reSee.it - Related Video Feed

This is a disgusting situation where Americans are funding the slaughter in Ukraine. Some officials want to send family members to fight there, even though Ukraine isn't in NATO. Putin hasn't threatened Europe.

Burning ancient carbon (coal, oil, gas) has created a wonderful quality of life for many, but this practice must stop.

Gas prices have skyrocketed to $7.55 per gallon, prompting frustration from the speaker. They jokingly address Putin, suggesting that he should be sent a bill for the high costs. The speaker also mentions that they only managed to put $15 worth of gas in their car.

Gas prices are ridiculously high, making it impossible for anyone to afford living. It's unbelievable and frustrating.

The Interior Secretary is being criticized for celebrating high gas prices and inflation as a positive outcome for the environment. Gavin Newsom claims that we are more energy independent under Biden, but the oil and gas industry disagrees. While there has been an increase in domestic oil production, it is due to policies from the previous administration and not sustainable growth. The Biden administration has restricted the development of fossil fuels and limited funding for future projects, leading to higher energy prices. This is something that Gavin Newsom failed to acknowledge.

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.

Vladimir Putin is attempting to weaponize energy, and the U.S. is currently responding with sanctions and support for Europe. However, in the short term, the focus should be on increasing fossil fuel production domestically. As long as the U.S. relies on fossil fuels, it remains vulnerable to global oil and gas price fluctuations, which are influenced by figures like Putin. Achieving true energy independence requires reducing dependence on Russian energy sources, ultimately diminishing their power and financial influence.

They tell us that with our money, they finance global public goods, like replanting trees in Indonesia or the Amazon. Deforestation in Brazil and Indonesia is authorized by these very states. Multinational corporations are profiting from deforestation. Then, French development agencies, authorities, President Macron, the EU, and the UN try to guilt us, holding out the begging bowl, citing climate change. Those countries and corporations profited, but they won't pay. Instead, taxpayers like you will pay. People have been paralyzed by the fear of being seen as pro-climate change, so they say nothing. But it's scandalous! Brazil, Indonesia, and the deforesting multinationals should pay, not French taxpayers. This fleecing must stop immediately.

Fossil fuels are better for the environment because without them, all the trees would have been cut down. They also save the whales because whale oil was used before fossil fuels. The climate change issue is about controlling energy resources. If everyone uses electricity, it all has to be mined, mostly by slave labor in communist countries owned by dictators. This is not necessarily better than fossil fuels, which make money for those who extract them, involving less exploitation. Scientists who say climate change is real only get grant money if they say climate change is real, while scientists who disagree with climate change have their budgets taken away and are blacklisted. Changing energy resources changes who controls the power in the world.

Burning Teslas doesn't make you a protester or member of the resistance, just an "asshole." A year ago, liberals wanted everyone to drive electric vehicles; now dealerships are being burned. Elon Musk is a "national hero" for saving astronauts, even if they might want to return to space after being on Twitter. The United States government is $36 trillion in debt, despite taking in more tax revenue than any other government in history. If you think Elon Musk is the problem for wanting to control spending, you're useless.

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.

Europeans were buying more Russian oil and gas than they were giving in aid to Ukraine, essentially funding both sides of the war. Germany will become totally dependent on Russian energy if it does not immediately change course. It's very sad that Germany makes massive oil and gas deals with Russia, paying billions of dollars a year to them. Many countries make pipeline deals with Russia, paying billions into their coffers while we're supposed to protect them against Russia. The former chancellor of Germany even heads the pipeline company supplying the gas. Germany will have almost 70% of their country controlled by Russia with natural gas. Germany is a captive of Russia because they get so much of their energy from them. They got rid of their coal plants and nuclear. NATO needs to address this.

The speaker, a truck driver, discusses the implications of carbon taxes on the goods and services that consumers buy. They share their fuel bill, which includes regular clear diesel, dyed diesel, and diesel exhaust fluid. The total bill for their fuel is $3,402, with $1,365 worth of taxes. This includes a federal tax, provincial tax, carbon tax, and GST. The speaker expresses frustration with the tax on tax on tax system and emphasizes that consumers are ultimately paying for it. They urge people to fight back against these taxes.

Germany made everyone go solar, and now they are taxing the sun. You are not only paying rain tax in Germany. Now you have to pay sun tax too. A few years ago, the German government was all like, go solar, save the planet. Solar panels popped up on every roof. It was a solar wave. But today, the same people who installed solar systems are told, 'Now you have a solar system, and you are using the sun, so you need to pay sun taxes now.' If you already have a solar system on your roof in Germany, you are paying what they literally call a sun tax. They found a way to tax sunlight. They are still taxing the rain, but now it's the sunlight too. I would not install a new solar system in Germany anymore. Do you think that's right? I'm speechless today.

My plan includes a carbon fee, which may be passed on to consumers. However, this should not deter us from implementing the fee, especially for carbon.

This is a stupid and harmful sanction for the people. The Russians and Europeans will benefit from it, as the Russian oil we won't buy will be sold to others, increasing its price. This means Russia will become richer, and the European Union will be pleased. But the moral question is whether it should be the Europeans funding the war. It's a stupidity that doesn't consider the difficult situation of the French and other Europeans, especially the French. I focus on the daily lives of the French, which are very difficult.

Canada is facing a crime with its carbon emissions, accounting for only 1.5% of the world's total. Despite this, Justin Trudeau plans to impose a carbon tax on everything, including gas, food production, transportation, and heating. This has left Canadians financially strained, while countries like China emit significantly more carbon at 30.9%. Canadians must no longer remain silent and should repost this message to make their voices heard. It is important to note that the carbon tax has proven ineffective.

Biden's push for electric vehicles has resulted in auto workers losing their jobs and car dealerships struggling to sell unwanted EVs. Despite the lack of demand, those who do buy electric vehicles to save on gas are now being targeted by the government for more revenue. This includes placing tracking devices on their cars to monitor their usage. It's frustrating how liberals can support such policies.

The speaker criticizes the finance minister for not understanding how the carbon tax leads to inflation. They explain that the carbon tax is paid at every stage of the food production process, from the farmer to the grocery store, ultimately causing Canadians to struggle to afford food.

The speaker, a truck driver, discusses the impact of carbon taxes on the goods and services that consumers buy. They share their fuel bill, which includes regular clear diesel, dyed diesel, and diesel exhaust fluid. The total bill for their fuel is $3,402, with $1,365 worth of taxes. This includes a federal tax, provincial tax, carbon tax, and GST. The speaker expresses frustration with the tax on tax on tax system and highlights that consumers are ultimately paying for it. They urge people to fight back against these taxes.

Peter Schiff discusses the economic dimension of the Iran war, arguing it will have negative implications for the U.S. and global economy. He notes the economy was weak before the war, citing February jobs data showing 92,000 lost jobs (the worst report in five years on the initial numbers) and later downward revisions indicating a larger October 2025 job loss. He says three of the last five monthly job reports show net losses, indicating a weakening labor market that will deteriorate due to the war. Inflationary pressures are already present, and he expects oil to rise toward $90 a barrel (up more than 60% so far in 2026). As a result, consumers face a weakening economy, job losses, and a higher cost of living. He also highlights the war’s cost and the likelihood that, if it lasts longer than anticipated, it will extend the period of volatility and expenditure. Schiff questions whether the war can achieve its stated objectives, suggesting that bombing alone may not produce regime change and that the ensuing vacuum could be filled by a regime more hostile to the United States. He warns that a ground campaign could entail substantial casualties on both sides and implies that a prolonged conflict could be economically and politically damaging. He argues wars are expensive and tend to fuel inflation through debt and money printing, describing the war as a net negative. Politically, he expects increased Republican losses in the midterms and a Democratic White House in 2028, which he views as detrimental to the U.S. economy due to a presumed shift toward more expansive socialist policies. Regarding whether war can serve as a distraction from domestic problems, Schiff allows the possibility but points out related risks: he notes Trump had accused Obama of starting a war with Iran to distract from domestic shortcomings and argues the current conflict could similarly divert attention from other problems. He contends that Trump’s tariffs and broader economic policies have been problematic, and he criticizes the administration’s handling of various policy areas, asserting that the war could undermine Trump’s previous anti-war stance and appeal. On regional dynamics and energy, Schiff emphasizes that Iran may target U.S. assets in neighboring countries, and missiles in the region could cause collateral damage and draw in other countries. He discusses potential spillovers, including possible alignment changes among regional powers and Russia and China, and raises the specter of a broader regional or even global confrontation. He criticizes the idea that the United States should be deeply engaged across multiple theaters and reiterates his preference for accountable congressional deliberation on war decisions. He argues that a wider conflict could involve escalation risks and that the U.S. finding itself bogged down and unable to achieve swift victory would damage its standing. Energy implications are highlighted: higher energy prices would burden consumers and limit spending elsewhere, with some winners (oil producers benefiting from higher prices) and many losers. Schiff notes Europe’s energy choices, political shifts toward restricting fossil fuels, and argues that energy costs will eventually impose political consequences in Europe. He also discusses the potential for the Gulf States to move away from the dollar as the petrodollar system faces stress, predicting that the war could hasten dedollarization and increased interest in gold. Gold and silver are discussed as price hedges: Schiff notes that gold and silver prices were not quickly dramatic in the immediate aftermath, with gold around $5,150–$5,300 and silver around $82–$83, but he remains bullish that prices will rise as the dollar declines and deficits expand. He predicts a substantial upside for precious metals and contends that the long-term trend toward dedollarization and greater gold ownership will intensify. He frames the war as a strategic and economic inflection point, with potential winners and losers, and argues that the overall effect on the world is negative, even if some actors profit.

I wouldn't want to live in a country where people only do things for money. The energy minister opposes changing light bulbs to save 30% energy. We fight for Putin's sake, but these efforts do make a difference. It's not a joke when someone says they'll only help for a 50 euro bonus. I can tell you one thing, old man, you won't get it.

I'm not upset about his opinion. I find it ironic for him to talk about charities and hospitals when he questions how I spend gas money. Let's focus on gas fees and taxes. Some people should maybe refrain from sharing their opinions at times.

This book proves that Mark Carney isn't being honest with you. In it, he explains how he needs to make everything more expensive using carbon taxes so that you and I are forced to stop buying things. He wants Canadians to pay for his globalist net zero dreams. Carbon taxes are his core religion. Mark Carney is selling Canadians snake oil. He wants you to think that he's gonna get rid of the carbon tax, that he's just planning to hide it. That's how he thinks he can get your vote. His real plan will ensure that our Canadian economy flatlines. It's time for a common sense conservative government. If you want real change, follow me for more.

Advocates for NetZero need to address the practicalities of achieving it. Without fossil fuels, which are used in almost everything we do, including food production, transportation, and job creation, it's not feasible. The goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050 is unrealistic and has not been successful so far, as global carbon emissions have actually increased. This policy benefits countries like China, India, and Russia, who don't follow the rules, at the expense of Western nations. Eventually, this will lead to anger and frustration when net zero emissions cannot be achieved.