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.

. 

American Elections 2 - Tips for International Followers - Donald Trump cannot destroy the Republican Party - the destruction was over long before Trump!

.

Perhaps one of the greatest media myths of the election is that the nomination of Donald Trump by the Republicans will destroy the party and assure the election of Hillary Clinton.

There are a couple of factors at work the media seems incapable of comprehending thus their erroneous assumption regarding Trump and the GOP.  First, it is clear the liberal media is afflicted with early stage Alzheimer's as what else could explain such folly.

Such an assumption is clear evidence that liberals have no sense of history, either short term or long term.  A reporter with no sense of history nor understanding of the past is pretty much useless in the resent.

Take the most basic requirement of truth when it comes to the Republicans.  The Blue Nation Review documented Abraham Lincoln's vision of the Republican Party back in the inception, as Abe was the first GOP president in our history elected in 1860.

Compare the principles the Republican Party stood for during Lincoln's time to the current perception of the party as an advocate of small government, an enemy of labor, a puppet of Wall Street and special interests, the defender of capitalism, protector of the one percent rich, and party of war.

Here is how Lincoln defined the party he helped start.

BlueNationReview.com

1. All people are created equal:

“Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

-Abraham Lincoln, The Gettysburg Address

2. The low and middle class:

“Common looking people are the best in the world: that is the reason the Lord makes so many of them.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln and the Civil War In the Diaries and Letters of John Hay selected by Tyler Dennett (New York, Da Capo Press, 1988), p. 143.

3. Without workers you have no success:

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln’s First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.

4. Corporate greed will destroy America if we’re not careful:

“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins)

5. Government is to be used to help those who need it:

“The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves in their separate, and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere. The desirable things which the individuals of a people can not do, or can not well do, for themselves, fall into two classes: those which have relation to wrongs, and those which have not. Each of these branch off into an infinite variety of subdivisions. The first that in relation to wrongs embraces all crimes, misdemeanors, and nonperformance of contracts. The other embraces all which, in its nature, and without wrong, requires combined action, as public roads and highways, public schools, charities, pauperism, orphanage, estates of the deceased, and the machinery of government itself. From this it appears that if all men were just, there still would be some, though not so much, need for government.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on government The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, ed. Roy P. Basler, vol. 2, pp

6. Upward economic and social mobility:

“It is said an Eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentence, to be ever in view, and which should be true and appropriate in all times and situations. They presented him the words: “And this, too, shall pass away.” How much it expresses! How chastening in the hour of pride! — how consoling in the depths of affliction! “And this, too, shall pass away.” And yet let us hope it is not quite true. Let us hope, rather, that by the best cultivation of the physical world, beneath and around us; and the intellectual and moral world within us, we shall secure an individual, social, and political prosperity and happiness, whose course shall be onward and upward, and which, while the earth endures, shall not pass away.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Address before the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society, September 30, 1859.
Originally posted July 3, 2014 at 21:53

-----------------------------------------

Nowhere does Lincoln defend capitalism, corporations, or all the other sins of the modern Republican Party according to the media and Wall Street.  Any sane and objective person can clearly see Lincoln was compassionate, far more suspicious of corporations and international bankers than Democrats, a rigid advocate of equal opportunity and individual freedom, and protector, not of Wall Street, but of the people not being given the rights guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence.

Political labels had no meaning to Lincoln, just doing what was right for the people.  Today he is much closer to the center and left than the right thanks to the media misconceptions of the Republican Party principles.

It has taken nearly 80 years to destroy the Republican Party that Lincoln founded, since the days of Franklin Roosevelt when he adopted the original Republican principles for his Democratic Party.

The politicians and media may have missed the erosion in the GOP but the people did not over the years.  They watched as special interests, big banks, the super rich, the international corporations and bankers, evolved their own brand of conservatism, and hijacked the GOP to be their standard-bearer.

The super rich are patient since they already control the wealth of the world and it was only a matter of time before they leveraged their wealth, into owning the politicians.  Make no mistake, the Party registration makes no difference to big money, they own politicians whether Democrats or Republicans.

As they tightened their stranglehold on the American political process and President Clinton passed a flurry of laws to accelerate the corruption of capitalism, the people noticed.

The people Lincoln so trusted knew the establishment was corrupting America and the institutions were the agents of corruption.  Many citizens gave up on both parties and registered as Independents and many, many more gave up on the entire political process and refused to be a party to the destruction of America.

How often do members of the media talk about how there are now more registered Independents than either Democrats or Republicans?  It is the first time in our nation's history and they neglect the truth.

As for the much larger truth, how many times do you hear the media talk about how nearly fifty percent of ALL eligible voters refuse to be part of an election process because they consider it hopelessly corrupted?

No, my friends, Donald Trump will not destroy the Republican Party and Bernie Sanders will not destroy the Democratic Party because the fat cats, politicians, media, and special interests have already completed the mission.

Trump and Sanders knew the people felt this way and they knew the revolution has already begun.  They may be messengers, but the will of the people is the soul of the movement.  It is time the media wake up.  It is too late for the establishment.

.

Obama Caught Between Two Masters - Goldman Sachs & SEIU - Part 2. SEIU

.

First Published September 24, 2009

Obama Caught Between Two Masters - Goldman Sachs & SEIU - Part 2. SEIU

Radical even among unions, the Service Employees International Union has staked a name for itself building it's two million members not just by organizing the workplace but by stealing members from other long established unions.

The genius behind this radical labor movement is Andy Stern, yet another of the many Obama backers who were youthful members of the most radical organizations of the 1960's. Andy was in the socialist SDS, Students for a Democratic Society, before setting off on a life of organizing. To his credit, SDS was rather radical but never endorsed the use of terrorist bombings like other socialist groups.




Stern, perhaps the most loved and most hated member of the labor movement in modern America, began his career as a community organizer and never looked back. During his years as recruitment coordinator for the President of the AFL-CIO he consistently pushed for revitalization of the labor union movement and refocusing American unions to consolidate and gain bargaining power.

By 2005 he was head of the SEIU and was pushing his boss, John Sweeny, President of the AFL-CIO to make reforms or he would lead a walkout from the union federation. Sweeny balked and Stern made good on his threat. Within a year he formed the Change to Win (CTW) Labor Federation, getting the powerful Teamsters and five other unions to join forces with the SEIU. It was the first new labor federation in America in 50years.



Meanwhile he targeted other unions in a radical move to build his SEIU and his membership soared to 2 million this year, the largest labor union in America, with nearly 1 million health care workers. Parlaying the millions of dollars in membership dues and lack of unions in the health care industry Stern claims he spent $60.7 million to get Obama elected. It would be the largest union and special interest campaign financing ever given to a single candidate.

What was the price of the financing for Obama? Perhaps it is most obvious in the actions by the new president. Within ten days of becoming president, on January 30, 2009, Obama signed the first three Executive Orders wanted by the unions.

The first executive order requires employers with federal contracts above $100,000 in value to post a notice in the workplace informing their employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), including the right to join a union. This order also repeals Executive Order 13201, issued by President Bush in 2001, that required federal contractors and subcontractors to post so-called “Beck notices.” Such notices, named after the Supreme Court’s decision in Communication Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988) informed employees covered under the NLRA that they could not be required to join a union or maintain union membership in order to retain their jobs and that employees who are subject to a union security clause and choose not to be union members may object to the purposes for which mandatory union dues are used.

The second order applies to federal contractors who provide services to government buildings. While there are several exemptions, under this new executive order, when a federal agency changes contractors, the new contractor will be required to offer jobs to the non-supervisory employees of its predecessor. This order is designed to try to ensure that when a unionized contractor is replaced, its successor will be obliged under existing labor laws to bargain with the original contractor’s labor union.

Finally, the third order prevents federal contractors from being reimbursed in federal funds for money spent to oppose (or support) union organizing efforts among their employees. The First Amendment prevents government from interfering with an employer’s right to voice its opinion on the merits of unionization. Similar measures have been enacted in some states, with respect to their state contractors, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that California ’s law to this effect was invalid because it was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. Although a federal executive order is different than state legislation, there may be legal challenges to this executive order’s constitutionality, including a possible violation of the First Amendment. Unless and until the order is successfully challenged, however, federal contractors who still wish to oppose union organizing campaigns will need to consider the effects of this order on their ability to continue doing so without jeopardizing their federal contracts.




In another boost to organized labor, just six days later President Barack Obama on February 6, 2009, signed a fourth Executive Order, effective immediately, authorizing executive agencies of the federal government to require every contractor or subcontractor on a large-scale construction project to negotiate or become a party to a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) with one or more labor organizations. This is the fourth pro-labor Executive Order signed by President Obama since January 30th.

A PLA is a pre-hire collective bargaining agreement between contractors and one or more unions that establishes the terms and conditions of employment for a specific construction project. The stated rationale for this Order is that a PLA can promote the “efficient and expeditious completion of Federal construction contracts” by ensuring a “steady supply of labor” and the avoidance of “labor disputes” which can delay the project.

This Executive Order, which specifically revokes contrary Executives Orders issued by former President George W. Bush in 2001 and reinstates a Clinton-administration rule, was immediately hailed by organized labor. "This is yet another reason for working families to be grateful that we have a champion in the White House," Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa stated. In the same vein, Mark H. Ayers, president of the AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD), praising President Obama, stated: “The Bush anti-PLA executive order was exactly the type of special interest-driven politics and policy that American voters rejected overwhelmingly last November…. [Project Labor Agreements] provide maximum benefit to construction users; union and non-union workers; union and non-union contractors; lenders and insurance companies; and taxpayers.”




This was only the beginning.

Though stymied on the Employee Free Choice Act, (the Card Check Act), abolishment of the secret ballot in elections which would make it easier for workers to form unions, organized labor claimed a big consolation prize: the massive application of a law guaranteeing “prevailing wages” for hundreds of thousands of construction workers hired under President Obama’s economic stimulus program.

Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood implemented guidelines to expand the scope of the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act, according to a department spokesperson. LaHood’s action will put a floor under wages paid for the more than 578,000 construction jobs that the White House estimates will be created by the end of 2010. It also marks a sharp reversal of U.S. policy on public works projects under President Bush, who in September 2005 suspended Davis-Bacon in the Gulf States after Hurricane Katrina.

Such is the power of Stern that Obama once said he consulted with SEIU on every major decision he makes. Proof of the power is that the White House, when it became obvious that the Obama healthcare initiative was in danger of losing support and faced with a series of contentious town hall meeting in August, brought Stern and SEIU in to manage the campaign for approval.




Stern dispatched the SEIU mobile centers to coordinate town halls for nervous members of the House and Senate all over the nation. They were to control and counteract the opponents to the Obama healthcare proposals including filming events with their own video teams and feeding footage to the media to make the opponents look bad. Some say the tactics of the purple clad SEIU operatives was like thugs and one SEIU staffer was arrested for beating up an older man.




Even House Majority leader Steny Hoyer was fearful enough to hire SEIU to manage his town hall where they limited questions from the crowd to 20 total when over 1500 people were at the meeting and several hundred more were outside. Hoyer spent over one hour spouting the benefits of the Obama plan before people were allowed to take the mike and in spite of the SEIU efforts to control things the crowd began to boo his responses.

In September another victory for the unions when Obama imposed heavy import tax duties on imported Chinese tires at the request of labor unions, an action against that threatens to spark a trade war between the US and China. China has already threatened to add a tariff to imports of US poultry and vehicles. The action by Obama increased the 4% tariff on Chinese tires by 35%.

Now Congress is back and it is time to see if the big payoff is made to the SEIU, passage of health care reform that allows, even gives favorable treatment, to allow Stern to organize the health care industry in America. Over 17 million people work in health care and related social services in America. SEIU now represents about 1 million of these workers while the Communications Workers of America represents about 140,000 meaning the pool of non-unionized health care workers is huge.




SEIU expects to be the primary beneficiary of the health care reform using it to open doors to unionizing this massive prize. The union dues and lobbying wealth it would generate would dwarf current spending by the unions. A public option would make it even more desirable as public workers would be much easier to organize.

Unfortunately, the more SEIU has tried to function like a well oiled corporation the more difficulties it has encountered so it remains to be seen if Stern can wrap up the gigantic payback. If anyone can he can. However, his aggressive tactics have alienate many other unions and even some of the unions he has swallowed up are now protesting their treatment and threatening to withdraw from SEIU because of his heavy-handed tactics.

Corruption in SEIU is extensive, especially in California where battles between unions and between union leaders, most instigated by SEIU, threaten to tear apart the move to grow the unions. One union official in California calls Stern a "threat to the soul" of the union movement. Claims that members dues are being used to foster socialism and other causes not approved by members, even funding programs like the disgraced ACORN program, are a source of concern.




But the most serious threat to SEIU controlling the union movement in America may be the lavish spending to buy politicians, like the $60.7 million spent on Obama. Ironically, Obama and Congress may be the only thing standing between the union and bankruptcy. Stern led the condemnation of the greed and mismanagement on Wall Street. Now he stands to fall into the same trap as his Wall Street enemies.

According to the New York Daily News, in spite of the fact Stern undertook a bitter campaign against the Bank of America and even got the CEO thrown out last spring he was borrowing an astonishing $87.7 million from the bank at the same time. In another industry it would probably be called protection money. He borrowed another $15 million from the only union owned bank in America, the Amalgamated Bank. SEIU recently reported $33 million in assets and $102 million in liabilities.

The SEIU cannot afford delays in the payback by Congress and Obama, they need money and they need it fast. There are times the investor better have the money to invest before making the big jump. If SEIU spent $60.7 million on Obama and health care yet had to borrow $102 million to cover it the accounting does not seem to add up. It will be interesting to see if Obama, Pelosi and the Democrats can maintain the sense of urgency they need to approve the bill and help SEIU or if the public discovers the truth first.

In the tale of the two Masters, the SEIU has no chance against Goldman Sachs when it comes to deciding which master will win out with the Obama administration. Goldman has billions to manipulate while SEIU must borrow money to play the money game. So far the return to Goldman has already been in the billions of dollars while the token victories given to SEIU have not even made a dent in paying their debts.

Nor can SEIU match the vast army of former Goldman executives strategically placed throughout the Obama administration and throughout the world of finance and politics. No one has ever questioned the loyalty of this massive force. Andy Stern may have attended the Wharton School of Finance but Goldman wrote the course and probably financed the school's endowment fund.

-

Cruz now America's Chameleon - Fooling Conservatives while being Goldman Sachs new Boy

.

Falling into the Spider's Web of Wall Street - a True Cruz Emerges

Our Karma Chameleon

I knew very little about GOP candidate Ted Cruz but something just never seemed quite right.  The story was good, the son of Cuban immigrants exploded on the national scene when he first won a brutal battle in the Texas Republican primary for U.S. Senate in 2012.

He took on the establishment Republican and Lieutenant Governor of Texas at the time, David Dewhurst, shocking Texas, and the nation's political pundits.  Not only was I surprised at the outcome but the winner was certain to be the next Senator from Texas.  Dewhurst was expected to win but Cruz made a last minute surge which confused me as it was clear Cruz could not have unlimited financial resources himself to pay for such a surge.

Though I live far from Texas, I have always maintained an interest in the Lone Star state because I went to Texas every year growing up to see my grandparents and cousins.  They lived all the way down in Mission, right next to McAllen and near Brownsville, on the bottom of the state in the Rio Grande valley across the river from Reynosa, Mexico.

Then there was my interest and love for Buddy Holly, the Texan native who might have been one of the greatest legends of rock 'n roll had he not died in a plane wreck in my home state, Iowa.

Finally, there was the fact David Dewhurst, the guy Cruz beat, was a fraternity brother of mine at the University of Arizona, a fellow member of the Wildcats basketball team, and a pledge class brother.  David came from mighty fine stock, as they say in Texas, and was Texas tough.  So tough, in fact, he not only became Lieutenant Governor after school but he was in the CIA and was a world champion cowboy, he was a team roper and rides cutting horses, so how could he possibly lose to a relative unknown?

Cruz beat him on a last minute surge for that 2012 Senate seat.  Now we know why.

Late in the campaign, Cruz and his wife secured loans from Goldman Sachs and Citibank for $1 million.  Did I mention he forgot to report it on his Federal campaign reports, a violation of federal campaign laws?  Did I mention he forgot to mention in his biography for the senate race and now the presidential race that his wife worked for Goldman Sachs for twelve years, and was a director in the company.

Here is how Cruz tried to explain the federal law violations to the Associated Press.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J Pat Carter, AP

o 

o 

o 

Sen. Ted Cruz says that his failure to properly disclose a low-interest loan he received from his wife's employer, Goldman Sachs, for his 2012 Senate campaign amounts to an 
"inadvertent filing error."

Questions about the loan came up as Cruz was on the presidential campaign trail in Dorchester, South Carolina. While he was talking to voters there, the New York Times published a report revealing that Cruz received low-interest loans from Goldman Sachs and Citibank, for as much as $1 million total, while he was running to represent Texas in the Senate. He did not, however, report the loans to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), as required.

When asked about the unreported loans on Wednesday, Cruz told reporters that he and his wife Heidi Cruz funded his 2012 campaign with a combination of savings, sold assets and borrowing against their brokerage account.

"We had a brokerage account that has a standard margin loan like any brokerage account has, and we borrowed against the stocks and assets that we had under ordinary terms," he said. "And so those loans had been disclosed over and over and over again on multiple filings. If it was the case that they were not filed exactly as the FEC requires, then we'll amend the filings, but all of the information has been public and transparent for many years."

When pressed on the matter, Cruz added, "Our finances are not complicated. We put in the entirety of our savings, we did so through a combination of savings accounts and selling assets and taking a margin loan against other assets, and those facts are clear and transparent. And a technical and inadvertent filing error does not change that at all."
Cruz was an insurgent candidate in 2012, who with the support of anti-Wall Street tea partiers, beat the GOP establishment's Senate pick, then-Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, in the Republican primary.

Heidi Cruz is currently on leave from her position as a Goldman Sachs executive to help with her husband's presidential campaign.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is nothing transparent about his transactions, and if you knew the real story of Goldman Sachs and politicians, the actions by Cruz would send a chill through your bones.  This is not the first time they have bought off politicians.

Democrats and Republicans alike are in the back pocket of Goldman and the other big bankers and have been.  Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, maybe even Ted Cruz, all seem victims to the Goldman gold.

In case you missed out on it, I have been writing articles since 2008-2009 warning of the unknown consequences of the unholy alliance between both our liberal and conservative politicians and Goldman in particular.

In order to help you understand, I will be reposting some of my many earlier articles and you decide for yourself if Cruz is just another stooge to the puppet master Goldman.  If so, he should have the senate seat taken away from him for violations of federal law and be driven out of the current election.

.