the military, take it from overseas spending like climate change initiatives. We're giving billions to dictatorships without elections.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: President Trump came to town, a new way of thinking. They're shuttering agencies. They're shutting people down. They're finding things like $2,000,000 spent in Guatemala for sex changes, $3,000,000 spent in Brazil for a girl centric climate change, $4,800,000 spent in Ukraine for social media influencers. While you're at it, we spent not we, but the people who vote for this.
I voted against all of this. But the members of the senate who voted for this spent several hundred thousand dollars sending designers in Ukraine to the fashion show in Paris. It goes on and on. Thousands of dollars for a trans opera in Colombia, more thousands of dollars for a trans comic book in Peru, Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars spent studying rats to see if lonely rats use more cocaine than well socialized rats. Guess what?
Lonely rats love the cocaine. You spent hundreds of thousand dollars of your money on this craziness. Why not take that crazy spending that Doge and Elon Musk are finding and move it over to securing the border? Instead, fiscal conservatives are faced with a bill they're putting forward to just simply increase the spending. I'm all for moving it around.
I'm all for saving it from the craziness and pushing it over into something more valuable. There is a procedure for doing this. It's a special procedure, doesn't require any Democrat vote. It can happen through simple majority, and it has a fancy name. It's called rescission.
So all the administration would have to do is bundle together several hundred billion dollars of savings, which it appears they're finding, bundle it together in one bill, send it back to us, and by simple majority, without any help from the Democrats, Republicans can cut spending. Instead, things aren't what they appear to be. You see all this great work being done to cut spending, to cut waste, fraud, and abuse, and then you see the senate acting. We're gonna vote all night long to set up a bill to increase spending by $340,000,000,000. There is a true philosophical debate within the Republican Party and really within both parties about what the biggest threats to our country are.
Are the gravest threats to America from within or from without. I would argue that they're from within. I don't lay awake at night fearing foreign invasion, that invaders are coming to our shores any moment. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be prepared, that we shouldn't defend ourselves, but it does mean that we don't have to have unlimited spending on our military. Look, many of my family have served, soldiers have to be paid, and we should take care of them.
But at the same time, we shouldn't be everywhere around the world all the time. We spent close to $300,000,000,000 in Ukraine. We got soldiers all over Africa. We got soldiers in Syria. We got soldiers everywhere.
We don't need to be doing that. If you wanna put our military's money and spending in perspective, we spend more than the next nine countries combined. It's not that we're spending too little, we're spending a lot. But if you decide that you want more money for the military, take it from the climate change, the girl centric climate change in Brazil. Quit spending your money overseas.
Over the years, we've given Egypt nearly $60,000,000,000. Who runs Egypt? A general where there are no elections, kinda like Ukraine, whether it's a president, but he doesn't have to run for reelection because he's canceled the elections. Why in the world will we giving money hand over fist to dictators and people who don't stand for election? In Egypt, we gave it to one family, the Mubarak family.
When he was finally ousted from power, he had $20,000,000,000 on him.
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
💯