American Elections 4 - Tips for International Followers - Who is the Dreaded Establishment in the American election?

.

I have been following throughout the election the media focus on "The Establishment," the true villain to the "outsiders" running for president.  There are some interesting conclusions one might reach in discussing such a Dark Force.

For one, the absolute lack of historical perspective by the reporters is depressing to anyone hoping to find high journalistic standards in the reporting.  If one were to believe all the various stories one might think this is a new phenomenon in this election cycle and that is false.

Quite the contrary, the lack of definition by the media of what is the establishment results in a total failure to identify who is the establishment.  As a result, I say shame on a media that claims to be your source of information, and implied truth, yet operates without the benefit of historical perspective when writing about the establishment and the impact on the election.

Defining the Establishment

So let me define the establishment.  They are the people, organizations, political parties, corporations, bankers, and institutions whose own special interest is more important to them than what is good for the people.

Make no mistake this villain has been around since the dawning of civilization.  Since then there has been a continuous war of words, and even arms, as in the weapons type, between the power seekers and the people.

Our nation was born in a revolution against the establishment at the time, the British Empire, and has been a continuous struggle for control between the people and the establishment ever since.  Many of those perceived as the establishment change from time to time although there is a core that has perpetrated their power as long as there has been a nation.

Greed for power, the audacity for knowing what is right for the people, control of the institutions, manipulation of the government, an insatiable appetite for wealth and money, all characterize the foundation of the establishment.  This group sees themselves as the sole judge of what is right and best for the people.

More often than not, they harbor a disdain for the people casting them off as ignorant and uninformed.  Thus, we begin to see the complexity of the establishment and difficulty one may have in identifying them.

The establishment can be a group, a corporation, advocates of a social cause, political partisans, even individuals provided they are billionaires.

The Ruling Oligarchy

However, the core and foundation for the establishment reflects the prestige of the blue bloods who have survived for generations, to wit, the Goldman Sachs, Rockefellers, Lehmans and Kuhn Loebs of New York; the Rothschilds of Paris and London; the Warburgs of Hamburg; the Lazards of Paris; and the Israel Moses Seifs of Rome.

It is this group and their network of banks that effectively control all major corporations and banks in America and most of the civilized world.  The same group has been fighting for control of American assets and wealth since the American Revolution.  You hear not a word from the media about the power, reach, and control of this group because they hide their holdings in a complex ownership maze and use far removed agents to do their bidding.

Control of arms, energy, transportation, finances, diamonds, gold, even economies of most governments of the world are the tools of this group used successfully not just for generations, for centuries.

Here you have the core foundation of the establishment that has tormented presidents for nearly 250 years from Washington to Jackson, Lincoln to Kennedy, Reagan and beyond, through their banking maze and Federal Reserve control.  .  

This oligarchy controls the world and the American public is beginning to understand how powerful the establishment has become in exerting control over our institutions, and becoming aware of the self-serving greed of said oligarchy.

The Agents, Institutions, and Special Interests

I noted the wealth and reach of the oligarchy reaches into the mainstream of our society through the many ways we spend money.  Thus, the special interests that lobby, pay off, and even own our elected officials and political personalities can be extensive.

Lobbyists for special interests and the special interests themselves like the banking, financial, pharmaceutical, health care, insurance, transportation, energy, automobile, food, arms, and other major institutions are card-carrying members.

Even groups like the Chamber of Commerce, Labor Unions and Teachers, and Lawyers are hardcore members of the establishment though with far less political clout than those previously mentioned.

A major institution is the bureaucracy of government at the federal, state, and local levels, as distinguished from the workers for the bureaucracy covered by the unions.

Colleges and Universities as a whole, and in particular individual institutions like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton of the Ivy League are major players because they have been educating the children of the rich and powerful for over two centuries.  As a result, their alumni are the rulers of the world and the children of the alumni receive legacy status assuring them a place in the hallowed halls of the Ivy League without competing for limited openings.

It is no accident these three Ivy League schools are in a league of their own as Harvard has produced six presidents, Yale three, and Princeton two, eleven of our forty-four presidents from just three schools.

In fact, Yale and Harvard have now controlled the United States presidency 28 straight years, and with Hillary Clinton from Yale and Ted Cruz from Harvard, the streak may extend another eight years. 

  

Political Parties and Social Causes

Beyond the membership already outlined in the establishment, there are the political parties, the Democratic and Republican national and statewide organizations, along with the political action committees (PACS), who provide the dollars to maintain the political agendas of the two parties.  In truth, no political agenda articulated in a campaign is implemented once someone is elected as both parties are beholden to the same Core Establishment controlling the wealth and finances of the nation.

PACS can be party affiliated or Super PACS who can support any party, cause, or person they want who will best protect the establishment.

As for the Social Causes, many have become so institutionalized and powerful over the years that they now represent tentacles of the establishment.  Money has no opinion, no favorite cause nor bias, it is the people who control the wealth who do.

Most powerful among the social cause institutions is the National Rifle Association.  Others who yield lesser degrees of power are Planned Parenthood, the Right to Choice, Prolife, and well down the list are the various groups involved in civil rights, equality, anti-discrimination, and others.

There you have it, a definitive identification of the Establishment, perhaps missing a few players, but far more inclusive than anything the media has done to date.  Of course the bottom line is this.  The New World Order is the Old World Order.

. 

Hillary says she is most proud Republicans are her enemy. Compares members of the GOP to NRA, health insurance companies, drug companies, and the Iranians.

.

If Republicans are her proudest enemy, what does that make Independents?

In the most recent Democratic Presidential candidates debate at CNN, CNN's Anderson Cooper asked, "which enemy are you most proud of?"

Clinton replied

“In addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians, probably the Republicans.”

Never has a presidential candidate demonstrated such polarization toward an entire group of politically affiliated people as Hillary did when she condemned the entire Republican party to being her enemy.

As for the Independents who are already fed up with political polarization, Hillary seems to have slammed the door on them as well.  Independents are already fed up with politicians and after Hillary spoke we know why.

Most polls show 50-75% of the voters are still somewhat undecided on who to vote for in the general election.  Well Hillary sent a clear and concise message to the Republicans and Independents in that category that she considers them the enemy.

Of course, that is just one half of the impact from what she said as her statement also included a holier than thou claim health insurance and drug companies are also enemies and she is proud of it.

As you will also note from the following articles, the health and drug companies have showered Hillary, and Bill, and the Clinton Foundation with millions of dollars in contributions.  Perhaps she should have said "now that I fleeced the health and drug companies, they no longer serve me any purpose.  I got the millions!", cackle, cackle.

Did anyone else note that she has developed a cackle like the Wicked Witch of the West?  I first noticed it in the debate.  You take millions and condemn the donors.  With all accounts paid up why not, it keeps the progressives and liberals from looking at her contributors since she is the newly incarnated Queen of Progressives, at least until she wins the democratic nomination.

Once she takes the big primary prize then she will start becoming a conservative like her husband who stole the Republican platform in 1992 to run on and to use while president.

It worked once for the Clintons, why not work again?  Still, there is something to be said for a little laughter in politics and the bevy of photos in this article show you the lighter side of the Washington drama kings and queens.

Hillary Takes Millions in Campaign Cash From ‘Enemies’

Clinton named the drug and insurance industries among her “enemies,” but has accepted millions in donations from them.

By Kimberly Leonard Oct. 14, 2015 | 4:25 p.m. EDT

When asked during the Democratic presidential debate what enemies she was most proud to have made, Hillary Clinton named pharmaceutical and health insurance companies at the top of her list. But that hasn’t stopped the Democratic front-runner from accepting millions of dollars in campaign cash from both industries in the course of her political career, financial disclosure records show.

Since her first bid for Senate in 2000, Clinton has accepted nearly $1 million from drug and health companies and more than $2.7 million from the insurance field and its related sectors, according to an analysis of public records from the Center for Responsive Politics. While the analysis did not include campaign finance figures for the 2016 cycle, some of the same donors and patterns can be seen in Clinton’s lone financial disclosure filed in July.

Contributions tied to some of the same firms that gave to her 2008 presidential campaign appear in the latest disclosure, including donations connected to pharmaceutical companies Pfizer Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.; and insurers Aetna Inc., MetLife Inc. and Centene Corp., the latter of which is among Clinton’s largest donors this year.  

In the course of her 2008 presidential bid, records show that Clinton was the third-largest recipient of campaign donations from drug and health product companies, receiving $738,359 in donations. The industry also contributed $86,875 to her 2000 Senate run, and spent $157,015 supporting her re-election in 2006.

The insurance industry – which includes health insurers and also car, life and property insurance – donated $1,260,400 to her 2008 campaign, making her the third-highest recipient of cash from the industry that year and also in 2006, when she raised $397,110 for her re-election to the Senate. During her first bid for the Senate in 2000, she raised $167,550 from the industry.

She was the second-highest recipient of cash in 2008 from the health services sector and HMOs, receiving $636,670, and the highest earner in 2006, at $183,770. In 2000, she raised $70,575. 

More recently, the Clinton Foundation has also benefited from these groups’ donations. Donors and grantors who have given between $1 million and $5 million include Pfizer, the Procter & Gamble Co., Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina and Humana Inc.

But Clinton seems to have turned on the pharmaceutical industry in particular in recent weeks, releasing a plan to improve on President Barack Obama’s health care law, the Affordable Care Act, by tackling drug costs. The plan includes allowing Medicare, the government’s health plan for adults over 65 and disabled Americans, to negotiate lower drug costs – a measure the industry heavily opposes.

Her policy proposal also stated that she plans to reduce the amount of time a pharmaceutical company has exclusive rights to biologics, which are drugs made of living cells that are expensive to develop and can be difficult for patients to afford. Though she supported the bill that led to a 12-year exclusivity while in the Senate, her new proposals say she would reduce the patent to seven years, allowing the drug to be copied by other manufacturers and therefore reducing its price. Drugmakers are against this proposal, saying they need to recoup the massive costs of developing the drugs and to invest in new treatments and cures.

When Clinton was secretary of state, she supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which includes provisions that strengthen patent protections for drugmakers. Last week, however, she said she opposes the deal.

When asked for a response to Clinton calling the pharmaceutical industry “enemies,” Tina Stow, a spokeswoman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, said the group has a long history of supporting and working with candidates and policymakers on both sides of the aisle.

“We will continue to do so as we look to advance a pro-patient, pro-innovation, pro-jobs agenda,” she wrote in an email. PhRMA has publicly come out against Clinton’s plan for prescription drugs, saying it would restrict patients’ access to medicines, result in fewer new treatments, would cost jobs and would end the country’s standing as a leader in biomedical innovation.

It’s unclear to what extent insurers and drug companies will continue to support her campaign, particularly after the comments during CNN’s debate, although it would not be the first time Clinton has been at odds with the industries.

Asked to explain the financial relationship between Clinton’s campaign and the industries, campaign officials pointed to the contentious war fought against Clinton when she was first lady and head of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform in 1993. The health insurance industry ran millions of dollars of ads against a health care plan she championed that would have overhauled the system, playing a large role in ultimately killing it. They also point out that her positions to tackle drug costs have been unpopular among pharmaceutical lobbying groups, which could help to demonstrate she ultimately isn’t beholden to the industry’s interests.

In total, Clinton raised $245.8 million for her 2008 presidential run, $51.6 million for her 2006 Senate campaign and $30.2 million for her 2000 Senate bid.

Pharmaceutical companies and insurers are typically generous with members of both parties, giving slightly more to Republicans. Clare Krusing, press secretary for America's Health Insurance Plans, says its political action committee supports candidates of both parties and, in particular, candidates who support policies aligned with the industry's priorities around affordability.

In recent years, both industries have contributed more to Democrats. Obama was the top recipient during the 2008 presidential election, and again during his re-election in 2012, with his Republican opponents – first Mitt Romney, then Sen. John McCain – receiving slightly less from pharmaceutical companies.

 International Business Times

Wednesday, October 21, 2015 As of 7:52 AM EDT

Democratic Debate 2015: Hillary Clinton’s ‘Enemies’ In Pharmaceutical and Insurance Industries Have Supported Her Campaigns, Foundation

By Andrew Perez @AndrewPerezDC andrew.perez@ibtimes.com
David Sirota @davidsirota d.sirota@ibtimes.com on October 14 2015 12:42 AM EDT

Bill Clinton famously tried to parse what the meaning of “is” is -- and now his wife, Hillary Clinton, seems to be challenging the precise definition of “enemies.”

In an exchange toward the end of the Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas on Tuesday, the candidates were asked who their biggest enemies had been over the course of their careers. Clinton responded by saying, “In addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians -- probably the Republicans.”

It is true that the National Rifle Association and the Republicans have been Clinton’s nemeses, and she has been involved in tense negotiations about international policy toward Iran. But health insurance companies and drug companies have been some of her biggest financial supporters.

In 2008, Clinton was the among the three biggest recipients of campaign cash from pharmaceutical-related companies, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. In all, the watchdog group reports that she raised $738,000 from employees of pharmaceutical manufacturers and companies classified as “Pharmaceuticals /Health Products.” The center reports that Clinton also raised more than $1.2 million from the insurance industry -- which includes health insurers.

On top of those campaign contributions, the Clintons and their family foundation have benefited from their ties to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.

In 2011, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) -- the primary trade association representing drug companies -- paid Bill Clinton $200,000 for a speech, as the organization was lobbying the Hillary Clinton-led State Department. Last year, the Drug Chemical and Associated Technologies Association, a trade group whose members include major pharmaceutical companies, paid her a $250,000 speaking fee.

Meanwhile, the Clinton Foundation has received between $1 million and $5 million worth of donations separately from drug manufacturers Pfizer and Procter & Gamble, and from health insurers Humana and Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina. Some of those companies made donations as recently as this year, according to the foundation’s website.

That largesse was part of a friendship forged after those industries opposed her 1993 health care initiative -- and which continued after she won reelection to the Senate in 2006.

As secretary of state, Clinton repeatedly championed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which critics say includes provisions that strengthen patent protection for drug manufacturers. (Last week, she declared that she now opposes the trade deal.) As a presidential candidate in 2008, she promoted the idea of a federal mandate effectively requiring Americans to buy private health insurance.

Those Clinton positions were strongly supported by the same drug and insurance industries that she now calls “enemies.”

.