While some initially cast doubt on whether Audacy will be actually controlled by Soros, the FCC's Monday memo reveals a Soros entity will hold a "controlling, attributable interest in the reorganized company, holding 57% or greater" of Audacy. All three Democratic appointees on the FCC supported the final decision both to approve the assignment of licenses previously under the control of a Texas bankruptcy court to the reorganized Audacy and to spare the company from having to comply with Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act, which prohibits foreign owners from having a stake in a radio station license exceeding 25%. Trump-appointed FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr said in his dissenting statement, "The Commission’s decision today is unprecedented." "Never before has the Commission voted to approve the transfer of a broadcast license — let alone the transfer of broadcast licenses for over 200 radio stations across more than 40 markets — without following the requirements and procedures codified in federal law," continued Carr. "Not once." Carr previously told nationally syndicated radio host and Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck, "Foreign company ownership of U.S. radio stations is not supposed to exceed 25%. But Soros took foreign investment to make his bid, and then he asked the FCC to make an exception to the usual review process." U.S. East Coast and Gulf Coast dockworkers began their first large-scale strike in nearly 50 years on Tuesday, halting the flow of about half the country's ocean shipping, after negotiations for a new labor contract broke down over wages. The strike blocks everything from food to automobile shipments across dozens of ports from Maine to Texas, a disruption analysts warned will cost the economy billions of dollars a day, threaten jobs and potentially stoke inflation. Still, President Joe Biden's administration has indicated it will not use federal powers to end the strike, and on Tuesday pressured dockworker employers to bump up their contract offer to land a deal. USMX said in a statement that: "Our current offer of a nearly 50% wage increase exceeds every other recent union settlement, while addressing inflation and recognizing the ILA’s hard work to keep the global economy running." Daggett said the union is pushing for more, including a $5 per hour raise for each year of the new six-year contract. The White House weighed in, saying it was time for the USMX to negotiate a fair contract for workers. "Shippers have made record profits since the pandemic, and in some case, have seen profits grow in excess of 800%," White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said, referring to the COVID-19 pandemic that led to a boom in shipping demand. "It's only fair that workers who put themselves at risk during the pandemic to keep ports open see a meaningful increase in their wages, as well." Acting Secretary of Labor Julie Su said the employer group has "refused to put an offer on the table that reflects workers’ sacrifice and contributions to their employer’s profits." "The parties need to get back to the negotiating table, and that must begin with these giant shipping magnates acknowledging that if they can make record profits, their workers should share in that economic success," she said. The strike, the ILA's first major stoppage since 1977, is worrying businesses that rely on ocean shipping to export their wares or secure crucial imports. It affects 36 ports —including New York, Baltimore and Houston — that handle a range of containerized goods from bananas to clothing to cars. The walkout could cost the American economy roughly $5 billion a day, JP Morgan analysts estimate. The National Retail Federation called on President Joe Biden's administration to use its federal authority to halt the strike, saying the walkout could have "devastating consequences" for the economy. Biden officials have repeatedly said the Democratic president will not do so. Lars Jensen, CEO of shipping consultancy Vespucci Maritime, said the strike is unlikely to lead to any critical shortages, but could raise costs for consumers if it is prolonged. "At the end of the day, the only one who's going to end up paying the bill for this is the U.S. consumer, simple as that, because import costs are going to rise and those costs are going to be passed on to all the imported products," he said. A 2-megawatt wind turbine requires 200 tonnes of steel, which needs 300 tonnes of iron and 170 tonnes of coking coal. The coal, and other raw materials, have to be mined and transported by hydrocarbon-powered transport. Until it is no longer working, a wind turbine could spin for years and it still wouldn’t replace the energy that was used to manufacture it. Godfrey Bloom explains but can be summed up in one sentence; “The whole wind turbine game is a SCAM.” https://expose-news.com/2024/10/02/the-whole-wind-turbine-game-is-a-scam/ Yesterday, the Bank for International Settlements announced that its member jurisdictions have made significant progress in implementing the final elements of Basel III. Basel III includes wide acceptance of bail-in as a way of rescuing failing banks. Unlike a bailout, which involves external assistance (often from taxpayers), a bail-in restructures the bank’s liabilities internally which includes taking the money you have on deposit and in savings accounts, as these form part of the bank’s liabilities, and converting them from cash you can use into something else, e.g. shares in the bank. In other words, it is a bailout by the taxpayers but without the government as the middleman. As a depositor or saver, the bail-in conditions will not be negotiated with you. It’s gobblygook to most of us who are not involved in central or commercial banking, but it demonstrates that they are accepting bail-ins as a way of rescuing failing banks. The process is imposed by a resolution authority and is not negotiated with the bank or its creditors or depositors. The practice of bail-in should be made illegal, not become the banking norm. Depositors, particularly people and small and medium-sized companies, have no say in how a bank is managed, who is employed there, how much the directors award themselves or what operations it involves itself in. We deposit our money into banks, acting as lenders and providing funds to the bank which then uses these funds to make loans to other customers or invest in other assets. The banks use our money to fund their operations and make profits, some of which are distributed to the bank’s shareholders. We allow banks to profit from our savings because we trust our money is safe and our deposits will be repaid by the bank on demand. If the banks can now take our money to fund their mismanagement or worse, our money is no longer safe. Why would we deposit money with the bank? https://expose-news.com/2024/10/02/63-central-banks-are-implementing-basel-iii/ 
Ports Strike, Halting Half the Nation's Ocean Shipping:
Godfrey Bloom: The whole wind turbine game is a SCAM:
63 central banks are implementing Basel III which includes the widespread practice of “bail-ins” to rescue failing banks: