The Founding Fathers, The Economy And The Fed!

I was reading an article on marketwatch.com this morning about the effects of Obamacare on the economy and while the article itself was pretty good, one of the comments made after the article was much better! I don't know who this person is but I think he or she may be my twin from a different Mother! LOL!
Here's his comment and the link to the article. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ec...are-as-everyone-else-2014-02-24?siteid=yhoof2 Enjoy!

he guiping
2 hours ago




America Has Been Handed Over to a Financial Dictatorship!
Upon the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, Benjamin Franklin was asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got…a Republic or a Monarchy?” and he answered, “A Republic…if you can keep it.” How prophetic!
The U.S. Constitution was created and designed by our nation’s 56 founding fathers to promote just six goals, as follows: (1) form a more perfect union, (2) establish justice, (3) insure domestic tranquility, (4) provide for the common defense, (5) promote the general welfare, and (6) secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
At this moment in our history, to argue that the United States of America is a deluded and failed state is plausible. A nation that has the highest documented prison population in the world can hardly be described as domestically tranquil. A nation whose top one percent of the people control 46 percent of the wealth cannot by any stretch of the imagination be said to be enjoying general welfare. A nation that spends as much on defense as the rest of the world combined and cannot control its borders, could not avert the attack on the World Trade Center, and cannot win its recent major wars after six long years cannot be described as providing for its common defense.
A nation that cannot fulfill its Constitution’s stated goals surely is a failed one. How else could failure be defined? By allowing private interests (the United States Federal Reserve System and its bank shareholders) to have complete control of our economy with no demonstrable patriotic loyalty to the nation or its people, whose elected representatives should have retained control this financial Medusa, and by allowing them to disregard entirely the Constitution’s preamble, the nation could not avoid this failure. Our prevailing economic system always should have required Congressional oversight.
Woody Guthrie once sang, “This Land Is My Land, This Land Is Your Land,” but it isn’t. It was stolen a long time ago. Although it may have been “made for you and me,” people with absolutely no loyalty to this land now own it…I’m talking about the FED, the bankers, lobbyists for the multinational corporations supported by the FED System and the media…all special interest profiteers at the expense of our good people. Remember, the FED is NOT part of our government and it is NOT a Federal System…it’s a private monopolistic bank with indirect foreign ownership. Our country needs to be re-taken, not bought, back! America needs a new birth of freedom, it needs a government for the people, it needs a government that puts its people first, but it won’t get one unless Americans come to realize just how immoral and vicious our current economic system is.
The economist and popular monetary lecturer of the 1970s and ’80s, Dr. Stuart Crane, left nothing to the imagination in his vivid description of the inner workings leading up to the Great Crash of ’29 fomented by…you guessed it…the FED…the same one who has looted most of our national treasury in the past two years. His intriguing narrative is worth repeating (emphasis in parentheses, provided):
“In 1925, ’26, ’27 the Federal Reserve started its first real money game. Up until this time they were still cautious and hadn’t really gotten the feel of things. They decided it was time to play round one of the milk game. What they did was they bid up stocks and up they were going(meteoric). You start bidding up stocks a little, up limit, up limit, up limit, and the little guys were watching this take off and saying, ‘Hey, let’s go buy some.’ And they go and buy a little. And they start making easy money, then pretty soon they’re doubling up with 10 percent down, margin for the 90 (gambling). But they’re making millions (they think). Every time stocks move up with a 10% rise they double their money (even riskier gambling). The only problem is that the opposite is true when stocks come down. It’s great on the upswing and it’s disaster on the way down. But for four years this game of pushing up stocks is played with the pundits declaring, ‘There’s no end, there’s no horizon, it’s going to last forever!’ ”
“In March 1929 there was a little meeting in New York. After that meeting, Bernard Baruch sells out [of (his) stocks], the Rockefeller’s sell out, the Kennedy’s sell out, all the big bankers sell out and the big people were out by August (the crash was in late October). Then the Federal Reserve cut the money supply four times in a month with four drastic reductions of the money supply. Then one day in October the banks called all their loans on all their margins in a minute (loans made to speculators using their purchased stocks as collateral…, in other words, a legal pyramiding scheme). Every bank on the money desk – and these were call loans, callable on demand – all these people had their stock on margin borrowing 90% and they had to pay off now.”
“Well they went to the banks and the banks and they were calling (calling in their loans). They run to the market and everyone’s trying to sell, who can buy? The banks (controlled by the same FED as today) had shut their loans off, the call (loan) desks were closed, the windows were slammed down. They shut all the money off and all these people were running around trying to sell; they had to sell 10% down and they were wiped out. All the people who weren’t on the inside were gone.”(and, today, non-insiders are virtually gone) [Dr. Stuart Crane, New Brighton, Pa., lecture, 1981]
Today, as proposed by the Obama Administration, the very same unelected, unaccountable, non-recallable, highly secretive, non-government, privately-owned and Constitutionally unmentioned U.S. Federal Reserve System is to be granted more financial dictatorial power than ever which is the antithesis of what America needs. In essence, America is being handed over to a financial dictatorship…the same oligarchy who got us into this current mess. This will make the Fed even more unaccountable than it already is. We Americans will be faced with across-the-board problems and more secrecy from this privately owned bank.
It is now proposed by President Obama that the Fed will be the “systemic risk regulator and supervisor” of the too-big-to-fail institutions, although those same institutions own the FED. I call that incestuous. The FED will continue to supply liquidity to save its own shareholders, not the taxpaying citizens and workers of our country. Under the Obama plan a council of regulators will be created to replace the President’s Working Group on Financial markets. That group will be chaired by the Treasury, but with advisory powers only. That means the power to manipulate all markets without interference will be solely left to the FED. They would be able to make any market in the world what they want it to be. There are no free markets now! I hope you understand this! The FED would have full fascistic economic control once known to pre-war Italy and Germany. This would give the FED’s owners the opportunity to totally loot what’s left of the American economic system and the American public purse.

 

It's to be expected. This nation was built on genocide, slavery, and colonialism. The Founders were all wealthy white men who did not want the 'rabble' to have any real power. What other outcome was there?

Now it's time to take our country over and decide for ourselves. It's time for direct democracy. If we screw it up worse than it already is, at least we'll have only ourselves to blame.

 

I think that the Founders really did give us an amazing opportunity but unfortunately there were very few people who understood the scope of just how difficult it would be to maintain it! The average colonist was a farmer or laborer in some type of trade and had no idea that there were wealthy banking families from very old and very powerful bloodlines that from the minute the ink was dry on the Declaration of Independence wanted to take control of the newly formed U.S.!
Even during the revolution the Rothschild banking family practically ran Europe and had taken control by financing all sides of the Napoleonic wars and putting most of the European states who were involved in debt to them! Once you have control of a nation's money, you have control of the nation!
For decades after the American revolution the bankers worked diligently to get a foothold in our politics and our economy. They helped to finance the Confederacy during the civil war and had many friends in the Union government as well! Lincoln's attempt to put a leash on them is believed by many to be the very thing that got him killed. John Wilkes Booth was a member of a secret society known as "The Knights Of The Golden Circle" which was more or less the henchmen for the banking elite! This secretive order had many famous members including members of Lincoln's own cabinet such as Secretary of State William Seward and southern leaders such as Confederate General Albert Pike who was also the founder of the KKK! Jesse James and his famous Confederate friends, Nathan Bedford Forrest, William Quantrill and Quantrill's successor "Bloody" Bill Anderson were all also members! In fact the organization during the 1860s had about 200,000 members, most of whom were powerful men in their own right! When Lincoln began resisting the influence of the bankers in the Union Government he was quickly placed on the banking elite's hit list and the KGS was given the contract. At first they were to kidnap Lincoln but then the order was changed to execution!
Here is a snippet from a letter written by Lincoln to a Col. William Elkins about some concerns that he had pertaining to a growing power out of New York that he felt was dangerous to the country, corporate bankers!
"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."
-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
(letter to Col. William F. Elkins
Within 50 years from the time of that letter, by killing who had to be killed and through the manipulation of American politics the bankers finally took control of our economy and the country with the birth of the Federal Reserve in 1914! It was pretty much all over after that!
The opening lines of the comment made to the marketwatch.com article was the historical account of Benjamin Franklin being asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got…a Republic or a Monarchy?” and he answered, “A Republic…if you can keep it.”... How prophetic indeed, because even he probably didn't know what we were up against!
Here is a good reference to the KGS and what roll they played in things in American history! INTRESTING stuff!
http://knightsofthegoldencircle.webs.com/

 

I disagree that some shadowy, exterior banking cartel is responsible. Look no further than James Madison for our woes. Madison was horrified by democracy. Most of the founders were (I wonder about that old renegade Jefferson, but then again, he was not a member of the Constitutional Convention, either).

This is my chance to correct an error I've been making for several years, so hold on a second while I digress in shamefaced embarrassment: I mixed Madison up with another 'founding father' on the issue of slave ownership and thought Madison was not a slave owner. I was wrong. For years. That's what I get for not double checking what I 'knew' every now and then.

Okay, back to the topic at hand. Here is what Madison had to say about who should run things and why:

"The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."

As someone who is not possessed of wealth, lolling about in some equivalent of a modern day carriage, I say screw that, and screw him!

 

Central planning via monetary policy is here to stay.

 

I'm sure JP Morgan was thinking of the working man when he helped create the federal reserve system...

 

I'm sure he wasn't. I'm sure we do have huge financial power players messing us about now. But if we'd had honest democratic government in the first place I'm sure they never would have gotten a foothold. Or maybe they would have. Even free people can probably be stupid sometimes. But at least it would be our fate by our hand and not by the hand of a ruling minority of wealthy.

 

The international money trust has been trying to overthrow our republic since the very beginning. They finally succeeded when their agent Lincoln invaded the south, after which an unquestioned corporate hegemony was imposed on the entire nation. We've been living under the shadow of this globalist oligarchy ever since.

 

Ever since the end of WWII, America has been the one power most intent on global oligarchy (although Russia gave us a run for our money and might not be down and out just yet).

Well, unless Great Britain has been playing us all for fools this whole time and somehow maintaining power behind the scenes. Entertaining to consider, but I'm betting not.

Lincoln invading the South ended slavery decades or generations before it would otherwise have ended, if it had ever ended. Therefore, go Lincoln!

 

With our current policies involving money = free speech, money IS power. wealth distribution is power distribution. If there were no money, there would be no true power of influence 'behind the scenes'. It would be a marketplace of only ideas and force would have to be used in order to take control, take power. The shadow that money provides to control people would be erased and only violence would remain as a means to do so and violence is much easier to see with the naked eye.

 

I would contend that US empire goes back much earlier than that. After Lincoln destroyed the republic from within, the money trust was free to expand and conquer from without, so to speak. You'll notice that after the so-called civil war, the American military went from being primarily a naval power to a force of imperialism and occupation. I believe McKinley was the first President to sanction and effectuate imperialism abroad. Before that, the US only protected its interests on international trade lanes, and when they were forced to invade, they did so in a targeted and temporary manner.

The London banking cartel has been pulling strings, to be sure. Hamilton was their agent in the nascent federal government, and virtually everything Hamilton did was in furtherance of British mimicry.

Actually, it did not end slavery, as even General Grant still owned slaves in the aftermath of the war. It was never Lincoln's intention to end slavery, and the prominent abolitionist, Lysander Spooner, noted that the federal authorities were more than willing to keep the slaves in bondage if the south could be induced to stay in the union. The issue of slavery was simply an instrument of propaganda used by the monied interests in the north to lend the color of legitimacy to their lust for profit and conquest.

 

That seems a little cynical to me. After WWII, we were the only world power without a devastated infracstructure. Yay neutrality prior to 1941! I don't think it would have been natural for the US to just sit back economically and militarilly till the world caught up. Maybe I misunderstand.

Not sure I can back it up, but my understanding is that slavery was about 15 years away from being cost prohibitive at the start of the civil war.

 

Actually, imperialism and occupation began the instant Europeans intent on taking land from the original occupants by force arrived on these shores. And to be fair, if any as yet unknown non-Europeans ever arrived on our shores before that time with that intent, it began with them. If this had ceased when the US won independence from Great Britain, however, you could blame the British. But it actually increased with Westward expansion that the British had been attempting to curtail (no doubt not out of pity for the victims of it but for their own political reasons involving Spain and France).

Putting sole blame on bankers reminds me of how Medieval royalty went around putting the blame for the hardships of their populations on Jewish moneylenders. This scapegoating led to much bloodshed without ever removing the source of the problem, which was royalty living it up on the backs of the peasants and going deeply in debt by doing so. While I absolutely loathe the law breaking, hard lobbying banking industry, I don't loathe it more than I loathe Walmart for not paying a living wage and getting away with it. This issue goes far beyond one industry.

Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery, as were many prior to the Civil War. The southern slave owners were determined to continue slavery and this was the focal point of the Civil War. I know Lincoln did say, " If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it..." But taken in context he is saying he cannot save the Union without ending slavery.

The only thing I can find on Grant was a manumission of a slave dated prior to the end of the Civil War.

 

Just because America had the power after WWII to overthrow democratically elected governments in order to install governments more favorable to our wealthy interests doesn't mean we should have. Nor should Russia have done so. And that is the essence of the Cold War.

As for slavery being cost prohibitive, from what I read (and I'm not sure of the source, so I'm on shaky ground, too) slavery was on shaky ground because more and more new states out West weren't allowing slavery, which curtailed plantation owner's ability to sell slaves and profit.

 

I don't think I'm ready to embrace bartering as the sole means of transaction, since money is darn useful, but you make a good point about it hiding control better than outright violence does.

 

The founding fathers did what they thought was best for the country in the time in which they lived. When the Articles no longer served its purpose, very quickly so, they did away with them, and went to the Constitution. If anything I think they would be more shocked that we are still using most of the Constitution than disappointed that have expanded its meanings.

 

This isn't bartering. We're quickly approaching an age where benign grunt work will no longer be necessary for humans to do. Things will only be of personal worth, not economic worth in the picture I'm painting. Access to whatever you want would be on a whim if technology can sustain it and machines can make it with little to no supervision. Granted, technology for a fully automated life is decades away, but when those machines literally take over the blue collar production sector of the world, what becomes of everyone? Human life will 'devalue' in terms of production, so it must be revalued via the mind and ideas. However, you cannot sell this on a mass scale. Money will still be powerful force and those who have it will ultimately have a say in whether you eat today or not. if we remove the money, give production duties to robots, manage wisely energy (if it's renewable, clean and sustainable), then it will be utterly worthless in terms of monetizing. it's a utopia I'm talking about, of course. It cannot be in our lifetime, I suspect, or maybe ever. But again, if everything happens for near zero costs, then what would money really have to do with anything? You'd take plans or blueprints down to your local production facility, come back tomorrow, you have what you wanted. Free of charge. You don't have to pay a machine to produce anything but energy. If it's sustainable and renewable, it's essentially free. Nothing would be coveted because anyone could have these things. Even farming could be completely controlled by machines. We make them work for us, we have the day off, living in whatever means we choose of our own free will to pursue what truly makes us happy, not what we need to do to not starve to death.

 

Oh, I see. Sounds like the Zeitgeist movement. I want to transport myself and my loved ones and for that matter all of us to that future world now. The problem is getting from here to there without destroying our own species. I'm thinking it's a coin-flip, if that. We might be even more behind.

 

Actually the civil war was NOT over slavery! The question of wether newly formed states would be free or slave was an issue leading up to the war and Lincoln being an abolitionist didn't endear him to plantation owners but the institution of slavery itself was never the reason that the south seceded or that Lincoln invaded the south. The war was about states rights and wether a centralized government in Washington had the power to dictate policy to the states.
Slavery would have been abolished sooner rather than later anyway since it was becoming VERY unfashionable everywhere in the world and had already been done away with in Europe long before the civil war started. Some of the biggest buyers of southern cotton and tobacco were Europeans and the south was under a lot of political and social pressure to end slavery. Within another decade or so slavery probably would have been gone.
As for the common soldier, hardly any of the Confederates had ever owned a slave and hardly any of the Northerners had ever even seen one before! They were on the battlefield for or against the Union and didn't care about the issue of slavery. In fact when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation many Union veterans decided not to re-up and went home saying that they originally signed up for the war to defend the Union, not to free slaves and they weren't about to go to their deaths to free a bunch of Africans.
I think that you're right about not putting blame solely on bankers for the mess that we're in now. I think that the blame is really on the politicians who were easily manipulated, intimidated or bought by the bankers allowing them to gain control in the first place.

 

The secessionists themselves certainly thought it was about slavery:

Source: http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/secession.html


The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

...

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." [editor's note: this is the Fugitive Slave Clause in the original Constitution whereby the North promised to return escaped slaves to their "owners" in the South]


....

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.


[Mississippi] Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

...


[Texas] In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

 

I far more agree with the OP than disagree, but not for the same reasons - apparently - that you agree. Contrary to what you said, I believe that only a select few of the Founding Fathers were in on any scheme to centralize power, and key players in our history continued to ensure it; one of whom was Lincoln. Before him: Andrew Jackson. Before him: Alexander Hamilton. There are several others.

In forcing the South to rejoin the North (by fighting the Civil War) Lincoln guaranteed the solvency and strength of Centralized Federal Government - and it was through this action that power was coalesced in finance, and the FED ratified. Slavery would have ended regardless. Lincoln's Emancipation didn't free a single slave regardless, and there were slave States in the North as well. It was dying as a result of culture; it was also the reason slavery died in England without a shot fired.

The FED is the enemy; it has milked our country's people dry, and here we are living in its withered remains and fighting amongst ourselves while the real villains laugh. We need to first shrink Government, and then we need to put the power to coin money directly again in the hands of Congress.

 

Actually, federal power was ratified after the uprisings of unpaid veterans and other mistreated former colonists who were being mistreated by the wealthy and their legislators. A strong central government was considered necessary by many (most notably Madison) to prevent such uprisings from happening again. Madison figured if we were a big enough country, with a strong central government, it would be harder for the rabble to make trouble. Of course, those rabble didn't have internet. We do.

 

Whatever the common people's reason for a large central Government, those who wished to rob us of our resources were more than happy to not only support the idea, but may have promulgated the actual rabble-rousing to bring it about.

 

You misunderstood me. The common people weren't the ones pushing for strong central government. They wanted relief from debt, poverty, unpaid war IOUs (in the case of veterans), and a say in local government. They wanted much broader democracy, in other words, and much more equality.

Madison was not happy. Nor were a lot of the other Founders, who were wealthy land owners and not at all interested in democracy and equality at the possible expense of some of their property, power, and wealth.

 

The US and Soviet Union reacted to each other in nearly equal and unreasonable ways after WWII. Russia on one hand, had every reason to suspect the west might invade them again. It happened 3 times in the 100 years prior to WWII. But Stalin was crazy and homicidal.

Now I'm curious. I've read a bit on the whole 1820-1860 and maybe not quite enough. I feel like I should know that stuff.