why did they create the very system that allowed Trump to get to power and stop the great reset

why did they make the senate when the media is having to go through the trouble of advocating for abolishing it.

The "founding fathers" didn't create our form of government SO that Trump would be allowed to stop the Great Reset, nor did they create it SO that the media would have to go through the trouble of abolishing it. You are putting the Cart about 250 years in front of the Horse and suggesting causality.

There are probably factions within the Freemasons, just like there are factions in every other society, no matter how large or small.

The Founders could have made the entire thing unassailable if they had simply made statements of citizen sovereignty instead of making that statement implicitly, and then eliminating even that implied sovereignty in the Bill of Rights (see the eminent domain clause at the end of Article 5).

Our system of government is not so great as you think, even from the beginning. Nevertheless, I think that many of the original framers had good intentions, and their influence may even have been enough to secure eventual victory. But as it was set up, it was woefully inadequate, thus its quick decline into totalitarianism, begun in full earnest with the Civil War.

We could’ve just been a parliamentarian democracy that is infinitely easier to control.

We have been under complete and total control for almost the entire time. The idea of our "freedom" at any time was completely illusory.

The best slave is the one that believes that he is free --- Johann von Goethe (loosely translated)

As for the U.S. being a corporation, it both is and is not.

From United States v. Perkins

In addition to this, however, the United States are not one of the class of corporations intended by law to be exempt *631 from taxation. What the corporations are to which the exemption was intended to apply are indicated by the tax laws of New York, and are confined to those of a religious, educational, charitable or reformatory purpose. We think it was not intended to apply it to a purely political or governmental corporation like the United States

There are other court documents that state explicitly that the United States is a corporation. And of course it is. It is a sovereign entity (a variant of a legal person) that is not a natural person. The definition of a corporation (to make corporeal) is the creation of a legal person (sovereign or otherwise) out of a set of ideas.

I have seen no sound evidence that the constitution is authorized by any higher body (a "corporation" in the general sense). On the contrary, it states its own corporeal form (it is a document that self actualizes a legal body, in this case a sovereign body.) This is in contrast to what we think of as a corporation which is given its legal body status as a vassal to the State in which it is incorporated. The U.S. Government corporation eventually became (not long after its inception) our sovereign (and we its vassals) by the fuckery stated above, though I have not here elaborated that.

The confusion about the U.S. being a corporation (in the sense we think of it) is exacerbated by the fact that in 1871 Washington D.C. was made into a municipal corporation, incorporated as a city-state (also (I think) it's own sovereign body, i.e. self-actualized into a legal sovereign). This new legal body had the same exact system of government that the constitution provided for the U.S. except that its control was substantially increased, though it's domain was restricted to D.C.. The President of the U.S. is the CEO of that D.C. corporation. The Congress of the U.S. is the legislative body of that D.C. corporation, etc. This means that if a law is passed for D.C. corp legitimately, it could be mistaken as a law passed for U.S. as well. I don't know if that has happened, but it could happen.

Regardless, the situation is much more complex than "the founding fathers were Freemasons" and "all Freemasons are Illuminati" (for which there is no substantive evidence).