reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Since becoming director of DOGE, I've uncovered massive corruption, fraud, and scams, possibly the biggest scam of all time, totaling trillions of dollars. Imagine someone with evil intentions deeply embedded within organizations like USAID, manipulating the system for decades. George Soros is a master at using NGOs to rinse billions from taxpayers. He figured out how to hack the system by leveraging small amounts of money to create nonprofits. He then lobbies politicians to send a ton of money to those nonprofits, turning a $10 million donation into a billion-dollar NGO. These NGOs, with nice-sounding names like the Institute for Peace, become graft machines funded by the government year after year.

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

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.

I'm concerned about the scrutiny USAID is facing. It's an organization that promotes national security, human rights, and global health. But, some USAID projects are questionable uses of taxpayer money. For example, millions of dollars have gone to tourism in Egypt, a Democratic Party propaganda arm, transgender opera in Colombia, sex changes in Guatemala, bat research in Wuhan, and even a new Sesame Street show in Iraq. These expenditures raise serious questions about how taxpayer money is being spent. We need to take a closer look at these allocations.

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 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 DOGE report alleges that funds are siphoned from the public through NGOs and government contracts. The speaker cites two examples: "Senator Sheldon White house is under the hot seat right now because he backed the legislation that approved $14,200,000 to go to ocean conservatory." A second case concerns "Family Endeavors" in Pecos, Texas, meant for overflow of immigrant children; it has been empty since 02/2021, while "we have been paying 18,000,000 million dollars a month" to keep it open. A board member was "one of Biden's transition team members." The presenter then says, "This is my opinion only. From this point on, everything I've told you so far is facts. You can go look it up online. This is my opinion only. I call that a payoff." They conclude, "That is how they steal from you. That is today's DOGE report."

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.

Doge started unraveling government spending, revealing allocations like $200,000,000 for transgender experiments on monkeys. This is claimed to be just the tip of the iceberg. The speaker references a map of 50,000 NGOs, alleging it was exposed as a Democratic propaganda machine with money being funneled in a circular fashion.

Jacob, it's surprising you haven't gotten involved with Doge. If I had known, I would have started an NGO. The U.S. government runs a massive deficit, and cutting spending in Washington is met with outrage. The money is flowing to various entities, including media outlets and foreign governments. For instance, Viktor Orban noted that his opposition in Hungary is funded by USAID, and similar patterns exist in Poland. The BBC and many left-wing organizations globally receive substantial funding from USAID, which disperses about $50 billion annually. This raises questions about the grassroots nature of left-wing movements, suggesting they may be more top-down than they claim.

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.

We have a prominent political family that runs 64 NGOs, and it looks like a lot of people are working for free as trustees while others are getting paid huge salaries. For example, we see a Senior VP for policy research making $400,000 a year and someone in strategy affairs making $330,000 a year. Remember, this is all from your tax dollars. These families in government are like thieves who found an open bank vault. Each NGO is a bag for cash. They stuff as much money as possible into each one, then they start a new LLC with a new purpose. Do they achieve anything? Not really. Do they build anything or make anything better for anyone? Not tangibly, but the people working for them are doing quite well.

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've been looking into Norm Eisen's NGO, State United Democracies Center, which has prominent figures like Janet Napolitano and Michael Steele involved. This organization received $17 million in private donations, and after digging around, all I could find was that they produced a low-quality Muppet show. The puppet videos have less than 200 views each. With such notable people involved and a budget of $17 million, it's shocking that their main project seems to be this poorly received Muppet series. They didn't even try to promote the videos. I wonder where the $17 million went?

The whole NGO thing is a nightmare because government funded NGOs are essentially government organizations, an oxymoron, and a loophole. It's a way for the government to do things that would be illegal if they did it directly. People cash out and become very wealthy through these nonprofits, paying themselves enormous sums. It's a gigantic scam, maybe the biggest ever. There are millions of NGOs, tens of thousands of them large. Someone can get an NGO up for a fairly small amount of money. Soros was really good at this, he figured out how to hack the system. He's a genius at arbitrage. You leverage a small amount of money to create a nonprofit, lobby the politicians to send a ton of money to it, and turn a $10 million donation into a billion-dollar NGO, which the government continues to fund every year.

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.

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.

I discovered a way to work the system, like George Soros. He realized you could establish an NGO with relatively little money. You then lobby politicians to allocate significant funds to that organization. For instance, a $10 million donation could be used to establish a nonprofit and turn it into a billion-dollar NGO. These organizations often have appealing names, such as the Institute for Peace, yet they're essentially graft machines. There are hardly any requirements associated with the funds they receive. The government largely assumes they're doing good work, although many officials are aware that this isn't the case; it's simply a massive system of graft.

Where is all of our money going? $520 million to consultants for environmental, social, and governance investments in Africa. $25 million is going to Colombia to promote biodiversity conservation and socially responsible behavior. $40 million to improve social and economic inclusion of migrants, and $42 million for Johns Hopkins to research social and behavior change in Uganda. Purdue is getting $70 million to research solutions to developmental challenges, while $10 million goes to Mozambique for voluntary medical male circumcisions. UC Berkeley receives $9.7 million to develop enterprise skills in Cambodian youth. The Prague Civil Society Center, a very liberal group, gets $32 million. $14 million is for improving public procurement in Serbia. We're giving $486 million to strengthen elections and political processes, including $21 million for voter turnout in India. This is fraud, and it just keeps going on and on.

Government-funded NGOs are a way to do things that would be illegal for the government, but are made legal through nonprofits. These nonprofits are used for people to cash out and become wealthy, paying themselves enormous sums. It's described as a gigantic scam, possibly the biggest ever. There are potentially millions of NGOs, with tens of thousands being large. Someone can establish an NGO for a relatively small amount of money. George Soros is described as a system hacker who figured out how to leverage a small amount of money to create a nonprofit, then lobby politicians to send a ton of money to it, turning a $10 million donation into a billion-dollar NGO. The government continues to fund these NGOs yearly, and they often have nice-sounding names, but are essentially graft machines with no real requirements. Many in government are aware they are not doing good work.

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.

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.

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.

We're spending massive amounts of money in other countries on things nobody's ever heard of. $520 million for environmental, social, and governance investments in Africa. $25 million to promote biodiversity in Colombia. $42 million for Johns Hopkins to research social change in Uganda. $10 million for circumcisions in Mozambique. $9.7 million to UC Berkeley for enterprise skills in Cambodia. $32 million to the Prague Civil Society Center, and $14 million for public procurement in Serbia. We're giving $21 million for voter turnout in India, while Nepal gets $20 million for fiscal federalism. Millions more are going to biodiversity in Nepal, voter confidence in Liberia, social cohesion in Mali, and learning outcomes in Asia. It's fraud, and I could go on all day.