Posted on 10/14/2014 5:32:26 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
. . . . .
As it pertains to the Republican primary in 2016, Cruz said the litmus test for GOP voters should be whether a given candidate has led on the battlefield of ideas against the left and political establishment as a whole.
“I think the critical question for any primary voter in terms of who to support is: Who is standing up and leading? That’s the test I intend to apply as a voter who will vote in the Republican primary in 2016,” Cruz said. Elaborating, Cruz stated:
We’re facing enormous challenges, fiscal and economic threats, threats to our Constitutional liberties, a world that keeps getting more and more dangerous as America has receded from leadership. What we should be looking to is who is standing up and leading? Who is making the case that the path we’re on isn’t working and there is a better path? We can get back to the free market principles. We can get back to the constitutional liberties that this country was founded upon. What I would encourage everyone who is thinking about this to do is stand up and lead.
When asked what has surprised him most in just under two years in the U.S. Senate, Cruz said he has been most surprised by the cowardice of some Republicans he works alongside:
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Yes he is a raving madman and he’s spamming his unhinged ramblings all over FR. Anyone doing a simple search of any number of keywords will be led straight to this forum and his spewing.
“Denial is not a river in Egypt.”
At least you’ve calmed down, but it’s obvious that’s all you’ve got - old cliches, talking points, insults.
1.) I am NOT “spamming” ...
2.) The last thing I am wont to do is “make conservatives look evil”
3) I am attempting - obviously w/o success - to alert you idiots to a serious matter: a revolving door that exist between GS and the federal government. And more than that (if you bothered to read the information I linked to) the fact - not theory, but fact - that all you and every other souls has ever worked for is going to disappear overnight ... and that event will happen sooner than later.
Spam? I have not one thing to loose or gain by telling you this. I am not selling anything. I am trying to get you to open your eyes to the reality that is hanging over all of us. You seem to believe that conservative ignorance is different than liberal ignorance, or libertarian ignorance, or whatever ... Ignorance is ignorance - and it can get you financially ruined - or worse.
If you think it is of no significance that the wife of Ted Cruz is part of the Goldman Sachs hierarchy, and in the context that he has aspirations for the presidency, tehn I believe you are wearing blinders or else looking through rose-colored glasses.
This isn’t a freaking political game anymore. This bye-bye, turn-off the lights, it’s over ... If you would step out from your political shell, just for once, and think outside the box, you and the others might actually begin to question the false reality that has been carefully played out to keep you ignorant and docile.
If you choose to be deaf and blind, then so be it ... Let it be known that I gave the warning in good faith.
Oh Bee-Ess
Did Jack Black put you up to this?
“Let it be known that I gave the warning in good faith.”
No, you’ve accused us of going ballistic, when it was you who screamed at a fever pitch. You used the old “definition of insanity is repeating yourself” cliche, yet your posts are filled with repetitious rantings and vileness towards anyone who might not agree with you.
In a nutshell (pardon the pun), you’re a prime example of the I’m-right-and-if-you-disagree-with-me-you’re-wrong-and-you’re-a-republicrat delusions of grandeur.
If you even halfway believe your own posts, then I have to tell you in good faith that you are Chicken Little on steroids, and you need to get a new perspective before you crash and burn. Do with that as you see fit.
Who is Jack Black?
Nobody “put me up to” anything ...
I posted this of my own volition.
Did you even bother to read the information I linked?
At least have the integrity to objectively read the material I linked, and then make an informed judgment; rather than the typical knee-jerk reaction of calling me a “madman” or “spammer” or whatever.
Welcome to Planet Crazy. Tin foil hats are required or you won’t be served.
Uh, excuse me, but where exactly did I accuse anybody of “going ballistic?”
I did not use caps, so I was not “screaming” - at fever pitch or otherwise.
Funny how nothing changes, no matter who holds the office ... The U.S. is a financial disaster; but perhaps you think a $200+ TRILLION liability is “no big deal”?
It is fundamentally mathematically impossible to reconcile that amount of debt. If you believe otherwise, then you do not understand how much money that is - in man hours (i.e: blood). The people to whom that debt is owed are not going to accept default or IOUs - they will take what is theirs in either treasure (every dime and piece of property that you think you own) or in blood.
Chicken Little? Hardly. I can do math - and the numbers don’t lie - that is objective reality. We are dead. I would like nothing more than to be wrong - but I can longer avoid what is a glaringly obvious and fast approaching reality - this nation is going to go over a cliff and we are all going to go over with it - some may take the plunge with more comforts than others, but in the end, there preps will not matter. This is a global monster that will devour everything in its path.
But, you believe whatever you wish.
Again, did you bother to read the information (article with source documentation) that I supplied? Or is the adversarial approach the only response you know? Perhaps if you did the research, then we might actually begin a conversation. But then you would need to give up the tightly held fantasy of invincibility behind which so many here seem to take their comfort.
Go here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3215208/posts?page=10#10
Then scroll down to the bottom of the third paragraph:
--->Then you go ballistic when they - on cue - betray your “conservative” beliefs.
You began your posting on this thread with a classic logical fallacy- that Ted Cruz is tainted simply because of where his wife works.
That bit of crackpot reasoning is nothing more than a variation on the Genetic Fallacy. If you want to be taken seriously learn to use logic and something resembling the rules of evidence.
OK, a generality - but nonetheless true ... How many elections have come and gone, where you pick so-and-so as “the guy” or “the gal” ... then a year down the road that individual begins “voting funny” - the dreaded Washington beltway disease! And I have read enough on these boards to see that you get quite upset, being totally blindsided by this suddenly-come “turncoat” ... Do you deny that happens - on a far too frequent basis. (Although not an “elected” officer, the most recent example would be that of Justice Roberts and his pro-sodomite court).
But still, you have not responded of whether you thoughtfully read the material (linked above) that I provided. Funny how those responding thus far have apparently ignored that piece. So then, how are we to argue its merits (or lack of them) if you will not even bother to take an objective perusal of the information provided?
I presented you with a link to serious well-researched information on which to make a judgment as to whether the fact that Heidi Cruz is a key executive for the Houston branch of Goldman & Sachs would have undue influence on Ted Cruz’ - if he were to become POTUS. It is no secret, here on FR or elsewhere, as to the revolving door that exists between GS and the federal government ... or, as may be the case, many other financial entities (e.g.: MF Global and Jon Corzine - CEO of Goldman Sachs 1994-99, Governor of New Jersey, U.S. Senator, then in 2010 CEO MF Global Holdings) ...
Why many here on FR believe this should not be of sobering concern absolutely floors me. How many iterations of the corruption through crony capitalism must we run through before we stop pretending that all is rosy, just because “this time it’s one of our guys at the helm?”
“But, you believe whatever you wish.”
I believe,,,It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man.
Men will do whatever is in their hearts to do, whether good or evil. I work against it as much as possible in my human state, but I’m not wasting my life being in constant fear of the evil.
I’m not asking you to “waste your life being in constant fear of evil” ... However, I am pleading with you to be prudent, to judge the issue on previous examples of what has always led to a very bad outcome. Yes, men have the capacity and free will to do good or not (being indifferent - which is the true opposite of charity, not “hate” is worse than doing bad). All the more reason to jealously guard your liberties, since, in the end, it is we who are ultimately responsible for what happens to us - both as individuals, and as a nation.
“Working against evil” must necessarily include the virtue of prudence. And I say to you that it is very imprudent, to ignore the real possibility of a improper relationship / influence between Goldman & Sachs and the POTUS, when considering all that has come to pass thus far. To ignore the danger of such an outcome only because Ted Cruz (or any other individual) speaks the right words now, plays his cards handily, appears a man of integrity, etc., does not bode well in the context of what has already proven itself as bad precedent. Again, how many times must we go through this crony capitalism (especially in the case of GS) before we wise up? And considering the unfathomably large sums of derivative funds to which GS is liable, it is incredible that any her should dismiss so flippantly the potential for mischief and malfeasance that exist in this instance.
“I presented you with a link to serious well-researched information on which to make a judgment as to whether the fact that Heidi Cruz is a key executive for the Houston branch of Goldman & Sachs would have undue influence on Ted Cruz”
The barnhardt blog that you linked to makes no mention of Heidi Cruz at all. (Your blog?)
It is full of conjecture about derivatives, and manages to lump in the quasi-insurance instruments known as Credit Default Swaps for good measure.
Since there is no data on any of the derivatives other than their sheer number the article is useless despite the fact that it appears to have you fascinated. Without knowing what sort they are there is no way to know the exposure of the banks to risk, and yet somehow the blog writer claims to know exactly that.
Perhaps this link (embedded in Barnhardt’s article) will help:
Risk Is Back: America’s Big Banks Are Knee-Deep In Derivatives (FORBES 03/28/2013)
This too:
OCC’s Quarterly Report on Bank Trading and Derivatives Activities - Fourth Quarter 2013
http://www.occ.gov/topics/capital-markets/financial-markets/trading/derivatives/dq413.pdf
And Barnhardt does in fact mention Heidi Cruz - here on her front page (See Point 6):
And she provides a link to Mrs. Cruz’ LINKED-IN page:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/heidi-cruz/4/811/777
I also suggest you go here:
Scroll down the page to this title:
Banks and Derivative Super-Priority
That should give you pause.
Here, put THIS in your pipe and smoke it -
“I Am Putting Everything In Goldman Sachs Because These Guys Can Do Whatever The Hell They Want” Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/28/2014 23:18 -0400
UN-FREEPING BELIEVABLE!
When we first covered the Carmen Segarra lawsuit alleging the capture of the NY Fed by Goldman Sachs back in October 2013, we didn’t have much hope for justice to get done. We said that “while her allegations may be non-definitive, and her wrongful termination suit is ultimately dropped, there is hope this opens up an inquiry into the close relationship between Goldman and the NY Fed. Alas, since the judicial branch is also under the control of the two abovementioned entities, we very much doubt it.”
Sure enough, the lawsuit was dropped (and no inquiry was opened) but not before it became clear that the very judge in charge of the case, U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams, was herself conflicted, after it was revealed that her husband, Greg Andres, a partner at Davis Polk & Wardwell, was representing Goldman in an advisory capacity. Curiously, before she assumed her current office in March 2013, back in 2008 Abrams returned to Davis Polk herself as Special Counsel for Pro Bono. She had previously worked at the firm from 1994 to 1998. For the full, and quite amazing, story of how the “Judge” steamrolled Segarra’s objections reads this Reuters piece.
As a result of this fiasco, some wondered just how far do Goldman’s tentacles stretch not only at the money-printing (i.e., NY Fed) level, not only at the legislative level (see “With Cantor Down, Which Other Politicians Has Goldman Invested In?”), but at the judicial as well.
And then, on Friday, the Segarra case against the Federal Reserve branch of Goldman Sachs got a second wind, when as a result of another disclosure, ProPublica revealed “How Goldman Controls The New York Fed in 47.5 Hours Of “The Secret Goldman Sachs Tapes.” That is to say, nothing new was revealed per se, because as anyone who has read this website for the past 6 years knows just how vast Goldman’s network is not only at the Fed, but in that all important other continent too, Europe.
Sadly, just like a year ago, so this time too, we are reluctant to say anything will change. In fact, there is too much at stake, for Goldman to drop the reins and disassociate from the NY Fed: for pete’s sake, the president of the NY Fed is a former Goldman employee - does it get any more conflicted than that?!
But, wait, Goldman will do penance by “prohibiting its bankers from buying stocks”... the horror. Luckily at least purchasing politicians and Fed presidents is still perfectly allowed.
In fact, what has become clear to everyone is that aside from yet another dog and pony show (led by, you guessed, it the head dog and ponier herself, Elizabeth Warren), not only will nothing change, but in fact the best way to take advantage of a broken, corrupt, sinking system, is to join it. And the best summary of just that sentiment was released over the weekend by Nanex’ Eric Hunsader as follows [TWITTER]:
Eric Scott Hunsader @nanexllc
Follow
After listening to http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/536/the-secret-recordings-of-carmen-segarra … I’m putting everything in $GS - because these guys can do whatever the hell they want
5:22 PM - 26 Sep 2014
95 Retweets 60 favorites
But before we put this topic to bed, here is Raúl Ilargi Meijer explaining why “The US Has No Banking Regulation, And It Doesn’t Want Any”
* * *
It is, let’s say, exceedingly peculiar to begin with that a government – in this case the American one, but that’s just one example - in name of its people tasks a private institution with regulating not just any sector of its economy, but the richest and most politically powerful sector in the nation. Which also happens to be at least one of the major forces behind its latest, and ongoing, economical crisis.
That there is a very transparent, plain for everyone to see, over-sized revolving door between the regulator and the corporations in the sector only makes the government’s choice for the Fed as regulator even more peculiar. Or, as it turns out, more logical. But it is still preposterous: regulating the financial sector is a mere illusion kept alive through lip service. Put differently: the American government doesn’t regulate the banks. They effectively regulate themselves. Which inevitably means there is no regulation.
The newly found attention for ProPublica writer Jake Bernstein’s series of articles, which date back almost one whole year, about the experiences of former Fed regulator Carmen Segarra, and the audio files she collected while trying to do her job, leaves no question about this.
What’s going on is abundantly clear, because it is so simple. The intention of the New York Fed as an organization is not to properly regulate, but only to generate an appearance – or illusion – of proper regulation. That is to say, Goldman will accept regulation only up to the point where it would cut into either the company’s profits or its political wherewithal.
What the ‘Segarra Files’ point out is that the New York Fed plays the game exactly the way Goldman wants it played. Ergo: there is no actual regulation taking place, and Goldman will comply only with those requests from the New York Fed that it feels like complying with.
In the articles, the term ‘regulatory capture’ pops up, which means – individual – regulators are ‘co-opted’ by the banks they – are supposed to – regulate. But the capture runs much larger and wider. It’s not about individuals, it’s a watertight and foolproof system wide capture.
The government picks a – private – regulator which has close ties to the banks. The government knows this. It also knows this means that its chosen regulator will always defer to the banks. And when individual regulators refuse to comply with the system, they are thrown out.
In one of the cases Segarra was involved in during her stint at the Fed, the Kinder Morgan-El Paso takeover deal, Goldman advises one party, has substantial stock holdings in the other, and appoints a lead counsel who personally has $340,000 in stock involved. Conflict of interest? Goldman says no, and the Fed complies (defers).
The lawsuit Segarra filed against the NY Fed and three of its executives was thrown out on technicalities by a judge whose husband was legal counsel for Goldman in the exact same case. No conflict of interest, the judge herself decides.
This is not regulation, it’s a sick and perverted joke played on the American people, which it has been paying for it through the nose for years, and will for many years to come. Sure, Elizabeth Warren picks it up now and wants hearings on the topic in Congress, but she’s a year late (it’s been known since at least December 2013 that Segarra has audio recordings) and moreover, it was Congress itself that made the NY Fed the regulator of Wall Street. Warren has as much chance of getting anywhere as Segarra did (or does, she’s appealing the case).
The story: In October 2011, Carmen Segarra was hired by New York Fed to be embedded at Goldman as a risk specialist, and in particular to investigate to what degree the company complied with a 2008 Fed Supervision and Regulation Letter, known as SR 08-08, which focuses on the requirement for firms like Goldman, engaged in many different activities, to have company-wide programs to manage business risks, in particular conflict-of-interest. Some people at Goldman admitted it did not have such a company-wide policy as of November 2011. Others, though, said it did.
Let’s take it from there with quotes from the 5 articles Bernstein wrote on the topic over the past year. To listen to the Segarra files, please go to The Secret Recordings of Carmen Segarra at This American Life.
One last thing: Jake Bernstein’s work is of high quality, but I can’t really figure why he says things such as the audio files show: “a New York Fed that is at times reluctant to push hard against Goldman and struggling to define its authority”. Through his work, and the files, it should be clear that just ain’t so. Both the Fed’s policy and authority are crystal clear and ironclad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.