Money and credit as public services for full-employment, optimal infrastructure, ending debt slavery: Epic proponents, related history of US government and corporate media, partnership for Occupy victory
It’s divided into these 11 parts for articles (links added with each new section):
- Monetary and credit reform: full-employment, end of debt slavery
- Thomas Edison, Thomas Jefferson on monetary reform
- President Andrew Jackson, Peter Cooper on monetary reform
- NYC Mayor John Hylan, House Banking Committee Chairs on monetary reform
- Benjamin Franklin, William Jennings Bryan on monetary reform
- Charles Lindbergh Sr., 86% of Great Depression economists on monetary reform
- What should the average citizen know about US War Crimes?
- What should the average citizen know about US war history?
- What is the leverage point for Occupy’s victory?
- What does monetary and credit freedom look like?
- My personal history of the 1% choosing to kill a million children each month
Monetary and credit reform is a policy objective to end transfer of trillions of the “99%’’s wealth to an oligarchic “1%.” The US banking collusion only and always co-exists within a larger oligarchy with government for legal protection, and media for public propaganda. This paper presents histories in monetary reform and US government crimes in war suppressed by today’s US corporate media’s history texts and news journalism. When the oligarchy’s voice is professionally exposed as obviously and egregiously lying in omission and commission in claims of central importance of the past and present, government and corporate media loses credibility in an “emperor has no clothes” transformation. Refutation of the oligarchy’s voice with objective and independently verifiable facts, especially in light of current War Crimes and Constitutional destruction, supports our policy goal for monetary and credit reform because the public will seek alternative voices to build a brighter future. To support our goal of upgraded economic policies, we should be open to synergy with ecological and resource-based economic models, and network with Occupy.
Charles Lindbergh Sr. (1859-1924) was a member of the House of Representatives from 1907-1917 (R-MN). Lindbergh became disgusted with the leadership of both Republicans and Democrats, and ran as an unsuccessful third-party candidate for the Senate, Congress, and Governor from 1916 until his death. Lindbergh was among the leading spokespersons against the Federal Reserve and against US involvement in World War 1. He was the father of famous aviator, Charles Lindbergh, Junior.
Below is Lindbergh’s powerful Congressional speech from his 1917 book Why is Your Country at War?, page 156, that alleges the Money Trust created the privately-owned Federal Reserve banking system to maximize their own profits. This speech is as strong and accurate a message that can be communicated. It is fully worth your investment of under 5 minutes’ attention.
“…I shall now quote the main important parts of my speech of July 5, 1916—in the Congressional Record of that date:
“No matter what individual professions and party claims may be to the contrary, it is apparent to anyone who has been a Member of Congress, and to anyone else who examines, that the will of the people in regard to legislation is seldom consulted. The price of leadership here is exactly the opposite of carrying out, in good faith, the will of those we are elected to serve.
Wholesale deception of the voters has been, and is now, the means used most successfully to secure office and remain in public life.
…Every one here knows that these things are true. But the public gets no information from the press about it, but anyone who dares to uncover the system and expose the schemes for deceiving the public finds that a certain part of the press will attack him and call him a radical and obstructionist, and excoriate him in every way possible. If to tell the truth about things makes one a radical, then radicals ought to be at a premium. But they have not been so far politically.
…There is a sinister influence at work in our country, which, if it is not checked, intends to completely undermine the original purpose of the formation of our Government—change it from the purposes of a democracy, and instead make it of a monarchical and plutocratic system, and to bring all the world into one control and one system, which for purposes of deception of the plain people, they would call a “world’s democracy,” but which in fact it is their plan to make the rule of the wealth grabbers, maintained by simple organization of themselves and disorganization of the masses pitting the masses against each other. It would be the privilege of a few to rule in splendor, and the fate of the many to spend their lives in unrequited toil and that hopeless condition of servitude which millions came here to escape from. The few now desire to cut off every possible avenue of escape from industrial slavery for the masses.
…The plain truth is that neither of these great parties, as at present led and manipulated by an ‘invisible government’ is fit to manage the destinies of a great people. Their rules of regulation must be changed before they will be, and it is doubtful if their rules will be materially changed. If they shall be, it will be because the voters themselves force it.
…Early in my service here I observed that there was some power outside the Government itself which was insidiously, but none the less effectively dictating the course of legislation in reference to finance, currency and the creation and control of credit throughout the country; that it was in a position to dictate and did dictate to an extent almost unlimited, to whom credit should be extended and from whom it should be withheld, and that it largely controlled the political action and influence of most of the banking and other corporations of the country. I saw that such a power of control existed here in Congress.
I introduced a resolution setting forth the facts, naming this insidious and well nigh invincible power, the Money Trust, source of all the trusts and calling for an investigation of its activities. The “big business” press, ridiculed the resolution and especially the idea that the Money Trust had an existence. (The facts about this appears elsewhere in this volume. See Index: Money Trust.) In this case the Committee reported out my resolution under a different name, and in order to prevent me from serving on the committee to be appointed, the resolution was referred to the Banking and Currency Committee which was composed almost entirely of bankers and lawyers for some of the banks. By keeping me off the committee I could not cross examine the witnesses.
The committee, nevertheless, had to report that there was a Money Trust and that its activities were as I had stated, and that its existence and the power it yielded were a menace to the institutions of the country, but took no action to deprive it of its power.
Woodrow Wilson, however, took notice of the proceedings and of the existence of the Money Trust.
This was before he became president. He promised to exercise his influence if elected, to curb its power and influence. But I have no hesitation in saying that this promise has not been kept, but on the contrary the principal result of financial legislation during this administration has been to legalize and more firmly entrench the Money Trust in its control of business, credit and politics of this vast country than ever before, and in order to conceal that fact the Money Trust has bought the services of many prominent financial writers for the purpose of running articles in the press praising the Federal Reserve system which in less than six years the people will rise in rebellion against because of its intolerable and unjust burden (Editor’s note: Lindbergh was off by seven years. It took 13 years from this speech for the Money Trust to simultaneously call-in loans in October 1929, crash the Stock Market, and begin the Great Depression).
Profiting from my observation of the Money Trust inquiry by a committee nearly all the members of which were interested in limiting its activities as much as possible, I introduced a resolution declaring it should be the policy of the House Membership that no banker or any one who was financially interested in a bank should be a member of the banking and currency committee.
I also introduced a resolution calling on Members to declare the extent of their affiliations with banks, if they had any.
Neither of these resolutions came out of the Committee on Rules to which they were referred, so we must take it for granted that a majority of the Rules Committee believe that it is right for bankers to frame legislation for Congress to pass for the bankers personal benefit, as all financial legislation shows has been done. Personally I do not believe that a banker should be on that Committee, any more than that if some one sued a judge that he, the sued judge, should sit as the presiding judge to decide his own lawsuit.
My Democratic friends, you have the vain hope that special privilege, having obtained enormous benefits at your hands, is going to be grateful for the past favors that you have showered upon it and assist you in retaining control of the Government. They will furnish you campaign funds, as they do to both the dominant parties, but it makes little difference to them which of you have the power as long as it remains with either under present conditions. You are to learn, having done all you could for it, that you are no longer necessary to its business, except that now that you have passed the most important laws that it wanted, you are forced to follow it up, and are stopped from complaining through your portion of the press and on the stump or from entering any protest whatever when the time comes that your eyes will be open to the oppression the plain people are surely destined to suffer because of your falsely so-called ‘beneficial legislation.’
You have missed the opportunity of your lifetime; one not likely to ever come to you again. The time will come when no Democrat who boasts of the achievements of this administration will be considered worthy to hold any public office. You have gone “cross-roads” with some of the most vital principles laid down by the great Thomas Jefferson. You may boast of him as a great Democrat, but none of you who have been active in fastening some of the hardships of this administration upon the people can boast of yourselves.”
The Great Depression in the US (1929-1941) motivated professional economists  to comprehensively and creatively address its causes. Upon consideration of previous US economic depressions, prominent economists proposed monetary reform as the nation’s most effective and practical policy response. This proposal was sent to a thousand academic economists from 157 universities, with 73% in full agreement with the proposal, 12.5% in approval with various considerations in its implementation, and only 14% in disagreement. This proposal nearly won. 
The Great Depression in the US (1929-1941) motivated professional economists to comprehensively and creatively address its causes. Upon consideration of previous US economic depressions in 1837, 1873, and 1893, prominent economists led by Henry Simons at the University of Chicago proposed monetary reform as the nation’s most effective and practical policy response, known as the Chicago Plan  (and here ). This proposal was endorsed by Simons’ colleague, Paul Douglas, Frank Graham and Charles Whittlesley of Princeton, Irving Fisher of Yale, Earl Hamilton of Duke, Willford King of NYU, and sent to a thousand academic economists for their input. Three hundred twenty responded to the mailed proposal and survey (an impressively high number for a cold-call proposal and survey) from 157 universities, with 73% in full agreement with the proposal, 12.5% in approval with various considerations in its implementation, and only 14% in disagreement.
Despite the professional expert opinion in support of monetary reform, President Roosevelt and Congress supported a minor public works program that was paid by government debt. The US depression continued only until the government embraced full employment for WW 2, but paid with further debt. The depression could have ended anytime and with enormous domestic benefit if the full employment had been for infrastructure.
The following brief quotes from President Roosevelt and his son-in-law, and some of our most prominent economists, will help put the proposal in context. Remember that this follows damning House floor testimony of the criminality of the Federal Reserve by House Banking Committee Chair, Louis McFadden, in 1932.
“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson — and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of W.W. (Woodrow Wilson). The country is going through a repetition of Jackson’s fight with the Bank of the United States — only on a far bigger and broader basis.” – Franklin Roosevelt, letter to Col. Edward Mandell House (21 November 1933); as quoted in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950), pg. 373.
“The depression was the calculated ‘shearing’ of the public by the World Money powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call money in the New York money market….The One World Government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank.”
– Curtis Dall (FDR’s son-in-law), My Exploited Father-in-Law, 1967. pages 34-43: . Dall was a graduate of Princeton, manager at Lehman Brothers, Partner at Merrill Lynch, and Vice Presidential nominee for the Constitution Party in 1960.
“If all the bank loans were paid, no one could have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. 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. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon.” – Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 1934 foreword to 100% Money, by Irving Fisher. Fisher was a Yale economist whose proposal for monetary reform lost to Keynes’ deficit spending plan during the Great Depression.
“I have come to believe that that plan is incomparably the best proposal ever offered for speedily and permanently solving the problem of depressions; for it would remove the chief cause of both booms and depressions.” – Irving Fisher
“As you know, I am entirely sympathetic with the objectives of your Monetary Reform Act…You deserve a great deal of credit for carrying through so thoroughly on your own conception…I am impressed by your persistence and attention to detail.” – Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Laureate in Economics and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute in his letter to the producer of The Money Masters, 1996, which he helped edit. 
“The mistake…lies in fearing money and trusting debt. Money itself is highly amenable to democratic, legislative control, for no community wants a markedly appreciating or depreciating currency…but money is not easily manageable alongside a mass of private debt and private near-moneys…or alongside a mountain of public debt.” – Henry Simons, Economic Policy for a Free Society
“This proposal will of course be opposed by the bankers from whom it takes the lucrative privilege of creating purchasing power. It would however insure the safety of deposits, give large revenues to the government, provide complete social control over monetary matters and prevent abnormal fluctuations in the capital market. At the same time it would permit the allocation of productive resources…to remain primarily in private hands. All in all it seems the most promising program for the reform of our monetary and credit system…” – Paul Douglas in the Chicago Plan booklet.
In discussing our current monetary system, John Kenneth Galbraith wrote in Money: Whence it came, where it went (1975) the following two poignant observations. Galbraith wrote five best-selling books on economics (best-selling to the public), was President of the American Economic Association, economics professor at Harvard, and advisor to four US Presidents.
“The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled.” (p. 29; that is, the banking system creates credit out of nothing)
“Much discussion of money involves a heavy overlay of priestly incantation. Some of this is deliberate. Those who talk of money and teach about it and make their living by it gain prestige, esteem and pecuniary return, as does a doctor or a witch doctor, from cultivating the belief that they are in a privileged association with the occult — that they have insights that are not available to the ordinary person. Though professionally rewarding and on occasion personally profitable, this too is a well established form of fraud. There is nothing about money that cannot be understood by the person of reasonable curiosity, diligence and intelligence…. The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is the one in which complexity is used to disguise the truth, not to reveal it. Most things in life — automobiles, mistresses, cancer — are important principally to those who have them. Money, in contrast, is equally important to those who have it and to those who don’t. Both, accordingly, have a concern for understanding it. Both should proceed in the full confidence that they can.”
– John Kenneth Galbraith, Money: Whence it came, where it went – 1975, p15.
33 Herman, C. Top 10 Americans for monetary reform: #10: 86% of Economics professors during Great Depression. Examiner.com. Oct. 5, 2009
34 Herman, C. Federal Reserve, national debt nearly defeated during Great Depression; and now? Examiner.com. Feb. 8, 2012
35 American Monetary Institute. The 1930’s Chicago Plan vs. the American Monetary Act. Zarlenga, S. AMI Monetary Reform Conference. Oct. 2005
36 Asia Times. Askari, N. & Krichene, N. Dust off the Chicago Plan. Sept. 17, 2008
37 The Money Masters. Milton Friedman: End the Fed.