reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Is there a national purpose in encouraging Americans to invest in Chinese equities? I'm not aware of one. Generally, our view is that both inward and outward investments are economically beneficial. However, many members of Congress do not believe that building the Chinese economy is a good use of federal funds.

The speaker asserts that the consolidation of the meat processing business, enabled by the government, has negatively impacted the national economic health. They claim that two foreign government-controlled companies acquired major players in the industry. One is controlled by the Chinese, who bought Smithfield, and the other is a Brazilian company. According to the speaker, 85% of the industry is now controlled by four companies, dictating market conditions. They express concern that the government allowed over 50% of beef processing to be controlled by foreign entities, which they believe compromises food source security, especially given the current geopolitical climate. They question why a potential adversary would control 25% of US meat processing.

According to Speaker 0, Canada's new prime minister threatened to seize capital from companies not advancing Canada's climate agenda. Speaker 1 stated the goal is for every financial decision to consider climate change, backing companies that are part of the solution and taking capital away from those who are part of the problem. Speaker 0 claims the prime minister is a fan of censorship and threatened American social media platforms, referencing a statement by Speaker 1 that large American online platforms have become seas of hate and are being used by criminals to harm children, and that his government will act. Speaker 0 asserts there is no free speech in Canada and that the prime minister wants to ban social media platforms, shut down dissent, and use the climate crisis as an excuse to steal from businesses and control their means of production. Speaker 0 concludes that while the friendship between the US and Canada will continue, the "free ride" is over.

The speaker claims that some advocate for unfettered free trade, arguing against tariffs and for allowing corporations the freedom to displace American workers. According to the speaker, the idea is that wealth and good-paying jobs will be created in America even as plants shut down and move to China where workers are paid significantly less. The speaker asserts that finding products made in America is already difficult. Senator McCain is identified as a leading advocate of unfettered free trade and that this is part of a right-wing ideology.

Speaker 0 asserts that Alberta is a wealth of natural resources, but they won't let them build a pipeline to the Pacific. They argues we should let them come down into the US, and that Alberta is a natural partner for the US. The Albertans are very independent people. There are rumors that they may have a referendum on whether they wanna stay in Canada or not. People are talking. People want sovereignty. They want what The US has got.

Speaker 0 announces a government procurement policy change. Starting today, all U.S.-based companies will be banned from taking part in government procurement. The speaker notes that the province spends about $30 billion annually on procurement, and alongside that, there is more than a $200 billion plan to build infrastructure. As a consequence of this policy, U.S.-based businesses will lose tens of billions of dollars in revenues. The speaker attributes this consequence to President Trump and states the intention to urge all 44 municipalities to adopt the same approach, highlighting that some have already begun to respond. The speaker emphasizes a broader move beyond the procurement ban, stating that Ontario is ripping up its contract with Starlink. The contract is described as done and gone, with a commitment not to award contracts to individuals or entities that enable and encourage economic attacks on the province or country. This action is framed as part of a larger response that includes federal tariffs and measures being advanced by fellow premiers. The speaker characterizes the collective actions as “Team Canada’s opening response.” In summary, the key points are: a nationwide procurement ban for U.S.-based companies by the provincial government; the substantial annual procurement expenditure and the large infrastructure plan that would be affected; anticipated revenue losses for U.S.-based businesses; encouragement for all 44 municipalities to adopt the same ban, with some already joining; the termination of the Ontario-Starlink contract; and the stance that no contracts will be awarded to actors who are perceived as enabling economic attacks on the province or country, all within a broader strategy that includes federal tariffs and other premiers’ measures as part of an opening response from Team Canada.

Speaker 0 asks if increased electricity prices make a house more expensive, and Speaker 1 agrees it makes homeownership more expensive. Speaker 0 then asks if allowing 10-12 million foreign nationals into the country, all of whom need housing, increases the cost of homeownership. Speaker 1 says it's a distributional question and that they are there to talk about housing supply. Speaker 0 insists they are there to discuss homeownership costs and accuses Speaker 1 of being disingenuous for not admitting that increased demand raises costs. Speaker 1 reiterates that it's a distributional question.

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.

The speaker says the cattle industry has changed dramatically due to government allowance of meat processing consolidation. Four giant companies consolidated, which has a detrimental effect on national economic health. The government allowed two giant companies controlled by foreign governments to acquire US companies. One is controlled by the Chinese, who bought Smithfield, and the other is a Brazilian company. Four companies now control 85% of the industry and dictate who gets what, where, and when. The speaker claims the government has allowed over 50% of beef processing to be controlled by countries outside of the US. The speaker questions why the US would want an antagonist controlling 25% of its meat processing, citing food source security and the geopolitical situation.

The speaker created a trade enforcement union to investigate unfair trade practices. The speaker also signed a bill to help American companies facing unfair foreign competition due to foreign government subsidies. A new trade case is being brought against China, joined by Japan and European allies, regarding rare earth materials used in high-tech products like advanced batteries. China's policies are preventing the market from working on its own and go against agreed-upon rules. Manufacturing advanced batteries and hybrid cars in America is crucial for energy independence. The administration will bring this case against China to give American workers and businesses a fair shot in the global economy and ensure America builds and sells products worldwide.

Speaker 0 questions why Americans ever believed they had no claim on their country, on the jobs, or on a share of the economic pie. They ask whether the goal is for Americans to compete with people from all over the world for jobs in their own country, describing that idea as one of the most psychotic things they’ve heard. The speaker suggests this notion would only make sense if you were part of the asset-owning class that owns everything serviced by people who are paid much less.

The speaker was asked if there is evidence that Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schumer have received money directly from USAID. The speaker responded that taxpayer money is sent to government organizations, then to NGOs, which are government-funded but not governed by U.S. laws. Money is sent overseas to NGOs and the speaker is confident that some of it returns to the U.S. and ends up with the aforementioned politicians. The speaker states that it's not a direct route, but that some members of Congress are strangely wealthy, accumulating millions while earning significantly less annually, which is unexplainable. The speaker says they are going to try to figure it out and stop it from happening.

China is buying up various sectors of the US economy, including technology, food supplies, farmland, minerals, natural resources, ports, shipping terminals, and even pillars of the energy industry. The speaker expresses concern about Chinese communist activity in the US and emphasizes that economic security is national security. They propose enacting new restrictions on Chinese ownership of vital infrastructure, stopping future Chinese purchases in essential industries, and forcing the Chinese to sell any current holdings that pose a risk to national security. The speaker vows to ensure that America's future remains in American hands and promises a stronger country under their leadership.

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 0 asked Speaker 1 to respond to an accusation that Nancy Pelosi became rich through insider trading. Speaker 1 responded that the accusation is ridiculous. Speaker 1 supports stopping members of Congress from trading stocks, not because anyone is doing anything wrong, but to instill confidence in the American people. Speaker 1 has no concern about investments made over time. Speaker 1's husband is into investments, but it has nothing to do with insider information. Speaker 1 stated that the president is projecting because he has his own exposure.

Speaker 0 claims that in 1996 Bill Clinton “put an act into congress” to “protect cell phone tower companies from lawsuits,” describing it as being done by “pedophiles of congress.” Speaker 0 says that at that time there were “so many cell phone tower company lawsuits happening” because people “realized that these cell phone towers were microwaves,” and that Congress then “went ahead” and created legislation that shielded the industry from legal action. Speaker 0 compares this to another event in 1986 involving “vaccine protection,” saying “Reagan did that one.” Speaker 0 states that “these people are putting things in place to protect these industries which are poisoning the American people,” and identifies “Bill Clinton” as an example in this pattern. Speaker 0 then explains the alleged effect of the 1996 act: if “they install a cell phone tower right in front of your house” and “you come down with any type of illness,” then “you can’t sue for damages.” Speaker 0 adds another example involving animals: if “the birds stop dropping,” then “you can’t sue for damages either for that too.” Speaker 0 says this is because “there are no environmental effects that are allowed to be sued for based on that 1996 act,” and that “they believe” technology “should be able to put this technology everywhere regardless of if it hurts people or animals.” Speaker 0 frames the situation as something the audience should “kind of chew on,” and then says, “But the government would never do that. Right?” Speaker 0 then includes a response attributed to “somebody” who asked, “why does the government dread hurt us?” Speaker 0 reports that this somebody said “the government is lobbied and controlled by the Federal Reserve and the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers,” and that “this is why.” Speaker 0 further states that “they don’t really work for the people anymore,” and that “you can see that on all sides.”

The speaker states that the U.S. will tariff pharmaceuticals. They believe this will cause pharmaceutical companies to move back to the U.S. because the U.S. is the biggest market. The speaker asserts that the U.S.'s advantage is being the biggest market. They say a major tariff on pharmaceuticals will be announced shortly. The speaker believes that upon hearing this, pharmaceutical companies will leave China and other places because most of their product is sold in the U.S.

Speaker 0: We are proud to have penetrated the cabinet. Speaker 1: A constituent asked about outside interference in our democracy. Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum, boasted about infiltrating governments worldwide, including over half of Canada's cabinet. Can the member disclose which cabinet ministers support the WEF agenda for transparency? Speaker 2: Sorry for the poor audio and video quality. I'm unsure if the member...

Speaker 0: We have a problem with the CIA and FBI in Washington. Speaker 1: What's your plan to start over and fix them? Speaker 0: They've gotten out of control, with weaponization and other issues. The people need to bring about change. We were making progress, but more needs to be done.

Speaker 0 asserts that they have never taken money from the Israel lobby and asks if Speaker 1 has. Speaker 1 clarifies that APAC raises a lot of money for him, but emphasizes that the fundraisers are individuals, not the PAC itself, meaning it’s a misnomer to say the PAC raises money. He describes APAC as an American lobby and explains that APAC stands for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. He admits APAC is not a “foreign lobby” and says its purpose is not effectively defined as a single objective. He states his own entry into Congress thirteen years ago with the goal of being the leading defender of Israel in the United States Senate and says he has worked every day to that end. He notes that APAC is sometimes more effective than he wishes and then characterizes APAC as “a fever swamp of terrified of APAC.” Speaker 0 challenges the idea that APAC lobbies on behalf of the Israeli government, insisting that APAC lobbies for a foreign government. Speaker 1 responds that APAC is not lobbying for a foreign government; it is lobbying for a strong US–Israel relationship and for America and Israel to be closely allied. Speaker 0 maintains that APAC is lobbying for the interests of another country and reiterates that it is not true that APAC has nothing to do with the government. Speaker 0 asks about how much contact APAC leaders have with the government of Israel, and Speaker 1 acknowledges some contact, suggesting that the government of Israel is often frustrated with APAC, and asks whether they talk. He compares the situation to lobbying for more US–Mexico trade, noting that one would talk to both sides. Speaker 0 accepts that there are many countries that lobby Washington, including Israel, and expresses familiarity with how lobbying works, including knowing Americans who lobby on behalf of foreign governments and even being related to some. The central question for Speaker 0 is not whether foreign governments lobby the United States, but why it isn’t admitted as a common practice. He states that it’s true that many countries lobby Washington, including Israel, and asks why they aren’t registered as foreign lobbies. Speaker 1 responds that they are not registered as such.

Goshen, a CCP-affiliated company, plans to build an electric vehicle battery factory in Speaker 0's district. The company has received a large sum of money from federal, state, and local taxes. Goshen intends to bring Chinese nationals to Michigan, raising concerns about potential espionage. Speaker 1 explains that the issue stems from the blurred line between the Chinese government and its private sector. The Chinese government's authority and access could be used to undermine national security.

Speaker 0: ChemChina is producing pesticides in China that are not allowed to be used in China and shipping them over here for us to use and to harm ourselves with. So we're dealing with foreign companies that are happy to offload their toxic products onto us and then demand liability protection.

The speaker was asked if there is evidence that Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schumer have received money directly from USAID. The speaker responded that taxpayer money is sent to government organizations, then to NGOs, which are government-funded but not governed by U.S. laws. Money is sent overseas to NGOs and the speaker is confident that some of it returns to the U.S. and ends up with the aforementioned politicians. The speaker states that it's not a direct route, but that some members of Congress are strangely wealthy, accumulating millions while earning salaries of only around $200,000 per year. The speaker says they are going to try to figure it out and stop it from happening.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about his son's involvement in a Ukrainian energy company facing corruption charges. Speaker 1 claims to have no knowledge of his son's activities and trusts him. Speaker 0 questions the lack of accountability, but Speaker 1 deflects by mentioning Trump's family. Speaker 1 denies any wrongdoing and states that there is no evidence against his son. When asked about guardrails if elected, Speaker 1 asserts that his relatives will not engage in foreign business due to the current administration's controversies. No foreign business dealings will occur.

Speaker 0 argues that Freemasons, the New World Order, Skull and Bones, the Bohemian Grove, the North American Union, martial law, military checkpoints, US concentration camps, and a one world government will come to Americans unless action is taken now. The time is here; act now, America, before it's too late. Speaker 1 defines false flag operations as a distract-and-unify tactic for the government to push a hidden agenda. Globalization, control of oil, and suspension of civil liberties are used to gain more control, with fear being the game. He urges liberals, conservatives, and independents to join together as Americans and make their voices heard. He claims attackers want people split and distracted, and warns of an escalated attempt by the administration to scare the public into thinking Iran is a threat. He cautions to look for another false flag operation to justify fighting Iran, and to check for other mock drills occurring during the same time as real events; citing the nine-eleven attacks and the London bombings as examples where similar exercises happened the day of the attacks. He asks questions, demands answers, and asks who benefits. He asserts there is no interest in creating a stable environment in Iraq. He states the Pentagon has lost track of guns and ammunition and questions whose hands they fall into, arguing that disorder and chaos are being sought as distractions, with the conflict expected to last years. He predicts continued bases in Iraq under the pretext of security and national interest, and repeats the question: who benefits? Speaker 2 notes that in 2005 ExxonMobil achieved a record profit of $35,000,000,000, and an economist estimated that $7,000,000,000 of that amount was due to market conditions created by the war. Speaker 1 continues that under the pretext of security and fear of being attacked, the government will suspend freedom of speech, the right to assemble, and protection from illegal searches and seizures; they will ask law-abiding citizens to turn in their guns and to bear arms; they will establish martial law with the army policing the citizens, which is described as illegal. Speaker 3 adds that fear of nuclear, biological, or chemical attacks on US territory might trigger drastic measures. NFL News 12 Jeff Bell reports that clergy would help the government with their biggest problem, which is "us." Speaker 1 repeats: remember, ask yourself, who benefits? Speaker 3 reiterates that their biggest problem is "us," not external enemies, and that those who follow the markets see increasing housing foreclosures and banks calling in loans. People who couldn’t afford loans would have houses bought back by those who built them for pennies on the dollar. This would allow a small elite to regain control, weaken the dollar, realize a North American union, and establish a broader global economy. The repeated question remains: who benefits? Speaker 2 concludes with the confession: “The truth is, I hope I'm wrong.”