reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I've been investigating USAID spending through usaspending.gov and found that Chemonics International Inc. is the largest recipient of these funds, receiving $6 billion recently. They primarily transport pharmaceutical products, especially AIDS drugs, to developing nations. Chemonics earned $1.8 billion in the last year and has a troubling track record, with only 7% of health shipments arriving on time in 2017. Despite scandals, including issues in Haiti and Afghanistan, they continue to secure lucrative contracts. Their operations raise questions about effectiveness and accountability in USAID funding. If anyone has more information on Chemonics, please share.

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.

UNHCR receives millions in donations, mainly from the US, yet only provides basic tents and trash cans in the Darien Gap. The organization profits from human suffering, failing to address the ongoing crisis and educate migrants on safe migration. This mass migration is destroying culture and values. Funding is misused, lining pockets instead of aiding those in need.

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.

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 traces a tapestry of questions around Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and the Clinton Foundation, emphasizing perceived links between philanthropic or diplomatic activity and private gain, while laying out specific Haiti and international case studies that critics say illustrate a pattern of influence peddling and blurred lines between public power and private wealth. Haiti after the 2010 earthquake: - After the January 12, 2010 earthquake, Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, and Bill Clinton, as UN special envoy for Haiti, led relief and recovery efforts. The Interim Haiti Recovery Commission (IHRC) was created to coordinate relief and reconstruction, with Haitian Prime Minister John Max Bellarive and Bill Clinton named as co-chairs. - The IHRC aimed to go beyond relief to long-term improvement, but concerns emerged that decisions were being made by Clinton and Bellarive with insufficient Haitian input. Members of the IHRC later wrote a letter complaining they were not involved and that national priorities were being disregarded. - Projects associated with US funding and Clintons’ involvement included: the Haitian mobile money initiative; plans to exploit mineral wealth; two gold exploitation permits issued after a fifty-year gap; and the Karakol Industrial Park (Caracol) intended to create tens of thousands of jobs. - The Caracol opening drew high-profile attendance (Bill and Hillary Clinton, Donna Karan, Ben Stiller, Sean Penn). However, questions arose about value and transparency: only about 5,000 of the promised 65,000 jobs materialized; the area displaced farmers; local workers reported low wages (roughly 225 gourds/day, about $5 USD); and only a portion of promised infrastructure and housing funding was realized. - Digicel, run by Irish billionaire Dennis O’Brien, profited substantially in Haiti’s telecom sector, and later contributed to the Clinton Foundation; Digicel was a key beneficiary in mobile money initiatives tied to post-disaster relief. - Tony Rodham, Hillary Clinton’s brother, joined the board of VCS Mining, which received a gold exploitation permit in Haiti, prompting scrutiny about potential family influence in contracting decisions. - The strongest economic gains were tied to US-linked firms such as Gap, Target, and Walmart through Caracol’s textile emphasis, while other projects did not deliver promised outcomes. - After the campaign for president, Hillary Clinton announced she would quit the Clinton Foundation to devote herself to full-time candidacy, and the foundation adjusted donation policies to restrict foreign government contributions, though concerns persisted about ongoing influence and access resulting from prior relationships. Global money, influence, and the Clinton Foundation: - The Clinton Foundation, founded in 2001 (initially as the William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation), positioned itself as a hub at the nexus of global money, influence, and power, with a stated mission to tackle hunger, poverty, climate change, and disease by marshaling government and private resources. - The Foundation reportedly raised more than a billion dollars over the years, with substantial speaking fees and book deals contributing to the Clintons’ wealth, especially after Bill Clinton left the presidency. - Critics argue that large donors could gain access to or influence through the Clintons’ public roles, while supporters emphasize the Foundation’s global humanitarian work. A memorandum of understanding during the Obama transition sought accountability: disclosures of new contributions to the Foundation, prior approval for foreign government donations, and state department vetting of Bill Clinton’s speeches and consulting arrangements. Selected foreign cases cited by Peter Schweitzer in Clinton Cash: - United Arab Emirates (UAE): In 2011, while UAE officials pressed Hillary Clinton on Iran sanctions, Bill Clinton was paid half a million dollars for a speech in Abu Dhabi by the crown prince’s brother; UAE later provided donations to charitable groups associated with Clinton-linked initiatives. - Ericsson (Sweden): In 2009-2010, Ericsson paid Bill Clinton $750,000 for a speech amid ongoing Iran sanctions discussions, framed by the foundation’s influence and Clinton’s crowd-pulling. - Colombia: In 2010, Bill Clinton met with President Uribe and, contemporaneously, Hillary Clinton discussed free trade agreements with Uribe; Frank Giustra, a Clinton Foundation donor, accompanied Bill Clinton and later secured government concessions in Colombia for Giustra’s companies. - Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia: Sheikh Al Amoudi pledged $20 million to the Clinton Foundation; Ethiopian rights concerns were raised regarding the donor’s government ties, and Hillary Clinton granted a waiver allowing continued US assistance despite human rights concerns. - Kazakhstan and Uranium One: Bill Clinton hosted a meeting with Kazakh officials in which Giustra had significant mining interests; Uranium One eventually came under Russian ownership, controlled by Vladimir Putin, with the deal requiring federal approval from Hillary Clinton as secretary of state; Canadian investor Ian Telfer contributed to the Clinton Foundation but reportedly did not disclose some donations. The report concludes with ongoing debates about the Clinton “blur”—the intertwining of philanthropy, political power, and corporate influence—while noting that Hillary Clinton’s campaign faced persistent questions about trust and influence, including opposition to certain foreign deals and ongoing scrutiny of donations and relationships involving the Clinton Foundation and related business interests.

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.

According to the speaker, the Gates Foundation provides 88% of the foundation donations to the World Health Organization. The speaker claims this violates competitiveness laws in both Europe and the United States. They assert that these donations are not independent or charitably funded, but rather directed donations, which are forbidden under the tax laws on both sides of the Atlantic and have no place in the charter of the World Health Organization or any UN-affiliated organizations. The speaker alleges this constitutes tax crime, racketeering, money laundering, and racketeering leading to murder and global terrorism.

The speaker discusses the alleged corruption surrounding nonprofit organizations in Haiti after the earthquake. They claim that the Red Cross only built six houses despite collecting $500 million, and that the Clinton Foundation misused earthquake donations. They mention the suspicious deaths of Klaus Eberwein, a former government official set to testify about Clinton corruption, Monica Peterson, who investigated human trafficking and criticized the Clinton Foundation, and surgeon Dr. Dean Loric, who openly expressed disgust about the foundation's corruption. The deaths of Peterson and Loric were ruled as suicides.

The speaker expresses anger towards the Clintons for destroying Haiti while pretending to be friends. Bill Clinton mishandled over $6 billion in donations after the earthquake, leaving many still living in tents. Haiti has abundant resources like oil and gold, but the Clintons control these assets. They also destroyed Haiti's rice production to benefit Clinton's brother's rice business in Arkansas. The Clintons have significant influence over business in Haiti, making it difficult for others to operate without their approval.

There's significant fraud in USAID, with radical groups receiving funds they don't deserve. A staggering amount, like a hundred million, is being misallocated. It's crucial to investigate the kickbacks associated with this spending. Who would invest such sums in questionable projects? It's likely that those who received the funds are not returning any to the government, indicating a high level of corruption. The key issue is understanding the extent of these kickbacks.

The speaker believes the Clintons have destroyed Haiti for decades, acting as enemies disguised as friends. While many know some people dislike Haiti, the Clintons are more dangerous because of their pretense. The speaker claims that the amount of money donated to Haiti after the earthquake was much larger than $6 billion, with Bill Clinton in charge. Despite the donations and Haiti's own resources, including oil reserves larger than Venezuela and one of the largest gold mines in the Caribbean, people still live under tents. Tony Rodham, Hillary Clinton's brother, allegedly has a 26-year contract related to Haitian gold. The speaker further alleges that Bill Clinton destroyed Haiti's rice production so rice from Arkansas could be sold there. The Clintons are said to control business in Haiti, requiring millionaires and billionaires to consult with them before undertaking any ventures.

The transcript asserts that the government can provide funding to a so called nonprofit with very few controls, and that there is no auditing subsequently of that nonprofit. It emphasizes that with the 1,900,000,000.0 to Stacey Abrams, those involved “give themselves extremely lavish, like, salaries, expense everything” and that the nonprofit is used to “buy jets and homes and all sorts of things” and to “live like kings and queens” within the tax paradigm. The speaker reiterates that this pattern is not isolated to a single instance but is happening at scale. It is described as not being limited to one or two cases but as something being seen “everywhere.” Key points highlighted include: - Government funding to nonprofits occurs with very few controls. - There is an absence of auditing of the recipient nonprofit after the funding is provided. - A substantial amount, specifically 1,900,000,000.0, is directed to a high-profile figure identified as Stacey Abrams. - The recipients are portrayed as granting themselves lavish salaries, paying for expenses, and purchasing luxury assets such as jets and homes. - The overall implication is that funds are used to “buy jets and homes and all sorts of things,” leading to a lifestyle described as living “like kings and queens” within the tax framework. - The speaker stresses that this phenomenon is not isolated but is happening at scale, with examples seen “everywhere.” The speaker’s framing centers on alleged governance and accountability failures in nonprofit funding, pointing to large sums of money directed to an individual and the perceived use of nonprofit resources for personal luxury. The emphasis is on the scale of the practice and the lack of oversight, suggesting systemic repetition rather than isolated incidents.

USAID is far worse than people realize. Remember the outrage over Elon Musk buying Twitter? We should have that same energy about the $200 billion supposedly sent to Ukraine—Zelensky says only half arrived. That's $100 billion unaccounted for! Meanwhile, crucial needs like fixing Flint's water crisis ($1.5 billion) are ignored, while Ethiopia receives more annually. The system is corrupt; politicians benefit through USAID, creating a loop of self-enrichment. The media, also funded by USAID, manipulates public opinion, making us think we're wrong to question it. This isn't normal; our outrage is manufactured. We need to investigate this waste and corruption. If you're a business owner struggling to reach your potential, let's fix your processes and boost your profits.

USAID and similar NGOs claim to rescue Africa through grassroots initiatives, but they are wolves in sheep's clothing using humanitarian access to destabilize governments. Most leaders in the developing world are celebrating USAID's exit. USAID claims to fill gaps in healthcare and education, but there's no evidence of improvement in any country where they've operated. The social services they provide are insignificant. American taxpayers should know that only a fraction of the billions of dollars given to USAID reaches the people.

The speaker alleges that the Pritzker family is a very prominent political family with 64 NGOs. They claim that for this single NGO, many people work for no compensation as trustees, while others are paid substantial salaries—upwards of a quarter of a million dollars. Specific figures cited include a Senior VP for Policy Research earning $400,000 a year, Strategy Affairs at $330,000 a year, and a VP at $300,000 a year. The speaker asserts there are 64 NGOs funded by taxpayers, stating, “that’s all your money.” The analogy used is that influential families in government are like a thief who found the bank vault door left open, with each NGO acting as “another bag for cash” that is filled and handed off to friends, with new LLCs created as needed. The speaker claims the NGOs “achieve anything? No. Not really.” and “Do they build anything? Certainly not. No.” The overall portrayal is that the NGOs are about distributing cash among associated individuals rather than delivering tangible results.

The speaker claims that an analysis of political donations from the State Department, USAID, and the National Endowment for Democracy reveals that 94-98% of donations went to the left. This pattern allegedly extends to international NGOs and contractors, including World Vision and Catholic Relief Services, with over 90% of political donations favoring the left. The speaker suggests these organizations' boards consist of highly paid, prominent individuals. The speaker alleges the left is misusing USAID and taxpayer money across the federal government as a slush fund to finance their own people, creating a one-sided apparatus that funds only one side of the political equation.

USAID is far worse than people realize. Remember the outrage over Elon Musk buying Twitter? We should have the same energy about the $200 billion sent to Ukraine, with possibly half never arriving. That money could've solved world hunger. Instead, our government's inefficiency and corruption are ignored, while outrage focuses on pausing USAID to investigate. This reaction is media-manipulated. Imagine finding your family business hemorrhaging money due to outrageous expenditures – like overpriced cement. You'd demand answers! Meanwhile, crises like the Maui fires and Flint's water crisis are underfunded. Politicians benefit from USAID funds, creating a corrupt loop. The media, also funded by USAID, shapes public opinion, making us believe we're the bad guys. This is a controlled environment; question the narratives you've been fed. We need to expose the leeches draining our resources. If you're a six-figure business owner not earning your potential, DM me for help.

A $100,000 donation intended to buy food for poor kids in Africa doesn't fully reach them because the NGO subcontracts the work, creating multiple middlemen. Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, estimates that 88¢ of every dollar goes to middlemen. Only 12¢ of each dollar spent on humanitarian assistance reaches the people who need it. There is a lot of waste.

USAID is a fraud and a slush fund for left-wing projects globally, with very little being put to good use. This occurs while denying funds to those who clearly need them, with only cents on the dollar reaching those in need. USAID was initially created for humanitarian purposes, but it has been captured by the military-industrial complex, becoming a sinister propagator of totalitarianism and war. The US government, through USAID, has funded things like DEI initiatives in Serbia, gender surgeries worldwide, sex change surgeries in Guatemala, and social media influencers in Ukraine. USAID is using taxpayer dollars to fund opposition and subvert democracy in other countries. USAID and the CIA don't promote democracy; they are run by radical lunatics that we are working to remove. As an American taxpayer, I don't want my dollars going towards this.

The speaker raises concerns about the Australian Red Cross and their refusal to separate blood donations from individuals who have received COVID-19 vaccines. They accuse the Red Cross of being a front for CSL, Australia's largest blood products and vaccine maker, claiming that they sell donated blood for billions in profits. The speaker urges viewers to support a petition for unvaccinated blood and criticizes the Red Cross for their alleged involvement in a medical scandal and the murder of children. They also mention their own health issues and the need for legal action against the Australian government and blood sellers.

The shocking part of investigating government-funded NGOs is that small decisions lead to massive, multi-billion dollar outcomes. I saw one instance of $1.9 billion being sent to an NGO that was formed a year prior and had no prior activity. Government-funded NGOs are essentially a loophole, allowing actions that would be illegal for the government directly but become permissible through nonprofits. These nonprofits are then used for personal enrichment, with individuals cashing out and paying themselves exorbitant sums. It's a giant scam where people can establish an NGO for a relatively small investment and then lobby politicians to funnel vast sums of money into it. There might be some good that comes from them, maybe 5 or 10%, but the rest is not.

I looked into Norm Eisen's NGO, State United Democracies Center, which includes prominent figures like Janet Napolitano and Michael Steele. The organization received $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. The videos had very few views. I question what happened to the $17 million, considering the poor quality and lack of promotion of the Muppet show.

Bill Gates donated $5 billion to his own foundation and received a tax write-off for it. This raises questions about the corruption within the government.

Bill Gates is criticized for his philanthropy, tax avoidance, and influence over media. His foundation is accused of promoting eugenics, investing in harmful industries, and pushing vaccines with negative side effects. Gates is portrayed as a powerful figure manipulating information and controlling narratives. The transcript raises concerns about his actions and questions the trustworthiness of his initiatives.