reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Abdi, running for Minnesota House District 14A, owns Blooming Kids Child Care. The speaker highlights a long list of alleged violations at Blooming Kids, including: - No first aid kits - Unsanitary conditions - Not complying with CPR regulations - No supervision for the kids - Not operating within the terms of their license - Never submitted their DHS background study when requested - Children subjected to prohibited disciplinary actions - No furnishings, no equipment, no materials, and no supplies - No documents to show that the teachers were qualified to do the job - Repeated violations: same violations happen over and over - No immunization records for any of the children - Not enough staff The speaker notes they cannot determine how much state or federal funding Blooming Kids receives because that information requires access they don’t have. Regarding campaign fundraising, the speaker checked Abdi’s campaign donations and states he is not getting any from any day care centers. The speaker concludes by asking someone to tag Nick Shirley, suggesting he should look into this issue as well.

Kids Wish Network raised $127 million, paid solicitors $109 million, and spent 2.5% on direct cash aid to kids. The Cancer Fund of America spent less than 1% on the actual cause.

I looked into Norm Eisen's NGO, State United Democracies Center, which is full of prominent figures. This organization receives $17 million in private donations. After researching, the only thing I could find that they did with the money was produce a low-quality Muppet show. All the videos they created with these knockoff puppets have less than 200 views. It makes you wonder, with all those famous names involved, is that the best thing they could do with $17 million? The result is awful; Jim Henson would be rolling in his grave. They didn't even promote the videos with ads. So, where did the $17 million go?

The transcript centers on alleged mismanagement of funds from a Fire Aid benefit concert claimed to raise over $100,000,000 for Los Angeles fire victims. The speakers assert that residents are asking where the money went and imply a lack of transparency or accountability. Key points include: - The Fire Aid initiative reportedly raised about $100,000,000 for residents, community needs, and funds intended to help with the aftermath, yet there is no clear accounting of where the money ended up. - The Fire Aid website states that all direct donations will be distributed under the advisement of the Annenberg Foundation. The IRS Form 990 lists the Annenberg Foundation as a 501(c)(3) based in Kunshakin, Pennsylvania, in a certain office building. - A red flag is raised that only 33% of the Annenberg Foundation’s annual expenses go toward actual charity programs; the remainder goes to administrative costs, including executive compensation. - The transcript highlights Cynthia Kennard (referred to as Cinny) as top leadership, earning roughly three-quarters of a million dollars plus six-figure bonuses, described as nearly seven figures for one person. - There is a reference to a photo or moment showing Cynthia Kennard with Gavin Newsom discussing issues like homelessness, described as an “if you know, you know” moment. - A comparison is drawn with Doctors Without Borders, noting that it spends almost 90% of its money on actual programs and less than 1% on administrative costs. - Local journalists’ inquiries revealed that the Fire Aid site lists only three Palisades organizations among nearly 120 grant recipients: Kahelet Israel, Chabad of Pacific Palisades, and Palisades Charter High School; none appear to be specific to Pacific Palisades. - Attempts to contact the Annenberg Foundation were described as fruitless or thwarted, with extensions that didn’t lead to returns, referrals to a mysterious man named Philip (no last name), and no subsequently found contact. - The speakers conclude that the $100,000,000 was allegedly largely consumed by administration, with about 70% directed toward the organization itself and the rest disbursed to various other nonprofits, each carrying their own administrative costs, leading to the impression that much of the money disappeared. Overall, the dialogue portrays the Fire Aid fundraising as potentially lacking transparency and accountability, with accusations that the majority of funds may have been diverted to administrative costs rather than direct charitable use, and that grant dispersals to other nonprofits were not clearly explained or traceable.

The WTO organization relies on only 30% of its budget from predictable funds. The remaining 70% is obtained through fundraising efforts, where they have to seek money from various sources around the world. However, the funding they receive is often tied to the preferences and interests of the donors.

Kids Wish Network raised $127 million but spent only 2.5% on direct cash aid to kids, paying solicitors $109 million. The Cancer Fund of America spent less than 1% on the actual cause.

We have various big donors, including the Open Society Institute, the Wallace Global Fund, the Arca Foundation, and the Carnegie Corporation. George Soros funds the Open Society Institute. However, these donors do not ask for anything in return. We maintain a positive relationship with them, and they appreciate our transparency.

Kids Wish Network raised $127 million, paid solicitors $109 million, and spent 2.5% on direct cash aid to kids. The Cancer Fund of America spent less than 1% on the actual cause.

Since 2018, AgBlue has donated a total of $17,092.82 over 2,082 times. In 2022, they donated $5,863.09 over 865 times. In 2021, it was $7,900.97 over 1,103 times. In 2020, $3,071.90 over 205 times. And from 2018 to 2019, just $160 over 9 times. The donors are retired school teachers with limited funds. Translation: AgBlue has donated a total of $17,092.82 over 2,082 times since 2018. In 2022, they donated $5,863.09 over 865 times. In 2021, it was $7,900.97 over 1,103 times. In 2020, $3,071.90 over 205 times. And from 2018 to 2019, just $160 over 9 times. The donors are retired school teachers with limited funds.

In 2022, you donated 1,100 times totaling $13,150.84. In 2021, it was 715 times for $6,957.90. And in 2020, 839 times for $6,983.10. From 2016 to 2022, the total was $29,107. The speaker denies being able to donate that much due to being on social security and not using the internet much.

The Bezos Earth Fund is excited about the growing enthusiasm for philanthropy. Last year, when the 30 by 30 initiative faced uncertainty, 10 philanthropies, including the Bezos Earth Fund, pledged $5 billion in grant money to support it. They made it clear that if countries commit to 30 by 30 and show genuine dedication, these philanthropies will provide assistance.

It is claimed that 7,000 politically connected NGOs receive 90% of all taxpayer money allocated to nonprofits. Approximately $300 billion in government funds are allegedly funneled through nonprofits annually, lacking transparency regarding the money's destination. The speaker asserts that the American public has a right to access the financial records of any organization receiving government funds. They state that all information pertaining to the use of these funds and related communications should be considered public record. The speaker concludes that these NGOs must be accountable to the public.

Wish Network raised $127 million but only 2.5% went to direct cash aid for kids, while solicitors were paid $109 million. The Cancer Fund of America spent less than 1% on its stated cause.

Speaker 1 describes the scope of funding tracked by their organization. They state they have tracked over $60,000,000 according to the latest 990 disclosures, directed to approximately 14 groups—some national, others on the ground. Examples of groups involved include the ACLU (providing legal defense and facilitating trainings for some tactics described by Senator Corin) and Democracy Forward, Take Minnesota. Take Minnesota has reportedly received over $10,000,000 from these large NGO networks, including the Neville Roysingham network, Indivisible, National Lawyers Guild, CTUL, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Minnesota Care, Minnesota 3-5-0, Voices for Racial Justice, and others. The speaker emphasizes that the total spans at least 14 groups and more than $60,000,000 in disclosed funding. Speaker 0 asks where the money is coming from and how it flows to these groups. Speaker 1 explains that they have built a database with hundreds of thousands of rows of grants from networks such as the Soros network, Arabella Funding Network, the Neville Royce Singham Funding Network, and many others, including Tides, the Ford Foundation Network, and the Rockefeller Funding Network. These are described as massive NGOs with billions of dollars to spend on all kinds of coordinated protest or, in this case, riot activity.

Mike Benz outlines a conspiracy tied to the Transition Integrity Project (TIP) and a June 2020 war game that purportedly sought “a way to use riots, nationwide riots, and do favors to the Black Lives Matter movement so that they would owe them favors back to take to the streets against Trump if Trump won the election fair and square,” while also needing “a robust, intentional, and specific strategy to go after the networks that enabled Trump's rise to power” so they could be jailed after Trump left office. Bubba Boyd, who has written about the event since August 2020, explains that the discussion will cover the key players in TIP, the plan to subvert the 2020 election, how rigging the election and four prosecutions of Trump flow from the June 2020 conspirators’ meeting, and excerpts from a January 2020 Donald Trump speech to the World Economic Forum that allegedly signals why Trump and Trumpism had to be eliminated. The publicly named sponsors of the war game are Rosa Brooks and Niles Gilman of the Berggruen Institute in Los Angeles, described as the “globalist home of Silicon Valley’s anti-Trump billionaires,” with branches in Venice and Beijing and a China branch in direct dialogue with Xi Jinping. Michael Anton is cited as the author of a Trump national security document who criticized TIP’s war game, stating they were planning a coup against the election and publicizing the war game to normalize the idea. Brooks’s background is summarized as a lawyer for George Shullis at the Open Society Institute, then a State Department attorney for regime change, then a Pentagon policy lawyer under Obama, while teaching at Georgetown Law. The narrative asserts she advocated impeaching Trump and a potential 25th Amendment move, and even a military coup, in a 2017 Foreign Policy piece titled “three ways to get rid of president Trump before 2020,” including the sentence: “For the first time in my life, I can imagine plausible scenarios in which senior military officers might simply tell the president, no, sir. We’re not doing that.” The claim is that she “couldn’t wait to launch a coup against Trump,” a portrayal attributed to a New York Times editorial response. In June 2020, Brooks and Gilman allegedly convened TIP’s war game about the 2020 election and its possible aftermath, with over 100 participants and 76 role players drawn from former Pentagon officials, the intelligence community, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, the media, and Republican and Democratic institutions. Names publicly associated with anti-Trump activity are listed, including John Podesta, Donna Brazile, Bill Kristol, Michael Steele, Jennifer Granholm, and other unnamed figures, all described as major players in attempts to nullify the 2016 election and overthrow the government. Benz is said to detail the TIP war games and concludes that to prevent a second Trump term, Biden would need a large victory margin to overcome fraud perceptions, with the insurrectionist scenario calling for control of the military, Black Lives Matter, and other street rioters. The narrative asserts that BLM raised about 90 million in 2020 with donors like the Democracy Alliance and the Ford Foundation, and that Mark Elias led financial filings associated with the effort. The discussion further cites Defense One articles from August 2020 that reportedly called for a military coup and a subsequent open debate within the military about accepting orders, and claims that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley “was not about to obey any order from the president.” The appendix to TIP’s report allegedly debated criminally proceeding against Trump after leaving office and wiping out his “white supremacist and extremist base,” with a quote describing the need for a strategy to challenge networks that enabled Trump’s rise and remained “imbecible to the kind of pluralist democracy the founders intended,” implying a path toward removing Trump’s influence even after his presidency. The transcript also notes contemporary references to Arctic Frost, an FBI investigation linked to 2022 midterms, and alleged targeting of Republican election operations and other figures by the FBI. Excerpts from Trump’s World Economic Forum address and a January 2020 speech are presented to illustrate a moral and strategic framing against globalism and “radical socialists.” The presentation ends by inviting audience support and promoting further engagement, including a free newsletter.

We need to focus on funding as the central thread running through the discussions. The speakers discuss private money as a partial source, but highlight a broader funding landscape that includes black budgets, academic budgets, and private interests. - The dialogue identifies funding or lack thereof as the common denominator, with questions about available money and private investment, including whether angel investors are involved. - Speaker 1 explains the banking and funding landscape: black budgets are well funded; academic budgets are nonexistent because they’re considered acceptable to be so; and there are random billionaires who fund anti-gravity or fringe projects because they want recognition beyond their primary business. They mention several examples of private funders: - The church’s fried chicken billionaire funded the Hathaway Lab. - Robert Bigelow, associated with Bigelow Aerospace, is another billionaire funder. - There are other anonymous or less well-known funders who support such projects. - The core problem identified is consistent: money is the barrier, not technology or talent. The project team has observed government and academic research, noting that funding is the persistent obstacle. - To address this, Speaker 1 describes building an institute that pools money from these hobbyist billionaires into a large, stable pot. The goal is a safe, well-funded sandbox for bright people to pursue research without being affected by government budget cycles, tenure concerns, or a single investor’s changing interest or withdrawal. - This institute would select promising projects to fund, creating a new vehicle for financing this type of research. The idea is to avoid overreliance on a single wealthy patron and to maintain stability. - The conversation touches on the strategic value of private funding in the “black world” versus an open, illuminated world, noting that the illuminated world can be a spawning ground for ideas that may eventually benefit broader programs. There is a suggestion that it’s not in the black world’s interest to keep everything completely closed, given potential cross-pollination of ideas. There is mention of Griffin’s position and his connection to DARPA and UAH, implying overlapping influence or interest. - The speakers reflect on whether NASA is still a research organization, and discuss the risk to innovators who fear disappearing when working in public or private sectors. - Speaker 1 notes that ether in space is claimed by some, and expresses interest in talking to more people who hold similar views. - A concluding thread from Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 reiterates the tension between public and private funding, the need for stable, diverse funding sources, and the ongoing interest in discussions about ether and related space phenomena.

We operate with a small team of 13 people in our office and 3 people in Colorado. Our annual budget is $3 million. Initially, we chose Colorado as a model for other states to replicate our work at the federal level. We found that most states have similar resources like election commission data, campaign finance data, and open records laws. However, due to the high cost and difficulty in maintaining additional offices, we have decided not to open any more locations.

We should expand our efforts to receive more funding from those who can afford it. Even $10-20 million annually would make a significant impact. Engaging with different online communities is crucial. We must consider protesting, civil initiatives, and asset redistribution. This is the essence of my work, which is no small task.

A protester, speaking during a recording, discusses an organization called Make the Road New York and its perceived financial scope as part of a broader critique of immigrant-rights organizations. The protester asserts that Make the Road New York has a budget of $30,000,000 and notes that the topic of the immigrants’ rights organization is of interest to those observing organizational funding and influence. The speaker identifies themselves as being with a union, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). They state that they looked at the tax returns of Make the Road New York and found there were registered 501(c)(3) entities that file Form 990, and that Make the Road New York “received $16,000,000 in grants.” This claim ties the organization to a substantial influx of grant funding, suggesting a significant level of financial support from funders or the government. The conversation shifts toward hypothetical implications of such funding, with the speaker asking, “Can you imagine what Nick Shirley could do with $16,000,000? Can you imagine what James O’Keeffe could do with $16,000,000?” This line of inquiry appears to juxtapose the perceived influence of large sums of money with recognizable figures associated with political and investigative activities, raising questions about the power and use of funds. A broader assertion follows: “The United States government is funding this.” This statement connects the funding to government support, implying that public dollars are being directed toward Make the Road New York or similar organizations. The speaker then contrasts national debt with alleged fraud, stating, “We're 36,000,000,000,000 in debt, or are we 36,000,000,000,000 in fraud?” This rhetorical question presents a dichotomy between debt and fraud on a colossal scale, underscoring the protester’s critical stance regarding government spending and accountability. Overall, the excerpt highlights concerns about the financial backing of Make the Road New York, the role of grant funding for immigrant-rights organizations, and the perceived connection to government funding, framed within a broader critique of national debt and potential misallocation of public resources.

We give updates on our projections at each stop. Last year, we set aside more money to address certain liabilities related to the disturbing actions of adults with children. We were surprised by the large amount we had to set aside.

The discussion centers on tracing nonprofit funding and organizational networks active in Minnesota. Based on their research, they have tracked over $60,000,000 according to the latest nine ninety disclosures directed to approximately 14 groups. These groups include national and on-the-ground organizations such as the ACLU (which provides legal defense as well as facilitates trainings for some of the tactics described), Democracy Forward, Take Action Minnesota, and others like Minnesota Care, CTUL, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Voices for Racial Justice, and more. They note that over $60,000,000 has flowed to these groups across at least 14 organizations. Regarding the flow of money and its sources, they have built a database containing hundreds of thousands of rows of grants from networks such as the Soros network, the Arabella Funding Network, the Neville Roysingham network, and many others, as well as Tides, the Ford Foundation Network, and the Rockefeller Funding Network. These are described as massive NGOs that have billions of dollars to spend on all kinds of coordinated protest or, in this case, riot activity. The discussion highlights that these networks provide substantial funding influencing the Minnesota-based organizational ecosystem.

It is claimed that 7,000 politically connected NGOs receive 90% of all taxpayer money allocated to nonprofits. Approximately $300 billion in government funds are allegedly funneled through nonprofits annually without transparency. The speaker asserts that the American public has a right to access the financial records of any organization receiving government money. They state that all information pertaining to the use of these funds and related communications should be considered public record. The speaker concludes that these NGOs should be accountable to the public.

The discussion centers on OCCRP (the Corruption Reporting Project), its funding, and how it operates as “mercenary media” for state interests, particularly the U.S. State Department and USAID. The speakers argue that OCCRP is not independent journalism but a State Department–funded operation that produces hit pieces to seize assets, indict officials, and press regime change across multiple countries. Key findings and claims discussed - OCCRP’s funding and control: The group is described as receiving substantial funding from the United States government through USAID and the State Department, with other sources including Open Society (Soros), Microsoft, and NED. A recurring claim is that half of OCCRP’s funding comes from the U.S. government, that USAID and the State Department actually control hiring and firing decisions of top personnel, and that a “cooperative agreement” structure channels editorial direction through government-approved annual work plans and key personnel (including the editor‑in‑chief or chief of party). - Financial returns and impact: It is claimed that USAID boasted in internal documents that paying $20 million to independent journalists yielded $4.5 billion in fines and assets seized, and that mercenary reporting led to 548 policy changes, 21 resignations or removals (including a president and a prime minister), 456 arrests or indictments, and roughly $10 billion in assets returned to government coffers across various countries (Central Europe, Eastern Partnership, Western Balkans, etc.). A related claim is that total spending over OCCRP’s history amounts to about $50 million, with returns rising from $4.5 billion in 2022 to about $10 billion by 2024. - Geographic scope and targets: The reporting funded or influenced by the State Department covered broad regions—Germany, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Belarus, and the Western Balkans—extending to the Eastern Partnership and beyond. The pieces are described as having led to investigations and asset seizures that targeted political enemies of state authorities. - The role of “mercenary media” and independence claims: The speakers repeatedly contrast the claimed editorial independence of OCCRP with the reality of donor influence. They describe OCCRP as “mercenary media for the state,” funded to generate narratives and political outcomes favorable to U.S. foreign policy. They challenge the notion of independent journalism by noting the requirement that key personnel and annual work plans be approved or vetoed by USAID, and that there are “strings attached” to cooperative agreements that go beyond simple gifts. - Editorial process and donor influence: The conversation scrutinizes how the annual work plan, subgrants, and editor-level appointments are subject to USAID oversight. It is noted that, even when OCCRP claims editorial independence, the top editors must navigate donor influence, and in practice, the content may be shaped to align with funders’ interests. The argument is that without donor influence, OCCRP would not exist or would not continue to receive large sums of money. - The rhetoric of independence: Several speakers underscore the paradox of insisting on “independent media” while acknowledging that funding, governance, and personnel decisions are shaped by U.S. government agencies, with additional support from Soros/Open Society and corporate donors like Microsoft. They juxtapose “independence” rhetoric with admissions of entanglement with government and intelligence entities, and their discussions touch on the historical context of U.S. public diplomacy, the U.S. Information Agency, and the evolution of state-driven media influence. - Historical funding trajectory and organizations: The first funds reportedly came from sources such as the United Nations Democracy Fund, with later support from INL (the U.S. Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement) and a transition to USAID administration. The participants discuss the possibility that multiple U.S. government agencies (State Department, USAID, NED, INL) and private sponsors (Open Society, Microsoft) contribute to OCCRP’s budget, with the U.S. government described as the largest donor at various points, though not always claimed as the single dominating donor. - “Capacity building” and the machinery of influence: The conversation highlights “capacity building” as a common label for donor-driven expansion of media assets, civil society groups, and investigative journalism networks. They connect these efforts to broader U.S. democracy promotion programs and to the use of investigative reporting as a tool for law enforcement and political leverage—where journalists may gather information and feed it to prosecutors and foreign policy objectives. - Individual positions and disclosures: Several speakers identify named individuals (e.g., Drew Sullivan, Shannon McGuire) and discuss their roles, funding pathways, and concerns about editorial control. The dialogue reveals tensions between the journalists’ professional aims and the political-economic machinery enabling their work. Cumulative impression - The transcript presents a frontal, highly confrontational critique of OCCRP as a state-funded, state-influenced enterprise that positions itself as independent journalism while enabling significant political and legal actions abroad. The speakers claim conspicuously high returns on investment for government funding (billions of dollars in assets seized and numerous political changes) and describe the cooperative funding structure as funneling editorial output toward U.S. foreign policy objectives. They argue that independence is a veneer masking a structured, donor-driven process with formal approval channels for personnel and plans, and with direct implications for how narratives are shaped and which targets are pursued. They also connect OCCRP’s practices to broader historical patterns of U.S. public diplomacy, intelligence collaboration, and the global propaganda ecosystem.

It is claimed that 7,000 politically connected NGOs receive 90% of all taxpayer money allocated to nonprofits. Approximately $300 billion in government funds are said to flow through nonprofits annually with no transparency. The speaker asserts that the American people have a right to access the financial records of any entity receiving government money. They state that all information regarding the use of these funds and related communications should be public record. The speaker concludes that these NGOs must be accountable to the public.