|
Banned
|
loquitur, the shame of it is, if you were not absolutley adament that you already "know what you know", you could use your above average access to research tools (such as <a href="http://law.lexisnexis.com/">lexis-nexis</a>) to "flesh out" and confirm for yourself, the information I am sharing on this forum.
Quote:
http://u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com/...etat-1933.html
The Fascist Plot to Seize Washington
By John Spivak
The following article is an edited version of two chapters from John Spivak's autobiography (A Man in His Time, 1967).
.....It is common for public officials to develop close friendships with certain newsmen who become their confidants.... Butler had learned to trust Paul Comly French, a reporter for the Philadelphia Record and the New York Post. Butler...told French about the propositions...by MacGuire and asked him to check on the bond salesman and find out "what the hell it's all about."
When Butler finished testifying to the Committee..., French was sworn in. He told of calling on MacGuire on Sept. 13, 1934, in his office on 52 Broadway. The entire floor was occupied by Grayson M.-P. Murphy & Co. Before the bond salesman would talk with French, he phoned Butler to be sure the General had sent him. French told the Committee:
I have here direct quotes from him. As soon as I left his office I got to a typewriter and made a memorandum of everything he told me.
'We need a fascist government in this country...to save the nation from the communists who want to tear it down and wreck all that we have built in America. The only men who have the patriotism to do it are the soldiers and Smedley Butler is the ideal leader. He could organize a million men overnight.'
He told me he had been in Italy and Germany during the summer of 1934 and had made an intensive study...of Nazi and fascist movements.... He said he had obtained enough information on fascist and Nazi movements and the part played by the veterans, to properly set up one in this country..
He warmed up considerably... and said, 'We might go along with Roosevelt and then do with him what Mussolini did with the King of Italy' [i.e., stripping him of power and making him a figurehead.] It fits in with what he told the General, that we would have a Secretary of General Affairs, and if Roosevelt played ball, swell; if he did not, they would push him out..
During the conversation.... he brought in the names of former national commanders of the American Legion, to give the impression that, whether justly or unjustly, a group in the American Legion were actively interested in this proposition.
French had written an article naming the very prominent Americans revealed in Butler's testimony. When the hearing finished, the sensational story was already on the news-stands.
The General's reputation for honesty and patriotism made what he said under oath impossible to ignore. The Secretaries of War and the Navy, U.S. Senators and Representatives urged that the Committee get to the bottom of the conspiracy. McCormack assured newsmen: "We will call all the men mentioned in the story." Co-chairman Dickstein added: "From present indications Butler has the evidence. He's not going to make any serious charges unless he has something to back them up. We'll have men here with bigger names than his."
Dispatches from Philadelphia reported that Butler, former head of the Marine Corps., had told friends that General [Hugh Samuel] Johnson, the former NRA [National Recovery Administration] administrator, had been chosen for the role of dictator if Butler turned it down; also considered was General Douglas MacArthur.
The Committee subpoenaed MacGuire and...his reports from Europe:
McCormack: Now, in your report dated May 6, 1934, from Paris...<h3>you say that the...Croix de feu "is getting a great number of new recruits, and I recently attended a meeting of this organization and was quite impressed with the type of men belonging.</h3> These fellows are interested only in the salvation of France, and I feel sure that the country could not be in better hands because they are not politicians, they are a cross section of the best people of the country from all walks of life, people who gave their 'all' between 1914 and 1918 that France might be saved, and I feel sure if a crucial test ever comes to the Republic that these men will be the bulwark upon which France will be saved"..
[The Committee examined reports on fascist veterans groups such as Italy's Black Shirts and Germany's Brown Shirts <h3>that MacGuire mailed to his backers.</h3> Examining another report sent by the witness, McCormack said:]
And in this report you also said:
"I was informed that there is a Fascist Party springing up in Holland under the leadership of a man named Mussait who is an engineer ...who has approximately 50,000 followers..., ranging in age from 18 to 25 years.... It is said this man is in close touch with Berlin and is modeling his entire program along the lines followed by Hitler."
After French published his story, there was a noticeable sense of public uneasiness when not one of those named was called to testify.... The talk was that those named in Butler's testimony were too powerful, and nothing would be done about the plot...
....I had met both McCormack and Dickstein. Athough I wrote for a magazine [New Masses] which they touched only with extra-long fire tongs lest they be contaminated, they knew that I was intensely concerned about Nazi activities here. It looked as if the Committee would die in a matter of weeks, and I asked to see the transcript of Butler's testimony for possible leads that I could follow up. Since news stories and the Committee's own press release had named some of the prominent persons Butler mentioned, I persisted in asking why, if there were no secrets involving the national security, I could not see it. Other newsmen joined me in asking for the Butler testimony. Presumably to quiet the growing public concern over why it was not made public, the Committee published a 125-page document containing the testimonies of the General and others. The report was clearly marked "Extracts." On the last page, a note appeared saying that "the committee had ordered stricken... certain immaterial and incompetent evidence, or evidence which was not pertinent to the inquiry."
The extracts held me spellbound; this was living history - personalities, colorful characters, secret maneuvers on national and international scales. This was a planned gamble with the most powerful government in the world as the stakes.
The reasons given for making public only extracts of the Committee testimony smelled like what my cat does in his pan. The Committee had already published hearsay evidence, and this sudden sensitivity about publishing similar testimony was puzzling. For days I tried to learn what Butler testimony had been cut out. All of my efforts were fruitless. A wall of granite had suddenly appeared, but all that did was whet my appetite to know what was going on. The Committee had announced that it intended to subpoena all of those named by Butler, yet it later issued an announcement that it had no evidence on which to question the prominent persons named.
I met for a drink with a correspondent who was very knowledgeable about what was going on in the capital and was as perturbed by a fascist threat as I was. I asked if he had any idea why the Committee had published only extracts. "I was told that a member of the President's Cabinet asked that certain testimony be deleted," he said.
"Any idea of what was cut out?"
"Names, mostly. Two were Democratic candidates for President."
"The Committee's press release mentioned John W. Davis. Who was the other?"
"Al Smith."
"In a fascist plot? I don't believe it!"
Davis had been a candidate in 1924 and was now one of the chief attorneys for J. P. Morgan & Company. It was possible that, without being told everything, he had been drawn into some aspects of the conspiracy, though he had publicly denied writing the speech Butler was asked to deliver at the Legion convention in Chicago. But Alfred E. Smith, "the happy warrior," a man who had risen to political heights from the sidewalks of New York, a very good Governor whose trusted adviser was Jewish, would certainly not be pro-fascist or pro-Nazi! I knew that he was bitter against Roosevelt, but that was for personal reasons.
Yet, Al Smith was very close to John J. Raskob and was a co-director with him and Irénée du Pont of the American Liberty League. The idea of Al Smith being mentioned in connection with this plot was incredible, but such things had happened in other countries faced with severe political and economic stress.
I resumed my search for what had been deleted, but I still got nowhere. Even usually garrulous politicians walked about with padlocks dangling from their lips.
The McCormack-Dickstein Committee had asked the House to extend its life to January 3, 1937, so that it could continue with its investigations, but the House refused; the Committee died. It even seemed possible that the Committee had been killed because unidentified, influential forces feared that public opinion might compel a deeper investigation into the fascist plot and concluded it would be better to forego even investigations into communist activities than risk that.
On January 11, 1935, about a week or so after the Committee died, Congressman Dickstein gave me a letter of introduction to Frank P. Randolph, the Committee's secretary, saying, "Will you please permit him to examine the official exhibits and make photo-static copies of exhibits which were made public."
Randolph, harried by the mountain of work required to close the Committee's records, gave me stacks of documents, exhibits and transcripts of testimony. Among them I was amazed to find not only the Butler testimony in executive session which I had tried so hard to get, but also a typed copy of the Committee's report to the House on its investigations. The report to the House was lengthy, but the heart of it was contained in a few paragraphs:
In the last few weeks of the committee's life, it received evidence showing that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist organization in this country..
There is no question that these attempts were discussed, planned and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient......
|
Quote:
http://news.google.com/archivesearch...earch+Archives
http://www.newspaperarchive.com/news...3/5685797.html
Charleston Daily Mail
Wednesday, November 21, 1934
Congressman Says Man Admits Being "Cashier" for Group FLAT DENIAL MADE Ex-Head of Marine Corps Tells of Offer to Head Fascist Army Here NEW YORK, Nov. 21 Gerald P. MacGuire, Wall Street bond salesman alleged to have broached the idea of a Fascist re- volt to General Smedley D. But- ler, has identified himself as the "cashier" of a dictatorship move- ment, Representative Samuel Dick- stein declared today. MacGuire, who has denounced as "utterly ridiculous" charges that he acted as the agent of a group of wealthy New Yorkers in an ef- fort to induce General Butler to head an army of veterans "is hanging Mr. Dickstein said in discussing the salesman's testimony before the congressional committee investigating un-Ameri- can activities. Mr. Drckstein said MacGuire ad- mitted he had been to Italy and Ger- many "and other countries where Fascism flourishes" this year. Robert Sterling Clarke, a stock broker named by General Butler as involved in the alleged plot, has also handled large sums of the money for the conspirators, Mr. Dickstein said.
It was also learned today that the committee's investigation of the CCC camp at Elkridge, Md.( had some con- nection with the hearing of General Butler's reported ''Fascist plot." Cap- tain Samuel Glazier, camp command- ant, testified before the committee yesterday in was understood to be "collaboration" with the commit- tee's study. The committee had pre- viously investigated the camp. Link Camp to Plot While the atmoshpere surrounding the hearing has been thick with con- jecture, the most popular conception of the camp connection with the dic- tatorship "plot" has been to regard the camp as the "concentration point" for the supposed "Fascist" army be- fore moving on Washington. The former marine corps' chief said that, ho had been approached by Wall street broker to head an army of 000 former soldiers and others to march on Washington and seize con- trol of the federal government. Chairman John W. McCormick of the house committee promised a thor- ough investigation, saying "we are going to get at the bottom of this matter and we are going to call wit- nesses and records that will bring out i.he that may be." Chairman McCormick and Repre- sentative Samuel Dickstein, vice chairman, heard General Butler for more than two hours yesterday and said later that General Butler had re- peated most of the statements attrib- uted to him in a newspaper story in which details of the "plot" were giv- en. Both members said General But It was also learned today that the committee's investigation of the CCC camp at Elkridge, Md.( had some con- nection with the hearing of General Butler's reported ''Fascist plot." Cap- tain Samuel Glazier, camp command- ant, testified before the committee yesterday in was understood to be "collaboration" with the commit- tee's study. The committee had pre- viously investigated the camp. Link Camp to Plot While the atmoshpere surrounding the hearing has been thick with con- jecture, the most popular conception of the camp connection with the dic- tatorship "plot" has been to regard the camp as the "concentration point" for the supposed "Fascist" army be- fore moving on Washington. The former marine corps' chief said that, ho had been approached by Wall street broker to head an army of 000 former soldiers and others to march on Washington and seize con- trol of the federal government. Chairman John W. McCormick of the house committee promised a thor- ough investigation, saying "we are going to get at the bottom of this matter and we are going to call wit- nesses and records that will bring out i.he that may be." Chairman McCormick and Repre- sentative Samuel Dickstein, vice chairman, heard General Butler for more than two hours yesterday and said later that General Butler had re- peated most of the statements attrib- uted to him in a newspaper story in which details of the "plot" were giv- en. Both members said General Butler made it clear he had flatly rejected all proposals made by the "Fascist" group.
The assertion that General Butler's story was a publicity stunt came from MacGuire who was named by the for- mer marine corps head as the man who urged him to head the Fascist army. MacGuire testified before the committee after General Butler, and on leaving the. committee hearing, denied the truth of General Butler's charges. "Our attitude is that it's all a joke, a publicity stunt by said Mac- Guire. "His statements are untrue. There never was such a plot." Johnson'Makes Denial Colonel Grayson M. P. Murphy, head of the brokerage house employ- ing MacGuire, characterized the charges as "silly." General Hugh S. Johnsos. former NRA administrator, commenting on a report that General Butler had told friends in Philadelphia that Mr. John- son was scheduled to be dictator, said: "Nobody said a word to me about anything of the kind, and if they did I'd throw them out the window. I know nothing about it." Thomas W. Lamont, partner in the firm of J. P. Morgan company, in- formed of a report that the Morgan firm was involved in the plot, said: "Perfect moonshine! Too unuttera- bly ridiculous to comment upon." General Butler's testimony was re- ported to have be" that MacGuire approached him last summer and told him the financial backers of the move-
|
<h3>1933, loquitur, just 20 Morgan partners, serving on 167 boards of major corporations</h3>....Morgan, an investment bank, a year later, implicated in a fascist coup planned against the US government, a plan that seems to have actually been financed and seriously researched and entertained:
Quote:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...8AD95F408385F9
INQUIRY PRESSED IN 'FASCIST PLOT'; Purported Agent, on Stand...
$3.95 - New York Times - Nov 22, 1934
According to Mr. Dickstein, r. MacGuire's testimony showed that he had spent ... Mr. MacGuire also testified, according-to his attorney, that Vrr. Clark
|
Quote:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...5650-5,00.html
Now It Is Told
Monday, Jun. 05, 1933
(5 of 9)
The Partnership, The firm of Morgan is 20 men. Five were picked by the Elder Morgan.....
{6 of 9)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...5650-6,00.html
....Very courteous were the Senators to their guests. Very affable Mr. Morgan, wholly unlike his dictatorial father who gave blunt answers to the Pujo Committee 20 years ago. Very earnest—every inch the prosecutor—was Mr. Pecora. Very courtly Morgan's learned counsel. Mr. Davis. Only flare-ups of anger were between testy Senator Glass and Mr. Pecora over the course which the inquiry was taking. Mr. Glass, long a severe critic of our bankers, grew impatient with the mass of curiosity-questions not pertinent to the banking questions. Senator most critical of Morgan was Mr. Couzens.
<h3>Chief subjects of critical inquiry and the gist of Morgan & Co.'s answers:
Directorships: Q. Of how many corporations are partners directors'? A. 167.</h3> Q. Have they used their banking power to force their way in and control industry? A. J. P. Morgan dislikes having his partners serve as directors; they do so only by earnest request of companies who want financial advisers. Q. Do partner-directors force companies to finance with Morgan? A. No. Sometimes such companies finance elsewhere but often finance with Morgan. Q. Do not the interest of the partners as bankers conflict with their duties as directors? A. No. Partners as directors have their chief interest in the success of companies which they serve.....
|
Fast forward to just a week ago, loquitur:
The quote in the first box is from this WSJ article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1205...googlenews_wsj
Fed Races to Rescue Bear Stearns
In Bid to Steady Financial System
Storied Firm Sees
Stock Plunge 47%;
J.P. Morgan Steps In
By KATE KELLY, GREG IP and ROBIN SIDEL
March 16, 2008 9:50 a.m.
Quote:
Fed, not Morgan Chase, bears risk of Bear Stearns bailout | Gold ...In addition to being a Bear creditor, J.P. Morgan is a regular trading partner with Bear and therefore could be on the hook for big losses if Bear fails. ...
www.gata.org/node/6110
|
Quote:
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...nd_balanc.html
March 17, 2008 5:35 AM
Satchel, et al: Short-term hysteria aside, is it possible that JPM just got the deal of a lifetime?
Thanks for your comments!
my personal opinion: This move was really designed to save JP Morgan. In other words, it was a bailout of JP Morgan, and NOT Bear Stearns.
who was the largest counterparty with the most to lose if Bear Stearns went down? Answer: JP Morgan.
If Bear fell in disorderly fashion, JP would have gone next in my opinion. This is why JP Morgan did the deal.
even at the "discount" price of $2/share, JP has opened itself up to HUGE liabilities on Bear's portfolio.
As Jamie Dimon (CEO of JP Morgan) said
“JPMorgan Chase stands behind Bear Stearns,”
“Bear Stearns’s clients and counterparties should feel secure that JPMorgan is guaranteeing Bear Stearns’s counterparty risk. We welcome their clients, counterparties and employees to our firm, and we are glad to be their partner.
No firm in their right mind would do this unless they had nothing to lose. Bear Stearn's portfolio is levered 32x to 1. (it was 44x to 1 last summer). Now JP Morgan has assumed all that liability plus leverage.
JP Morgan was done if Bear fell, so it had nothing to lose.
Add in the Federal Reserve Backstock of $30 Billion, AND I'm sure a few backstage promises, and it's a no-brainer.
From the wizard of oz:
"PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THAT CURTAIN!"
|
Whether you believe it or not, the concentration of ownership and control of 2/3 of all US traded stock shares and 93 percent of the bonds are, after seventy years, still owned by the wealthiest one to five percent.
The Fed demonstrated that it's priority is the major banks and brokerages, and the wealthiest folk who own them, and not the taxpayer.
The five largest brokerages all probably would have been crushed by their incestuous counterparty relationships, last friday, all insolvent, and immediate chaper 7 cases, by law, with rapid liquidation, by auction, of their assets, then the proceeds of those auctions would rapidly be dispersed to their creditors.
Instead, the Fed and Hank Paulson decided that JP Morgan would live and Bear Stearns would die.
The Fed opened the discount window to the brokerages, which are leveraged as high as 40X assets, while the banks, by law, are leveraged at 7X max. The Fed did not put the brokerages under the supervision of banking regulators, or require that they deleverage, as a condition of their discount window borrowing privileges.
Bear Stearns notified authorities on thrusday evening, March 13, that it had become insolvent, yet the SEC and NYSE allowed Bear shares to trade all day on firday the 14th.
How many rules were bent, laws violated, in the scenario I described in the preceding paragraph.
My reading brings me to the conclusion that the brokerages will use their low interest rate access to borrow money to lend at rock bottom rates as "bait" to raid clients from the brokergae divisions of the major commercial bamks.
loquitur , it is no work to dismiss all of this information, as you did with the FDR reference to fascism. The players have not changed, and the "game" has not changed in 70 years.
The difference then, though, compared to now, was FDR then vs. these two now, who should be attacking the Fed and the criminals who run Wall Street:
Quote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...1,838566.story
CAMPAIGN '08
<h3>Clinton, Obama are Wall Street darlings</h3>
Donations to Democratic campaigns prompt concern that the candidates will go soft on regulation of the financial markets.
By Janet Hook and Dan Morain
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
March 21, 2008
WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who are running for president as economic populists, are benefiting handsomely from Wall Street donations, easily surpassing Republican John McCain in campaign contributions from the troubled financial services sector.
It is part of a broader fundraising shift toward Democrats, compared to past campaigns when Republicans were the favorites of Wall Street.
Some Democrats worry that the influx of money will make their candidates less willing to call for increased regulation of financial markets, which have been in turmoil after a wave of foreclosures on sub-prime mortgages.
These concerned Democrats argue that their candidates, and presumptive Republican nominee McCain, should be willing to push for financial institutions to accept more government regulation -- in exchange for likely future bailouts, such as the recent deal the Federal Reserve orchestrated for JPMorgan Chase & Co. to take over Bear Stearns Cos.
"I want to hear Clinton, Obama and McCain talk about a quid pro quo," said Jared Bernstein, an economist with the Democratic-leaning Economic Policy Institute. "If we don't hear it, especially from Democrats, it makes sense to ask why not and ask if they are inappropriately cozy with the financial services industry."
The flow of campaign cash is a measure of how open-fisted banks and other financial institutions have been to politicians of both parties. Concern is rising that "no matter who the Democratic nominee is and who wins in November, Wall Street will have a friend in the White House," said Massie Ritsch of the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign donations. "The door will be open to these big banks."
Sen. McCain of Arizona got off to a slow start in presidential campaign fundraising. Having clinched the Republican nomination, he could gain momentum in attracting Wall Street money.
For now, though, Sen. Clinton of New York is leading the way, bringing in at least $6.29 million from the securities and investment industry, compared with $6.03 million for Sen. Obama of Illinois and $2.59 million for McCain, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Those figures include donations from the investment companies' employees and political action committees.
In 2000, by comparison, Republican George W. Bush went on to win the White House after collecting nearly $4 million from the industry versus Democrat Al Gore's $1.4 million. In 2004, Bush received $8.8 million, twice what Democratic Sen. John Kerry collected.
Spokesmen for Obama, Clinton and McCain deny that the candidates' ideas on handling the economic crisis are being shaped by donations from Wall Street.
The candidates' receipts reflect a broader trend that demonstrates how money follows power in Washington. It suggests that the nation's money managers are betting heavily that either Clinton or Obama will capture the White House and that Democrats will retain control of Congress.
Lenders active in the sub-prime business, such as Ameriquest and Countrywide, were major political players in years past. But in the 2008 campaign, they are bit players, giving perhaps $120,000 to all presidential candidates.
The troubles in the financial markets, however, have spread from sub-prime lenders to some of the nation's largest banking corporations and investment houses that traded in the mortgages, as Bear Stearns' failure demonstrated. And PACs and employees of many of those businesses -- including Bear Stearns and its prospective new owner, JPMorgan -- have donated heavily to campaigns.
Citigroup, the nation's largest banking company, also was among those enmeshed in the sub-prime mortgage debacle, leading to billions of dollars in losses last year and the resignation of its chief executive, Charles Prince.
Merrill Lynch too had multibillion-dollar losses last year, mostly involving soured mortgage-related investments. Merrill Chief Executive Stanley O'Neal, an Obama donor, also was forced out last year.
Overall, Citigroup and Merrill employees have given $519,000 to Clinton, $386,200 to McCain and $354,000 to Obama since January 2007.
Clinton is a top beneficiary of large Wall Street firms in part because she represents New York. And Clinton's ties to the financial services industry extend beyond donations: A senior economic advisor to her campaign is Robert Rubin, Treasury secretary during her husband's administration and now a top official at Citigroup. The consulting firm of Mark Penn, her chief campaign strategist, worked for Calabasas-based Countrywide.
Also, Bill Clinton's administration oversaw significant changes sought by Wall Streeters, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act to allow commercial and investment banks to consolidate.
Hillary Clinton's position on bankruptcy code overhaul -- among the most important pieces of financial legislation passed by Congress over the last decade -- has been difficult to decipher.....
|
The Fed is now openly colluding with the criminals it was supposed to regulate, and the two presidential candidates most likley to win the presidency, instead of announcing that Wall Street crime and greed has put the currency and the entire economy on the brink, and that the people are going to go to war against Wall Street, are instead, "DARLINGS of Wall Street".
Last edited by host; 03-22-2008 at 12:39 AM..
|