The Long Battle For Ownership of America's Central Bank

from opednews.com

OpEdNews Op Eds 4/14/2014 at 10:09:52

By Richard Clark

(Article changed on April 14, 2014 at 10:14)

In the new America, the Virginia colonists were granted their own self-government, whereupon they devised their own system of currency, free from the taxing money system of the British crown.   But after a time, the long arm of oppression from the British government reached across the Atlantic and imposed its "blood" sucking, monetary rule on these poor devils once again.

The Currency Act of 1751 was the beginning of the British crackdown on the colonial money system, with the final Currency Act of 1764 specifically forbidding the colonies from issuing their own paper money.  

This forced the colonists to once again borrow their currency from the central bank of England, at interest, which soon created considerable indebtedness and unemployment among the colonists.   The very same "blood-sucking" swindle they had escaped when they left Europe was now being imposed once again, this time in the new colonies of America.   

Curiously unmentioned in most of our history books, the ensuing struggle between Britain and the American colonies over the right of the colonists to issue their own paper money (which had freed them from the need to pay interest on currency issued by banksters) was a significant factor -- perhaps the most significant -- in bringing about the American Revolution.

Benjamin Franklin explained it this way:

The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonists their locally-created monetary system, thereby creating a good deal of   unemployment, debt and dissatisfaction.   The inability of colonists to keep the power to issue their own money, permanently out of the hands of George the III and the international bankers, was the prime reason for the Revolutionary War.

In his book, "Fourth Reich of the Rich," Des Griffin adds this:

The reason why the British abolished the right of the American colonies to create and issue their own money is simple:   the bankers did not want the colonists to be able to trade among themselves without steadily paying tribute to bankers.   The objective was clear:   by forcing Americans to pay interest on all the currency they would essentially have to borrow from bankers on the other side of the Atlantic, European money changers could quite profitably enslave the colonies in a mountain of debt.

Keeping all this in mind, fast forward to the 1860s when . 
.

The European bankster planned to conquer America by helping precipitate civil war and then taking over our central bank

Before you can fully understand this takeover of our government's central bank by private interests in the late 19th century (and again in 1913), it's necessary to look more carefully at the origins of the coup d'etat which that takeover represents.

We've all been taught that the main reasons for the civil war had to do with the issue of slavery, but consider for a moment the possibility of another cause as well:   the attempt by a European (mainly British) elite to foment still further the divide between our northern and southern states, which would, with any luck (for these early banksters), then leave our country greatly weakened by war, thereby creating an opportunity for these bloodsuckers to conquer the finances of our country and eventually, in many ways, conquer the country itself.  

  (Matt Taibbi's colorful description suddenly comes to mind: 

"The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.   In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled-dry American empire, . ."

As German Chancellor Bismarck observed:

"The division of the United States into federations of equal force [The North & The South] was decided long before the Civil War.   These bankers were afraid that the United States would upset their financial domination over the world."

And today, this long forgotten and controversial part of Britain's past is being unearthed by an American historian living in London.   Tom Sebrell has uncovered evidence of strong support for the southern Confederate states in America's Civil War.   While Britain was officially neutral during the war, Sebrell is now leading walking tours of London that reveal untold stories of Britain's role in this war.

Well before the shadowy birth of our current Federal Reserve System, on Jekyll Island in 1913, we had a true, nationally-owned bank, created in 1791 with the support of Alexander Hamilton.   It lasted until 1811.     In those days, (privately owned) banks were given limited charters only, because our forefathers knew the immense power, to threaten the state, that could grow out of too-powerful banks that were privately owned -- in just the same way that immense power to threaten the state could grow out of too-powerful corporations, privately owned.

The second "national bank" (a privately owned and operated central bank) came into being in 1816 under President James Madison, supposedly to help offset the financial pains of the nation after the war of 1812.

Andrew Jackson, however, opposed the creation or existence of any privately-ownednational/central bank.   He said it was unconstitutional and that it gave an excessive and dangerous amount of power to one single entity.   He claimed that it wielded too much control over the Congress, but most of all, that it threatened our government through usurpation, by private foreign entities (i.e. the wealthy elite of Europe).

"If Congress has the right to issue paper money, it (that right) was given to them to be used by themselves (Congress)   and not to be delegated to (private) individuals or corporations."

--President Andrew Jackson, who vetoed the Bank Bill of 1836

Jackson argued that such a privately owned central bank (like our modern-day Fed) mainly served to increase the fortunes of an elite, wealthy, inner circle, and did so at the expense ofthe common man, e.g. farmers and laborers.   In 1832, Jackson won this banking battle, by vetoing a bankster attempt to re-charter the privately owned central bank of the time, and withdrawing the government's money from that bank one year later.

But there was an ugly response to President Jackson killing the so-called "National Bank" (which, like our Fed, was really a privately owned central bank, not really a nationally owned bank at all);   the European House of Rothschild was greatly upset that they had lost their fierce battle with President Jackson, over their potentially very lucrative ownership of our nation's central bank.

A few years later, in 1835, an assassination attempt was made on Jackson, alleged by many to be the result of him stopping the continuation of the privately owned central bank;   but Jackson survived the attack, due to both of the assassin's pistols misfiring.   This was the first-ever attempted assassination of a US President;    unfortunately it would not be the last, and each of the two subsequent attempts apparently also had to do with who would own and control America's central bank -- the government itself, or banksters.  

The Rothschilds persisted in their quest for financial control of the US, which persistence is reflected very clearly in a stunning proposal and explanation, written by the Rothschilds in a letter to New York banking interests, proposing a new "system" (of exploitation and systematic theft).   This "system" was explained to the wealthy elite of our country, just two years before Lincoln's assassination. 

This potentially scandalous letter reads  as follows:

"The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class,   while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from this "system," will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests."

  --The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York in 1863.

The "system" that the Rothschilds were referring to was yet another monetary control scheme capable of controlling government through the takeover of its banking and currency.   The "system," as it was described, would eventually come to be known as our "Federal Reserve System,"   which is no more federal than Federal Express;   but once again the banksters were attempting to fool the rubes, and largely succeeded, just as they have ever since.)

And so it would appear that the lessons we have all been taught in school, regarding the origins of our Civil War, have been prepared for us in a way that protects the ability of banksters to cleverly keep living as very well-fed parasites, who covertly and steadily steal from all of us, day in and day out.   Slavery seems to have served as a cover for motives far more sinister, and for ongoing theft on a massive scale, neatly hidden, which persisted much longer than the kind of slavery the Civil War ended.   Now, instead, we are all enslaved by indebtedness to banksters and to the "relentlessly jamming of their 'blood funnels' into anything that smells like money."