-->Aus einem anderen Board:
Die Kennedy Story finde ich eher fragwürdig, aber wer weiß?
Sieht fast so aus, als ob die ersten Jahre dieses Jahrhunderts ähnlich ablaufen werden wie das vorhergehende:
What do all these assassination's (or attempts) have in common?
1835 First Attempt of Assassination of a President? Andrew Jackson
1865 Lincoln Assassinated
1881 Garfield Assassinated
1901 William McKinley Assassinated
1963 John F. Kennedy Assassinated
1835
First Attempt of Assassination of a President? Andrew Jackson
President Jackson Escapes Assassination
January 31, 1835, President Andrew Jackson was almost assassinated by Richard Lawrence. Luckily for the President, the gun mis-fired twice before Lawrence was disarmed. This was the first assassination attempt of a President.
Andrew Jackson and the Bankwar
On July 10, 1832, Jackson placed a veto on the recharter proposal. In his veto message, he stated that the Bank http://www.ushistory.org/tour/tour_2bank.htm was"subversive of the rights of the states.[47]" Jackson used this important and historic veto to inform the American public of the evils of the Bank, calling it a monopoly where most of the stock was held by foreigners[48].
Shortly after the election, the war escalated. In September of 1833, Attorney General Taney wrote to Jackson and expressed his complete agreement with him to remove the government deposits from the Bank and place them in state banks[65]. Although this letter was written a year after the election, it has been suggested that Jackson had every intention to remove the deposits immediately after the election, a suggestion that this letter would seem to support[66]. The escalation of the war was underlined by several motives on Jackson's part.
First, in doing so, he changed the status of the Bank, altogether as it would no longer have a financial association with the government[67]. Second, the lack of funds crippled the chances of the Bank to reverse the decision made in the election, reducing the power of the Bank altogether which was, of course, Jackson's hopes and intentions all along[68]. Third, Jackson could reinforce his position as President and control the direction of the government[69].
Despite the opposition of his entire Cabinet, with the exception of Taney, Jackson held firm on his decision to remove the deposits. He told Francis P. Blair that his mind was made up and that Biddle would not be allowed to continue using public money to break down the public administration[70].
In March of 1833, Jackson assembled his cabinet for a meeting and announced that he had an alternative to the Bank of the United States should it be dismantled. He proposed that a central bank be placed in Washington with branches in each of the states[71]. He proposed that the government have more oversight and control of the Bank by appointing, not only the president, but also as many of the directors as it saw fit[72]. The proposed bank, however, would not have been put into place until after Jackson's notion of the government first conducting a"full and fair experiment" of the financial affairs without the use of any sort of national bank was met[73]. In the interim period, Jackson proposed that public funds be distributed into state banks.
It was clear that Jackson would receive little support from any of his cabinet members other than Taney. In a letter dated March 24, 1833 but addressed to no one in particular, Jackson questioned his own proposal[74]. He said that he truly believed that the financial concerns of the government could be carried out in state banks but remained unsure of a deposit system for government funds[75]. This letter displays the President's dilemma but it also reinforces his intentions to remove the deposits and, ultimately, destroy the Bank. He completed the letter by restating his opposition to the Bank and made clear his intentions to render the Bank harmless to the government and disabling those who prospered from it with the intentions of corrupting Congress[76].
The time had come for action. Treasury Secretary William J. Duane was instructed by Jackson to remove the deposits after the President had made a formal announcement[77]. Months earlier, Duane had agreed to resign if he did not follow the President's directions and, because of this, Duane replied to Jackson's instructions by asking for more time to think about removing the deposits[78]. Jackson refused to be patient since his mind was already made up on the decision and, recognizing that Duane was stalling, went forth with his announcement on September 20, 1833[79]. Duane then refused to resign for two reasons, the first was because he knew Jackson would have a more difficult time dealing with a second shakeup of his cabinet and the second reason was, most likely, due to the deference Jackson had shown him[80]. Jackson never considered Duane's appointment to be important and ended up neglecting to give Duane a chance by not allowing him to decide whether or not he would remove the deposits[81].
Jackson was left without options and was forced to inform Duane that his services were no longer required. Roger B. Taney was then appointed as Treasury Secretary and instructed to oversee the removal of deposits. The end had come for the Bank of the United States. Taney enlisted the aid of Amos Kendall and Levi Woodbury. Together, they issued the order of September 25, 1833 which announced that on October 1, 1833, the government would shift from national banking to deposit banking via state banks[82].
Jackson's"experiment" was underway. Deposits were beginning to be placed in state banks known as"pet banks.[83]" The federal government began to see an annual surplus of about $10 million and, for the first time in the history of the United States, no federal debt existed[84]. The Bank, however, still held control over state banks with the ability to ease or tighten credit[85] and Biddle himself, still had an ace in his deck and, most likely knowing it was his last card, he played it. He had the Bank contract its loans which caused a national panic[86]. Taney saw this as evidence that it was right to remove the deposits from the Bank, calling the institution a"monster.[87]" Biddle merely saw the action as the Bank fighting for its survival. On October 7, he held a meeting with the board of directors where he gained their approval to cease loans throughout the entire banking system[88].
It is, however, important to note that not all of the directors approved of this course of action[89]. The resulting financial panic was Biddle's way of trying to twist Jackson's arm and get him to restore the deposits to the Bank[90]. This turned out to be fruitless as Jackson realized that in creating the panic, Biddle had alienated most of his supporters[91]. The financial stranglehold that Biddle set came at a bad time because business was beginning to expand which meant that credit was needed[92]. The Bank had insisted that state banks make payments in specie, or gold and silver bank notes, and the state banks soon began to overextend their credit by issuing specie which exceeded its worth in gold and silver that the banks had in their vaults[93].
This resulted in massive inflation and the treasury was filled with worthless bank notes which made it clear that Jackson was not in control of his"pet banks.[94]" The flood of paper money was growing out of control and land speculation in particular was a major concern as fraud was increasing in land sales[95]. Jackson quickly responded by issuing his"Specie Circular" in July of 1836. The"Specie Circular" was a decree that only gold and silver could be accepted in purchasing public lands[96]. Many in Jackson's Cabinet objected because they saw a danger in it. The danger was that Congress may have seen it as a further abuse of executive power by Jackson and may have tried to supersede it[97]. Jackson went forth with the"Specie Circular" and on July 11, 1836, Taney issued the decree[98]. Objections by opponents such as Henry Clay were silenced because many believed that such criticisms were merely an attempt to create another panic[99]. Soon, the minting of a new dollar was announced and the democrats cried out that it was Andrew Jackson who had restored"real money" to the nation[100].
The Bank was dead. Its power was gone and not much could be done. Biddle had spoken of a possible recharter but branches of the Bank had already been sold and Biddle was forced into accepting defeat[101]. Biddle sought to have the main branch in Philadelphia chartered by Pennsylvania and in 1836, the state legislature issued such a charter but it wound up costing the Bank much more than anticipated[102]. Biddle, continued to believe that the Bank was a reputable and respectable institution which was needlessly killed by Jackson, a matter that has since been left for history to decide. In the second of two letters addressed to John Quincy Adams dated November 10, 1836, Biddle said that until the government disturbed the banking system, it was just as good as any other commercial country[103]. Furthermore, according to Biddle, for every American bank that failed fifteen years prior to the Bank of the United States, at least ten English banks had met their demise[104].
1865
Lincoln Assassinated
LINCOLN'S ASSASSINATION WAS THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY OF POWERFUL INTERNATIONAL BANKERS
This theory is that Abraham Lincoln was killed as a result of his monetary policies. John Wilkes Booth would be seen as a 'hired gun.' In its simplest terms, the theory is that Lincoln needed money to finance the Civil War. He was offered loans at high interest rates by bankers in Europe led by the Rothschilds. Rather than accept the loans, Lincoln found other means to fund the war effort. More importantly, the British bankers opposed Lincoln's protectionist policies. Some Englishmen in the 1860's believed that"British free trade, industrial monopoly and human slavery travel together." Lincoln's policies after the Civil War would have destroyed the Rothschilds' commodity speculations. After the war, Lincoln planned a mild Reconstruction policy which would have enabled a resumption of agriculture production.
The Rothschilds were betting the other way on high prices caused by a tough Reconstruction policy toward the South. Lincoln was viewed as a threat to the established order of things, and he was assassinated as a result. The goal was to weaken the United States so the Rothschilds could takeover its economy. An article titled"The Rothschilds' International Plot to Kill Lincoln" was published October 29, 1976, in New Solidarity.
1881
Garfield Assassinated
During Garfield's congressional terms, debates raged between legislators who demanded that all U.S. money be backed by gold and the"Silverites" and"Greenbackers," who wanted to issue paper currency and coin silver more freely in an attempt to alleviate pressing debts, especially those of struggling farmers. Garfield advocated hard money policies backed by gold, making him a favorite with eastern"Gold Bug" Republicans. He opposed cooperative farm programs such as those supported by the Grange, an agrarian organization; labor unions; the eight-hour workday; and federally funded relief projects.
1901
William McKinley Assassinated
Unfortunately, America?s move toward imperialism had done little for the common workingman. Already frustrated by years of economic depression that began with the Panic of 1893, and by the lack of progress toward more humane working conditions, American workers wondered why some of the vast wealth of the industrial boom wasn?t trickling down to them. Millionaires like railroad king Cornelius Vanderbilt, oil baron John D. Rockefeller, steel magnate Andrew Carnegie, and banker J.P. Morgan had accumulated unprecedented private wealth and were known to spend more on an evening?s entertainment than a coal miner or tradesman could earn in a lifetime. Such ostentatious displays bred discontent. Rubbing salt in the wound, the industrialists routinely relied on the government to help squelch worker uprisings.
Employee unions had progressively become a more dominant force in American life during the last quarter of the nineteenth century as they sought to improve working conditions. Strikers had clashed violently with police and the military in Chicago?s Haymarket Riot in 1886 and again in the Pullman strike eight years later, leaving scores of people dead in the streets.
In 1892, Pinkerton detectives in Homestead, Pennsylvania, suppressed a steel strike and protected scab laborers. The government had sided with management against workers in each instance.
A more dangerous element -- anarchism -- exacerbated the situation when it arrived from Europe. Anarchists brought a more radical philosophy to the scene, maintaining that any form of government exploited and oppressed the people. They believed that one way to combat government was to eliminate those in power. Since 1894, anarchists had assassinated four European leaders -- President Sadi Carnot of France, Empress Elizabeth of Austria, King Humbert of Italy, and Spanish statesman Cánovas del Castillo. In the United States, an anarchist had attacked industrialist Henry Clay Frick, in part for his role in the failed Homestead strike.
For some individuals with little or no formal education, few skills, and no hope of improvement, anarchism offered a natural outlet for their frustration.
Cleveland resident Leon Czolgosz fit the profile perfectly. Poor, reclusive, and often unemployed, he had been born in Detroit to Polish parents in 1873. He left school after five and a half years and worked at various jobs and later drifted to Chicago and became interested in the socialist movement. The interest continued in Cleveland, where he took a job in the city?s wire mills. Two weeks before he traveled to Buffalo, Czolgosz attended a lecture given by the nation?s most notorious anarchist leader, Emma Goldman. She spoke of the struggle between the classes and why the time had come for action against government.
1963
John F. Kennedy Assassinated
On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. The Christian Law Fellowship has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress. We can now safely conclude that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superceded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid.
This order gave the to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency - money - without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. This means that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation based on the silver bullion physically held there. As a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated. It appears obvious that President Kennedy knew the Federal Reserve Notes being used as the purported legal currency were contrary to the Constitution of the united States of America.
Kennedy knew that if the silver-backed United States Notes were widely circulated, they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve Notes.
President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out of circulation. Federal Reserve Notes continued to serve as the legal currency of the nation. According to the United States Secret Service, 99% of all U.S. paper"currency" circulating in 1999 are Federal Reserve Notes.
|
Thread-Ansicht
Mix-Ansicht
Reihenfolge
Thread gesperrt
