Big League Economics
Why Is George Soros Buying Up The New York Times?
According to recent filings to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), billionaire globalist George Soros, through his investment firm, Soros Fund Management LLC, has purchased over $3 million-worth of stock holdings in the New York Times.
This purchase is the first that the liberal financier has made since 2007, when Soros bought $470,000 worth of shares in the newspaper. This recent investment includes purchasing 126,400 shares valued at $3,046,000. Soros’s purchase was for Class A stock holdings which are publicly traded-as opposed to its Class B stock, which are privately held.
The May 15th filing can be viewed here: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1029160/000114036118023894/xslForm13F_X01/form13fInfoTable.xml
Vice president of business and culture at the Media Research Center, Dan Gainor, found that in 2011, Soros pushed a minimum of $48 million into media ventures that included “journalism schools, investigative journalism and even industry organizations” over the course of just eight years. “Soros has long had influence or given direct funding to a wide range of journalism operations from NPR to ProPublica,” Gainor said. “This is still a big step to be buying a $3 million stake in the top liberal outlet in America.”
Trending: EXPOSED: Peter Strzok Grew Up In Iran, Worked As Obama and Brennan’s Envoy To Iranian Regime
The controversial billionaire’s influence in mainstream media doesn’t stop there. The Hungarian-American self proclaimed “philanthropist” has ties to over 30 mainstream news outlets – including the Associated Press, Washington Post, NBC and ABC. Soros’s Open Society Institute is reported to have funded seven different investigative reporting projects including the Columbia University’s School of Journalism-receiving $600,000 from Soros, the Center for Investigative Reporting, the Center for Public Integrity and the New Orleans’ ‘The Lens’. Soros also funds the Committee to Protect Journalists, The National Federation of Community Broadcasters and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.
His fascination with controlling the media is something that the billionaire has always shown interest in, but now as one of the world’s richest men, he’s able to fulfill his dreams all while using it to unapologetically, and openly attack the right.
In author and New York Times veteran, Michael T. Kaufman’s book entitled “Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire,” Soros has been intrigued by media since he was a young child with early interests into the field including “history or journalism or some form of writing.” He also had his own newspaper in his native Hungary, ‘The Lupa News’, which he served as “editor-in-chief and publisher”.
With all the billions of dollars that Soros has invested into trying to shape American politics and media, he is being forced to acknowledge his limits of influence.
Soros recently told The Washington Post that he was blindsided by President Donald Trump’s election. “Apparently, I was living in my own bubble.” He went on to explain why he thought Hillary Clinton lost the election, saying, “She was too much like a schoolmarm,” and that she was always “talking down to people…instead of listening to them.”
You can be sure of one thing, this is not the last we’ve heard from Soros who plans to reshape the public opinion through mainstream media publications and financially back a candidate in 2020 who shares his globalist agenda.
“The bigger the danger, the bigger the threat, the more I feel engaged to confront it,” added Soros. “So in that sense, yes, I redouble my efforts.”
Judicial Watch president, Tom Fitton said in a recent statement, Soros is a businessman and “shouldn’t be receiving taxpayer support to advance his radical left agenda to undermine freedom here at home and abroad.”
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.
Derrick Wilburn of Rocky Mountain Black Conservatives (RMBC) explains in a stirring new piece shared on Facebook why the Democratic Party leaders are so old, while the Republican Party — adherent to its own term-limit laws — provides fresh faces in committee leadership.
Wilburn writes:
Quick, name a nationally-prominent Republican who’s under 60 years of age. Those who pay even the least bit of attention to the political game can likely name Tim Scott (52), Marco Rubio (46), Mia Love, (48), Ted Cruz (46), Rand Paul (54), Trey Gowdy (51), Nikki Haley (46) among others.
In recent weeks as many as 7 Republicans who are current committee chairmen have announced their intentions to retire from Congress. Why? Many in the media are attempting to sell the narrative that its because they sense impending doom. Not true. Its’ because the Republican caucus term limits its chairmanships and these have reached the end of their terms.
A recent piece in TheHill.com spotlights a key difference between the way the Republican caucus & Democrat caucus in Washington D.C. operate, but a difference few in the USA are aware of: “The term-limit policy, put in place by former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) in 1994, was designed to keep the party from growing stale by regularly injecting new blood and fresh ideas into the mix.”
The GOP’s self-imposed rule is that legislators can not serve more than six years as the party’s top lawmaker on a committee. So once you’ve chaired a committee for six, you’re out and it someone else’s turn. And there’s no back-dooring it. Once you’re done, you’re done. You can’t return to committee member status for a year or two then run for Chair again. They can chair another committee, but not the same one again.
Democrats have no such rules and its at least a part of the reason there’s such a lack of youth in the Dem caucus leadership.
Apply the same question which opened this newsletter to today’s Democrat party leadership — *quick*, name a prominent Democrat, someone with presence on a national level — who’s under 60 years of age. Nancy Pelosi (78), Harry Reid (tho now retired most can name him, 80), Diane Feinstein (84), Chuck Schumer (68), Maxine Waters (80), Elizabeth Warren (70), Bernie Sanders (76 – tho technically an Independent not a Democrat) & the list goes on. All nationally prominent, all 70, 75, 80+ years of age.
Where’s the youth? Blame, at least in part, a lack of (self-imposed) term limits.
Democrats pay their dues early in their careers by carrying the water (i.e. providing necessary votes) and one day ascend to the desired position of Committee Chair, then stay there, …forever.
So what happens often times is younger Democrats win local elections, get to D.C., look up and realize that these old farts aren’t going anyplace! The old guard is from districts in which they can’t be un-elected; they’ve been their for 25 years; been chair for 14; are currently 72 years old meaning they’ll be Committee Chair for at least another 10 or 15 until they retire (if they ever do.) So the young bucks realize, “I’m frozen out.”
For example: Rep. John Conyers, who was forced to (finally) resign in December amid the #MeToo scandal, was born in 1929. Conyers helped draft the presidential articles of impeachment — against Richard Nixon! Conyers first won a seat on the Judiciary Committee in 1965. He first became Chair of the House Oversight Committee in 1989.
Imagine you’re a young lawyer, say 46 years old, a Democrat who just won an election and your dream has been to get to D.C. one day and chair a committee that’s chaired (when Dems are in power) by 70 y/o Elizabeth Warren. You know good & darn well that you’ve no hope of that chairmanship for another 10 or 15 years! What’s that do for your hopes for your future?
You’ve heard of, seen and know Trey Gowdy, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Tim Scott, and they’re nationally prominent because they get a shot at the top much earlier in their careers and that, at least in part, summarizes why pretty much the only Democrats you see on the nightly news speaking from a podium into a microphone at press conferences are old farts. Nancy Pelosi, Chuch Schumer. That’s just about it.
The situation caused the National Review to write a major piece which it titled “Old-Guard Democrats Refuse to Leave the Stage” sub-title “They’re keeping new leaders from emerging.”
Are term limits a good thing? That debate rages on. But the Capital Hill Republican party took the step of self-imposing them 25 years ago and it cannot be argued that the step has not created some very noticeable separation and differences between the parties.
-A Derrick Wilburn original
EXCLUSIVE: Police Investigate NY Times Reporter For Breaking Into GOP Staffer’s Home
Police and a Prince William County magistrate have opened an investigation into New York Times reporter Stephanie Saul for breaking...
San Francisco Board of Elections to Allow Non-Citizens to Vote
After two failed votes, the San Francisco Board of Elections has finally attained its goal of allowing illegal immigrants to...
Trump Turns On NRA and GOP Establishment, Endorses Underdog for Georgia Governor
Trump's endorsement of Kemp puts him at odds with the National Rifle Association, who endorsed his opponent.
‘Get The F*** Out, Borat’: Gun Store Owner Busts Sacha Baron Cohen Trying to Buy Gun in Disguise
A washed-up actor who once starred in the cinematic extravaganza “Borat” was busted by a gun store owner in Los...
Lesbian Activist Trashes Trans Fad: ‘Biology is Not a Social Construct’
Some of the letters in the LGBT community are not feeling so communal if a prominent lesbian activist and Army...
EXPOSED: Peter Strzok Grew Up In Iran, Worked As Obama and Brennan’s Envoy To Iranian Regime
EXCLUSIVE: Police Investigate NY Times Reporter For Breaking Into GOP Staffer’s Home
John Brennan Under Fire After Peter Strzok Outed As CIA Agent From Iran
Lisa Page Confirms: The Chinese, Not The Russians, Hacked Hillary’s Emails
