Tag Archives: The Financial Times

This Is Not Surprising

Posted on by

Money does not totally control elections, but it can easily make a difference. If money could buy the Presidency, Hillary Clinton would have been elected in 2016. According to The Financial Times, Kamala Harris spent $1.9 billion on her 2024 campaign (in just a few months) and President Trump spent $1.6 billion in 2024. Again, money was not the determining factor. However, it can make a difference.

On July 13th, The American Thinker posted an article about some of the money behind the New York City mayoral campaign of Zohran Mamdani.

The article reports:

Investigative reporter Paul Sperry has uncovered an interesting fact about leftist mayoral candidate, Zohran Mamdani:

BREAKING: Alex Soros has funneled $24 mil to the NYC mayoral campaign of Muslim Zohran Mamdani thru his fundraising arm Working Families,which means Soros’ wife HUMA ABEDIN,whose parents are Muslim Brotherhood, “will control the mayor of NY,” a lawyer investigating Abedin told me

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) July 12, 2025

 The article also notes:

The New York Post reported something similar:

Socialist Zohran Mamdani has declared billionaires shouldn’t exist, but it’s unlikely he’d be the front-runner to become the Big Apple’s next mayor if it wasn’t for one — far-left kingmaker George Soros, financial records reviewed by The Post show.

…

 … in less than a decade, Soros’ ultra-woke grant-making network Open Society Foundation has indirectly funneled a combined $37 million to the Working Families Party and at least other nine left-wing groups whose endorsements and get-out-the-vote groundwork played a pivotal role in helping Mamdani upset ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic mayoral primary, the foundation’s records show.

The article concludes:

Sperry notes the additional detail that Huma Abedin, who must be viewing control of the New York City mayor’s office with irony given that she almost had it when she was married to Anthony Weiner, and now sees it within reach again, has ties to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, as does Mamdani himself. That’s an ugly twist, if not the center of the plot.

In addition, Fox News notes that 70% of Mamdani’s support comes from not just Soros, but the Hollywood elites, the Silicon Valley elite and other usual suspects well outside the purview of New York City.

It’s a grotesque picture. What indeed is the real agenda here, other than complete and total power of the kind the Soviets could only dream of?

One can only hope that as news like this gets out, the New York public isn’t going to fall for it. Chicago did, Los Angeles did — but is New York a little smarter?

Time will tell, but obviously, some loathed moneybags are propping this ignorant socialist clown upward. In San Diego, news of a woke district attorney candidate’s involvement with Soros did sink such a candidacy. Forewarned is forearmed.

One can only hope that this sunlight will see the same response from New York’s voters.

The results of this election will probably have a noticeable impact of the population of New York City after the election.

The Choice Is Between Bad And Awful

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Armstrong Economics posted an article about inflation and recession.

The article reports:

Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis President Neel Kashkari has advised against anticipating near-term rate cuts. While speaking to the Financial Times, the Fed president stated that people would simply prefer a recession to continued inflation.

“I have learned that the American people—and maybe people in Europe equally—really hate high inflation. I mean, really viscerally hate high inflation,” he told the Financial Times’ The Economics Show podcast. Kashkari is speaking as if we are not already in a recession. It is not difficult to understand the “visceral” hatred people around the world feel toward rising prices. The effects of inflation are felt with every purchase, causing the average person to adjust their entire lifestyle.

The article concludes:

Real prices have far surpassed anything they calculate in CPI. Everyone understands that prices have risen far more than the arbitrary number the Fed provides us. Taxes are continually increasing for everyone in every tax bracket. The government not only adds to inflationary issues with their spending but then expects their citizens to foot a portion of the bill with taxes, which will simply never be enough.

Then we have Washington telling the masses to blame corporations for price gouging while raising their taxes and making it increasingly difficult to conduct business and maintain a large workforce. It is not that the people would prefer to be in a recession, the real issue is that countless people are entering survival mode. People everywhere want to hold onto whatever they may have out of fear for the future, but they are unable even to hoard as real prices now demand they hand over whatever they have to maintain their lives.

In a recession, consumer spending drops, and people lose their jobs. A service economy such as the one America currently has is more vulnerable to recession than a manufacturing economy. A recession creates hardship for working families.Inflation impacts both working families and retirees. Either one is a bad deal. The most practical way to deal with inflation in America would be to cut government spending and to resume domestic oil production. Both of those things would help revive a miserable economy.

Things That Make You Doubt People Who Scream Global Warming

Posted on by

We have  listened to some scientists, some political leaders, and some celebrities scream for years about global warming. In 1985, many of those same people were screaming about global cooling. Basically in both cases, the word was give up your lifestyle or die in five years. Meanwhile, many of the people screaming about global warming continued to fly around in private jets, buy oceanfront property, and expand their own carbon footprint while asking the rest of us to reduce our carbon footprint.

On July 4th, Breitbart posted an article about some of the recent behavior of the corporate elite regarding global warming.

The article reports:

The Financial Times (FT) reports spending by U.S. companies on private jets for personal use by chief executives and chairs hit the highest level for a decade last year as many businesses relaxed restrictions on using them because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Spending on airborne luxury rose 35 percent to $33.8mn among S&P 500 groups in 2021 — the highest since 2012, according to ISS Corporate Solutions, a division of investment adviser Institutional Shareholder Services.

The business elites have seemingly grasped the appeal long ago recognised by Hollywood, tried it and have no intention of going back to their old ways as everyday fliers are forced to in crowded commercial airports.

…Who is enjoying the corporate travel stakes? The FT sets that out:

Among the biggest spenders were Facebook parent Meta and aerospace group Lockheed Martin as many companies eased rules on using private jets because of fears over contracting Covid-19 on commercial flights. Meta spent $1.6mn on private jets for chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, while Lockheed spent $1.1mn on flights for boss James Taiclet.

Lockheed Martin said it broadened its private jet spending last year ‘in light of the Covid-19 pandemic’.

This included $353,303 for Taiclet’s personal travel as well as for commutes to his home out of state and deadhead flights, when an aircraft is used for a one-way charter, Lockheed said in a regulatory filing this year.

I don’t begrudge anyone who can afford it the luxury of flying around in private jets. However, I think it’s a bit hypercritical to fly around in a private jet with a huge carbon footprint and lecture the rest of us about global warming.

Something To Consider When Watching The Presidential Endorsements

Posted on by

Breitbart posted a story today about the fact that The Financial Times has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. It is amazing that anyone would support someone who has so consistently flouted the law and has obviously jeopardized America’s national security. Just to add to the mix, there is a rumor going around that the leaked emails are not coming from Russia, but are the work of NSA employees who fear for the safety of America if Hillary Clinton is elected. So why would The Financial Times endorse such a flawed candidate–because she will maintain the status quo and continue the slide toward global governance.

Breitbart quotes the endorsement:

Rarely in a US presidential election has the choice been so stark and the stakes so high. The contest between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump has provided high drama, amply demonstrated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s reckless, last-minute intervention in the saga of Mrs Clinton’s emails. But there must be no doubt about the gravity of the 2016 election, for America and the world.

The international order of the past 70 years is fraying, maybe even breaking down. The Brexit vote in June likely removes a pillar of the EU. The Middle East points to a shattered system; further east, in the Pacific, China is becoming more assertive, challenging America’s dominant role in the region and the postwar Bretton Woods system. Under Vladimir Putin, Russia has become emboldened, threatening Nato’s borders, spreading havoc in Syria, and apparently orchestrating leaks to influence the US election itself.

This is a moment for the renewal of American leadership. One candidate has the credentials. Mrs Clinton has served as first lady, senator for New York and US secretary of state. Mr Trump deals in denigration not diplomacy. He has abused allies, threatening to remove east Asia’s nuclear umbrella, sideline Nato and unleash trade wars. Mr Trump casts himself in the role of a western strongman to stand alongside the likes of Mr Putin.

This is called spin. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have done more to damage the reputation of the United States around the world than any of their predecessors. As I write this, the Philippine government is moving away from America and toward China, Russia is amassing troops in Europe for a move against Ukraine and the Baltic states before Obama leaves office, and the “Arab Spring” loved by President Obama and Secretary Clinton has turned the Middle East into a war zone and Iraq into an Iranian satellite. The diplomacy of President Obama and Secretary Clinton has been damaging to America and to the world. Even without the emails and the mishandling of classified information, Hillary Clinton would be a disaster as President. However, she does represent the status quo and the continuing move toward global governance. The enemies of American sovereignty love Hillary Clinton for President.