Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

Sen. John Kennedy slams FCC over hurried approval of Soros massive radio station takeover

Published

2 months ago

7 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

U.S. Sen. John Kennedy took to the Senate floor Tuesday to renew questions about the Biden Federal Communications Commission’s approval of a deal for far-left activist financier George Soros to acquire more than 200 stations at once

Republican U.S. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana took to the Senate floor Tuesday to renew questions about the Biden Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) approval of a deal for far-left activist financier George Soros to acquire more than 200 stations at once, declaring something “weird” expedited the review.

In February 2024, Soros purchased $400 million of debt for Audacy, the second largest radio station owner (behind iHeartMedia) in the nation. Soros invested in the company after it filed for bankruptcy the month before with nearly $2 billion in debts. The investment comes with a yield of 50 cents on the dollar after the company emerges from bankruptcy, pending approval by a bankruptcy court of the company’s restructuring plan. Audacy stations carry the top names in conservative punditry, including Sean Hannity, Dana Loesch, Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, and Erick Erickson.

In September, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr testified before the House Oversight Committee that “the FCC is not following its normal process for reviewing transactions that it has established over a number of years. It seems to me the FCC is poised, for the first time, to create an entirely new shortcut.”

The New York Post added at the time that Carr told them “the Democrats in FCC leadership cut a secret, backroom deal – one that kept the Republican FCC Commissioners and perhaps others completely in the dark – and then hustled it out the door on a Friday afternoon” in a 3-2 party-line vote. The FCC approved the deal in October, with congressional Republicans vowing to investigate.

Speaking on the Senate floor, Kennedy began by recalling former President Joe Biden’s Farewell Address warning that “an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead.”

Kennedy said he did not know which “oligarchs” Biden had in mind, but that Soros fit the description. He went on to detail how Soros took advantage of Audacy filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and became the majority shareholder, which triggered an FCC review process.

Approval of the deal, he said in his trademark style, “went through the FCC like green grass through a goose,” and Democrat commissioners “short-circuited” the normal review process.

“I’m not an FCC expert. I’m not a communications law expert,” Kennedy said. “But I’ve read, this has been widely reported and I’ve read about it in many reports. Normally on a deal of this size, when 220 radio stations are being transferred, their licenses, using airwaves that belong to the American people, and there’s a substantial percentage of foreign owners, it would take about a year to get through the FCC. FCC would do a complete investigation. Not this time! Noooo. This time was special.”

“Pass me the sick bucket,” Kennedy said after reviewing past commentary by Carr and others about the deal. “This isn’t right! But they did it. Now, this is America. You’re entitled to believe what you want. If it’s legal, you’re entitled to do what you want. And Mr. Soros is certainly entitled to his opinion. He is. I don’t agree with him, but he is certainly entitled to it in America. I’m not much into this cancel culture. And hopefully we’ve seen the end of it.”

“I am not saying it wasn’t done legally,” Kennedy concluded. “I am saying it looks funny. Not funny ha-ha. It looks weird the way this was done. It has the aroma of politics. And I hope the new FCC revisits this issue.”

Soros’ takeover of so many stations is alarming as the latest display of his willingness to use his vast wealth to influence American politics. A small sampling of the causes the billionaire has financed includes promoting legal abortion-on-demand worldwide under the guise of “reproductive health care;” supporting the election of district attorneys friendly to his politics in localities across the United States; pushing a “racial justice” agenda, including the narrative that America is systemically racist and promoting policies such as reparations for slavery; subsidizing “fact-checking” enterprises that attempt to discredit conservative media outlets under false pretenses, and funding Democrat political candidates.

In 2023, local news outlet Maine Public reported that the Soros-backed National Trust had gained control of Maine’s largest network of newspapers, acquiring five daily papers and 17 weekly publications. The National Trust received funding from Soros’ Open Society Foundation and left-wing Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss for the purchase of the media network.

Carr, who has since been appointed FCC chairman by President Donald Trump, is expected to investigate the deal.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Crime / 2 hours ago

First Good Battlefield News From Trump’s Global War on Fentanyl

Opinion / 7 hours ago

Some scientists advocate creating human bodies for ‘spare parts.’

International / 9 hours ago

Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ defense shield must be built now, Lt. Gen. warns

Business

Saskatchewan becomes first Canadian province to fully eliminate carbon tax

Published on April 1, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Saskatchewan has become the first Canadian province to free itself entirely of the carbon tax.

On March 27, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe announced the removal of the provincial industrial carbon tax beginning April 1, boosting the province’s industry and making Saskatchewan the first carbon tax free province.

“The immediate effect is the removal of the carbon tax on your Sask Power bills, saving Saskatchewan families and small businesses hundreds of dollars a year. And in the longer term, it will reduce the cost of other consumer products that have the industrial carbon tax built right into their price,” said Moe.

Under Moe’s direction, Saskatchewan has dropped the industrial carbon tax which he says will allow Saskatchewan to thrive under a “tariff environment.”

“I would hope that all of the parties running in the federal election would agree with those objectives and allow the provinces to regulate in this area without imposing the federal backstop,” he continued.

The removal of the tax is estimated to save Saskatchewan residents up to 18 cents a liter in gas prices.

The removal of the tax will take place on April 1, the same day the consumer carbon tax will reduce to 0 percent under Prime Minister Mark Carney’s direction. Notably, Carney did not scrap the carbon tax legislation: he just reduced its current rate to zero. This means it could come back at any time.

Furthermore, while Carney has dropped the consumer carbon tax, he has previously revealed that he wishes to implement a corporation carbon tax, the effects of which many argued would trickle down to all Canadians.

The Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM) celebrated Moe’s move, noting that the carbon tax was especially difficult on farmers.

“It puts our farming community and our business people in rural municipalities at a competitive disadvantage, having to pay this and compete on the world stage,” he continued.

“We’ve got a carbon tax on power — and that’s going to be gone now — and propane and natural gas and we use them more and more every year, with grain drying and different things in our farming operations,” he explained.

“I know most producers that have grain drying systems have three-phase power. If they haven’t got natural gas, they have propane to fire those dryers. And that cost goes on and on at a high level, and it’s made us more noncompetitive on a world stage,” Huber decalred.

The carbon tax is wildly unpopular and blamed for the rising cost of living throughout Canada. Currently, Canadians living in provinces under the federal carbon pricing scheme pay $80 per tonne.

Continue Reading

Automotive

Electric cars just another poor climate policy

Published on April 1, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Bjørn Lomborg

The electric car is widely seen as a symbol of a simple, clean solution to climate change. In reality, it’s inefficient, reliant on massive subsidies, and leaves behind a trail of pollution and death that is seldom acknowledged.

We are constantly reminded by climate activists and politicians that electric cars are cleaner, cheaper, and better. Canada and many other countries have promised to prohibit the sale of new gas and diesel cars within a decade. But if electric cars are really so good, why would we need to ban the alternatives?

And why has Canada needed to subsidize each electric car with a minimum $5,000 from the federal government and more from provincial governments to get them bought? Many people are not sold on the idea of an electric car because they worry about having to plan out where and when to recharge. They don’t want to wait for an uncomfortable amount of time while recharging; they don’t want to pay significantly more for the electric car and then see its used-car value decline much faster. For people not privileged to own their own house, recharging is a real challenge. Surveys show that only 15 per cent of Canadians and 11 per cent of Americans want to buy an electric car.

The main environmental selling point of an electric car is that it doesn’t pollute. It is true that its engine doesn’t produce any CO₂ while driving, but it still emits carbon in other ways. Manufacturing the car generates emissions—especially producing the battery which requires a large amount of energy, mostly achieved with coal in China. So even when an electric car is being recharged with clean power in BC, over its lifetime it will emit about one-third of an equivalent gasoline car. When recharged in Alberta, it will emit almost three-quarters.

In some parts of the world, like India, so much of the power comes from coal that electric cars end up emitting more CO₂ than gasoline cars. Across the world, on average, the International Energy Agency estimates that an electric car using the global average mix of power sources over its lifetime will emit nearly half as much CO₂ as a gasoline-driven car, saving about 22 tonnes of CO₂.

But using an electric car to cut emissions is incredibly ineffective. On America’s longest-established carbon trading system, you could buy 22 tonnes of carbon emission cuts for about $660 (US$460). Yet, Ottawa is subsidizing every electric car to the tune of $5,000 or nearly ten times as much, which increases even more if provincial subsidies are included. And since about half of those electrical vehicles would have been bought anyway, it is likely that Canada has spent nearly twenty-times too much cutting CO₂ with electric cars than it could have. To put it differently, Canada could have cut twenty-times more CO₂ for the same amount of money.

Moreover, all these estimates assume that electric cars are driven as far as gasoline cars. They are not. In the US, nine-in-ten households with an electric car actually have one, two or more non-electric cars, with most including an SUV, truck or minivan. Moreover, the electric car is usually driven less than half as much as the other vehicles, which means the CO₂ emission reduction is much smaller. Subsidized electric cars are typically a ‘second’ car for rich people to show off their environmental credentials.

Electric cars are also 320–440 kilograms heavier than equivalent gasoline cars because of their enormous batteries. This means they will wear down roads faster, and cost societies more. They will also cause more air pollution by shredding more particulates from tire and road wear along with their brakes. Now, gasoline cars also pollute through combustion, but electric cars in total pollute more, both from tire and road wear and from forcing more power stations online, often the most polluting ones. The latest meta-study shows that overall electric cars are worse on particulate air pollution. Another study found that in two-thirds of US states, electric cars cause more of the most dangerous particulate air pollution than gasoline-powered cars.

These heavy electric cars are also more dangerous when involved in accidents, because heavy cars more often kill the other party. A study in Nature shows that in total, heavier electric cars will cause so many more deaths that the toll could outweigh the total climate benefits from reduced CO₂ emissions.

Many pundits suggest electric car sales will dominate gasoline cars within a few decades, but the reality is starkly different. A 2023-estimate from the Biden Administration shows that even in 2050, more than two-thirds of all cars globally will still be powered by gas or diesel.

Source: US Energy Information Administration, reference scenario, October 2023
Fossil fuel cars, vast majority is gasoline, also some diesel, all light duty vehicles, the remaining % is mostly LPG.

Electric vehicles will only take over when innovation has made them better and cheaper for real. For now, electric cars run not mostly on electricity but on bad policy and subsidies, costing hundreds of billions of dollars, blocking consumers from choosing the cars they want, and achieving virtually nothing for climate change.

Bjørn Lomborg

Continue Reading

Trending

X