TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

These groups claim they’ve secured injunctions that stop deportation flights and press local governments to not cooperate with the feds. “Kian Bahad admitted their caucus has secured injunctions that literally halt deportation flights” and “pressuring your local government to not cooperate at all with any of these federal agents.” They point to donors, including “Goldman Sachs, donated $5,000,000, Fidelity forking over $1,300,000 Bank of America, $250,000 and even Universal Music Group giving $50,000 all to the five one c three NGO, the Vera Institute.” The Vera Institute “isn't just help illegal immigrants evade ICE. They funnel money into radical causes like Black Lives Matter.” Inside Congress, “a widespread coordinated effort” to undermine federal law enforcement and slow down deportation efforts; “the cruelty is the point” and “we deserve transparency.”

I discovered the source of how ineligible individuals are being added to voter rolls. It's an organization called the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), led by David Becker, who has a controversial background. ERIC, funded by George Soros, contracts with states to access sensitive DMV records protected under privacy laws. Their membership agreement prevents disclosure of citizenship status, allowing them to add names to voter rolls without confirming eligibility. These names are then shared with the Center for Election Innovation and Research, which received significant funding from Zuckerbucks in 2020.

Speaker 0: This is not just a story about violence and chaos; this is a money story. At the Government Accountability Institute, Peter Schweitzer and I followed the money to the top of what we call the protest industrial complex, Riot Inc. We found a network of NGOs—not just the Soros/Open Society network, but also the Arabella Funding Network, the Tides Funding Network, Neville Roy Singham and his network, Foreign Cash, and other big left-wing funders, including Hans Georg Wiese of Switzerland. They’re pouring money into this ecosystem. Here are three money facts about Riot Inc. Number one: Riot Inc. has many divisions like any corporation. It doesn’t just have the Antifa boots on the ground division; it has PR divisions, marketing divisions, and a well-funded legal division to get these boots back on the ground as quickly as possible. It has investors I mentioned. Number two: We have identified dozens of radical organizations—not just decentralized Antifa groups, but dozens of radical organizations—that have received more than $100,000,000 from Riot Inc. investors. These include lawyer groups and groups that advocate for calling good honest Americans fascists, etc. Number three: More than $100,000,000 in U.S. taxpayer funding has flowed into these funding networks, including at least $4,000,000 to these very groups themselves. There was an event in Atlanta called Stop Cop City; over 60 rioters were charged with domestic terrorism. These groups received money for that from both the billionaire class and taxpayer money. Additionally, this money helps fund decentralized crowdfunding platforms that support Antifa, the John Brown Gun Club of Elm Fork (which had links to the ICE facility attack), the Socialist Rifle Association, and others. Even though some groups don’t have LLCs or EIN numbers, they can still get paid. Some funding platforms are funded by this network that we call Riot Inc. Speaker 1: Do you know the name of any of the funders? Do you know the names? Because if you do, I’d like you to give them to Cash or Pam—or Christie? Speaker 0: Absolutely. Speaker 1: Or Christie? Speaker 0: Yes, we’ll do that. Speaker 1: As soon as you can. That’s all of you. Because you probably know the names after a certain period of time, you tend to find out. But these are people that do not have good intention for the country and that’s treasonous probably. So if you could, it would be very important if you could do that, it would be great. Speaker 0: it

The transcript centers on allegations that Naftali Aaron Kranz is a paid protester and that a group called GetFree recruits and deploys paid demonstrators. A journalist questions whether there is someone they can speak to, and the conversation suggests the person of interest is on the other side of a park. The speaker asserts that Naftali Aaron Kranz is “a paid protester through and through,” and that he posts on LinkedIn to hire paid protesters for GetFree, a company advertising itself as a grassroots organization while paying people to protest. GetFree is described as hiring for part-time mobilization support contractors, seeking individuals with four-plus years of experience in leading direct action, large-scale mobilizations, demonstrations, and civil disobedience (which is described as experience getting arrested). Compensation is reportedly 3,500 to 4,200 dollars per month for an average of twenty hours per week. The speaker claims GetFree’s stated mission is to undo white supremacy, despite the assertion that Kranz and others are paid to protest. The narrative highlights Kranz’s participation in protests, including celebrating vandalism, with an example cited of “Crown Heights stay winning” after an egg was thrown at a stranger’s cyber truck and dog feces placed on it. The speaker places Kranz at an abolish-the-police rally, noting he is not leading the protest but blending in with recruits, enabling a later photo op. The claim is that this recruitment tactic blends various leftist causes to inflate the appearance of each individual cause. The speaker also states Kranz works with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and was encountered at a DSA Tax the Rich rally. LinkedIn activity is cited again, with Kranz posting about paid protester roles and recruiting nationwide in Chicago, the Bay Area, and Baltimore to expand turnout at events. When clicking a linked job posting, the contract is described as nine weeks, part-time, paying about 3,400 dollars in stipends issued biweekly, with responsibilities including recruiting and training people to drive turnout. The speaker identifies Nicole Cardi at the top of the Get Free movement and attributes a belief that George Floyd protests were a factor in Biden’s 2020 victory. The transcript connects protest NGOs to political goals, claiming donations to Get Free are funneled through ActBlue, which the Department of Justice is investigating for foreign contributions. It also asserts ActBlue funds activists like Indivisible Twin Cities, which allegedly orchestrates resistance to ICE agents in Minneapolis and has been paid protesters, receiving over 7.6 million dollars from Open Society Foundation, funded by George Soros. The speaker concludes with a personal note to stay away, and the journalist states they have to go.

The Obama administration, and even the early Trump administration, used taxpayer money to support the socialist government in Albania. This involved partnering with George Soros on projects aimed at weakening the independence of the Albanian judiciary. This wasn't isolated to Albania; similar activities occurred in Romania, Hungary, Guatemala, and Colombia. Soros, a billionaire, doesn't need this funding, yet the State Department and USAID enabled his influence, allowing him to shape foreign policy and even review funding applications. This taxpayer funding, the speaker argues, indirectly subsidizes Soros’s activities, both domestically and internationally, and is a way for the State Department to oppose conservative agendas. The speaker highlights this as an example of the government funding groups that oppose American interests, while right-leaning organizations are largely ignored. Legal action was necessary to obtain the documents revealing these activities.

ActBlue, the fundraising platform for Democratic candidates and PACs, is facilitating what I would describe as the invasion of our country. They act as financial intermediaries for numerous NGOs involved in every stage, from helping illegal aliens enter the country to assisting them once they're here. These NGOs provide resources like water along the border, fly migrants into the country's interior, enroll them in public assistance programs, offer pro bono legal representation, and even run "know your rights" campaigns and ICE emergency response hotlines. Some groups advocate for abolishing ICE facilities, keeping criminal illegal aliens in the U.S., and providing public assistance. ActBlue's entanglement with such radical organizations demonstrates the Democratic Party's support for open borders.

They found tent cities on college campuses are well-organized by groups like Students for Justice in Palestine, Within Our Lifetime, and Jewish Voices for Peace, funded by wealthy investors like George Soros and the Rockefeller family. The US Campaign for Palestinian Rights pays organizers well, with ties to the 2020 riots. The question remains: why now, before a presidential election? Translation: The tent cities on college campuses are organized by groups funded by wealthy investors like George Soros and the Rockefeller family. These groups have ties to the 2020 riots. The question is: why now, before a presidential election?

They express that recognition by Microsoft or the UN means little in the face of ongoing genocide, emphasizing that “the genocide, that's when you will have our respect” and that words from politicians or organizations do not solve the problem. Shadow banning is described as a process where big tech restricts content reach for users, aligning with policy or regularity to support the propaganda they serve. Content labeling before model training could be biased (e.g., from IDEV), leading to content being flagged and pro-Palestinian users banned. Meta later calls such issues “bugs,” but they are viewed as deliberate actions to suppress certain content. They claim Larry Ellison, owner of Oracle, is the biggest contributor to the “Friends for Idea Yeah. Charity,” with last contribution around 16,000,000. They assert that if a person who is friends with Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel owns 80% of TikTok, and Netanyahu promotes using TikTok and X to spread their narrative, it demonstrates the danger of social media in shaping global views and the propaganda machine. They accuse these entities of trying to control social media to brainwash younger generations, potentially restricting pro-Palestinian speech. Lobbying is described as highly structured, with knowledge of where to go, who to speak with, and organizations that move money to actions aligned with those goals. They urge each person to contribute their own skills toward free Palestine, noting strengths in tech, music, journalism, etc., and to create alternatives and support one another to change the dynamic. They argue that Zionists became powerful by mutual support, while others are weaker due to lack of unity, asserting that unity would strengthen their movement. Hejazi introduces himself as the founder of Upscroll. He is Palestinian, born in Jordan, currently living in Australia, with seventeen years of experience in Big Tech. The genocide’s ongoing impact changed his life, leading him to feel complicit via his work at big tech and to witness shadow banning of friends, family, and others posting about Gaza. He mentions that 60 relatives were killed in Gaza. He quit his successful professional career to build an alternative social media platform and decided to devote himself to creating Upscroll, an independent platform to counter the influence of Meta, X, and TikTok. Upscroll launched a couple of months ago and is similar to Instagram, X, and soon TikTok, with tens of thousands joining monthly. On launch, the platform saw rapid uptake: hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands as users sought an alternative to shadow bans, seeking to have their content reach others. The platform is presented as a response to the pain of posting without reach and the desire to become independent from dominant platforms.

Nicole Shanahan and Harmeet Dhillon discuss a broad critique of how culture, law, and politics are shaping America today, focusing on cancel culture, political power, and the fight over election integrity, free speech, and American ideals. - On cancel culture and authenticity: The conversation opens with a claim that pursuing political or cultural conformity reduces genuine individuality, with examples of how people are judged or pressured to parroting “woke” messaging. They argue that this dynamic reduces people to boxes—race, gender, or immigrant status—rather than evaluating merit or character, and they describe a climate in which disagreement is met with denunciation rather than dialogue. They stress the importance of being able to be oneself and to engage across differences without being canceled. - Personal backgrounds and the RNC moment: Nicole Shanahan describes an impression of Harmeet Dhillon speaking at the RNC, highlighting the sense of inclusion across faiths, races, and women in the party. Dhillon emphasizes that this is not about a monolith “white Christian nationalist” stereotype, recounting her own experiences from Dartmouth, where she encountered hostility to stereotypes and where merit-based evaluation (writing, argumentation) defined advancement rather than identity. - Experiences with California and liberal intolerance: Dhillon notes a pervasive intolerance in California toward dissent on topics like religious liberty and climate justice, describing a glass ceiling in big law for pro-liberty work and a culture of signaling rather than substantive engagement. Shanahan adds that moving away from the Democratic Party to independence has induced personal and professional consequences, such as colleagues asking to be removed from her website due to investor concerns, reflecting broader fears about association in liberal enclaves. - Diversity, identity, and national identity: They contrast the freedom to define oneself with the coercive “bucket” approach to identity. They argue that outside liberal coastal enclaves, people feel freer to articulate individual identities and values, while California’s increasingly prescriptive DEI training is criticized as artificial and limiting. - The state of discourse and the danger of intellectual conformity: The speakers warn of a culture where questioning past work or adopting new ideas triggers denouncement and self-censorship. They cite anecdotal experiences—loss of board members, fundraising constraints, and professional risk for those who diverge from prevailing views—claiming this suppresses valuable work in fields such as climate science, criminal justice reform, and energy policy. - Reform efforts and the political landscape: They discuss the clash between incremental, evidence-based policy and a disruptive, progressivist impulse. Shanahan describes attempts to fix infrastructure of the criminal justice system through technology and data (e.g., Recidiviz) that were undermined by political dynamics. They emphasize the importance of practical, measured reform and cross-partisan cooperation, the need to focus on American integrity and governance, and the risks of pursuing “disruption” as an end in itself. - Election integrity and lawfare: A central theme is concern about how elections are conducted and contested. Dhillon outlines a view of targeted irregularities in swing counties and cites concerns about ballot counting, observation, and legal rulings. She argues that left-wing funders have built a sophisticated, twenty-year, lawfare apparatus, using nonprofits and strategic lawsuits to influence outcomes, notably pointing to the Georgia ballot-transfer activities funded by Mark Zuckerberg and his wife. She asserts that there is a broader pattern of using C3s and C4s to push political objectives while leveraging the law to contest elections. - The role of money and influence: They discuss the influence of wealthy donors, political consultants, and media in shaping party dynamics, suggesting Republicans should invest more in district attorney races, state-level prosecutions, and Supreme Court races to counterbalance the left’s long-running investment in the electoral apparatus and litigation strategy. They acknowledge that big donors and activist networks can coordinate to advance policy goals, sometimes at the expense of on-the-ground, local accountability. - Tech, media, and corporate power: The dialogue covers the Silicon Valley environment, James Damore’s case at Google, and the broader issue of woke corporate culture. Dhillon highlights the disproportionate power of HR in big tech and how employee activism around identity politics can influence careers and policy. Shanahan notes that Google’s founders are no longer central decision-makers, and argues for antitrust and shareholder-rights actions to challenge what they see as woke monopolies that do not serve shareholders or society. - The path forward: Both speakers advocate for courage to cross party lines, work for principled governance, and engage in issue-focused collaboration. They emphasize the need to reform infrastructure—electoral, health, educational, and economic—through competency, transparency, and bipartisan cooperation, rather than through dogmatic, identity-driven politics. They close with a mutual commitment to continuing the conversation, finding common ground where possible, and preserving the core American ideal that individuals should be free to define themselves and contribute to the country’s future.

Resistance strategies are evolving, focusing on three main areas: judicial influence, NGO activism, and state-level actions by Democratic governors. Key players like the Democracy Alliance, backed by prominent left-wing billionaires, are strategizing on issues like abortion rights and immigration. They are also planning new dark money organizations to combat disinformation, targeting figures like Elon Musk. The legal side is represented by Democracy Forward, which has a significant war chest and is prepared to file lawsuits against the Trump administration. Additionally, groups like Indivisible are mobilizing grassroots efforts to challenge Republican policies. The Democratic National Committee is also gearing up to counter Trump nominees with opposition research. Overall, the resistance is well-organized and poised to be more powerful than in previous years.

Kamala Harris follows a man named John Della on Instagram, who the speaker believes may be a "puppet master" behind the Democratic agenda. Della has made traceable donations to the Democrats and is on the board of Google, which the speaker claims has been active in censorship. Della was also an early investor in Twitter and active in decision-making during Jack Dorsey's ownership. He is involved with Bono's One Organization and Bill Gates' The Pledge. Della is also involved with Forward.us alongside Zuckerberg, which the speaker says is aimed at fast-tracking citizenship for immigrants in the U.S., and some of its rhetoric is alarming.

The left uses NGOs to influence elections and reshape American culture, often funded by taxpayers. Each dot represents an NGO linked to the Chinese Progressive Association, which has funded various organizations like the Black Voters Matter Fund and the National Domestic Workers Alliance. These groups, in turn, support others such as the Fair Work Center and LGBTQ Alleyship. This network reveals how taxpayer money is funneled into leftist activities. The Chinese Progressive Association receives funding from major institutions like the San Francisco Foundation and Vanguard Charitable Endowment. Recent advancements in technology now allow for detailed tracking of financial flows between these NGOs, revealing connections and directors across multiple organizations. This information will be made available on the website.

Elon Musk, once a Democrat supporter, has become critical of the Biden administration and exposed their censorship regime. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has initiated two investigations into Musk, while Mark Zuckerberg spent $400 million secretly supporting Democrats during the 2020 elections without facing any investigations. These actions are perceived by the American public as mafia-like tactics, where those who pay are ignored, and those who obstruct are punished. The public is aware of these tactics and their implications.

Remember during COVID and the George Floyd protests? It seemed like money was being poured in to create outrage and destabilize the country in 2020, even though it felt artificial. It started after President Trump's inauguration with the pink hats, then transitioned into BLM and Antifa. The funding behind all of this seemed suspicious. Recently, we discovered USAID is one source. And just wait until we get to the Department of Defense and other departments! We've only scratched the surface of where this money is coming from.

"We've been able to, like, have, injunctions that, like, stop, you know, deportation flights and other types of things." "Qian Bahad admitted their caucus has secured injunctions that literally halt deportation flights while also stating that people need to pressure their local governments to not cooperate with the feds." "Last month, their undercover cameras caught Santiago Mouquet, a director at the Vera Institute, admitting the group tracks ICE movements and pushes that information out so illegal immigrants can dodge enforcement." "He also bragged about major donors, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and others." "The Vera Institute isn’t just help illegal immigrants evade ICE. They funnel money into radical causes like Black Lives Matter." "A widespread coordinated effort is currently happening right now to undermine federal law enforcement, slow down the deportation efforts."

Kamala Harris follows a man named John Dower on Instagram, who the speaker believes could be one of the puppet masters behind the Democratic agenda. Dower is on the board of Google, which the speaker claims has been active in censorship, and was an early investor in Twitter, active in decision-making during Dorsey's ownership. He is also involved with Bono's One Organization and Bill Gates' The Pledge. Dower co-founded forward.us with Zuckerberg, which the speaker says aims to fast-track citizenship for immigrants in the U.S., with some alarming rhetoric.

A Free Press report reveals that the "Trump resistance" is bankrolled by wealthy individuals. The organization "Families Over Billionaires," which opposes Republican tax cuts, doesn't accept public donations and is a trade name for Arabella Advisors, a dark money network. Arabella Advisors is funded by billionaires like Bill Gates, Reid Hoffman, Pierre Omidar, and George Soros. These organizations are structured within the Arabella network, obscuring the donors' identities. Such setups raise transparency concerns. "Families Over Billionaires" is staffed by former Biden and Harris officials, including director Michael Linden, previously with Biden's Office of Management and Budget. Currently, the organization is releasing YouTube advertisements featuring paid actors expressing concerns about tax cuts. While this doesn't discredit the organization's message, it's important to know that groups calling themselves grassroots may not be.

USAID has been a slush fund for left-wing projects globally, including gender surgeries, DEI policies, and climate initiatives. Billions of dollars funded NGOs, which infiltrated corporations and the public sector. This fueled resettlement of illegal immigrants, promoted equity policies, and advanced radical gender agendas. This massive left-wing power structure, including the media, wasn't organic; it was taxpayer-funded. The outcry against President Trump's cuts to USAID funding stems from this. He's cutting off the funding to organizations that harm America.

Speaker 0: I want to ask about what if you've changed position on what happened in the twenty twenty election. Speaker 1: Oh, I think it was rigged. Speaker 0: You think it was rigged? Speaker 1: Yeah. I know more now than I did then. What you'd have to do is in February 2021, was a Time Magazine article that was published, it was about Mark Zuckerberg investing $500,000,000 in a get out the Democrat vote campaign. And they focused on the swing states, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona. And they focused in what they did is they basically did what I would refer to as agency capture. And they went in and they captured the, the county clerks and the secretaries of states in these states. They basically said, we have a get out the vote campaign program, and if you will implement it exactly the way that we say that you must implement it, we will give you massive amounts of money to run your elections. But if you do not run it the way that we say, then we can claw all that money back. Well, think about it. If you're a small county in Wisconsin and you get $300,000 from Mark Zuckerberg's foundation to make sure that there are drop boxes in your, in your Democrat heavy areas, that there are, that you've got a, an RV going around and hauling people into the, into the polling places to vote. When you do that, if, if you do not carry out, you take that money, you sign that contract and you do not do exactly what that foundation said, you were gonna have to use public money to pay it back. You most likely would have ended up in prison. I mean, that's just one example of the way that the election was rigged. The Mark Zuckerberg money was huge. $500,000,000 concentrated in Democrat counties for the purpose of getting out the Democrat vote. Speaker 0: How do you know it was to get the Democrat vote out? Because how does exactly do what are the mechanics of that? Of how it was You Speaker 1: I have to read the article. And what the article does is it lays it out, and the title is something along the lines of how a secret group of people were able to save the twenty twenty election, meaning how were they able to get Joe Biden elected.

A journalist asks if there’s someone who can be spoken to about hearing, and is directed to the other side of the park. The exchange turns into a broader set of allegations about a man named Naftali Aaron Kranz and the organization Get Free. The speaker claims Naftali Kranz is a paid protester through Get Free. They present LinkedIn posts recruiting for paid protesters for the company, described as Get Free’s “part time mobilization support contractor.” The speaker asserts Get Free bills itself as a grassroots organization while Naftali and others are allegedly paid to protest. They claim Get Free aims to “undo white supremacy” and that one of the best ways to do that, in Naftali’s view, is to celebrate vandalism, citing Crown Heights, where someone threw an egg at a stranger’s cyber truck and placed dog feces on it. The speaker contends Naftali attended an abolish the police rally but was not the leader, instead blending in among other recruits, and that he works with the DSA, explaining why the speaker met him at a DSA Tax the Rich rally. On LinkedIn, the speaker says Naftali frequently posts about paid protester roles, urging people to join to “help us expand our effort to win reparations across the country,” with recruitment across Chicago, the Bay Area, and Baltimore. They describe a nine-week contract, part-time, paying $3,400 in stipends biweekly, seeking someone excited about experimentation who will recruit people and train them to drive turnout at events. The speaker also says Naftali is part of Jews Against Trump and urges donations to bail funds to “bail immigrants out of concentration camps,” adding a claim that a Jewish person who calls an immigration detention center a concentration camp has a serious mental illness, and criticizing colleges like NYU, the Democrat party, and mainstream media as brainwashing. The speaker asserts Nicole Cardi is at the top of the Get Free Movement and claims she says the George Floyd protests were the reason Biden won the 2020 election. They argue that protest NGO groups are about getting Democrats elected, and that donations to Get Free are funneled through ActBlue, which the speaker says is under investigation by the Department of Justice for foreign contributions. The speaker alleges ActBlue has funneled billions to activist groups like Indivisible Twin Cities, which is said to be orchestrating resistance to ICE agents in Minneapolis. Indivisible is claimed to have paid protesters and received over 7,600,000 dollars from the Open Society Foundation, funded by George Soros.

I'm definitely not buying Mark Zuckerberg's supposed MAGA conversion. After I posted a Twitter thread linking a group he donated to with organizations that are actively sabotaging Trump's agenda, Meta ran to the New York Times to smear me. Their defense was basically, "We gave money, but don't know what they did with it." Digging deeper, I found over a dozen organizations funded by Zuckerberg that are suing Trump and organizing protests against his policies. Zuckerberg hasn't publicly stated any intention to withdraw funds from these groups. He issued a letter apologizing for their impact on the 2020 election, but provided no evidence. The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative website, which previously listed thousands of grants to left-wing organizations, now only shows grants from 2024 onward, conveniently erasing the record of election interference.

The Trump campaign claims that a left-wing group funded by George Soros is responsible for a recent ruling. The ruling involves two organizations, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Free Speech for People, which are backed by the Democrat-affiliated AgBlue organization and have also received funding from George Soros' Open Society Foundations. These groups are using a law originally meant to prevent confederate rebels from holding office to prevent Americans from voting for President Trump.

We were covering an article about 55,000 Democrat NGOs discovered to be contributing to campaigns, moving things around, and pushing propaganda. It was discovered through AI that to figure out where the money's coming from, you have to go through layers and layers, and it's all funneling down to one group or another. It's a giant propaganda machine, a giant regime change machine.

The Arabella network influences elections in many ways. Demand Justice, a C4 organization, helped pick Biden's judges, including Katanji Brown Jackson, and former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki came from there. Its sister organization, Fix the Court, attacks the Supreme Court. Arabella is also a major abortion funder, largely through Warren Buffett's money. In 2020, one of Arabella's biggest charities gave $25 million to the main charity that received $350 million of "Zuck bucks." That charity continues to infiltrate local election offices. Arabella operates through groups like the Institute for Responsive Public Government and the Center for Secure and Modern Elections—classic DC groups with names that are hard to argue against.