TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Most of the time, when we send money as donations to developing countries, they spend it by employing Chinese, Turkish, or Russian companies, rarely French ones. However, some claim that 50% of the calls for tenders are won by French companies and that 50% of the money given for development aid is used by French companies. But there is a cosmetic effect in the way development aid is accounted for. For a French company to be counted in a project, for example, a water supply project, it is enough for a French company to have been involved in the project. For example, in a project worth two or three million euros, if a French company has invoiced, say, ten thousand euros of the total, the French Development Agency considers that the market has been filled by a French company. As you can see, it's a huge sleight of hand.

The Inter American Foundation (IAF) receives $50 million annually from Congress for grants, such as alpaca farming in Peru and improving the marketability of peas in Guatemala through jam. While nonprofits typically allocate 80-90% of funds to grantees, IAF allocates 58%, with the remainder covering management and travel. According to the GAO, only 10-15 cents of each dollar reaches the intended recipient. The money goes through layers of stealing via contractors and subcontractors. Sometimes, the money never reaches the destination. One speaker suggests that it's possible no one got a sex change in Guatemala. Another speaker overheard a contractor being told to falsify billable hours.

Since 2017, France has spent a staggering amount, allocating 25 billion euros to multilateral funds. This includes contributions to UN agencies, Bill Gates-sponsored vaccine NGOs, and organizations involved in reforestation efforts in the Amazon rainforest. However, according to the Court of Auditors, there's a lack of clarity regarding the allocation and expenditure of these funds, as we're unable to effectively track where the money goes.

USAID and similar NGOs, such as DFID, operate in Africa under the guise of humanitarian aid and grassroots initiatives, but their real purpose is to destabilize governments. Many leaders in Africa and the developing world are celebrating USAID's exit. Despite claims of filling gaps in healthcare and education, there is no evidence of improvement in countries where USAID has been present. The social services provided are insignificant, and only a fraction of the billions of dollars given to USAID reaches the people.

USAID and other NGOs like DFID claim to rescue Africa with grassroots initiatives, but they destabilize governments. Many leaders in the developing world are celebrating USAID's exit. Despite filling gaps in healthcare and education, no country shows improvement in these areas due to USAID. The social services provided are minimal. American taxpayers should know that only a fraction of the billions given to USAID reaches the people.

The GAO estimates that only 10 to 15 cents of every dollar reaches the intended recipient. There are multiple layers of theft, like contractors and subcontractors, peeling away at the money. Sometimes, after peeling away the layers, there is nothing left.

Here's the latest edition of wasteful spending courtesy of USAID. Over $849,000 is going to a transgender job fair in Bangladesh, where the median monthly income is around $220. Nearly $2,000,000 will fund sex change surgeries in Guatemala, provided by a trans-led organization. Millions more are allocated to various global initiatives, including $55,000,000 to strengthen Libyan financial processes, $20,000,000 for an Iraq Sesame Street program, and smaller amounts for similar programs in Bangladesh and Nigeria. We're also spending $22,000,000 to boost tourism in Tunisia and Egypt. Additionally, funds are directed towards climate change initiatives in Africa ($520,000,000), green transportation in Georgia ($24,400,000), and LGBTQ+ support in various countries like Uganda ($5,500,000) and North Macedonia ($1,300,000). Even China is getting $5,000,000 to reduce carbon emissions. This is just the latest list of wasteful spending. Time for change.

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.

Poverty could be solved globally with a simple decision, but corruption prevents this, especially in regions like Africa and Ethiopia. Wealthy countries gather annually for the Cap 28 summit to pledge around $100 billion for poorer nations, yet almost none of this money reaches those in need. Corruption is the main issue, but it remains largely unaddressed in discussions. Despite numerous visits to places like Haiti, the reality is that very little of the pledged aid actually benefits the intended recipients, as most funds are misappropriated.

My team faced significant obstruction from USAID while trying to access records on taxpayer money. Partnering with Representative Mike McCall, we initiated a congressional investigation, but USAID only provided limited data. Our findings revealed excessive spending with minimal results. Notably, USAID funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology for dangerous coronaviruses, and also allocated money for pottery classes in Morocco and tourism in Lebanon, despite travel warnings from the State Department. There are numerous examples of questionable expenditures.

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.

They tell us that with our money, they finance global public goods, like replanting trees in Indonesia or the Amazon. Deforestation in Brazil and Indonesia is authorized by these very states. Multinational corporations are profiting from deforestation. Then, French development agencies, authorities, President Macron, the EU, and the UN try to guilt us, holding out the begging bowl, citing climate change. Those countries and corporations profited, but they won't pay. Instead, taxpayers like you will pay. People have been paralyzed by the fear of being seen as pro-climate change, so they say nothing. But it's scandalous! Brazil, Indonesia, and the deforesting multinationals should pay, not French taxpayers. This fleecing must stop immediately.

The Inter American Foundation (IAF) receives $50 million annually to give grants for projects like alpaca farming in Peru and improving the marketability of peas in Guatemala through jam. Unlike private sector nonprofits that give 80-90% of funds to grantees, IAF gives 58%, with the rest going to management and travel. Most of the money never leaves DC, ending up in the pockets of locals. The GAO estimates that only 10-15 cents of each dollar reaches the intended recipient. There are layers of stealing through contractors and subcontractors, sometimes resulting in nothing reaching the final destination. It's possible that no one got a sex change in Guatemala. A contractor was overheard telling a colleague to falsify billable hours.

During my brief work involving budget review, a high-ranking official at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs revealed a shocking detail. I questioned why the state holds a minority stake in the board overseeing Mr. Rioux and the French Development Agency (AFD). The official explained that if the state became the majority shareholder, the AFD's debt, totaling €50 billion loaned to countries unlikely to repay, would have to be included in France's national debt. So, beyond the uncontrolled spending with little benefit for France or the aided populations, a significant portion of France's debt is concealed within the AFD's balance sheet.

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.

Here's where some of our money is going: $520 million to consultants for environmental, social, and governance investments in Africa, and another $25 million to promote biodiversity in Colombia. We're also giving $42 million to Johns Hopkins for social and behavioral research in Uganda. Then there's $70 million for Purdue to research solutions to global developmental challenges. Other expenditures include $10 million for circumcisions in Mozambique, $9.7 million for enterprise skills training for Cambodian youth, and $32 million to the Prague Civil Society Center. We've also allocated $14 million to improve public procurement in Serbia, $21 million for voter turnout in India, and $20 million for fiscal federalism in Nepal. Millions more are going to biodiversity in Nepal, voter confidence in Liberia, and learning outcomes in Asia.

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.

USAID and other NGOs are not rescuing Africa, but are wolves in sheep's clothing, supporting those who keep governments in turmoil. American taxpayers should know that only a fraction of the billions of dollars given to USAID reaches the people. An HIV AIDS program in South Africa allegedly injected people with the virus, contributing to its rapid spread in Southern Africa. Africans were used as guinea pigs for experimental activities. GMOs are destroying African agriculture. While some good may come out of these programs, the end result is that they mean no good.

It's crucial to address what's called tied aid, which is allocating development aid to friendly countries and exclusively to French companies. For example, when funding transportation upgrades or water access in developing nations, ensuring French companies benefit from these contracts is paramount. I was told this is not allowed by the OECD, an international organization that tracks and compares development aid amounts across countries. If we restrict our development aid to French companies, the OECD won't count it. So what? There are no real consequences. We can still do it; the OECD will just exclude it from their count. Is it better to support French companies, promote France through development aid, and control how we assist countries in need, or appease OECD officials? I don't understand the issue.

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.

The speaker discusses various financial contributions made by France to different countries and causes. They mention that France has given 138 million euros to Papua New Guinea and Congo for forests, 500 million euros to Brazil for forest preservation, and 1.5 billion euros to the Sea Summit. Additionally, they mention that France has given 50 million euros to the Pas-de-Calais municipalities and 100 million euros to Gaza. The speaker expresses confusion about why President Macron would allocate such large sums of money to these causes and asks for an explanation.

Where's the money going? $520 million for environmental, social, and governance investments in Africa. $25 million to promote biodiversity in Colombia. $40 million to include sedentary migrants. $42 million for Johns Hopkins to research social change in Uganda. What about us? $70 million for Purdue to research solutions to developmental challenges. Then, $10 million for circumcisions in Mozambique, $9.7 million for UC Berkeley to develop Cambodian youth enterprise skills. $2.3 million to strengthen independent voices in Cambodia, $32 million to the Prague Civil Society Center, $14 million to improve public procurement in Serbia, $486 million to strengthen elections, including $21 million for voter turnout in India. It continues: $20 million for fiscal federalism in Nepal, $19 million for biodiversity in Nepal, $1.5 million for voter confidence in Liberia, and $47 million for improving learning outcomes in Asia. This involves hundreds of billions of dollars, and I could continue reading examples all day.

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.

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.