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.

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.

Is there a national purpose in encouraging Americans to invest in Chinese equities? I'm not aware of one. Generally, our view is that both inward and outward investments are economically beneficial. However, many members of Congress do not believe that building the Chinese economy is a good use of federal funds.

Do you support the prime minister's veto of the Northern Gateway pipeline? I understand the veto and believe it was the right decision for both environmental and commercial reasons. However, your company has invested $1 billion in pipelines in Brazil and the UAE over the last five years. Do you support those investments? There is a global energy system, and it's important to consider Canada's role in the transition from fossil fuels to renewables. So, you oppose pipelines in Canada but support them abroad? That’s not a double standard. You profit from foreign pipelines while shutting down projects here, which puts people out of work.

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.

I've found some questionable expenditures by USAID, like the $3,000,000 given to a rap artist in Gaza who was producing anti-Israel, anti-Semitic songs. Is that really the best way to use American taxpayer money? I don't think so. During tomorrow's hearing, we will be addressing this issue, as well as the fact that the woke ideology that USAID is pushing in various parts of the world is not welcomed.

USAID cuts have been harming third world nations that never bothered to develop their own economies while they were on the dole. Hodan Oseman, President of the Somali Development and Reconstruction Bank, says that those cuts have had a severe impact on her country's economy, Somalia. They've been receiving development aid this is separate from humanitarian aid for at least forty three years from US taxpayers, and we have been the single largest donors to aid in that nation. By the way, forty three years? That's longer than my children receive development money from me. I think it's time for the little boys to act like grown ups now, and I'm sure that after nearly half a century of US funded economic development, they actually have a developed economy. Wouldn't you think?

I'm exposing some initiatives USAID has funded and asking a yes or no question: Do these expenditures of American taxpayer dollars put America First? USAID awarded $2,000,000 to strengthen trans-led organizations for gender-affirming health care in Guatemala. Does paying for this advance American interests? USAID awarded over $750,000 to alleviate loneliness among migrant garment workers in India. Does this advance America's interest? USAID awarded $1,500,000 for a gender-sensitive response to migration at the Venezuelan border. Does this advance American interests? Other expenditures include; $4,300,000 for health services for men who have sex with men in South Africa, $1,500,000 to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion in Serbia, $70,000 for a live musical event promoting US and Irish shared values, $1,500,000 to upscale LGBT rights advocacy in Jamaica, $28,000,000 to facilitate the economic insertion of Venezuelan migrants in Peru and Ecuador, $17,500,000 for voluntary medical male circumcision overseas, and nearly $150,000 for HIV prevention targeting men who have sex with men and transgender people. Our foreign assistance system is broken, and this ends now.

Our payments to NATO are disproportionate and ridiculous compared to others. Solving this issue is crucial because it will allow us to address important causes like homelessness, farmers, and healthcare. Unfortunately, we don't have the funds to support these priorities because our country is financially strained. If we had better business abilities, we could generate surplus profits that could be used to defend and support our homeless, poor, sick, and farmers. Instead, we are giving money to countries that don't care about us.

It's crucial for Americans to realize that foreign aid constitutes less than 1% of the national budget and is directed towards the most vulnerable populations globally. This funding is already allocated and cannot be redirected. Currently, Elon Musk, a billionaire with foreign interests, is attempting to undermine this support for the poorest people. He is not an elected official and lacks the authority to make such decisions. It's important to scrutinize his motives and the implications of his actions. Additionally, while this agency was established by an executive order, it was also funded by Congress in 1998, emphasizing that the executive branch cannot bypass congressional authority regarding resource allocation.

This wastefulness needs explaining. How was such a squandering of money possible when we ourselves are borrowing from financial markets to finance an ever-increasing debt? Why didn't anyone stop this? The answer lies in ideology. If you question those involved in public development aid, they'll accuse you of opposing gender equality, climate change efforts, and being okay with world hunger. There's a moral blackmail and arguments from authority that paralyze my fellow members of parliament.

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 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.

As a senator, I'm concerned about USAID's lack of transparency with taxpayer dollars. Examples include funding for a Wuhan lab, Iraqi Sesame Street, and fashion weeks in Europe. My TRACS Act aims to disclose every grant recipient to prevent funds from going to adversaries. The fact that the US government funded the creation of the virus that caused the global pandemic is incredible. It is terrible for people to believe charitable support is tied to political manipulation, so we need a firewall between genuine aid and CIA/State Department activities. It is an all American commitment to not letting the state be abused for political reasons. The focus should be on transparency, accountability, and clarity in our interactions with the world. We need to identify the waste, fraud within our federal government, and get those reforms over the finish line.

We are not in trouble because of a lack of energy or amateurs. We need to talk about things. These people are great, but they are inexperienced. Macron has been here for 6 years and didn't think about all this before. We are dependent now, whereas France used to be a leader in electricity. We had the strongest nuclear potential in the world and could export electricity. But now we are begging because we followed Germany's lead. This is not Europe, it's German Europe. The Franco-German relationship is a disaster for France. We need to break free from this imperialism.

We don't want to be like the European Union, we don't care about them. We are French and we stick to French laws.

We had a productive discussion about USAID, an issue I've focused on for years in the Senate. USAID has consistently obstructed my congressional oversight efforts. I shared examples of waste within the organization during a recent conversation on X Spaces with Elon. It's crucial that we scrutinize every dollar spent there, and I'm pleased to see a shift in oversight to the State Department.

The speaker states the Clinton Foundation acted as an agent of a foreign government, giving the example of Mozambique in 2002. According to the speaker, a memorandum of agreement existed between the foundation and Mozambique to work on their behalf through their Ministry of Health program. Emails suggest this was not a Clinton Foundation program, but rather support for the Mozambique Ministry of Health. The speaker claims the foundation brokered money and pharmaceuticals, taking a vague fee. They negotiated relationships with pharmaceutical companies. The speaker concludes the Clinton Foundation functioned as a closely held family partnership, not a charity.

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.

I'm bringing attention to potential corruption involving the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI). An amendment was proposed to prevent taxpayer funds from being used for State Department employees to attend CGI events due to concerns about corruption and influence peddling. In one instance, Hillary Clinton allegedly approached the Moroccan government about hosting a CGI conference in Morocco. The Moroccans funneled money through a state-owned enterprise extracting phosphates from a disputed territory, seemingly condoning Morocco's sovereignty over the land in exchange for cash as Clinton began her run for president. There were also undisclosed donations linked to the sale of US uranium production to a Russian agency. The CGI has now been resurrected, and it has since morphed into a factory of radical elitist woke schemes. This amendment aims to prevent the State Department from coordinating with the CGI, sending a message against corruption and foreign influence on US policy.

Most of these projects never actually materialize, often leading only to investigations or studies. French companies, NGOs, associations, and businesses connected to the Agence Française Développement, including international consultants like McKinsey and French consulting agencies, travel to distant countries. They get paid handsomely, sometimes €500 to €1,000 per week, or even €500 per day. With studies lasting weeks or months, the bill can reach €10,000, €100,000, or even €150,000, all paid by French taxpayers for projects that never come to fruition. This not only brings no benefit to France but, more importantly, it also fails to help the countries it's intended for.

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 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.

France must pay the $20 million debt installment they owe us, as they promised to do so without any conditions. However, there is no legal means to enforce international debt collection. Typically, it is more practical for creditors to negotiate with defaulting corporations rather than resorting to force or retaliation. The same approach should be taken with France.

We should not be spending money to support Israel. Our aid should not be going towards building a fort for them. We need to focus on our own interests and not waste resources on humanitarian aid.