Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: 151 Members Of Congress Had Up To $195.5 Million Of Their Personal Assets Invested n Defense Corporations.

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 7, 2012, 3:15 a.m. EST by NewStart2012 (112)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

In 2006, it was reported that 151 members of Congress had up to $195.5 million of their personal assets invested in defense corporations. It’s now 2012 and I can only imagine that those Congressmen have made a good deal of return on their investments. These are the same people who vote to keep funding all the wars we fight and insure that we are in continued conflicts world wide. Moreover, the CEO’s of these ‘defense’ corporations sit on advisery boards that draft and implement foriegn policy. Clearly, anybody can see that ‘peace’ is not good for their business, so in who’s interests are they advising? War is a racket.

Foreign policy and war profiteering… Video:




Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by infonomics (393) 2 years ago

You propose a very serious accusation here yet your link does not enumerate names and amounts. If you can find this vital data, you have a story. Well, I saved you the effort:

In 2006, the investment portfolios of 151 current members—more than a quarter of Congress—had between $78.7 million and $195.5 million invested in companies that received major defense contracts (over $5 million). The portfolios include holdings in companies paid billions of dollars each month to support America’s military. These companies provided almost everything the military uses, from aircraft and weapons to medical supplies and soft drinks.

Lawmakers with the most money invested in companies with DoD contracts include:

  • Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass), with up to $38,209,020
  • Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), with $49,140,000
  • Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC), with $37,105,000
  • Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis), with $7,612,653
  • Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif), with $6,260,000
  • Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich), with $8,360,000
  • Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa), with $2,000,002
  • Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis), with $5,800,000
  • Rep. Kenny Ewell Marchant (R-Texas), with $1,163,231; and
  • Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), with up to $5,000,000.

My source and the remainder are here: http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/14-congress-invested-in-defense-contracts/

Expressed warranty: I make no such warranty.

[-] 1 points by NewStart2012 (112) 2 years ago

Thank you kindly for providing this information.

[-] 1 points by infonomics (393) 2 years ago

How is this legal? Is the argument they cannot control the investments of the investments they make? In other words, Kerry invest in a fund which invest in General Dynamics, then claims he has no control over the final investment?

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

and Obama does nothing

has anyone been prosecuted yet?

oh that's right, Obama is just a Lawyer and not a Military Expert, Stock Market or Financial genius or CONCERNED

because he's getting his too........

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

The only thing that surprises me about this corrupt admin, is that they keep telling people they are spreading democracy when they invade and destroy soveriegn nations, and people keep believing them.

Wake up America. The rest of the world is waiting for you to Wake up.

Your criminal leaders are laughing at your gullibility.

[-] 1 points by NewStart2012 (112) 2 years ago

Well said!

[-] 1 points by ciaoant1 (16) 2 years ago

Under the French Constitution of 1795, qualified property holders elected 750 legislators, who divided themselves into the Council of Five Hundred and the Council of Ancients. This bicameral legislature had a term of three years, with one-third of the members renewed every year. The Ancients held a suspensory veto, but possessed no initiative in legislation. [...] The system made provision for the stringent control of all local authorities by the central government. Since the new constitution sought to create a separation of powers, the directors had no voice in legislation or taxation, nor could directors or ministers sit in either house. The law guaranteed freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of labour, but forbade armed assemblies and even public meetings of political societies. Only individuals or public authorities could tender petitions…The finances had been so thoroughly ruined that the government could not have met its expenses without the plunder and the tribute of foreign countries. If peace were made, the armies would return home and the directors would have to face the exasperation of the rank-and-file who had lost their livelihood, as well as the ambition of generals who could, in a moment, brush them aside. The end result was Napoleon. When the Weimar government floundered, the end result was Hitler when Germany finally went bankrupt. Since the military is sucking down a huge, huge hunk of our budget, if this is endangered and the wages of the military aren’t paid on time, they will take over the government just like we saw in Egypt. This will fix nothing since the military leaders want more wars which is what happened when Hitler and Napoleon took over bankrupt empires that still had strong military systems pretty much intact. . Both Hitler and Napoleon promised guns and butter and brought in lots of loot for a while until military defeats reversed this and the people let invaders (Russia in both cases!) overthrow their armies. In the US, we have a very dangerous military machine that is mainly overseas. If Congress doesn’t pay them or if the US debt is degraded and thus, less desirable, we will have a coup more likely than an election


[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 2 years ago

The war business is good business and plus it controls the population (killing people)! We humans are in a sad state ...

[-] 1 points by NewStart2012 (112) 2 years ago

I wish more people understood that one of the "benefits" that government and elite see with war is "population Control".