I’m re-posting a portion of an earlier article below because something is beginning that will have long-term consequences. Always try to pay attention to the “bigger picture” as we travel amid the daily events.
Amid the ozone layer of political consequence the Billionaire class of Rupert Murdoch, George Soros, and yes Charles Koch operate on (and invest in) issues that pertain to their interests. They may not carry the same beliefs on down-stream issues; but in their own financial neighborhoods they are globalists first and foremost. This is why we identify them collectively as the Wall Street Class.
In the most direct and consequential sense, free flowing immigration, amnesty, and open borders play into their goals and objectives. They are diametrically opposed to -and afraid of- nationalism. The Koch Brothers are open-border advocates.
In many very deliberate ways the 2016 Presidential Election is morphing into a battle between the globalists (wall street etc., corporate media, democrats, Hillary Clinton and GOPe republicans Jeb Bush) and the nationalists represented by Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump and the largest section of the U.S. electorate.
This decision by Fox News (via Megyn Kelly) is part of the larger maneuver to advance Marco Rubio as the vulgarian alternative. ie. Wall Street’s “fail safe”.
Two current candidates represent a risk to the power-brokers who financially attempt to control the outcomes of presidential elections. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are nationalists and antithetical to the larger goals and agenda of a modern Wall Street filled with globalists and global market investors.
Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both are fully and comprehensively understanding of the root of the problem and what has undermined the essential cornerstone of our Republic. The difference between them does not lie in a divergent view of the problem; the differences between them lies squarely in the approach to the solution.
Above all of the inherent issues of the day, and well above all of the consequences to policy agenda’s, and even beyond the ideological differences in politics, there is a group of global financial interests that are generally unaffected by the policies being debated.
Politicians love to discuss the issues that are downstream. Issues like: social benefits, social issues, guns, abortion, race-issues, small-ball tax adjustments, education, marijuana, etc. All of these issues are essentially ‘shiny things’, well downstream from the larger more substantive issues which influence generations.
This is where republican supporters for Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or other similar candidates of like-minded sense and sensibility, don’t fully understand the scope of Wall Street and the entirely different principle of Main Street.
♦ Rupert Murdoch is one of the entities who operate in the air of Wall Street; he’s actually one of the more easily identifiable people who operate in this globalist space, the global financial market. Murdoch and those of similar consequence are focused on issues that are far beyond the issues of Main Street USA and champion Donald Trump.
Modern day Wall Street is the global financial market. Any national business-minded broadcast, cue up Fox Business News, is also focused on the global financial market, not Main Street.
Your local Chamber of Commerce organization in your community is focused on Main Street issues. However, when we are discussing the U.S. (National) Chamber of Commerce, we switch from discussing Main Street to discussing Wall Street or global financial markets.
Because Wall Street is focused on global financial markets, and specifically because the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is focused on global financial markets, you can see the inherent disconnect from those who operate on Wall Street level, and those who operate domestically on Main Street issues.
Likewise the problems we face as a nation cannot be solved at a Main Street level, and we must fully understand that Main Street is down stream from Wall Street.
If we want to impact serious economic changes (both Trump and Sanders do) then we must travel to the source of the issue, Wall Street and/or the global financial markets. Those are the players above the policies being debated in the U.S. presidential election.
The intersection between the global financial markets (Wall Street) and U.S. politics surfaces when policy topics like the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal are being determined. Trade and U.S. banking policy (Treasury) are aspects where Wall Street gets interested and consequentially involved.
Knowing that Murdoch, (Fox News, and Fox Business News) and those of similar air and influence, have a vested interest in Wall Street issues – you begin to understand this:
Those who operate in this global finance world have a vested interest in controlling only those aspects that have influence on their business interests. They don’t necessarily care about Main Street consequences from the expression of those interests; therefore they don’t engage in policy issues of what’s going on down-stream. They simply don’t care; they only care about their consequential space – and retention of their larger financial interests.
♦ Both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders understand the global policies have detrimental impacts on Main Street. Where they differ is in how to control those impacts.
Sanders believes the government should control what is going on in the stratosphere inhabited by the global financial markets – Socalism. However, it’s an impossible task to try and use government intervention to force compliance on capital. See Venezuela as a current example in economic collapse.
Trump believes the government should allow the global markets to use capital as they desire; however, national government can act as a dam blocking down stream consequences, and walling off any economic damage by controlling how much influence those global markets (ie. Wall Street) have over Main Street. Fair Markets and “fair trade”, not “free trade”, through national control of economic pressure valves.
In essence Trump’s position is: we are the customer, the market can provide any product they want, but in order to be successful they have to provide the products we want, at a price our markets can sustain, or they lose. Capitalism and “fair markets” with clear nationalist best interests.
Unlike Donald Trump, Sanders position is to tell the production class what to produce, how to produce it, who gets it when it is produced (economic justice). Unlike Trump Sanders has never produced anything – he has no concept of creating a pie, he can only divide a pie already created. Sanders also goes a step further, much like Hugo Chavez, by saying how much the producer will be paid for the product. (Socialism is an exhausting economic model)
♦ In order to avoid the political consequences of both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, Wall Street (global financial markets) wants Jeb Bush and/or Hillary Clinton.
When you understand this basic principle all of the various actions taken by the Wall Street funded media (eg. polling) begin to make more sense.
This tenet is also why Fox News (Murdoch) is trying earnestly to eliminate Donald Trump – the principle(s) behind the corporate media outlet(s) have a vested interest in his failure. Those same principle(s) also have a vested interest in eliminating Bernie Sanders for essentially the same reason.
♦ Beyond the corporate media like Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS et al, we also have smaller, but in many cases not less impactful, media who also have a vested financial interest. Business models within various web-based media like Salem Media Group as an example.
This is why Donald Trump’s candidacy allows us to discover who the vested interests are.
We only need to watch how various “conservatives” change positions in order to attack the very platforms they previously espoused to hold (ie. immigration). In essence they are exposing their financial interests, their own business model, which is dependent on their maintenance by larger corporate financial influences.
None of the aforementioned corporate media entities would support a candidate willing to turn over the applecart of Wall Street to whom they are connected. Also none of the aforementioned would support a candidate who would eliminate, control or impact the source of substantive issues like the national debt, deficits, fiscal policies or international trade deals. Ergo all of the aforementioned support less consequential presidential candidates who are palatable for a purpose.
While all of the other candidates nibble around the edges they are careful to avoid directly hitting the target of the larger problems. There are only two candidates who are clear-eyed on the real source of what ails the U.S. system:
Left (Sanders rally) ~ Right (Trump rally)
This is why both Sanders and Trump are necessarily isolated, ridiculed and marginalized. However, this is also why the larger support base under each of these candidates is much more heavily engaged in the exponentially BIGGER policy issues which have real and long-term consequences.
Both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are focused on the root causes. All other candidates are willfully blind to what’s going on ‘upstream’ and willing to argue about the ‘downstream’ consequences (gun control, abortion rights, gay marriage etc.).
Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders represent risk to the Rupert Murdoch’s of the world and to Wall Street. No other candidates represent the same risk.
Ideally, the ultimate match-up would be Sanders and his democratic-socialist model, vs Trump and his unapologetic nationalist-capitalism model. However, this would represent a lose/lose to the global finance community of modern Wall Street, and thus must be avoided at all costs.
Wall Street wants this outcome:
This outcome has been the plan since October of 2013. Producing this exact outcome was additionally affirmed during the primary races within the mid-terms of 2014. The production of this outcome, and the protection of the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal was specifically why Mitch McConnell was given a financial open-checkbook in the 2014 mid-terms.
The people who operate in the stratosphere we are describing are long-term financial interests willing to spend massive amounts of money for desired long-term outcomes. Nothing is left to chance, and all possible outcomes must be covered within the plans – with built in contingencies (Rubio / Biden) to insure objectives are reached.
*NOTE* The Trans-Pacific Trade Deal legislative passage alone holds trillions of dollars in consequences. Hillary’s flip-flop position on the TPT indicates the Senate will take up the issue after the primary race (April/May ’16) and before the lead in to the general election (Sept/Oct ’16) – Wherein all political blow back can be avoided. This timing allows Hillary safe passage because the explosive issue will (hopefully according to McConnell) be resolved prior to it becoming an issue in the presidential election.