reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.

Speaker 0 asserts that $8,000,000,000,000 has been spent in the Middle East, while domestic infrastructure is not being fixed. They ask, “How stupid how stupid is it?” and state that we’re not fixing our roads, highways, tunnels, bridges, hospitals, or schools, describing it as “crazy.”

Last weekend, I was at a very expensive ski resort in the Alps, filled with wealthy Ukrainians spending lavishly. This is happening all over Europe. This money, I believe, should be ours—American taxpayer money. Furthermore, I know that a significant portion, up to half, of the arms we send to the Ukrainian military is being sold off, a lot of it ending up in the hands of drug cartels at our border. This is criminal. Our intelligence agencies are aware of this, and I believe they are profiting from it. Billions of dollars in aid are being stolen and sold to our enemies. This is unacceptable, and no one in America seems to know about it.

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.

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.

Speaker 0 contends that NGOs (nongovernment organizations) are not truly nongovernmental because they are funded by borrowing money and by money from donors, including billionaires. He claims they receive a large amount of funding, and the process involves borrowing funds and then distributing them to NGOs. He uses Afghanistan as an example, noting that there was a bill to defund the Taliban and that in the Senate there was opposition to adding NGOs to that effort. He argues that billionaire adversaries of the United States will put money into groups with fancy names (citing “feed the children” as a possible example)—a million dollars to start, which is "pennies on their dollars" for these donors. He asserts that these NGOs apply for federal money, and then an unelected bureaucrat in Washington declares them legitimate, leading to billions of dollars flowing to these organizations. Speaker 0 states that in Afghanistan alone, there are over a thousand nongovernment organizations operating there, and when combined with United Nations operations, the number could be multiples of thousands. He questions whether the money is being spent on certain events, asking, “do you really believe we're spending $10,000,000 on a dadgum drag show?” and asserts that the money ends up back in politicians’ pockets, with a paper trail that someone will uncover, though he believes it probably goes into dark money campaigns that oppose good Republicans as well. He concludes that this situation “has got to stop.” He ends by thanking Donald Trump and JD Vance.

We spend £15,000,000 daily on expenses like hotels, which is insulting to hardworking Brits struggling to make ends meet. There aren't enough schools, GPs, or homes being built, and the influx of people from other countries is changing our country beyond recognition.

Speaker 0 argues that when other countries contribute less, it is justified to say they should contribute more. They point to enormous Russian funds in foreign bank accounts, asking, “how much is that? 200,000,000,000,” noting that these are all Russian money abroad that is effectively frozen. It is not described as coming from impoverished Russians; rather, these funds come from Putin’s friends, the oligarchs who own billions. The SP (Socialistische Partij) has already, two years ago, said to use that money to support Ukraine. Using the funds to aid Ukraine would benefit Ukraine and affect Russia.

Our payments to NATO are disproportionate and ridiculous compared to others. Solving this issue is crucial because it will allow us to address important causes like homelessness, farmers, and healthcare. Unfortunately, we don't have the funds to support these priorities because our country is financially strained. If we had better business abilities, we could generate surplus profits that could be used to defend and support our homeless, poor, sick, and farmers. Instead, we are giving money to countries that don't care about us.

In the past 3 years, more people have left than joined the Canadian Armed Forces, leading to recruitment issues. The speaker criticizes the government for prioritizing spending on various projects over supporting veterans and the military. They highlight examples of what they perceive as wasteful spending, totaling over $600 billion, suggesting this may contribute to low recruitment numbers due to lack of support for those who serve the country.

The speaker criticizes the US government's funding of the proxy war in Ukraine, arguing that it prioritizes military aid over domestic infrastructure. They highlight the lack of transparency and accountability in the allocation of tax dollars, revealing questionable payments and arms deals. The speaker questions the wisdom of escalating the conflict with Russia, pointing out the potential for nuclear annihilation. They also criticize the erosion of democracy in Ukraine and the profit-seeking motives of individuals involved in the war. The speaker calls on the UN Security Council to enforce the UN Charter and monitor NATO's actions.

Speaker 0: Trump is not building a ballroom. Andrew Kerr, an architect with over twenty years of federal project experience, posted on Facebook and walked through step by step why this ballroom makes no sense. He did the math: $300,000,000 at 90,000 square feet would be about $3,333 per square foot, and he said that even luxury federal construction doesn’t usually approach $1,000 per square foot. The geometry of the renderings is nearly impossible, showing a building with a 380 by 235 foot footprint, but interior views show maybe 200 by 100 feet, which is 20,000 square feet, so that can’t exist in the same building. Construction drawings look like they were thrown together in about a week, and he suggested they were probably thrown together by Grock, or whoever’s still wandering around the White House from Doge. So the million dollar question is what is he building? The answer, he suggests, is an underground data center. Think about where they’re building. It’s not random. It’s the East Wing, where the PEOC bunker is, the tunnel systems that connect the White House to the Treasury to other federal buildings, and where all of the secure communications infrastructure lives. That’s prime underground real estate. It reminds me of Larry Ellison’s Oracle data centers in underground Jerusalem: nine stories deep, 160 feet below ground, 460,000 square feet, costing $319,000,000 per bunker. The White House is already at $300,000,000 for this “ballroom,” and it’s only climbing. Fiscally, it feels like a more apt comparison to those. Outside of architecture anomalies, the fact that this is privately funded should have been the first red flag. This is Donald Trump, the man who has spent taxpayer money on stuff that benefits him. He spent over $3,900,000,000 in taxpayer money just to make over Air Force One. Didn’t he also have Secret Service pay room bills at Mar-a-Lago? This suggests it isn’t serving him; it’s serving someone else specifically. Look at the donor list: defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Booz Allen Hamilton, tech giants like Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Palantir, crypto companies like Coinbase, Ripple, and Tether, and telecoms like T-Mobile and Comcast. These aren’t people funding a party space; these are companies with interests in government infrastructure, data, and operations. They’re funding infrastructure that directly serves them. Also, about Larry Ellison’s vision to automate the government: many tech pros talk about automating federal operations or creating a single digital platform for the government, which would require a supremely secure physical home for that system. Placing it directly under the White House would eliminate latency problems and ensure the President has direct physical control over the system’s core. Centralizing control and securing the brain of the government. It’s dystopian in many ways, and these are real developments happening worldwide. The companies funding this are buying access to integrate their systems with how the government operates, and that’s what $300,000,000 will get you. I guess.

Speaker 0 argues that USAID funding amounts to supporting terrorism and that the money flows through programs intended for Afghan women but ultimately funds extremist networks. The speaker cites a total of $697,000,000 annually, plus shipments of cash funds that allegedly support Madrasas, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS Khorazan, and terrorist training camps. They claim that programs under Operation Enduring Sentinel, specifically the Women’s Scholarship Endowment, which receives $60,000,000 annually, and the Young Women Lead program, which gets about $5,000,000 annually, are not benefiting women as described. The speaker notes that, according to the inspector general’s report, the Taliban does not allow women to speak in public, yet asserts that the money is being used to improve Afghan women’s lives. The speaker contends that the money is not for the betterment of women in Afghanistan but is funding terrorism, and that the funds are coming through USAID. The critique extends beyond Afghanistan to Pakistan, stating that USAID spent $8,840,000,000 in the last twenty years on Pakistan’s education-related program. This includes $136,000,000 allocated to build 120 schools, with “zero evidence” that any of them were built, arguing that the inspector general cannot obtain access to verify the projects. The speaker further claims that USAID doubled down by spending $20,000,000 to create educational television programs for children who cannot attend physical school, adding that they “can’t attend it because it doesn’t exist,” asserting that taxpayers paid for it and that “somebody else got the money.” In conclusion, the speaker asserts that taxpayers are funding terrorism and that the program must end, yielding the floor to the chairman.

The speaker discusses the war in Ukraine and claims that Russia tried to settle it on favorable terms. They argue that the US spends a significant amount of money on military contracts and expanding NATO. The speaker criticizes the allocation of funds, stating that the money could have been used to address homelessness. They also mention that the war will require further expenses for rebuilding. The speaker suggests that politicians and defense manufacturers benefit from this situation, referring to it as a money laundering scheme. They question the loan given to Ukraine and its repayment prospects. The speaker highlights the loan conditions imposed, including austerity measures and the sale of government-owned assets to multinational corporations. They express concern over the ownership of these corporations, specifically mentioning BlackRock. The speaker concludes by stating that the strategy of keeping people divided allows those in power to continue their actions unchecked.

Thanks to contributions, over $2,000,000,000 worth of enemy equipment has been destroyed. Western taxpayers should realize their governments are sending money abroad instead of developing their own healthcare systems. There are also housing problems, salary issues, and migration matters that need addressing at home, such as providing jobs to migrants.

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.

We could have used the $165 billion given to Ukraine to build 6 border walls, fix Flint's water system 215 times, give every homeless vet $2 million, and help families impacted by wildfires. HUD says $20 billion could end homelessness in America, but we sent much more. Priorities need to change.

We're not, spending any money on the war. The war is, being funded by NATO. NATO is buying our equipment. In fact, we're I don't wanna make money on that war. I don't wanna but we are actually making money on that war because they're buying our equipment, as you know. But we

We gave Ukraine $165 billion, enough to build 6 border walls, give every homeless vet $2 million, and help families affected by wildfires. Instead, they received only $700 each. HUD says $20 billion could end homelessness in America, but we spent $165 billion. This could have ended homelessness 8 times over. Our priorities need to change.

The speaker points out that the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the US is $12 billion, while Ukraine receives 12 times that amount in one year. The speaker mentions that even after the war in Ukraine ends, the US will spend half a trillion dollars on rebuilding the country, with contracts for rebuilding being even larger than war contracts. The speaker highlights a statement made by Mitch McConnell, who suggests that the money sent to Ukraine actually goes to US military contractors, benefiting the country. The speaker implies that this reveals a money laundering scheme involving companies like Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing, and Lockheed.

We spent $9 billion to resettle around 90,000 Afghan refugees since the fall of Afghanistan, averaging about $100,000 per person, which seems excessive. My question is, why are we providing any funds when we don't even have an embassy or diplomats in Afghanistan? The funds we provide come through partners like UN agencies and NGOs. We could apply that reasoning to all foreign aid, including funds going to foreign adversaries.

The United States has been sending hundreds of billions of dollars to support Ukraine's defense, with no end in sight, and with no security. Do you want to keep this going for another five years? Two thousand people, or more, are being killed every single week.

The speaker claims that $697,000,000 of U.S. money annually funds Madrasas, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS Khorazan, and terrorist training camps. They allege that programs like the Women's Scholarship Endowment ($60,000,000 annually) and Young Women Lead ($5,000,000 annually) are not benefiting Afghan women, because the Taliban does not allow women to speak in public. The speaker states that USAID spent $8,840,000,000 in the last twenty years on Pakistan's education programs, including $136,000,000 to build 120 schools, but there is zero evidence that any were built. They add that USAID spent $20,000,000 to create educational television programs for children unable to attend these nonexistent schools. The speaker concludes that U.S. money is funding terrorism and demands that it end.

Your country is in big trouble, you're not winning. You have a good chance of survival because of us. We've been strong from the start, standing alone in this war, but we are thankful for the help. We've given you $350 billion through this president. You voted for him. If you didn't have our military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks.

I recently attended a meeting in an expensive Alpine town, overwhelmingly populated by wealthy Ukrainians spending lavishly. This is a pattern across Europe; the richest people are Ukrainian. This money, I believe, should belong to American taxpayers. Furthermore, I know that a significant portion, possibly half, of the arms we send to Ukraine are being sold, some ending up with drug cartels on our border. Our intelligence agencies are aware of this. The media reports Zelensky's denials, but the New York Times could easily order Ukrainian weapons online—this is a fact. The official death toll is likely a lie; the entire situation is a deception. Sending billions in aid without tracking its use is irresponsible, and the possibility of these weapons being used against us is terrifying. This situation mirrors the issues we faced with the Mujahideen in the 80s. The lack of transparency and accountability is appalling.