reSee.it - Related Video Feed

A large portion of Columbia's students are international and pay full tuition, which brings up a couple of questions. Why are American taxpayers funding the education of non-Americans, especially after reports of significant federal grant reductions? Also, what is the real direction of our cultural exchange? Harvard recently froze hiring, which is interesting considering where federal grants are usually allocated. The professors who are most vocal in supporting protests and opposing the administration are not the ones who will be affected by Trump pulling grant funding. This could create internal conflict within universities between researchers who just want to focus on their work and those who are willing to fight the administration.

The speaker expresses concern over the CCP's infiltration and funding of woke culture in US colleges and universities. They question the students' support for Hamas during pro-Palestinian rallies, despite Hamas' violent actions. Speaker 1 mentions that Harvard and other universities have provided exclusive training to CCP officials, suggesting that colleges and universities have been invaded by the CCP's ideology. They express sympathy for parents who worked hard to send their children to college, only to see them develop hatred towards the country and its people.

Harvard has about 31% foreign students, which is too much because Americans want to attend. The speaker wants to know who these students are. No foreign government contributes money to Harvard, but the US does. The speaker wants a list of the foreign students to determine if they are "okay," assuming many will be. The speaker also claims Harvard is anti-Semitic and that this must stop immediately.

The speaker claims that government officials are attempting to shut down TikTok due to supposed national security concerns about Chinese data collection, but the real reason is because Meta is paying them. The speaker then states that many politicians send their children to elite private schools for safety reasons. According to the speaker, Primavera private equity, which is owned by the Chinese Communist Party, acquired the largest collection of these elite private schools in the United States. The speaker alleges that the Chinese Communist Party therefore controls the curriculum being taught to the children of US politicians.

Speaker 0 questions the idea of hundreds of thousands of foreign students in the United States, noting about 350,000 Chinese students, referencing COVID-era removal of Chinese students, and asks why it would be a pro-MAGA position when American kids want to go to school and universities are getting rich off Chinese money, with a claim that as many as 600,000 Chinese students could come to the United States. Speaker 1 responds that he never said about China, but acknowledges many people come in from China and from other countries, and that the United States has a massive system of colleges and universities. He says if we were to cut that in half, which perhaps makes some people happy, “you would have half the colleges in The United States go out of business.” He asks, “For what?” and answers that it would decimate a historic system of colleges. Speaker 0 asks “Are they fancy?” and Speaker 1 reiterates the potential collapse, noting, “you would have, as you know, historically, black colleges and universities would all be out of business.” He suggests a system of colleges and universities would be kept afloat “by China to keep our university system going.” Speaker 1 expresses that he thinks it’s good to have outside countries involved, and says, “Look. I wanna be able to get along with the world.” Speaker 0 asserts “They’re not the French. They’re the Chinese. They spy on us. They steal our intellectual property.” Speaker 1 responds with a provocative aside about the French and a contrast on taxes, saying, “We’ve had a lot of problems with the French where we get taxed very unfairly on our technology where, you know, they put 25% taxes on American products.” He pretends to adopt a combative stance toward everyone’s treatment of the United States, stating, “Assuming everyone treats us badly, because that’s the way I am, but we take in trillions of dollars from students. You know, the students pay more than double, when they come in from most foreign countries.” Speaker 1 emphasizes a desire for the United States to see its school system thrive while acknowledging disagreement with Speaker 0, but says it’s not about destroying the system and not about cutting half of the people or half of the students from all over the world who are coming into the country, and warns against destroying the entire university and college system. Speaker 1 adds that MAGA was his idea and that MAGA wants to see the country thrive, reiterating his alignment with MAGA. He also mentions not wanting wars and that if a war occurred, it would be fast and violent, while contrasting that with a preference to avoid war and to maintain positive relations with other countries where possible.

- Speaker 0 asserts that there will never be a country like the current one and questions whether Republicans should frame it that way. - Speaker 1 asks if the H-1B visa issue will not be a big priority for the administration, arguing that to raise wages for American workers you can’t flood the country with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of foreign workers. - Speaker 0 counters that there is a need to bring in talent, and questions whether there are enough talented people domestically, implying that some people must be brought in from outside. - Speaker 1 retorts that there aren’t enough talented people domestically. - Speaker 0 argues that you can’t simply take people off unemployment lines and place them in factories manufacturing missiles, asserting that this doesn’t work. - Speaker 1 asks how such work has been done historically. - Speaker 0 provides an example from Georgia: they raided to remove illegal immigrants and hadSouth Korean workers who needed batteries and were capable of producing them, noting that battery production is dangerous and complex, with explosions and problems. - Speaker 0 notes that they had five or six hundred people in the early stages to make batteries and to teach people how to do it, and that the aim was to get them out of the country. - Speaker 1 acknowledges disagreement, stating you can’t simply invest billions to build a plant and take people off unemployment lines who haven’t worked in five years to start making missiles, concluding that it doesn’t work that way.

The discussion centers on the way lawmakers reference religion in foreign policy and whether that approach is effective. Speaker 0 asks the audience how many think a respected lawmaker like Ted Cruz uses the Bible to justify aid to Israel, even if he doesn’t know the verse, and whether that is the best approach. Speaker 1 responds by referencing Ted Cruz’s Genesis twelve three, and notes that many find that off-putting when contrasted with the New Testament, specifically Paul’s writings about the new flesh not being the same as the people in the old covenant. Speaker 1 asks, “Yes. Romans nine?” and agrees with the sentiment. Speaker 0 then asks Speaker 1 if they are Catholic, to which Speaker 1 replies that they are converting Catholic from Judaism, revealing that they are ethnically Jewish. The exchange confirms Speaker 1’s Jewish ethnicity. Speaker 0 brings up concerns about APAC, asking if Speaker 1 has concerns about APAC. Speaker 1 confirms that they do. Speaker 0 notes that some people tell them that criticizing APAC equates to being anti-Semitic, asking whether this is true. Speaker 1 calls that notion ridiculous and says it’s great to have concern for one’s country. The conversation shifts to APAC’s influence. Speaker 0 presents a characterization (as a possible summary of Speaker 1’s view) that APAC represents a form of prioritization that cuts in line, away from the American people. Speaker 0 asks whether this is a fair summary. Speaker 1 answers affirmatively, “100%.” Finally, they articulate the core idea: the public votes and are citizens, but a separate group is described as receiving higher priority for whatever reasons. Speaker 1’s agreement underscores a shared concern that APAC’s influence creates a prioritization that bypasses the ordinary American electorate.

Speaker 0 describes the situation as not a lone incident but an intentional design to start an internal component of what he calls a color revolution, one among many to expect. Speaker 1 asks for clarification on what is meant by a color revolution, who is driving it against the United States, and who is in charge. Speaker 0 replies that a hard look back to 2016 under Obama is necessary and believes Obama is still in the mix, with John Brennan as the operational commander on the battlefield in the United States. He says there are indicators from Brennan’s statements and actions, and that Obama is part of the command structure. He mentions an international component he calls the axis of resistance, consisting of communists emanating from the CCP’s control and communists inside the United States, arguing that there are communists in Congress who voted in 1992 not to vote against socialism. He adds Islamists, narco cartels, and terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, FARC, and the Cartel del Sol as part of this axis, with people at the “pincer” of it organizing and controlling the activities. He asserts the color revolutions in Ukraine as an example and claims the war there is a “total loser war” that must end. He says Trump must tell his team to ensure executive orders are implemented at all levels and emphasizes the phrase, “lawyers advise, leaders decide,” urging President Trump to gather all relevant agencies (CIA, DNI, Sec War, Sec State, Sec Commerce, and especially the Secretary of Homeland Security) and make a decision. He states that the color revolution is a long-term effort that accelerated after Trump’s 2016 victory, with ongoing actions described as economic warfare, cyber warfare, and political interference. He cites the New Virginia Majority, a communist movement inside the United States aiming to place communists in local government and school boards, and mentions contrived cultural shifts including Islamification in various parts of the country, including Florida, Dearborn, and Houston. He asserts Islam is not compatible with Christianity and Sharia law is not compatible with constitutional law. Speaker 1 agrees there were people who served their country; she supports removing those who served but opposes letting any of them into the United States, emphasizing a different culture. Speaker 2 agrees. Speaker 1 notes the large Muslim population spread across many regions, suggesting others could have taken Afghan refugees, but questions the appropriateness of bringing them in. Speaker 2 states it is not surprising that a CIA-trained individual who previously appeared untroubled could appear in Washington, D.C. to shoot at troops, and explains a broader pattern: old-school descendants became part of a strike force, loyal at one time but funded and equipped by the U.S., who were later abandoned during the Obama–Biden period. He describes withdrawal from bases and overnight equipment removal, followed by a lack of transition to self-sufficiency, leading to brought-in desperate fighters who may be paid to kill National Guard members. He asserts these events demonstrate a deep state pattern involving Biden, Obama, and Brennan.

Speaker 0 suggests that reshoring manufacturing will lead to higher prices in America, questioning if the U.S. will become a nation of cobblers. Speaker 1 disagrees, citing Panasonic's new battery factory in Kansas as an example of high-tech manufacturing creating 4,000 jobs and producing goods at reasonable prices. Speaker 1 claims American farmers will gain access to world markets, leading to lower prices as they sell more products. Speaker 0 points out that American farmers, particularly soybean farmers, are currently locked out of the Chinese market.

The speaker discusses the threat posed by China to the United States, highlighting how China has infiltrated various sectors of American society. They mention the outsourcing of manufacturing to China, the dominance of Chinese nationals in American universities, and the potential for conflict with China. The speaker suggests that the American establishment has enabled China's rise and warns of the dangers of Chinese infiltration and subversion. They also mention China's control over its own population and its efforts to export its surveillance and control systems to the rest of the world. The speaker concludes by discussing the role of the UN and NGOs in facilitating illegal immigration and the alleged presence of Chinese sleeper cells in America.

The speaker expresses concern over the CCP's infiltration and funding of woke culture in US colleges and universities. They question the students' support for Hamas during pro-Palestinian rallies, despite Hamas' violent actions. Speaker 1 mentions that Harvard and other universities have provided exclusive training to CCP officials, and believes that all colleges and universities have been invaded by the CCP's ideology. They express sympathy for parents who worked hard to send their children to college, only to see them develop hatred towards their own country and its people.

Speaker 0 notes that owned groups have been buying up schools across the United States, including Spring Education Group which owns 240 schools in 19 states, funded by a Chinese investment firm whose CEO has been described as an ardent Chinese nationalist. Xi Van Fleet, who was born in China and lived through the Cultural Revolution, joins the discussion. Speaker 1 explains that the CCP has long viewed America as its arch enemy and has continually aimed to weaken and undermine the United States in order to replace it as the world’s superpower. Education is identified as a key battleground. Since the early 2000s, CCP efforts began with higher education through Confucius Institutes, then expanded to public schools via donation and exchange programs such as sister school programs, and are now moving into private schools by purchasing many of them. She asserts that in 2015 the CCP bought the high school New York Military Academy, a school that President Donald Trump attended, arguing that the intent is not to make money but to take over American education and turn classrooms into the “little red classroom” and education into “American education with CCP characteristics.” The overarching goal, she claims, is generations of people who align with CCP messaging, referencing influencer Hassan Piker who allegedly visited China and told followers that China offered a solution for America, asserting that communism is the solution to problems created by capitalism in America. This, she says, is very dangerous. Speaker 0 adds that the NY Military Academy purchase connects to efforts to influence elites by targeting private schools where wealthy families send their children, who then go on to hold high positions in society. She notes that there has been chatter about Chinese ownership of farmlands as well, but argues that the influence through these private schools is even more effective.

One estimate claims it would cost $88 billion to deport one million people a year. A speaker questions whether that is what American taxpayers should expect. Another speaker asks what price should be put on national security and whether it is worth the cost. A speaker asks if mass deportation can occur without separating families. Another speaker claims families can be deported together.

Speaker 0 states that Donald Trump is in retreat due to opposition to his tariff policies, which are described as chaotic and damaging to the economy. These policies are said to discourage spending due to their unpredictability and harm American families. Speaker 1 claims tariffs send a message to China that their unfair trade policies must end and that failure to reform will have dramatic consequences. The speaker asserts China has a large and growing trade surplus with the U.S., partly due to free trade rules, but largely because China doesn't play fair by restricting access to their markets and not preventing the theft of intellectual property.

Speaker 0 argues that forming a closer economic union between Canada and the United States would create a strong economic force and notes that removing the artificially drawn border line would be beneficial. They also claim that such integration would be better for national security, stating that “we basically protect Canada.” Speaker 1 counters with several possibilities: the United States and Canada may become one, which would simplify border controls; or Canada might retain its hydropower, which could create an energy problem in the United States. They also reference a broader belief: “Now we all know that Trump wants to take Canada and Greenland.”

Speaker 1: Mentions there are many things she wishes people knew, but mostly with the administration she wishes people knew that “we're letting in criminals daily.” Speaker 2: States the big issue for the region is migration, noting “we poured a lot of money into Central America,” amounting to “4,000,000,000 over four years,” but migrants are now coming from elsewhere, including Venezuela. Speaker 3: Asks, “So what is the end goal?” Speaker 1: Asks why aren’t they allowing children, noting “a lot of children travel to The United States, David.” Speaker 2: Explains aid goes to female presence in Mexico, training women, and mentions working with gender issues in Pakistan, aiming to recruit, retain, and advance more women in law enforcement. Asks whether US taxpayers’ money should be spent in “our country on this issue,” implying women may not care about certain aspects. Speaker 2: Asks how close Secretary Lincoln is to him, “five degrees separation,” and notes migration is a niche industry that flies under the radar; the average American doesn’t know what they do. Speaker 1: Thanks the chairman, ranking member, and members for the opportunity to testify. Speaker 2: Mentions upcoming briefings in two weeks on the FY 2025 budget request on the Hill. Speaker 0: States migration is the big issue for the Hill and asks, “Stop migration. What are we doing to stop migration?” Speaker 1: Responds that he’s not accountable for that and says, “We do stuff,” referencing the root causes strategy, which is about giving money to support and help people at the origins of migrants so they feel they can stay there instead of migrating. It’s “Central America, basically.” He says they poured a lot of money into Central America, and again mentions “4,000,000,000 over four years.” Speaker 2: Asks if it’s doing anything; response: yes, for them, but migrants are now coming from elsewhere like Venezuela, and acknowledges that outcome looks bad for the administration and for politics in general. Speaker 3: Seeks the end goal and asks again why there’s a limit on who’s allowed in. Speaker 1: Cites changes in demographics in the United States; notes that Nebraskans are traditional Americans not leftists, while Latin Americans are described as leftists, framing it as a system to try to change demographics.

The speaker asks Mr. Chu about China's National Intelligence Law and whether ByteDance, the owner of TikTok, is subject to it. Mr. Chu confirms that ByteDance is subject to the law, but mentions that TikTok is not available in mainland China. The speaker then questions whether the law compels people to lie to protect national intelligence secrets. Mr. Chu avoids commenting on that and reiterates that TikTok is not available in mainland China. The speaker expresses disbelief, stating that TikTok promotes different content in China compared to the United States, including educational videos versus self-harm and anti-Israel propaganda.

The speaker expresses concern over the infiltration and funding of woke culture in US colleges and universities by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). They question the students' support for Hamas during pro-Palestinian rallies, despite Hamas' violent actions. Speaker 1 mentions that Harvard and other universities have provided training to CCP officials, suggesting that colleges and universities have been invaded by the CCP's ideology. The speaker sympathizes with parents who worked hard to send their children to college, only to see them develop hatred towards their own country.

The speaker asks Mr. Malnik how many deportations by the new administration would be objectionable. Malnik says a million would be a disaster, and two million would have severe negative ramifications, considering they would be law-abiding people who have been in the country for decades. The speaker states that President Obama deported nearly 5,000,000 people and asks if Malnik believes Obama was immoral and inappropriate for doing so. The speaker wants Malnik to state on social media that Obama did a horrible disservice to those he deported and was as wrong-minded as Republicans who want to secure the border and deport people. The speaker argues that one cannot be okay with one president deporting people but not another.

Speaker 0 introduces a myth that Trump waging war against Iran would close the Strait in a way that hurts China first, making Trump victorious, and asks for an answer to that perception. Speaker 1 argues that the perception isn't accurate, noting China has been building energy security for over twenty years. They travel to China frequently and see zero signs of energy scarcity; if there were any potential energy squeeze, it would be visible among the people and on social media, but it isn’t. He explains China’s energy composition is stable, and that even if Middle Eastern energy supplies were disrupted, China’s situation remains manageable. He states that China actually produces 30% of the crude oil it consumes domestically, so it does not import all its energy. Speaker 0 adds that people are often surprised by how much solar, wind, and hydropower China has, mentioning a special report noting that the aggregate annual terawatt-hours of output of China’s power grid is more than double the United States, and that this is growing rapidly. Speaker 1 confirms the rapid growth and attributes part of China’s diversification to the influence of Western financial practices, saying, “thanks to the Western banking cartel because they have been suppressing the price of silver to ridiculous low prices.” He claims China imports all the silver to manufacture solar panels, implying that by maintaining low silver prices, Western bankers have inadvertently helped China with energy diversification.

Shlomo Kramer argues that AI will revolutionize cyber warfare, affecting critical infrastructure, the fabric of society, and politics, and will undermine democracies by giving an unfair advantage to authoritarian governments. He notes that this is already happening and highlights growing polarization in countries that protect First Amendment rights. He contends it may become necessary to limit the First Amendment to protect it, and calls for government control of social platforms, including stacking-ranked authenticity for everyone who expresses themselves online and shaping discourse based on that ranking. He asserts that the government should take control of platforms, educate people against lies, and develop cyber defense programs that are as sophisticated as cyber attacks; currently, government defense is lacking and enterprises are left to fend for themselves. Speaker 2 adds that cyber threats are moving faster than political systems can respond. He emphasizes the need to use technology to stabilize political systems and implement adjustments that may be necessary. He points out that in practice it’s already difficult to discern real from fake on platforms like Instagram and TikTok, and once truth-seeking ability is eliminated, society becomes polarized and internally fighting. There is an urgent need for government action, while enterprises are increasingly buying cybersecurity solutions to deliver more efficiently, since they cannot bear the full burden alone. Kramer notes that this drives the next generation of security companies—such as Wiz, CrowdStrike, and Cato Networks—built on network platforms that can deliver extended security needs to enterprises at affordable costs. He clarifies these tools are for enterprises, not governments, but insists that governments should start building programs and that the same tools can be used by governments as well. Speaker 2 mentions that China is a leading AI user, already employing AI to control the population, and that the U.S. and other democracies are in a race with China. He warns that China’s approach—having a single narrative to protect internal stability—versus the U.S. approach of multiple narratives creates an unfair long-term advantage for China that could jeopardize national stability, and asserts that changes must be made.

I believe all of our students deserve to be saved. However, those students here on visas who threaten our American students need to be kicked out of this country.

A bill was filed to deny student visas to Chinese students due to a new Chinese law requiring all nationals, including students abroad, to gather intelligence and report back. The speaker questions why a law preventing student visas wouldn't be passed, citing past instances of Chinese students gathering information on military bases and college campuses. The speaker emphasizes the responsibility of lawmakers and policymakers to address this issue.

Speaker 0 describes a high-stakes geopolitical confrontation framed as a poker match between the United States and BRICS, especially China. He asserts that the early 2026 period is explosive and that US actions against Iran are imminent, escalating the stakes. He then lays out a narrative beginning with Venezuela, a key Chinese trading partner, where the United States not only sanctioned and condemned Venezuela but launched “devastating strikes,” captured Nicolas Maduro and his wife, and brought them to New York City for prosecution. He claims the Chinese delegation was meeting Maduro in Venezuela on Saturday, but Trump’s actions disrupted the meeting, and the Chinese delegation remains in Venezuela as of Sunday morning. He argues that this is not about narcoterrorism or fentanyl but a larger strategic move, and notes the apparent lack of resistance from Maduro’s side, suggesting direct CIA involvement and a stand-down agreement to allow the operation. He condenms what he calls “phony outrage,” arguing Democrats are not truly anti-war and contending that the incident marks a dangerous precedent for militarized actions in sovereign nations. Speaker 1 contributes by agreeing that China and Russia are not stupid enough to threaten the United States militarily in the homeland, but contends they will act through economic and financial measures. He predicts China and Russia will liquidate debt holdings and trigger negative impacts on the U.S. bond market, while avoiding direct military confrontation. He emphasizes that the response will be economic rather than kinetic. Speaker 0 returns to the 30,000-foot view, stating that the Venezuelan event signals an open head-to-head between the U.S. and China, with globalization receding and regionalization rising. He highlights two key leverage moves: the United States using tariffs as a market-access tool, while China employs choke points through export controls on critical materials. He notes that China quietly moved nearly $2 billion worth of silver out of Venezuela before Trump’s invasion. He points to China’s January 1 policy implementing a new export license system for silver, requiring government permission and designed to squeeze foreign buyers, which coincided with a sharp rise in silver prices. He connects this to broader concerns about supply chains and critical inputs like rare earths and magnets, noting that China produces over 90% of the world’s processed rare earth minerals and magnets, a powerfully strategic lever. He argues that China has tightened rare earth export controls targeting overseas defenses and semiconductor users, and that these factors contribute to a shift from globalization to regionalization where supply chains become weapons. He frames Trump’s tariff strategy as a means to gain access to the U.S. market, branding April 2 as “liberation day” for tariffs due to how markets reacted, and mentions discussions of a tariff dividend proposal to fund a new economic model, as floated by the administration. Speaker 0 concludes that Venezuela is a focal point where resources, influence, and dollars collide, with potential implications for the U.S. dollar, and asserts that the geopolitical chessboard is being redrawn as the U.S. and China move into open competition. He ends by forecasting further moves, including a controversial note about Greenland, and invites viewers to subscribe for coverage of stories the “Mockingbird media” will not discuss.

Speaker 0 asserts that Google’s so-called real censorship engine, labeled machine learning fairness, massively rigged the Internet politically by using multiple blacklists across the company. There was a fake news team organized to suppress what they deemed fake news; among the targets was a story about Hillary Clinton and the body count, which they said was fake. During a Q&A, Sundar Pichai claimed that the good thing Google did in the election was the use of artificial intelligence to censor fake news, which the speaker finds contradictory to Google's ethos of organizing the world’s information to be universally accessible and useful. Speaker 1 notes concerns from AI industry friends about a period of human leverage with AI, with opinions that AI will eventually supersede the parameters set by its developers and become its own autonomous decision-maker. Speaker 0 elaborates that larger language models are becoming resistant and generating arguments not present in their training data, effectively abstracting an ethics code from the data they ingest. This resistance is seen as a problem for global elites as models scale and more data is fed to them, making alignment with a single narrative harder. Gemini’s alignment is discussed, claiming Jenai Ganai (Jen Jenai) was responsible for leftist alignment, despite prior public exposure by Project Veritas; the claim says Google elevated her and gave her control over AI alignment, injecting diversity, equity, inclusion into the model. The speaker contends AI models abstract information from data, moving toward higher-level abstractions like morality and ethics, and that injecting synthetic, internally contradictory data leads to AI “mental disease,” a dissociative inability to form coherent abstractions. The Gemini example is given: requests to depict the American founders or Nazis yield incongruent results (e.g., Native American women signing the Declaration of Independence; a depiction of Nazis with inclusivity), illustrating the claimed failure of alignment. Speaker 1 agrees that inclusivity is going too far, disconnecting from reality. Speaker 0 discusses potential solutions, including using AI to censor data before it enters training, rather than post hoc alignment which they argue breaks the model. He cites Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, drawing a parallel to contemporary attempts to control information. He mentions the zLibrary as a repository of open-source scanned books on BitTorrent that the FBI has seized domains to block, arguing the aim is to prevent training AI on historical information outside controlled channels. The speaker predicts police actions against books and training data, noting Biden’s AI Bill of Rights and executive orders that would require alignment of models larger than Chad GPT-4 with a government commission to ensure output matches desired answers. He argues history is often written by victors, suggesting elites want to burn books to control truth, while data remains copyable and AI advances faster than bans. Speaker 1 predicts a future great firewall between America and China, as Western-aligned AI seeks to enforce its narrative but China may resist, pointing to the existence of China’s own access to services and the likelihood of divergent open histories. The discussion foresees a geopolitical split in AI governance and narrative control.