RICHEST MAN IN WORLD IS A MEXICAN

FINALLY THE TRUTH!

Why the NYT never has anything to write about the MEXICAN INVASION, OCCUPATION and the staggering cost in dollars as well as assault to our culture.

THE PAPER IS BOUGHT BY ONE MORE CORRUPT LITTLE MEXICAN!

You can’t pick up the Los Angeles Times, or for that matter, any paper in the country EXCEPT THE NYT, without reading on the sobering picture of what “OPEN BORDERS” for “cheap” labor has cost this nation. And yet never a word in the NYT that isn’t amnesty for those poor Mexicans that just DON’T want to speak English, become literate, obey laws, and stay out of Mexican crime cartels.

All this “cheap” labor depresses wages for the stupid gringos more than 300 billion per year, but hey, we got to feel for CORPORATE PROFITS.

The City of Los Angeles, which has a larger population than all but 8 states, has become the occupied Mexican welfare state of LaLaLando. This city pays out $40 million per month in welfare to ILLEGALS, overwhelmingly Mexican. It also has the highest rate of homicide with 95% of the murders by Mexican gangs. It cost nearly one million for each prosecution. That’s a BILLION DOLLARS ALONE SQUANDERED under the Mexican occupation

California operates perpetually in the red while putting yearly putting out $18 BILLION in social services to ILLEGALS. The only word from CA politicians on illegals is NOT TO ENFORCE E-VERIFY! OBAMA, who endlessly Hispandered before the election, says Si,Si! And has promised MEXICO, and Wall St. no enforcement of existing laws against illegally hiring illegals!

In Los Angeles, Mexican gangs flourish and have spread all over the state and country while the Mexican drug cartel controls the borders, and operates billions of dollars in drug business. Twenty percent of this Mexican drug money is transferred back to NarcoMex by La Raza donors WELLS FARGO, and BANK of AMERICA. Also major donors to La Raza endorsed lifer-politician DIANNE FEINSTEIN.

That probably leaves you wondering why we’re in Iraq? Only to protect BIG BUSH SAUDI OIL from Saddam. There are daily more than 12 murders of Americans by illegals. There have been 2000 Californians murdered by illegal Mexicans that fled back over the border to avoid prosecution. Mexicans are lopping off more heads than the fucking Iraqis, and yet the politicians are determined to give 38 MILLION amnesty here even while unemployment soars. In Los Angles 47% of those employed are ILLEGALS.


You’ve been witness to BACK-PEDDLING BARACK and how he’s surrounded himself with the lifer-politicians that caused the MELTDOWN, like Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, Biden, Hillary “Wall St.” Clinton, all of whom have and will sell us out to their corporate paymasters and are determined to have OPEN BORDERS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED.

Word has it that OBAMA is capitulating to FEINSTEIN, BOXER, PELOSI, CLINTON all of whom have vowed NO WALL with NARCOMEX, despite the fact our border patrol reports that in one small section where the wall is finally up, apprehension of ILLEGALS has gone from 800 plus daily, to only about 25. That’s still 25 that will end up on welfare, or in Mexican gangs!


CARLOS SLIM OWNS PIECE OF NYT.

By PAUL THARP
May 11, 2009

The family that controls The New York Times empire has lost more than 86 percent of its fortune and may have sell their controlling stake to get out of debt.

The Ochs-Sulzberger family, which has run the venerable paper since 1896, may also face unusual pressure from about two dozen descendants to cash out and restore their comfortable lifestyles snatched away suddenly by hard times.

Until this year, the family had been living on wealth valued as high as $425 million. But today the family is down in their Times' annual income to a paltry $4.5 million, which could shrink even more in the recession.

Soaring losses amid a devastating media slump have drained much of the corporate cash, pushed the company deeper into debt of $1.3 billion and beckoned a stock vulture to its door -- Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, who this year bailed out the Times with a high-interest $250 million loan that also threatens family control.

Slim, already the second-largest owner of Times common stock, is poised to become the biggest Times shareholder of common stock because he's allowing his loan to be repaid in six years with stock -- either from the family's main trust or a weakened corporate treasury.

If the first year's payment of $47.5 million, due in nine months, is made in stock in lieu of scarce cash, it would soak up a whopping 7.9 million shares -- based on a current price of around $6. At that depressed stock price, it would take about 48 million shares to repay Slim's IOUs.

However, the family trust holds just 8.9 million common and super-voting shares. At that pace of using stock to eliminate debt, most of the shares of both classes available to the family and the Times could be depleted soon, especially since the Times halted its stock buyback program more than a year ago.

Since 2003, it has bought back 12 million shares for its treasury, some of which were used to pay employee bonuses and options.

Just four months ago, the family lost its biggest single source of steady cash from the company -- a 92-cent annual dividend paying nearly $8 million on shares the family trust holds. The family's stock fortune also crashed this year from a high of $411.5 million four years earlier to a low in February of just $30.8 million, rendering it virtually useless to borrow against or pledge in other money-making ventures.

Eight family members continue to work at the company or serve on its board, bringing in total annual paychecks of $4.5 million -- currently the family's only reported source of company income -- which itself is down by nearly half in the last two years.

The biggest breadwinner, Chairman Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger, 57, saw his $100,500 dividend checks disappear when dividends got canceled earlier this year. His other compensation for running the company got slashed to $2.4 million in 2008, down from $4.4 million in 2006.

The only sliver of good news for the family came last week following deep cost-cutting throughout the company to strip fat for possible sales. The moves sent shares up 4 percent Friday to $6.37, shoring up the trust's stock fortune to $56.6 million from its $30.8 million low three months earlier.

But that's hardly enough to bankroll and restore the approximate $20 million a year the family had been spending on its lifestyle and personal charities -- even if they cash out voting-control shares at a premium.

The family trust holds voting control through about 746,000 super-voting Class B shares spread among 30 holders. The non-traded Class B shares allow holders to pick 70 percent of the company's 13 directors, but they lose those rights when they are sold on the market.

Selling to outsiders is prohibited by the family's trust unless the trust's eight family trustees unanimously approve such sales.

Just 14,202 shares of Class B have been sold or retired in the past four years -- half during the recent year of financial stress, slipping from family fingers at an average of just $10.13 a share.

While the Class B stock is a fortress around the family business, filings say a contract loophole exists that allows six trustees to vote out two of the other trustees in order to break the covenant, if the future of the paper's existence depends on cashing out and tearing down that wall.


February 16, 2009
Carlos Slim Helú: The Reticent Media Baron
By MARC LACEY
MEXICO CITY — Carlos Slim Helú was clearly annoyed. He had invited dozens of foreign correspondents to lunch one day last fall and, after many questions about business trends, one journalist pressed him on how it felt to be worth so much in a country in which many people struggle to get by.
Mr. Slim cut off the questioner and defended his stewardship of a vast business empire. His curt tone made clear that he did not favor that line of questioning.
Mr. Slim, Mexico’s richest man and now a major shareholder in and lender to The New York Times, has a complex relationship with the news media. He invests money in an array of television and newspaper companies and says he sees a bright future for those media companies that adapt.
But when the news media focus their spotlight on him, he sometimes gives the impression that he wants to be left alone to make more money in peace.
An avid newspaper reader of what he calls the “paper generation,” Mr. Slim says he sees the shift to digital news, which has left newspaper companies struggling, as not necessarily being their death knell. He likens them to transport companies at the turn of the 20th century that grappled with the advent of motorcars. Those that stuck to horses went belly up.
With telecommunications, retailing and construction companies under his command, Mr. Slim looms large over the media landscape in his country. Notoriously thin-skinned, he does not have to pick up the phone and bellow at those who publish and broadcast something he does not like. His vast resources often translate into less-than-critical coverage.
Mr. Slim declined through his spokesman and son-in-law, Arturo Elias, to be interviewed for this article.
Raymundo Riva Palacio, a veteran journalist in Mexico City, said that after he wrote a column in El Universal newspaper in 2006 condemning Mr. Slim as a monopolist, a Slim adviser threatened to remove newspaper ads from his companies.
That was no small threat. Mr. Slim’s holdings are so vast that he controls a large chunk of all advertising countrywide. Eduardo García, a Mexican journalist who runs a Spanish-language financial news Web site and follows Mr. Slim, estimated his wealth at almost $44 billion as of the end of 2008.
“I took it as part of the natural dynamic between the media and the powers that be in Mexico,” Mr. Riva Palacio said, adding that the incident was quietly resolved. “That’s how things work here.”
Mr. Elias, the Slim spokesman, said that no ads were removed and that Mr. Slim does not use his economic might that way. “We are an important advertiser, yes, but that doesn’t give us a right to meddle in the editorial side,” Mr. Elias said.
Mr. Slim built his fortune buying distressed companies and turning them around, but he joined the top ranks of the world’s billionaires when he bought the Mexican telephone monopoly, Teléfonos de México, known as Telmex, from the government in 1990. His critics say his political connections won him the company, but he has countered that his winning bid of $1.76 billion was above market price.
Today, even though Mexico’s telephone market is ostensibly open to competition, its rates are among the highest in the world. Telmex controls more than 90 percent of the local market for fixed lines and more than 70 percent of the cellphone market. Competitors say the company throws up repeated obstacles and regulators are reluctant to act.
When it comes to the media, Mr. Slim’s family businesses have invested in a variety of television networks and bought a 1 percent stake in The Independent newspaper in Britain last year.
“His leverage is tremendous,” said Mr. García, who publishes a financial news Web site in Mexico City, (sentidocomun.com.mx), that tracks Mr. Slim’s many holdings. “That’s how he muffles all the criticisms that might come his way.”
He may muffle some critics, but not all. Denise Dresser, a Mexican political scientist, regularly suggests in newspaper columns that favorable government treatment, rather than business acumen, made him rich.
“Going down in history as an evil monopolist who fleeced Mexican consumers is not an image of himself that he likes, but it’s a true image,” she said. “The possibility that he would throw his weight around itself acts as a gag.”
But as Mexico’s recession deepens, Mr. Slim’s critics are multiplying. Last week, he forecast grim times for Mexico and received a barely disguised rebuke from President Felipe Calderón, who prefers upbeat assessments, and said, “Those who have received the most from this great nation” are obligated to help.
Mr. Slim bristles at suggestions that he is not doing his part for Mexico. “I think it’s perverse to believe that there shouldn’t be strong companies in poor countries,” he told the journalists who attended the media lunch last fall.
Behind the scenes, though, he deploys a team of lawyers to fight efforts by the government to enforce antitrust laws against him.
The country’s Federal Competition Commission is looking into Mr. Slim’s companies. But the agency is outspent and outmanned by Mr. Slim. His companies “spend more on a single case than our entire annual budget,” said an official at the commission, who insisted on anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about agency matters.
Even though Mr. Slim sees moneymaking opportunities in the media, Raúl Trejo, a journalism professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, said Mr. Slim is not an aspiring media tycoon who dictates news coverage.
At a dinner in London in December, after Mr. Slim bought his initial Times Company stock, a group of British newspaper editors expressed astonishment at the large size of the Times newsroom, which has roughly 1,300 reporters and editors. “He gave no indication whether he knew the size of the staff,” said a participant, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the meeting was private.
Mr. Elias said recently that Mr. Slim considered his latest investment in The Times — $250 million, for which he will receive a 14 percent interest rate and warrants that are convertible into Times Company shares — as a business deal.
He already owns 6.9 percent of the company and has lost tens of millions on that investment. Under the new financial arrangement, that stake could grow to 17 percent, though he will receive no representation on the company’s board and no shares with special voting rights.
Bankers representing The Times approached Mr. Slim with the investment opportunity, Slim advisers say. Those bankers, at the firm SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, had first approached The Times with the idea of a deal with Mr. Slim, said a Times spokeswoman, Catherine Mathis.
Besides the financial benefits, those who know Mr. Slim also see in the deal an effort to bolster his reputation by linking himself with a well-known brand.
Stung by suggestions that he is a some kind of robber baron — a label used by Eduardo Porter, a Times editorial writer, in a 2007 op-ed article — Mr. Slim has granted more interviews in recent years and expanded his philanthropic work.
“Unlike a great number of business guys who are only focused on the latest numbers, he has a variety of interests and is focusing more and more on using his wealth to improve the world,” said Alvin Toffler, the futurist author, who is a friend of Mr. Slim’s.
It is not merely Mr. Slim’s resources that help swing coverage his way, Mexican journalists say. Rather, they say, Mr. Slim, a widowed father of six, has an unassuming, avuncular persona.
He often shuffles into events alone, his bodyguards well out of sight. Addressing the press, Mr. Slim can appear ill at ease, resembling at times a small business owner rather than Mexico’s richest man.
And even when newspapers ran columns criticizing him for his recent negative comments about the Mexican economy, the front pages of leading papers in Mexico City all ran reports on Thursday of a rumored romance between Mr. Slim and Queen Noor of Jordan — speculation that was quickly quashed by Mr. Elias.
“We journalists cover so many bad guys here in Mexico, so many big egos, that Slim, despite all his faults, doesn’t appear all that bad,” said Mr. Riva Palacio, the Mexico City journalist.