TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker says USAID funding amounts to terrorism. He notes $697,000,000 annually, plus shipments of cash funds Madrasas, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS Khorazan, terrorist training camps. If you think that the program under operation enduring Sentinel entitled Women's Scholarship Endowment ($60,000,000 annually) or the Young Women Lead ($5,000,000 annually) is going to women— inspector general's report says the Taliban does not allow women to speak in public. He asserts Americans are told this funds women, but 'You are funding terrorism, and it's coming through USAID.' He adds USAID spent $8,840,000,000 in the last twenty years on Pakistan's education related program, including $136,000,000 to build 120 schools with zero evidence any were built; inspector general can't get in to see them. They spent $20,000,000 to create educational television programs for children unable to attend the school; 'You paid for it. Somebody else got the money. You are paying for terrorism.'

Tim Burgett discusses 'bad gum NGOs'—Nongovernment organizations—saying they're not non government because you and I fund it; we borrow the money to send to them. He cites Afghanistan, where a bill to defund the Taliban is in the Senate, and says the other side pitched a fit when NGOs were added; we're cutting them off. He claims billionaires who hate what we stand for will put a million dollars in groups with fancy names like 'feed the children,' and that they apply for federal money; an unelected bureaucrat in Washington says they’re legit, enabling billions. Afghanistan alone has over a thousand NGOs; with UN involvement, could be thousands more. He questions spending, asking, 'do you really believe we're spending 10,000,000 on a dadgum drag show?', suggesting money goes back to politicians; there’s a paper trail. 'These executive orders, that's exactly what they're stopping. Scrap the whole thing and start over.'

We're sending millions in cash to Afghanistan, even weekly shipments of $40-80 million, to folks like the Haqqani network. This is on top of the $697 million annually, funding madrasas, ISIS, Al Qaeda, and terrorist training camps. Programs like the Women's Scholarship Endowment aren't helping women; they're funding terrorism through USAID. We're essentially paying welfare to Taliban martyrs' families, while American families who lost loved ones get nothing. Some argue this prevents them from joining ISIS, but it's a lie to justify funding our enemies. The US government has been backing these groups since the late '70s, using them against other countries and even against us. It's a setup for America's collapse.

The speaker claims the U.S. has given close to $5 billion to the Taliban via NGOs, and this continues. They allege this money cycles back to Washington, with a paper trail that Elon Musk has alluded to. The speaker believes USAID money goes "almost a %" right back to Democrat campaign coffers, with some Republicans also possibly benefiting. They state that Republican leadership is upset about these claims but acknowledges their truth. The speaker also questions how Joe Biden could have reviewed 8,000 pardon files, suggesting "payola" and shadiness in Washington D.C., particularly across various departments.

The speaker argues that there are fake NGOs functioning as fake charities and that arrests should be made in relation to them. The claim is that these organizations are predominantly operated by Democrats, with occasional involvement by Republicans who are supposedly kept quiet by those false charitable activities. The speaker describes this pattern as evidence of a broader “uniparty” dynamic, suggesting that both major parties are involved in a system designed to influence politics. According to the speaker, the majority of the money flows to Democrats through these NGOs. They assert that billions of dollars are given to NGOs run by Democrats, and these organizations then channel funds through a large network of additional non-governmental organizations. This network allegedly creates a “giant money laundering scheme,” to the point where the speaker states that the words NGO and money laundering are almost synonymous. Key claims highlighted include: - Existence of fake NGOs that operate as fake charities. - A call for arrests related to these fake NGOs. - Predominant involvement of Democrats in running these NGOs, with occasional Republican involvement used to quiet concerns. - A description of a uniparty dynamic, implying bipartisan collusion or alignment in this activity. - Large-scale funding (billions of dollars) flowing to NGOs run by Democrats. - A subsequent cascade through a network of additional NGOs, forming a vast money laundering scheme. - The assertion that NGO activity and money laundering are nearly interchangeable in this context. The speaker emphasizes that the overall operation constitutes a substantial financial mechanism linked to political influence, portraying the NGO network as a conduit for laundering money rather than purely charitable activity. The overall framing is that the integrity of NGOs involved in political funding is compromised by this alleged system, tying NGO activity directly to money laundering in a way that equates the two terms in the speaker’s characterization.

I see NGOs as a hack, and George Soros was a master at it. He understood how to use a relatively small amount of money to establish a nonprofit, and then lobby politicians to funnel large sums of money into it. For example, a $10 million donation could be leveraged into a billion-dollar NGO. These NGOs, or nongovernmental organizations, often have appealing names, but they can essentially be graft machines. They receive grants with minimal requirements, and the government often assumes they're doing good work, even when they might not be. Many within the government are aware of this dynamic, but the funding continues.

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.

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

The speakers discuss the corruption and conflicts of interest they see in government funding of NGOs, particularly through USAID. They highlight the web of 55,000 NGOs supporting liberal causes and the use of software to uncover this complicated propaganda network. They find it problematic that billions of dollars are spent on these programs while domestic issues, such as the aftermath of the Maui wildfires and the needs of people in North Carolina, are not adequately addressed. They argue that money sent to other countries and organizations could instead be used to rebuild homes and support Americans in need. They question why taxpayers should support USAID when it doesn't address problems within America, especially when the country is in debt. They also mention new technology and Elon Musk's role in exposing government activities.

The whole NGO thing is a nightmare because government funded non-governmental organizations are essentially just government organizations, it's an oxymoron. Government funded NGOs are a loophole that allows the government to do things that would otherwise be illegal, by sending funds to a nonprofit. These nonprofits are then used for people to cash out and become very wealthy, it's a gigantic scam. There are probably millions of NGOs, and tens of thousands of large ones. It's a hack to the system where someone can get an NGO for a small amount of money. Soros was really good at this, he figured out how to leverage a small amount of money to create a nonprofit, then lobby politicians to send a ton of money to that nonprofit.

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.

The speaker's research into political donations from the State Department, USAID, and the National Endowment for Democracy found that 94-98% went to the left. A similar pattern was observed when examining international NGOs and contractors, including World Vision and Catholic Relief Services. The speaker alleges that the left is misusing taxpayer money across the federal government as a slush fund to finance their own people. This creates a one-sided apparatus where taxpayer money funds only one side of the political equation, enabling recipients to support left-leaning media and political activities.

Taxpayer money is sent to government organizations, then to NGOs. If it's a government-funded NGO, it's effectively just the government. A fraud loophole exists because the government can send money to an NGO that is no longer governed by U.S. laws. The money is sent overseas to one NGO, then through others. The speaker is highly confident that some of that money returns to the U.S. and enriches certain people. There are strangely wealthy members of Congress, and it's unclear how they accumulated millions while earning comparatively little. The speaker aims to investigate this and prevent it from continuing.

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.

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

The 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.

The speaker believes that Trump and Doge are perceived as threats to democracy, but are actually threats to the bureaucracy. The speaker claims elected officials have little power relative to the bureaucracy, and Doge is the first real threat to this system. The speaker describes investigating a situation where an NGO, formed a year prior with no prior activity, received $1.9 billion. They state that government-funded NGOs are a loophole allowing illegal government activities to occur legally through nonprofits. These nonprofits are allegedly used for personal enrichment, with individuals becoming wealthy and paying themselves large sums. The speaker calls this a gigantic scam, possibly the biggest ever.

Fake NGOs are often fake charities, mostly run by Democrats, though Republicans may be involved to maintain silence. Billions of dollars are given to these Democrat-run NGOs, which then go through a network of additional NGOs. This is described as a giant money laundering scheme, where the terms NGO and money laundering are almost synonymous. Arrests are needed in this regard.

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

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.

What's the deal with those dadgum NGOs? Nongovernment organizations. 'They're not nongovernment because you and I fund it. We borrow the money to send to them.' Afghanistan, for instance, where we had the bill to defund the Taliban. 'In the senate now, but and the other side, oh, man, they pitched a fit when we added NGOs. We're cutting them off.' 'Do you really believe we're spending $10,000,000 on a dadgum drag show? Where's the money go?' 'Afghanistan alone, over a thousand nongovernment organizations are working out.' 'There’s a paper trail.' 'Somebody's gonna find out about it, but we know it probably goes into dark money campaigns, fighting good Republicans as well.' 'And thank you Donald Trump and JD Vance.' Dadgummit.

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.

Speaker 0 highlights that a tremendous amount of money is being sent to nongovernmental organizations. He characterizes this flow of funds as, essentially, one of the biggest sources of fraud in the world. In his view, government-funded nongovernmental organizations create a gigantic fraud loophole because the government can provide money to an NGO, and then there are no controls over that NGO. He asserts that there have been billions of dollars in tech directed to NGOs through this mechanism, and he estimates tens of billions of dollars have been given to NGOs that are essentially scams.

I see NGOs as a hack to the system. People can establish one fairly inexpensively. George Soros was excellent at this, leveraging a small amount of money to create a nonprofit, then lobbying politicians to direct substantial funds to it. A $10 million donation could become a billion-dollar NGO. These NGOs often have appealing names, like the Institute for Peace, but they can be graft machines. The government provides grants, assuming they're doing good work, but there are really no requirements attached to the money, and the government continues to fund them annually. While many in the government are aware they might not be effective, the system persists.