Tuesday, April 20, 2010



Financier George Soros is at it again, issuing dire warnings for markets and raising doubts about capitalism itself. A closer look at what he's really up to tells a different story.

The self-described "stateless statesman" last week opined that markets could be derailed again over "bubbles" if governments don't tighten the noose of regulation even more. "Unless we learn the lessons that markets are inherently unstable and that stability needs to (be) the objective of public policy, we are facing a yet larger bubble," the billionaire speculator told an Economist conference in London, according to Reuters.

In other words, moral hazard arising from bailouts is bad, but it's markets, not governments, that can't quit writing checks, that are to blame. If all this really were the case, the solution would be to get rid of markets.

Soros gets a lot of attention from these doom-and-gloom statements largely because of his reputation as a successful investor. If he wasn't the 34th richest man on earth, with a $14 billion fortune, according to Forbes, his views would probably draw little attention.

Yet few in his rarified league draw the kind of attention he does, possibly because no one else seems so diametrically opposed to the very markets that fuel his fortune. Examples abound.

Last fall, Soros ostentatiously announced a $1 billion fund for alternative energy investments, plus a separate project to finance a think tank called the Global Climate Initiative. Supposedly, this was a signal to the rest of us that alternative energy was here. But to date, the fund has made few such investments. Instead, Soros has done what serious-minded investors do — invest in companies that drill for oil.

His top holdings include Petrobras of Brazil, Hess, Suncor and some coal companies.

Soros is free to invest as he pleases, of course. But there seems to be a disconnect with what he says and what he knows will make money. We await the day he talks up the importance of drilling the same way he touts pie-in-the-sky alternative energy.

Then there was last week, when Soros made headlines by warning of Europe's "disintegration" unless it piled on more government intervention in the matter of Greece. On the surface, his remarks seemed statesmanlike and benevolent.

But when one considers that his prescription is more government, it couldn't be good for growth in Europe.

And given his history as the man who "broke the bank of England" based on Britain's fiscal spending, it looks less like benevolence and more like contempt for an asset he'd like to buy up cheap on the downswing.

In another dire warning a couple of months back, Soros called gold "the ultimate asset bubble." He proceeded to buy gold assets, more than doubling his stake in a quarter to 9.5% of his Soros Fund Management portfolio.

Nothing wrong with buying gold, but if he believes there's a bubble, he probably intends to benefit from it. That may be his right, but coming on the heels of his campaign contributions to elect high-spending Democrats, whose largesse is likely to debase the value of the dollar that will drive investors to gold, it doesn't sound like respect for this asset either.

In pretty much every such statement he's made, Soros blames markets over governments. But his actions speak louder than words and leave many wondering just whose side he's really on.


Posted By: Judith from Michigan(1295) on 4/20/2010 | 10:33 PM ET

Soros is above the law here & abroad because of his vast wealth & power. As long as this country has a radical leftist admin that is beholden to Soros and actually has the same goals as him, we will never be able to unseat him from this power. He is a vicious mobster and racketeer. And his connections to this admin are troubling, to say the very least. If the Dems keep quite about his activities, that must mean they also support him. Now...that is frightening!!!

Posted By: jpdwn(465) on 4/20/2010 | 9:59 PM ET

At what capitalization will a corporation turn from free market capitalism to crony capitalism? $1B, $10B, $100B? Isn't it irresponsible for any large cap CEO to oppose crony capitalism since his shareholders will then suffer? Free market competition is for the small and the suckers. Now if the government was limited in some way from interfering with the free market - as in Constitutional limits - then, well...... Oh, well.

Posted By: VicVeron(25) on 4/20/2010 | 9:56 PM ET

I think small-time players have been convicted of this kind of behavior, like guys who would profit on penny stocks by spreading false rumors in Internet chat sites. It seems that Soros just does it in a much bigger and slicker way.

Posted By: Serfdumb(1430) on 4/20/2010 | 9:24 PM ET

Besides Acorn, Soros funded 'ACT' who were convicted of fraud and fined $775,000 by the Federal Election Commission (their largest fine ever) for illegally funneling $70 million set aside for voter registrations to Democratic candidates. He thinks he can buy America, maybe through a combination of breaking the dollar (seems to be working) & another 'Velvet Revolution'. He should be jailed or exiled from America but instead he's invited to white house.

Posted By: Serfdumb(1430) on 4/20/2010 | 9:10 PM ET

Sorry, that's more than $5 billion that Soros' foundation network has donated to leftist groups, Soros personally has made campaign contributions to progressives like Charles Rangel, Al Franken, Tom Udall, Joe Sestak, and Sherrod Brown.


Why Does Soros Bite Hand That Feeds Him?

20 APRIL 10



He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
as required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.


“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”


If you really want to understand the difference between the technical terms natural born citizen, native born citizen, naturalized citizen and just plain citizen, go to:


And if you really want to understand why it is necessary for a man to be a natural born citizen of the United States in order to be President of the United States, read the essay by Leo Donofrio at:


- Leo Rugiens

No comments:

Post a Comment