Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

[Osborn F Enready]

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States
posted 11/29, by bocamp22 on (e-thepeople)

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.

The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controlled the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company's accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.

In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators explicitly rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but dissolution of the corporation.

In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court's decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. The Court claimed that since the charter contained no revocation clause, it could not be withdrawn. The Supreme Court's attack on state sovereignty outraged citizens. Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passedto circumvent the Dartmouth ruling. Over several decades starting in 1844, nineteen states amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures. As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people's message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state's powers over "artificial bodies."

But the men running corporations pressed on. Contests over charter were battles to control labor, resources, community rights, and political sovereignty. More and more frequently, corporations were abusing their charters to become conglomerates and trusts. They converted the nation's resources and treasures into private fortunes, creating factory systems and company towns. Political power began flowing to absentee owners, rather than community-rooted enterprises.

The industrial age forced a nation of farmers to become wage earners, and they became fearful of unemployment--a new fear that corporations quickly learned to exploit. Company towns arose. and blacklists of labor organizers and workers who spoke up for their rights became common. When workers began to organize, industrialists and bankers hired private armies to keep them in line. They bought newspapers to paint businessmen as heroes and shape public opinion. Corporations bought state legislators, then announced legislators were corrupt and said that they used too much of the public's resources to scrutinize every charter application and corporate operation.

Government spending during the Civil War brought these corporations fantastic wealth. Corporate executives paid "borers" to infest Congress and state capitals, bribing elected and appointed officials alike. They pried loose an avalanche of government financial largesse. During this time, legislators were persuaded to give corporations limited liability, decreased citizen authority over them, and extended durations of charters. Attempts were made to keep strong charter laws in place, but with the courts applying legal doctrines that made protection of corporations and corporate property the center of constitutional law, citizen sovereignty was undermined. As corporations grew stronger, government and the courts became easier prey. They freely reinterpreted the U.S. Constitution and transformed common law doctrines.

One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of “corporate personhood,” thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a "natural person."

From that point on, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, was used routinely to grant corporations constitutional “personhood.” Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these “rights,” corporations increased control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, even judges and the law.

A United States Congressional committee concluded in 1941, "The principal instrument of the concentration of economic power and wealth has been the corporate charter with unlimited power...."

Many U.S.-based corporations are now transnational, but the corrupted charter remains the legal basis for their existence. At ReclaimDemocracy.org, we believe citizens can reassert the convictions of our nation's founders who struggled succesfully to free us from corporate rule in the past. These changes must occur at the most fundamental level -- the U.S. Constitution.

Please read our three proposed Constitutional Amendments to revoke illegitmate corporate power, erode the power of money over elections, and establish an affirmative constitutional right to vote.

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corp...ations_us.html

[Osborn F Enready]

An excellent article, pointing out a lot of what is wrong with America today, and when and how it started.

[bishop]

1936 - general motors formed national city lines, which bought up electric streetcar systems and converted them to gm diesel bus systems.. then it resold these systems to municipalities for profit.

in 1949, a federal court found national city lines and similar companies guilty of criminal conspiracy, fining them a whopping $5,000 and individuals were fined $1 a piece.

after they effectively destroyed the national trolly system, converting everything to diesel engines, the next step was to replace national railways with roads. this was accomplished, surprise surprise, with the help of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. henry ford was the biggest proponent of using taxpayer dollars to fund his own business agenda.

corporate welfare... not much has changed, eh?

[Osborn F Enready]

Some good points Bishop. The thing I notice the most is that laws like these, were being passed at a more prolific rate starting from the beginning of the bi-partisan domination of the Congress, House and Senate. Looking back we see that the first 100 years after our creation as a nation, our system was very constitutionally aligned. The laws were very strict in accordance with the Law of The Land.

Once the Republican-Democrats split into two DIFFERENT parties, both sharing half the name, the laws, and the path of their creation from bill to law were challenged and worked with, massaged and relaxed in certain areas. The parties differed greatly on some issues, but on a great many were much the same, as is today. By taking the "majority" party of the time, they split it in two, each side expanded their lines toward the fringe left, and right respectively, and they created a monopoly of the vote based on numerical majority. They have always been working in a bi-partisan effort to create the illusion of divide in the nation, to ensure their majority party lock on the system.

Why would they do this, some ask?

Appointment powers
Both Pro-Tax
Both Pro-Limited Trade
Both Pro-Corporation
Both backed by BIG dollar investors/businessmen who were major players in the creation of this nation financially. (J.P. Morgan, Dupont, Ford, Etc...)

These major backed parties have continued to monopolize corporate, media and commerce in this nation, as well as seat almost every elected seat with members from their parties respectively.

In my opinion, I have a lot more to say that I will spare you, but...

I find it hard to believe, even in only the numerical possibility formulas, that two parties could maintain control of a nation that has grown MILLIONS of people mainly immigrants, and presided over the largest creation of wealth in the history of the globe. If only for the divergence of political intrests, I find it hard to believe. We have a multitude of choices for everything, from ice-cream flavors to shades of paint, clothing to toys, choices choices CHOICES, but only two canidates for President, according to the media and the major parties if asked. They wouldn't even lower themselves to allow another party to debate, let alone accept they exist and have a chance.

There is a lot to learn from our history, and this is only my opinion mostly, but the money trail is the most answering trail of all.

[bishop]

The thing I notice the most is that laws like these, were being passed at a more prolific rate starting from the beginning of the bi-partisan domination of the Congress, House and Senate. Looking back we see that the first 100 years after our creation as a nation, our system was very constitutionally aligned. The laws were very strict in accordance with the Law of The Land.

i'm not sure i agree with that characterization.. the rise of industrialism in america created some very rich, and powerful people. i believe it was during this time that the senate was called the "millionaire's club". more and more, these rich business people were winning seats in congress and had access to elected officials. i see very stark differences between repubicans and democrats - i don't buy the notion that they're the same party with different clothes.. the one thing that they do have in common, though, is that they are corporatist parties.

to deviate from the original constitution isn't necessarily a bad thing.. giving blacks and women the right to vote, and the nation the right to vote for president were good things imo.. you and i differ on how far such reforms can go and still be seen as constitutionally acceptable. even further, the bushistas seem to think that the patriot acts 1 & 2 constitutionally allow government to spy on citizens. lots of perspectives...

the last bit about people not interested in listening to other ideas (ala limiting debates to 2 parties).. ross perot made it into the debates years ago.. he won a sizeable chunk of the vote too. of course, he was filthy rich and was able ot overcome that financial hurdle. voter apathy isn't new to our country.. in the early 1900's, our economy was booming and people cared more about materialistic issues than philosophical policy issues. we have had big populist and civil rights movements that have made a big impact on the country.. you could say that our nation lives in fear from 9/11, and that is why bush was "re"elected, despite his unattractive record.

[Osborn F Enready]

Bishop said: i'm not sure i agree with that characterization.. the rise of industrialism in america created some very rich, and powerful people.

I say: Which parties did they back, and why? It is PROVEN fact that they were once ONE party. The point I am making is that the party once it split, were two shades of the same color. They agreed in many socialist ideals, that led to introducing socialist legislation into the capitalist based system. The New Deal, by FDR was the most damaging to us in the terms of laws and legislation, but it came at a time when the nation was in crisis.(because U.S. speculation on the dollar AS PREDICTED caused a massive dropout, which gave them the opprotunity to DEMAND a new banking system, called the Federal Reserve.)

Look at the canidates for the 1912 Election, and tell me you don't see socialist influence in EVERY canidate. There is a reason for that.... corporate laws were ruining the system. The way to fight back was through UNION ORGANIZATION. What was the biggest source of union infiltration of the times, but of course the socialist movement.

They(the establishment) created corporate laws, against the precedent set by the forefathers.(Done by court justices) This opened the door for their INTENDED goal, which was the passing of legislation to allow more seperation of the checks and balances, and allowed more socialist inspired legislation to be passed WITH APPRECIATION from the people, since it was made to appear that the constitution was at fault, when really it was the court justices and the money holders behind the scenes that not only CAUSED the depression, but also CREATED the new banking system.

(quote)
"The following system was installed in 1913 with the ratification of the income tax amendment (the sixteenth amendment) and the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. Both of these were spearheaded by Senator Nelson Aldrich, the maternal grandfather of David Rockefeller, under the guidance of the House of Rothschild. The Federal Reserve Act was drafted by Paul Warburg, a Rothschild intimate. In a Thanksgiving 1910 secret meeting on Jekyll Island, Georgia, the establishment's leaders met and agreed to the plan. The system was not fully enabled until the passage of the Banking Act of 1933, the precipitous passage of which was overseen by FDR's treasury secretary William Woodin and an armada of private bankers (more on this shortly). Full fiat central banking was realized in 1971 when President Nixon removed all semblance of a gold standard for Federal Reserve funds."

Several quotes underscore the scam:

``By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens...''
-John Maynard Keynes

``In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value.''
-Alan Greenspan, 1967

Keynes is the father of the activist monetary policy that is in practice today in the industrialized world. Greenspan, of course, is the current chairman of the Federal Reserve and of the FOMC.

``The Federal Reserve Banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this Nation is run by the International Bankers.''
-Congressman Louis T. McFadden

[i]``...From now on depressions will be scientifically created.''[i]
-Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr., 1913, on the Federal Reserve Act

``We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system.... It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon.''[i]
-Robert H. Hamphill, Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank

Bishop said: i see very stark differences between repubicans and democrats

I say: Please share these with me, and tell me what you consider a stark difference other than right to life, or "frequency of" social programs spending.(modern republicans are comparable to democrats of the 80's in social spending if not worse.)

Bishop said: to deviate from the original constitution isn't necessarily a bad thing.. giving blacks and women the right to vote, and the nation the right to vote for president were good things imo

I say: Well, the constitution never APPROVED slavery, it just didn't SPECIFY. The people of the times knew that slavery was the key issue of the times, and they knew and WROTE about how they HAD TO CONCEDE on that one issue to pass the Constitution. HOWEVER, if you read the Bill of Rights it clearly states ALL people, not just whites or a particular ethnicity OR religion. Womens suffrage was an issue only later, once more women demanded to become eligible to vote. This was also implied, but not specified.

In both cases, the amendments were made to specify a correction TO PREVIOUS PERCEPTION, of the stated case. The constitution was right, the perception was wrong. The constitution was modified to APPEASE the public perception, AFTER PEOPLE DIED to RECTIFY that perception.

I also agree, it was good to do it in both cases, and they were textbook examples of proper ways to modify the constitution through amendment procedures.

Bishop said: in the early 1900's, our economy was booming and people cared more about materialistic issues than philosophical policy issues.

I say: This is because time had passed, and a generation that EXPERIENCED war for INDEPENDENCE had died. With that passage of time, the fear of tyranny and loss of liberty was quelled by the "new and modern" U.S. They experienced their version of the "baby boom" after the war of independence, and there were a large and growing number of immigrants to the nation. We were in a huge growth expansion, and rights of indians were not even viewed as being equal with whites. We had WON the war of independence, and people felt they earned the ability to relax since our power was now proven, and unifying. At the times of false security, are the times the most evil is done. People allowed the government more ability, in hopes of a continuing expansion, this is true, but they FORGOT the lessons their fathers and grandfathers had died for. Our nations liberty, and mans inventions from freedom to pursue avenues of choice is what built the grass roots of the Industrial Revolution. Our nation went from a ragtag, but sizeable group of revolutionaries, to a modern and growing superpower at a pace I think none have matched.

It was our roots that provided that jumpstart, and the system that allowed us to enjoy freedom, and relax. We relaxed too much, and it was stolen from the inside, and they are almost to the point now of being the global unionizer, which will be the end of all liberty as we have ever known it.

[bishop]

i think i'll just respond to the first part just to keep this on topic.. i'd love to talk about fiat, but i've started several threads about monetary policy (including the switch over to fiat), and nobody's ever participated. the differences between the parties is another topic too.

I say: Which parties did they back, and why? It is PROVEN fact that they were once ONE party. The point I am making is that the party once it split, were two shades of the same color. They agreed in many socialist ideals, that led to introducing socialist legislation into the capitalist based system. The New Deal, by FDR was the most damaging to us in the terms of laws and legislation, but it came at a time when the nation was in crisis.(because U.S. speculation on the dollar AS PREDICTED caused a massive dropout, which gave them the opprotunity to DEMAND a new banking system, called the Federal Reserve.) Look at the canidates for the 1912 Election, and tell me you don't see socialist influence in EVERY canidate. There is a reason for that.... corporate laws were ruining the system. The way to fight back was through UNION ORGANIZATION. What was the biggest source of union infiltration of the times, but of course the socialist movement. They(the establishment) created corporate laws, against the precedent set by the forefathers.(Done by court justices) This opened the door for their INTENDED goal, which was the passing of legislation to allow more seperation of the checks and balances, and allowed more socialist inspired legislation to be passed WITH APPRECIATION from the people, since it was made to appear that the constitution was at fault, when really it was the court justices and the money holders behind the scenes that not only CAUSED the depression, but also CREATED the new banking system.

there was a BIG difference between the progressives of the early 1900's, and taft-republicans.. taft republicans were the neocons of their day. progressives paid close attention to public demands. agencies like the federal reserve and sec were created out of public demand. before that, however, our economic policies were very laissez faire and led towards the creation of today's big corporations. laissez faire helped people like j.p. morgan, ford, etc.. these policies were enacted under "conservative" presidents, not progressives. the only reason why i think corporate interests have continued to dominate public policy is because this group has grown increasingly influencial through the usage of their money and how they practice business. during the great depression, j.p. morgan threatened the entire financial collapse of michican (the guardian group) because he wouldn't improve his banks using his own money - he demanded a public grant.

with things like fdr's policies.... you have to understand that the great depression was such a big deal that people all across the country began to think that capitalism as a system had failed. there was very pro-socialist and anti-monopoly sentiment during that time. can't simply blame fdr - the people heavily supported him (for a reason).


the rich have always dominated the system though... i'm sure there are plenty of examples in the 1800's where you can see congress giving into monied interests. corporations, are only different because their scope extends beyond the specific region in which they operate.

[Osborn F Enready]

Bishop said: there was a BIG difference between the progressives of the early 1900's, and taft-republicans.. taft republicans were the neocons of their day. progressives paid close attention to public demands. agencies like the federal reserve and sec were created out of public demand.

I say:Both the Federal Reserve and the SEC are agencies created that fit the BI-PARTISAN AGENDA, and the federal reserve is BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The people in office listened to the people, and then used their wishes to FURTHER their own agenda. The Federal Reserve was instrumental to shifting toward global policy, since the establishment of the time had to find a way to seize monetary control over the private controlled banks of the time, and a way to manipulate the inflation. (The fed needed access to money on demand, and wanted to borrow money without the knowledge of the people.) On top of this, they recalled all gold and silver, and switched the nation over to fiat currency which is worthless without the system to back it. By doing this, they removed the PEOPLES ABILITY to revolt against the new banking system,since if they fought the system, they had only paper money that was worthless, and the fed held all the gold and silver.

Bishop said:our economic policies were very laissez faire and led towards the creation of today's big corporations. laissez faire helped people like j.p. morgan, ford, etc.. these policies were enacted under "conservative" presidents, not progressives.

I say: Here is a clip from a Bill Blase article that describes my point I think....

Thomas Jefferson wrote: "The Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution...if the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Does that not describe the situation in America today?

The U.S. managed to do without a central bank until early in this century, when, according to Congressman Charles Lindbergh, Sr., "The Money Trust caused the 1907 panic, and thereby forced Congress to create a National Monetary Commission." Headed by Senator Nelson Aldrich, father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., the Commission recommended creation of a central bank.

Though unconstitutional, as only "The Congress shall have Power...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof..." (Article I, Section 8, U.S. Constitution) the Federal Reserve Act was passed in December 1913; ostensibly to stabilize the economy and prevent further panics, but as Lindberg warned Congress: "This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth...the invisible government by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust investigation, will be legalized." The Great Depression and numerous recessions later, it is obvious the Federal Reserve produces inflation and federal debt whenever it desires, but not stability.

Congressman Louis McFadden, House Committee on Banking and Currency Chairman (1920-31), stated: "When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by international bankers and industrialists...acting together to enslave the world...Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers but the truth is--the Fed has usurped the government."

Although called "Federal," the Federal Reserve system is privately owned by member banks, makes its own policies, and is not subject to oversight by Congress or the President. As the overseer and supplier of reserves, the Fed gave banks access to public funds, which enhanced their lending capacity.

Peter Kershaw, in "Economic Solutions" lists the ten major shareholders of the Federal Reserve Bank System as: Rothschild: London and Berlin; Lazard Bros: Paris; Israel Seiff: Italy; Kuhn- Loeb Company: Germany; Warburg: Hamburg and Amsterdam; Lehman Bros: New York; Goldman and Sachs: New York; Rockefeller: New York. (That most, if not all of these families just happen to be Jewish, you may judge the significance of yourself). The balance of stock is owned by major commercial member banks.

According to Davvy [Devvy -Ed.] Kidd, "Why A Bankrupt America?" The Federal Reserve pays the Bureau of Engraving & Printing approximately $23 for each 1,000 notes printed. 10,000 $100 notes (one million dollars) would thus cost the Federal Reserve $230. They then secure a pledge of collateral equal to the face value from the U.S government. The collateral is our land, labor, and assets... collected by their agents, the IRS. By authorizing the Fed to regulate and create money (and thus inflation), Congress gave private banks power to create profits at will.

As Lindberg put it: "The new law will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation...they can unload the stocks on the people at high prices during the excitement and then bring on a panic and buy them back at low prices...the day of reckoning is only a few years removed." That day came in 1929, with the Stock Market crash and Great Depression.

One of the most important powers given to the Fed was the right to buy and sell government securities, and provide loans to member banks so they might also purchase them. This provided another built-in mechanism for profit to the banks, if government debt was increased. All that was needed was a method to pay off the debt. This was accomplished through the passage of the income tax in 1913.

A national income tax was declared unconstitutional in 1895 by the Supreme Court, so a constitutional amendment was proposed in Congress by none other than ...Senator Nelson Aldrich. As presented to the American people it seemed reasonable enough: income tax on only one percent of income under $20,000, with the assurance that it would never increase.

Since it was graduated, the tax would "soak the rich", ...but the rich had other plans, already devising a method of protecting wealth. As described by Gary Allen in his 1976 book "The Rockefeller File," "By the time the (16th) Amendment had been approved by the states, the Rockefeller Foundation was in full operation...about the same time that Judge Kenesaw Landis was ordering the breakup of the Standard Oil monopoly...John D...not only avoided taxes by creating four great tax-exempt foundations; he used them as repositories for his 'divested' interests...made his assets non-taxable so that they might be passed down through generations without...estate and gift taxes...Each year the Rockefellers can dump up to half their incomes into their pet foundations and deduct the "donations" from their income tax."

Exchanging ownership for control of wealth, foundations are also a handy means for promoting interests that benefit the wealthy. Millions of foundation dollars have been "donated" to causes such as promoting the use of drugs, while degrading preventive medicine. Since many drugs are made from coal tar derivatives, both oil companies and drug manufacturing concerns (many Rockefeller owned or controlled) are the main beneficiaries.

With the means to loan enormous sums to the government (the Federal Reserve), a method to repay the debt (income tax), and an escape from taxation for the wealthy, (foundations), all that remained was an excuse to borrow money. By some happy "coincidence," in 1914 World War I began, and after American participation national debt rose from $1 billion to $25 billion.

Woodrow Wilson was elected President in 1913, beating incumbent William Howard Taft, who had vowed to veto legislation establishing a central bank. To divide the Republican vote and elect the relatively unknown Wilson, J.P. Morgan and Co. poured money into the candidacy of Teddy Roosevelt and his Progressive Party.

According to an eyewitness, Wilson was brought to Democratic Party headquarters in 1912 by Bernard Baruch, a wealthy banker. He received an "indoctrination course" from those he met, and in return agreed, if elected: to support the projected Federal Reserve and the income tax, and "listen" to advice in case of war in Europe and on the composition of his cabinet.

Wilson's top advisor during his two terms was a man named Colonel Edward M. House. House's biographer, Charles Seymour, called him the "unseen guardian angel" of the Federal Reserve Act, helping to guide it through Congress. Another biographer wrote that House believed: "...the Constitution, product of eighteenth-century minds...was thoroughly outdated; that the country would be better off if the Constitution could be scrapped and rewritten..." House wrote a book entitled "Philip Dru: Administrator," published anonymously in 1912. The hero, Philip Dru, rules America and introduces radical changes, such as a graduated income tax, a central bank, and a "league of nations."

World War I produced both a large national debt, and huge profits for those who had backed Wilson. Baruch was appointed head of the War Industries Board, where he exercised dictatorial power over the national economy. He and the Rockefellers were reported to have earned over $200 million during the war. Wilson backer Cleveland Dodge sold munitions to the allies, while J.P. Morgan loaned them hundreds of millions, with the protection of U.S. entry into the war.


This information and much more on topic, available at:
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/
after clicking on the link above,
in the left column click on "The Banking Scam"
scroll down to the bottom of the introduction quotes, you will see a link to the Blase article.

[Osborn F Enready]

Bishop said: with things like fdr's policies.... you have to understand that the great depression was such a big deal that people all across the country began to think that capitalism as a system had failed.

I say: You are right, and that is EXACTLY what the establishment had planned as the reaction would be. The people, played right into the hands of the financiers, and the two major parties gladly partook of the funds, and the power. This was part of their bi-partisan plan from the beginning. To isolate people who were anti-central bank.

Bishop said: the rich have always dominated the system though

I say: Not true. Before the central bank, things were imperfect, but much more level of a playing field. My point is, why not reconstruct the banking system with something that is NOT designed to undermine the constitution, yet has stability and a solid financial backer of money like precious metals, or some other form of currency.

The modern system was designed to AID the corporations, and until we remove the Federal Reserve, we have no chance of ever again controlling this nation, let alone its government, which is OUR RIGHTS, as citizens of this nation.

Bishop said: think i'll just respond to the first part just to keep this on topic.. i'd love to talk about fiat, but i've started several threads about monetary policy (including the switch over to fiat), and nobody's ever participated. the differences between the parties is another topic too.

I say: My post was all on topic, as it addresses just how the corporations have come to the place of total control of the nation they have today. Hell, I started the thread, I should have some say as to what is on topic. It is impossible to discuss something of this scope and magnatude without crossing over other topics to prove points that are valid to the discussion. Please post freely.

[Osborn F Enready]

Is there anyone out there, Wal-Mart fans, Pro-Bushies or Pro-Kerryites, who want to take a stab at this, or defend the position of the establishment?

[bishop]

you've gone from talking about government catering to corporations, to a discussion on the federal reserve, taxes and currency.. those may be interrelated, but you haven't put it together into a coherent argument in my opinion. and primarily because of the astounding simplicity you've used to discuss the federal reserve system and our currency, i'd like to discuss those issues seperately (actually, i've attempted to do that here several times before and nobody ever participates). it's a tad more involved than citing the constitution and calling it a private corporation.

at the end of one of your posts, you mention how certain campaign contributors won administrative seats when their candidate won election. that isn't new - throughout all political history, those who are connected are always favored. doesn't have anything to do with corporate interests. especially with ambassadorships, that's been the running joke for decades.

about how the entire financial system was a bi-partisan conspiracy against america... i would like to see you elaborate further.. specifically, you must show how the decisions made were intentionally nefarious. simply saying that a certain policy was made, and then spin off your opinion won't convince me.. you'd have to show how they conspired to benefit themselves at the expense of others (ex. ford and gm buying up railways). to the best of my knowledge, there had been proponents for and against central banking since the very beginning of our nation.

sticking to corporate influences - i.e. corporate welfare... all you have to do is go here for a current list of their influence:

http://www.opensecrets.org

[Osborn F Enready]

Bishop said: you've gone from talking about government catering to corporations, to a discussion on the federal reserve, taxes and currency.. those may be interrelated, but you haven't put it together into a coherent argument in my opinion. and primarily because of the astounding simplicity you've used to discuss the federal reserve system and our currency, i'd like to discuss those issues seperately (actually, i've attempted to do that here several times before and nobody ever participates). it's a tad more involved than citing the constitution and calling it a private corporation.

I say: Well Bishop, I apologize for not seeing your posts about the economy and the currency. Had I seen them, I would have gotten involved to the extent of my knowledge. I will, as always, however address any issues individually to the best of my ability. As far as citing the constitution, yes I do, as it is our only governing document officially. Yes, I also believe these are more than inter-related, I feel they are causation and effect, action/reaction.

Bishop said: at the end of one of your posts, you mention how certain campaign contributors won administrative seats when their candidate won election. that isn't new - throughout all political history, those who are connected are always favored.

I say: Then should it not be obvious the need for accountability of our elected and appointed officials concerning monetary kickbacks from campaign contributors, sponsors, endorsers, party heads, party links to money? Where does money guarantee your right to be heard in government, according to the Constitution?

Bishop said: especially with ambassadorships, that's been the running joke for decades.

I say: You dismiss this rather light-heartedly, which begs me to ask on what information you base this premise of apathy?

Bishop said: about how the entire financial system was a bi-partisan conspiracy against america... i would like to see you elaborate further.. specifically, you must show how the decisions made were intentionally nefarious. simply saying that a certain policy was made, and then spin off your opinion won't convince me.. you'd have to show how they conspired to benefit themselves at the expense of others (ex. ford and gm buying up railways).

I say: Well, this is a huge request, but mainly I would be restricted here due to typing and post limitations as well as posting etiquette. The best pre-existing argument for my case is the AMPP website, which is literally BURDENED with link material, as well as government sources. Most of the information contained there is already in a fashion so orderly and well laid out, I would be hard pressed to top that. But more than anything, it shows that there is a hard link to people of today and people yesterday having beliefs, FOR GOOD REASON, that the establishment has OTHER MOTIVES than what they have ever expressed to the people, or ever would.

I have attempted to peak your intrest in the theory, where it goes from here is up to you and the other members who will or won't participate. I am more than open to an item by item, year by year rundown of events, citing cause and effect, motivation and selling points, and the reasoning behind it all. The thing that is required is a genuine intrest in seeking realistic logical reasoning as to how and why things happened as they did in this nation since its inception.

One of the biggest things that have led me down this road is the simple question....
Why would a bill writer, a congressman, or any member of the system who has sworn to uphold the Constitution, put their signature on a bill to made into law, that they know not only violates the document, but also realizing that the problem could have been fixed WITHIN THE GUIDELINES of the Constitution as well.

In order to answer that, requires in depth knowledge of the individual in question, as well as other motivating factors. However, regardless of this, that person is still under oath to the people, to protect said document, this therefore inherently constitutes treason. This would lead me to believe that there are highly motivating factors, the people have very little idea of in this modern world.

This HAS to be approached from the scientific angle, in the sense that it has to be dealt with in a step by step, question, answer format.

How far do we want to go with this, in this style of debate forum?

I await your reply.

[bishop]

[quote]I say: Then should it not be obvious the need for accountability of our elected and appointed officials concerning monetary kickbacks from campaign contributors, sponsors, endorsers, party heads, party links to money? Where does money guarantee your right to be heard in government, according to the Constitution?[/quote[

i'm not going to get into a debate over what the constitution says... you can write a book on laws that deviate from the constitution's original wording/intention.. i'm more concerned about understanding why laws were passed that deviated from the constitution and/or why they were created.. the constitution was not a perfect document, and its flaws have been corrected in various ways (not isolated to constitutional ammendments). heh... we should backtrack for a second.. what we were initially talking about was the relationship between money and politics.. if you really want to debate the creation of the federal reserve system, i'd be happy to, but in a seperate thread. i asked you to show how its creation was intentionally nefarious - it you can do that, please do (if you start the new thread). i've thoroughly studied the federal reserve and all currency-related issues, so i'd be more than happy to oblige your request.

I say: You dismiss this rather light-heartedly, which begs me to ask on what information you base this premise of apathy?

it's not that i'm being light hearted about it... it's that this has been happening for decades, possibly even 2 centuries. don't forget that the founding fathers themselves were wealthy landowners - the elite of their time. i wonder if there's any literature on what the common joe thought was the proper form of government. i know there were numerous rebellions in the early days of our republic.. maybe were these people rebelling against "corporate" interests? surely the wealthy would never intentionally create a system that would cause them to lose their own power, no? the constitution made change difficult for a reason. while the founding fathers were philosophers in their own right, they were also politicians and wealthy elite - it'd be foolhardy to glorify them to the extent that i think you may be.


about money and politics, of which corporatism is a natural result.... hobbes said that there were three items one could possess in order to attain power - knowledge, referential power and wealth. those who possess great knowledge often fail to possess power in the sense of power through strength.. these people have advised kings of days long past.. those who possess referential power are never the top of the political echelon, so they ought to be dismissed. those who possess wealth, however, have hired mercenary armies, financed wars, used power to tax the public, etc... if knowledge is the most virtuous and wealth the least, i'd argue that greed has been the dominating factor throughout human history (regardless of form of government).

it's wholly reasonable for those in power to reward those who support them. the fact that politicians give kickbacks to corporate contributors doesn't particularly surprise me.. the fact that the public accepts this and continues to vote for these individuals is what surprises me. even worse, the fact that so many people don't even bother to vote is even worse.

Why would a bill writer, a congressman, or any member of the system who has sworn to uphold the Constitution, put their signature on a bill to made into law, that they know not only violates the document, but also realizing that the problem could have been fixed WITHIN THE GUIDELINES of the Constitution as well.

wise man say - talk is cheap.. if voters don't care, then why should the politician? politicians are, after all, the ultimate sophists.


we can give examples of money's influence in politics for a long time.. the salient issue is why the public accepts this? especially when they have the democratic power to elect new representatives.

[Osborn F Enready]

Because they don't have that power anymore, and if they did, the bought and paid for electoral college is the fail-safe. That is my opinion anyway. We will hopefully be able to see if I am right after this investigation into Votergate 2004.