reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Throughout history, institutions meant to prevent tyranny are being used to establish dictatorship in Brazil under the guise of democracy. The speaker, along with other politicians, is willing to risk arrest to fight for freedom. They urge the world to pay attention to Brazil's situation and not let it become a dictatorship. Journalist Sergio Tavares faced interrogation at a Brazilian airport, highlighting the country's deteriorating freedom. They plead for global support to safeguard freedom in Brazil and beyond.

The speaker discusses the crackdown on journalists in Brazil, likening it to Gestapo tactics. They mention how people are being prosecuted for liking or sending emojis on messages. The need for independent channels like x is emphasized, as other platforms are complying with judicial intervention. The speaker highlights x as the only channel standing against violating the law amidst monitoring of social media.

Two years ago, during Brazil's presidential election, concerns arose about democracy under Lula, a former president with ties to China. Since Lula's victory, many journalists have faced censorship and exile, with some living in the U.S. due to threats of imprisonment. The Brazilian Supreme Court, particularly Justice Alexandre de Moraes, has targeted conservatives, leading to a chilling effect on free speech. Protests against the government have resulted in severe punishments, including lengthy prison sentences for dissenters. The U.S. government's support for Lula raises questions about its commitment to democracy, as Brazil's political landscape increasingly resembles a dictatorship. The situation reflects a broader trend where judicial power undermines democratic processes, posing risks not only for Brazil but also for the U.S. and the Western world.

30 years ago, President Lula of Brazil assured me he wouldn't censor like Cuba. Now, I face censorship and repression for exposing Twitter files. Brazil's AG wants to shut down X, cut off ads, and investigate me for releasing non-confidential info. But the constitution protects freedom of speech. This attack is selective, as media have reported on confidential info without consequences. Criminalizing nonviolent dissent would empower Lula to silence critics. The AG is overstepping his authority, threatening democracy. Macias's motives remain unclear.

APAC, a major lobbying group, boasts about representing a foreign country without registering under the FARA Act. In the past, they almost had to register as a foreign agent, but the effort was dropped after the president pushing for it was no longer in office. Despite FARA requirements, APAC remains unregistered, allowing them to hide their funding sources. This lack of transparency raises concerns about their influence on US politics. The speaker also mentions the importance of preventing foreign interference in American democracy.

The speaker discusses the representation of the right-wing party Novo in the upcoming elections in São Paulo. They express disagreement with considering Novo as the voice of the right and criticize those who call President Bolsonaro incompetent. The speaker argues that Bolsonaro's accomplishments and the challenges he faced as president should not be undermined. They emphasize the importance of practical political experience and criticize those who make uninformed political comments online. The speaker concludes by urging people to criticize Bolsonaro for valid reasons and not to label him as a coward.

Speaker 0: Zuckerberg claims to be an old-fashioned liberal who dislikes censorship, but why doesn't Facebook take a similar stand on free speech? It seems rooted in American political tradition. Speaker 1: Zuckerberg reportedly spent $400 million in the last election, primarily supporting Democrats. This raises questions about his impartiality.

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.

Speaker: The speaker argues that a “plan of pedophiles” aims to end democracy in Colombia, stating that despite the harsh reality, they would not allow themselves to be silenced or betrayed by invading neighbors. They claim people would not applaud invading a brother country or a neighbor, emphasizing that the Colombian people are not the enemy, and that invading Venezuela would be traitorous. Speaker: They reject the idea of Venezuela as a villain and say they do not mock the Venezuelan people or trap them in an invasion driven only by oil greed and violence. They warn that such actions would turn this corner of South America into a place like Syria, Iraq, or Libya, filled with slavery and slave trading, and would degrade the region. Speaker: They criticize those “friends of STEIN” who do not want the list to appear in the United States and assert that these friends want to use violence to force the United States to ignore its own government, fueling xenophobia, racism, and ideas of racial superiority to distract from domestic issues. Speaker: They state that the Colombian president has long denunciated narcotraffickers, but note that the narcotraffickers who have been denounced have always been in power in Colombia, in the State. Speaker: The speaker reiterates a stance against betraying bloodlines or supporting invasions of brother countries, condemning any move by the Colombian president to seize lands for invasion from Colombia into a neighboring country. They denounce the president as “maldito” (damned) for generations to come for such a betrayal. Speaker: They emphasize that they do not belong to those who wanted to kill Bolívar, defending Bolívar’s legacy and the dignity of the region, while criticizing external powers’ influence and urging a stance against internal complicity with narcotrafficking and imperialist motives. Overall: The speaker frames a narrative of political betrayal, invasion threats, and manipulation by external actors framed as defending democracy and regional unity, while opposing violence against neighboring peoples, denouncing narcotrafficking within Colombia, and calling out alleged foreign influence and manipulation aimed at destabilizing the region.

The New York Times published an article discussing concerns about Brazil's Supreme Court and its impact on free speech. The court, led by Judge Alessandro de Marais, has been accused of censorship and repressive actions. The judge has ordered the arrest of individuals and the removal of posts on social media without trial or explanation. The New York Times highlights the growing power of the court and its potential threat to democracy. This censorship regime has garnered support from the Brazilian left and the media, despite its repressive nature. The article emphasizes the dangers of allowing a single judge to have such authority over speech and expression.

The speaker asks, why are we doing this and why are we so opposed to Nicolas Maduro. On the street, most people would say they don’t know who Nicolas Maduro is. But in places like South Florida, where people recognize Maduro and can identify Venezuela on a map, the typical answer shifts: because he’s a communist or a socialist. The speaker asserts that this is true: Nicolas Maduro and his government are very left wing on economics. The speaker notes an interesting distinction: this left-wing stance is economic, not social. In Venezuela, gay marriage is banned, abortion is banned, and sex changes for transgender individuals are banned. The speaker describes Venezuela as one of the very few countries in the entire hemisphere with those social policies, emphasizing that these policies are conservative socially. The speaker adds that Venezuela is one of the very few nations in the region with those social policies, specifying that it is on social policy, not defending the regime. The speaker mentions that only El Salvador comes close in conservatism, though El Salvador is much smaller. Additionally, the speaker brings up a political point: the US-backed opposition leader who would take Maduro’s place, if Maduro were removed, is described as eager to implement gay marriage in Venezuela. This is presented as a counterpoint to the idea that the opposition is globally liberal or that the regime is uniquely opposed to liberal social policies. The speaker references the notion of a “global homo” project and implies that the reality is different from that belief, labeling the project as not crazy after all. The overall argument ties Maduro’s economic leftism to social policy conservatism, and contrasts Venezuelan social policy with potential shifts under the opposition, while noting public recognition differences about Maduro.

The speaker claims the media and criminal justice systems are rigged, leading to a loss of national sovereignty. They cite Ukraine, Burisma, and Serbia as examples. The speaker presents evidence of USAID's involvement with the judiciary in Brazil, allegedly targeting Bolsonaro, who they call the "Trump of the tropics." They display images showing a Brazilian judge, labeled the "Lord Voldemort judge," participating in a seminar. This judge heads the TSC, a censorship court. The speaker connects the seminar to the SEPS program, a USAID-funded initiative focused on enacting censorship laws in foreign countries. They also highlight IFES, a CEP's core partner, collaborating with Brazil's TSC Court, which allegedly shut down X and seized Starlink assets. Internews, receiving $500,000,000 from USAID annually, is also mentioned for conducting training seminars in Brazil on flagging pro-Bolsonaro disinformation. The speaker concludes that USAID substantially influenced the Brazilian judiciary to remove Bolsonaro.

There are political prisoners in Brazil, not just in known dictatorships. Before our trip, we feared being jailed upon return. Brazil's situation is worse than Venezuela's, yet Brazil is not labeled a dictatorship. Institutions meant to prevent tyranny are being manipulated. Brazil is a battleground for a new kind of dictatorship that masquerades as a democracy, a "trans democracy."

Investigative journalist Matt Tirman discusses the Biden administration's involvement in pressuring the president of Brazil on election issues. He criticizes the administration's lack of action against human rights violations in Brazil, including censorship of journalists and politicians. Tirman questions the silence of international organizations on these issues, emphasizing the importance of free speech for democracy.

Michael Shellenberger testifies about censorship in Brazil, highlighting Supreme Court interference in elections and social media censorship. He discusses being under criminal investigation for exposing these actions, emphasizing the threat to democracy. Another speaker raises concerns about accountability for attacks in Brazil and compares them to events in the US. The discussion touches on the need for consistent standards in addressing abuses of power in both countries.

The U.S. State Department is implicated in Brazil's current situation, as they sponsored actions against journalists. Notably, several journalists, including a popular podcaster, have faced persecution for their opinions, with some seeking asylum in the U.S. Criticism of public officials is a journalist's duty, yet many are silenced under accusations of misinformation. Glenn Greenwald is one of the few journalists speaking out against this repression. The speaker reflects on leaving Brazil due to political concerns and draws parallels between Brazil's decline in democracy and potential threats to democracy in the U.S. He warns that if the establishment retains power, democracy may be at risk, as seen in Brazil, where judicial power has increasingly overshadowed the people's voice.

Brazil is facing a rise in censorship and threats to freedom of speech. The president called for criminalizing lying, leading to calls for arrests. The situation is escalating, with government officials praising China's totalitarian model. The speaker expresses concern about the spread of censorship and brainwashing tactics. They urge action against tyranny and the need for a new free speech movement. The speaker emphasizes the importance of standing up to bullies and supporting organizations defending human rights. They call for support in the fight for freedom of speech.

I will release a report and video tomorrow for lawmakers about global censorship orchestrated by the State Department, USAID, and NED. The focus is on Brazil's censorship laws influenced by these entities. I fear being targeted for exposing this, but urge support. A detailed 400-slide presentation will follow later. If there is backlash, I ask for solidarity.

Two years ago, Brazil faced a pivotal presidential election between incumbent Jair Bolsonaro and former president Lula, who many feared would lead Brazil into authoritarianism. Lula won, and since then, censorship has escalated. Journalists critical of the government, like Eduardo Bolsonaro and Paulo Figueiredo, have been exiled or silenced. The judiciary, particularly Justice Alexandre de Moraes, has targeted conservatives, leading to arrests and a chilling effect on free speech. The U.S. government's support for Lula raises concerns about democracy in Brazil, as it mirrors issues seen in the U.S. political landscape. Brazil's shift towards authoritarianism, influenced by China, poses risks not only for its citizens but for the entire Western Hemisphere.

The Biden administration allegedly meddled in Brazil's elections by pressuring President Bolsonaro to accept the results before they happened. Big tech companies, seen as allies of Biden, are censoring any dissenting voices. Lula da Silva was declared the winner, but protests are erupting in response to the alleged suppression.

The transcript presents a speaker arguing that Gavin Newsom’s welfare fraud problems are far worse than those attributed to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, and that the liberal media is not addressing these issues. The speaker states that Newsom “allowed $30,000,000,000 in fraudulent welfare payments to be issued by the unemployment agency,” and that as a result, small businesses in California must pay off all of that debt through higher payroll taxes. The speaker contrasts this with Walz, who is “accused of allowing $250,000,000 of food stamp fraud to occur to Somali organizations.” The speaker asserts that Newsom’s food stamp fraud is at a multi-billion-dollar level and claims Newsom’s food stamp fraud rate is “thirteen point four percent,” describing it as “three out of every 20 benefits managed by Newsom's administration for food stamps completely fraudulent.” Additionally, the speaker contends that California funds “left wing NGOs,” including various Somali community organizations in Minnesota, and asserts that “a lot of those NGOs are using taxpayer money for politics.” The speaker claims that the liberal media is not covering any of these scandals and asserts that people should know these alleged facts because they are not being discussed by the media. In summary, the speaker asserts: - Newsom’s welfare fraud is exponentially worse than Walz’s, with $30 billion in fraudulent unemployment payments allegedly issued by California’s unemployment agency. - As a consequence, small California businesses must bear the cost via higher payroll taxes. - Walz is accused of allowing $250 million of food stamp fraud targeting Somali organizations. - Newsom’s food stamp fraud is claimed to be multi-billion in scope, with a fraud rate of 13.4% (three of every twenty benefits). - California is funding left-wing NGOs, including Somali-related organizations, with taxpayer money used for political purposes. - The liberal media is not covering these alleged scandals, and the speaker asserts these are important facts that should be known.

There is bipartisan agreement to crack down on foreign money in elections. A Swiss billionaire, Hans Georg Weiss, is accused of funneling money through pass-through groups for political activities. Mark Hemingway discusses this issue in an article for RealClearInvestigation.

The discussion centers on who is funding the film project and who is involved in backing the production. One speaker states that “Jim’s” name is funding the movie and that a great group of people have come together to invest in the production. They note that “the Carlos Slim family is involved from Mexico,” highlighting their participation in the financial backing. When asked to introduce Carlos Slim for those who may not know who he is, the speaker identifies him as “one of the wealthiest men in the world” and explains that his business interests are in telecommunications in Mexico and Latin America. The speaker adds that Carlos Slim’s son, Patrick, serves as the point of contact for the Slim family and is described as being very passionate about the work they are doing and about fighting trafficking. A second speaker adds context by stating that Carlos Slim is the largest shareholder in the Times. They reiterate Slim’s Mexican origin and claim that he has given “many millions of dollars to the Clintons and their initiatives.” They further assert that Carlos Slim is the largest owner of the newspaper from Mexico and offer a provocative claim about reporters at the New York Times, stating that they are not journalists but “corporate lobbyists for Carlos Slim and” for Hillary Clinton. The exchange emphasizes a narrative about financial influence and media relationships, linking Carlos Slim’s wealth and ownership to political connections and advocacy. The dialogue ends with an incomplete utterance, “Carlo,” which appears to be cut off and does not form a complete thought or claim within the transcription.