Harry Reid can hog the Senate floor and wail and moan that the Koch Brothers are buying America, because Harry Reid, like most Liberals, believe that they should be allowed to operate without any criticism and when they do get pushed back they incessantly complain, search for ways to illegally curtail free speech and try to pass legislation to muzzles their opponents.
But George Soros can spend millions and millions and millions on Left Wing causes and Harry Reid does not say a peep about that. Along with Reid we have the Liberal media in lock step denunciation of the Koch Brothers while they are mum about Soros and other Left Wing billionaire contributors.
The Heritage Foundation has Told us about just some of the contributions of Soros:
Overall, the Soros-funded Foundation to Promote an Open Society, has donated over $5 million to NIF [National Immigration Forum – promoting Amnesty]. In fact, Soros’s Open Society Institute is the largest single donor to the NIF, surpassing giving by the liberal , progressive foundations of Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller.
Soros donated $1 million to the pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA in 2012. If his dedicated support of President Obama isn’t enough to demonstrate his progressive ideology, he has invested heavily in the promotion of other things that would make most conservatives cringe.
The liberal group Human Rights Watch, which advocates for “gay rights” causes but also actively promotes abortion, will soon be a recipient of $100 million from left-wing activist George Soros. The billionaire announced yesterday he is donating the money so HRW can expand its efforts globally.
While he has a clear interest in the baby-killing industry, he’s remarkably less keen on the free market. He’s spent a pretty penny promoting alternatives to free-market economics. In 2009 he spent $50 million to found the Institute for New Economic Thinking, which was created to counter “free-market zealotry.”
His “charitable” organization, the Open Society Institute, has donated millions of dollars to anti-American groups and progressive think tanks and organizations. In 2012, he pledged $2 million to progressive causes and President Obama’s re-election campaign. (1)
And that is the tip of the iceberg, but you get the point. But you hear little about this in the traditional media that has a love fest with Obama.
Mr. Soros‘ Open Society Foundations have annual assets of more than $3.5 billion, a pool from which he can dole out grants to pet projects, according to 2011 tax returns, the most recent on file for his charitable organizations.
David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers who often are cited for their conservative influence, had $308 million tied up in their foundation and institute in 2011. (2)
Remember that all night talkathon in support of Global Warming the Senate Democrats held awhile back? Well we all wondered why that came about at that particular time. Now we know. It was to please and put the touch on another billionaire Liberal/Left political activist and contributor Tom Steyer. Steyer has now advanced $100 million to re-elect Democrat legislators who support Global Warming and who specifically will veto the Keystone Pipeline. We didn’t hear Harry Reid, Democrats in general, President Obama or anybody in the media get the tiniest bit riled up over this naked bribery as they do at the Koch Brothers.
Months ago Obama said that he was waiting for the go ahead from the State Dept. on the pipeline. He has received that but just days ago announced another delay, some more time to think it over and answer any individual state objections. This was a purely political decision to placate the radical environmentalists and to make sure that their money and support would be there for the 2014 elections.
Well we have some questions for radical environmentalist briber Steyer:
1. There has been no temperature trend over the last 15 years; the actual record has belied the predictions of the models. The past two years have set a record for the fewest tornadoes ever for a similar period, and there has been no trend in the frequency of strong (F3 to F5) tornadoes in the United States since 1950. The number of wildfires is in a long-term decline. It has been eight years since a Category 3 or higher hurricane landed on a U.S. coast; that long a period devoid of an intense hurricane landfall has not been observed since 1900. The 2013 Atlantic hurricane season was the least active in 40 years, with zero major hurricanes. There has been no trend in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, and tropical cyclone energy is near its lowest level since reliable measurements began by satellite in the 1970s. There has been no change in the long-term trend in sea level. The record of changes in the size of the Arctic ice cover is far more ambiguous than often asserted, because the satellite measurements began at the outset of the warming period from roughly 1980 through 1998. The Palmer Drought Severity Index shows no trend since 1895. Flooding in the United States over the last century has not been correlated with increases in greenhouse-gas concentrations. What systematic evidence supports the assertion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG) are causing significant adverse effects?
2. If we apply the climate model developed at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), used by both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and employ the highest climate-sensitivity assumption of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we find that the Obama administration’s carbon policies would reduce global temperatures in the year 2100 by about two one-hundredths of a degree. A 40 percent U.S. emissions reduction — more than double the Obama goal — would reduce temperatures by six one-hundredths of a degree. If that 40 percent reduction were to be imposed by the entire industrialized world, including China, the predicted effect is about half a degree. What economic costs should we be willing to bear to achieve such outcomes?
3. Quoting a study by the Natural Resources Defense Council, you have argued that approval of the Keystone XL pipeline would increase global GHG emissions by “1.2 billion metric tons . . . over the 50-year lifespan of the project,” yielding “potentially devastating impacts on our climate.” You seem not to recognize that additional GHG emissions of 25 million tons per year is trivial, as it is only 16 percent of the State Department figure of about 155 million metric tons per year, and only six one-hundredths of 1 percent of global GHG emissions of roughly 40 billion metric tons per year. Even if we assume a Keystone XL effect of 1.2 billion tons of GHG emissions per year, that would be 3 percent of global GHG emissions, an effect that is not plausible for a single pipeline. But the predicted temperature effect in the NCAR climate model of that increase is effectively zero in any event. In what relevant sense would the climate impacts of Keystone XL be “potentially devastating”?
4. Global temperatures increased roughly from the middle of the 19th century (the end of the Little Ice Age) through the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883, and then from about 1910 through about 1940. They were roughly constant through about 1980, increased until 1998 (a year with a strong El Niño), and have exhibited no trend since then. How much of this long-term upward trend is anthropogenic, and how do you know?
5. You have argued repeatedly that anti-carbon policies would engender an expansion of “green” employment as an offset for the jobs lost in coal and other industries. But a shift toward (expensive) renewable energy automatically means less energy consumption in the aggregate, and the data over at least the last four decades are unambiguous: Employment and energy consumption are strongly complementary; that is, less energy means fewer jobs. Furthermore, renewables are uncompetitive and so must be subsidized heavily so as to attract investment; sooner or later those subsidies must yield higher taxes or higher energy prices or both. What are the employment implications of less energy consumption, higher taxes, and higher energy costs; and how are lower-income individuals and families likely to fare under a “green” policy regime? (3)
Now here at the Lexington Libertarian our ears are going to be wide open to hear the Democrats charge that Steyer is “buying America.”
(1) WHO IS GEORGE SOROS, THE LIBERAL BILLIONAIRE FUNDING “CONSERVATIVE” PUSH FOR #AMNESTY?
KATHERINE ROSARIO , The Heritage Foundation
(2) George Soros’ real crusade: Legalizing marijuana in the U.S, By Kelly Riddell The Washington Times – http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/2/billionaire-george-soros-turns-cash-into-legalized/
(3) Five Questions for Mr. Tom Steyer
An Earth Day conversation about global warming.
By Benjamin Zycher , National Review – http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376193/five-questions-mr-tom-steyer-benjamin-zycher
Related articles
Lexington Libertarian 
One thought on “Look Who’s Really Buying America – George Soros & Tom Steyer”