by Mary Maxwell, currently a candidate for US Senate
There is a new breed of human being today. They are never going to follow our ideals or feel respect for individuals. And it’s not as if they are just a variation – we can absorb plenty of variations in society: clowns, cantankerous persons, etc. These men rule us.
They rule America far more heavily than King George, whom the Declaration of Independence singled out as the cause of the colonists’ woes. They direct our culture, they direct our physical health (in a sinister way), they shape the landscape, they write all the textbooks, they bully, bribe, and blackmail. They think war is fun.
WWJMS? What would James Madison Say?
This article is about the significance of accumulated wealth. It doesn’t replace my other “sermons” on such things as media control, traitors in the US government, the miseducation of children, or war.
The fact is that all the structures in the Constitution, all the carefully designed checks and balances, are simply laid low by the presence of this New Entity. The Framers of the Constitution knew about “moral hazard.” They knew to refrain from tempting the legislators to corruption (somewhat like the Judaic legal concept of lifnei iver, described in my recent article on New Orleans).
For example, in the Constitution’s Article I, Section 6: they inserted an anti-sinecure clause:
“No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time….”
(Oops, Hillary Clinton, then senator from New York, was not supposed to accept an appointment to the Secretary of State job in 2008, as the Congress in which she had just served had given a salary “increase” to that office. Oh, well. What’s a little unconstitutionality among friends?)
The point is that the Framers did care about temptation, so if they were here today they would write into the Constitution some protection of the people against Big Money.
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act
Even though they did not do that, the Framers still made it possible for Congress to legislate against some forms of economic power. The following bill is known as Sherman anti-trust but its official name is: An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies. You may be shocked to hear that it got unanimous vote in the Senate and all-but-one vote in the House, in 1890.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives … in Congress assembled,
Sec. 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or other-wise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. [Fancy that!]
Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations [if convicted] shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year ….
Sec. 3. Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce … is hereby declared illegal.
Sec. 4. The several circuit courts of the United States are hereby invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this act; and it shall be the duty of the several district attorneys of the United States, in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney-General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petition setting forth the case and praying that such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. …
Sec. 6. Any property owned under any [relevant] contract … shall be forfeited to the United States, and may be seized and condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law for the forfeiture, seizure, and condemnation of property imported into the United States contrary to law.
Sec. 7. Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by any other person or corporation by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this act, may sue … and shall recover three fold the damages …
Sec. 8. That the word “person,” or ” persons,” wherever used in this act shall be deemed to include corporations…. [Emphasis added]
It was signed by US President Benjamin Harrison. (Note: a veto by him would have had no value with such a huge majority of legislators saying “Go for it.”)
The Maytag Repairman Is Sooo Lonely
A US Supreme Court ruling, having to do with the sugar monopoly, didn’t embrace the spirit of this law. It said, in US v EC Knight, that Knight did not interfere with commerce. However, the Sherman Anti-trust Act has never been repealed; it sits quietly like the Maytag repairman. You can find it codified at 15 USC 1 as:
“Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.”
At last there was a call to the Maytag repairman (in the Department of Justice, see Sec 4 above) to settle a dispute between Microsoft and its competitors.
They Say It’s Not Sexy
People probably can’t enthuse about a law that is a hundred twenty-seven years old. But honestly, enforcing laws against monopoly is about as sexy as you can get. The world would change tomorrow if we “went Sherman.” For instance, our war-making would change. As Thomas Barnett pointed out in his 2004 book, The Pentagon’s New Map, most of the campus at the Pentagon is occupied not by our military but by private corporations. How is that for startling?
And CNN would be a thing of the past.
Bankers’ Wars, All
If the Sherman Anti-trust Act could get its scissors into Lockheed or Boeing we would eliminate or ameliorate what was earlier described as moral hazard. Is it not the case – as any decent Madisonian or Machiavellian would predict – that the US often wages war to please the weapons manufacturers?
I distinctly recall one of the leaders of the firm that manufactures “Patriot” missiles shouting, after the Kuwait affair in 1991, “Thank you, Saddam Hussein!”
Note: I am talking about money in the sense of profiting from war by way of weapons-use. But there is another whole aspect of the control over war that is exercised by banks. Please watch Michael Rivero’s Youtube video “All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars.” It was recently presented in abridged written form by Dee McLachlan at GumshoeNews.com.
Five Disguised Assassinations
Five US presidents got “taken out” not by lone nutters — as was proclaimed to the innocent public — but by operatives. And why? Because the president of the day was not fulfilling the wishes of the Big Boys to establish a private bank as (more or less) the treasury of the nation.
Here are the five deceased presidents:.
Taylor 1850, Lincoln 1965, Garfield 1881, McKinley 1901, and Kennedy 1963. Another two were almost killed: Jackson survived being shot at in 1835, and Buchanan survived a poisoning in 1857, (30 other guests at the offending dinner died of the poison!).
Eustace Mullins, Edward Griffin, and Ron Paul
It takes a long time for citizens to be awoken by sincere patriots. Clear knowledge of the Federal Reserve Bank’s sin has been available since Eustace Mullins published The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, in 1983. Note: although the word “secrets” appears in the title, he got all his information from open sources, be it in the public library or the New York Times.
Back in March 26, 1922, the mayor of New York, John F Hylan, said the following:
“The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation… The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties, … and control the majority of the newspapers and magazines in this country.
“They use the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of office public officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government. [Emphasis added]
The New York Times actually published that quote!
In 1994, G Edward Griffin of Michigan wrote The Creature from Jekyll Island. Oops, I just went to check the year of publication and saw in Wikipedia that “Griffin is a right-wing conspiracy theorist.” Oh my. And he “promotes theories behind the creation of the federal reserve system.” Well, yes, he certainly does that. Correctly! Griffin’s book shows how Senator Nelson Aldrich and banker Paul Warburg met on Jekyll Island, Georgia, to prepare to bludgeon Congress with the Fed bill.
Note: our Constitution says, in Article I, section 8 “The Congress shall have Power to … coin money [and] regulate the value thereof.”
Rep Louis McFadden made a noble effort in the 1930s to get it repealed but instead he got repealed. Rep Ron Paul of Texas, took up the cause and often submitted legislation to repeal or modify Congress’ 1913 unforgivable sin.
This year, 2017, the House, in HR 24, has at least resolved to demand that the Fed be audited. The bill is called Federal Reserve Transparency Act. It awaits Senate passage.
Money Conquers
A handful of corporations control agriculture. Walmart destroys small retailers. One or two insurance companies determine the shape of the healthcare industry. An Australian, Frank Lowy, runs Westfield shopping malls in the US – these set the style of one of our most frequent social encounters. All these companies have huge budgets, and many individuals involved in them are multi-billionaires.
They are more powerful than government, and they owe no loyalty to the nation.
Why isn’t this an issue in every election?
–Mary Maxwell, PhD, LLB, has a campaign website at www.MaxwellForSenate.com
The Rothschild/Rockefeller Central Banking System has effectively weaponised the creation of currency since 1913, with the creation of the US Federal Reserve System.
Central Banking is a money printing franchise.
Australia lost its sovereignty in 1959 with the passage of the Banking Act, 1959, where Australia got its very own central bank. From that time forward, Australians had the privilege of paying interest(plus principal) to the RBA for the currency which they produce out of thin air. G.Edward Griffin wrote the book, “The Creature from Jekyll Island.” It might be time to write an Aussie version, called “The Creature from Martin Place.”
The biggest scam in the history of the world. Until we wake up to this basic fact, we will never be truly free, just economic slaves beholding to dickheads in positions of authority.
Mayer Amschel Bauer(Rothschild) is quoted as saying:
“give me control of the printing of the currency, and I care not who makes the laws.”
$500 trillion and a couple of centuries later, and God knows how many fabricated wars, we can see how well that worked out for “We the People”.
END THE FED. END ALL FEDS. END THE RBA.
You have to wonder how everyone has been “conditioned” so easily — and remains conditioned. Leaders from the past seemed aware of what was happening and were trying to do something — but modern leaders are fully “enlisted” into the system. With a handful of exceptions, they seem completely unable to take this in.
Dee, You will like this:
Sherman Anti trust is not the only way to toll the knell for CNN.
Another way is the FCC, which grants airwaves to broadcasters by charter and can revoke those charters.
Phil, before the Rothschild empire grew legs there were other controlling financial influences throughout the known world. Rothschild is a symptom of that influence, not the instigator.
Maybe you should expand your knowledge and begin looking into what the Vatican and the British Monarchy have to hide in their collusion?
Ol’ Henry the Eighth didn’t take Rome on for just a divorce.
We are in the present.
For a sample of ‘instigators’ way back, go the money changers outside the temple which caused Christ to have a tamper tantrum and whip a few…… and turn up a table or two.
Then Caeser had a fit and cleaned out the lot.
Forgotten the Muslims for now?
As an aside, search the following reported quote:
“IF MY SONS DID NOT WANT WAR THERE WOULD BE NONE”
(Ref: A WIFE/MOTHER OF BANKERS)
I guess her sons wanted war.
Looks like her grrrreat grrrandsons want it today also.
Goes way back before those times Ned. No, I haven’t forgotten the muzzies, but it seems you have with two now charged for the latest attempt at killing us.
Almost Talmudic, its so long ago.
Rather presumptious! (And wrong)
Well, there you go again Ned, telling me I am wrong without telling me why.
You could have provided just one example of your criticism.
Paul, Banking is as old as time itself – even the Sumerians had Bankers of sorts.
You are good, I’ll give you that. Truly the Teflon bagel.
Paul, I don’t visit this site to be ‘good’ as you put it, but to counter the ignorance so often displayed by a handful of commenters who just cannot put themselves out to look over the other side of the fence where the grass may in fact be greener.
Lord knows, we have enough problems in this world from those who wish to control it, but the wilful ignorance and hatred of the Jew, that is brought about through the willingness based in a bias to believe, sheer laziness or cowardice, in not having the nerve to look over that fence in case the TRUTH may slap them in the face, is what aids and abets the Globalists who are only too willing to continue the destruction of Western civilization while the old scape goat, the Jew, gets the blame for it.
And I bet you check for Jews under your bed at night before turning in.
Great post Mary! I have often wondered the implications and morality of so few having so much – in a more balanced and moral world would that be an inevitability or would the greed of some simply cast aside all the rules as they do now, such is their nature?
Even the ultimate threat of capital punishment has little deterrence for those who cannot control their greedy appetites.
Seems, that laws written to benefit all, only benefit those who ignore them to pursue their own selfish goals.
Why isn’t this an issue in every election? Good question.
How do we make it an issue in every election… by writing to our ‘representatives’ is one, any others?
Door-knock your neighbors.
Wear sackcloth and ashes.
Mary, have you heard of Heather Jarraf-Tucci? What do you think of this where it’s claimed that the U.S. is actually running under Admiralty Law? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugOR3_jgrzI