Monday, March 21, 2011

The Banks and Banksters - Part I

This is what I hope will be the first of many exposing the banks and banksters as the enemies of America and of the world. Unfortunately, I've been having a difficult time knuckling down to write and when I do words don't flow as they once did.

Two things inspired me to write this, or maybe I should say, to put it together because Jefferson wrote most of it.

One was the infuriating commercials that aired during the football season. In particular ads by Citizens Bank featuring Alexander Hamilton as the champion of “good” banking.

Anyone who knows Hamilton's record knows he was an economic royalist, that he either convinced or conspired with Washington to saddle us with our first national bank against the advice of Jefferson, and that he tried to sell us the Constitution without the Bill of Rights.

Without that, it a blueprint for a totalitarian central government of, by, and for his wealthy friends. We also know that he was a liar just by reading his contributions to the Federalist Papers. The claims he made regarding the limitations on the federal government were sustained for awhile, but only by the First Ten Amendments. They have long been ignored and the truth of the tyranny Hamilton gave us is becoming more evident even to some of the slowest thinkers among us.

One good thing about those commercials is that the truth about banking is apparently becoming more widely known and has put the banksters on the defensive. The thrust of the commercials did not even seem to be to sell Citizens Bank. It was a blatant bankster propaganda piece to counter the spreading truth. The big lie in these commercials was their claim of how banking works. We were told that one “citizen” would take his money and put it in the bank. The bank would then loan this money to another “citizen” who wants to build a house, start a business, or to finance some other project (I don't remember the exact examples given).

The illusion was created that “citizens” were the source of loans to “citizens” to build the economy. Nothing was mentioned of how the banks expand that depositor's money many times with simple bookkeeping entries that placed the "money" in the accounts of many borrowers. Citizens Bank didn't bother to mention that they were creating inflation with etherbacks—that they were drawing interest on the deposited money many times over, a system that can ultimately lead only to bank ownership of everything. If Jefferson opposed greenbacks that had nothing of substance behind them, how much more horrified would he have been at the concept of the etherback that hasn't even a physical substance of its own.

This post pertains to banking systems all over the world, and anyone with observational skills should be able to see that this is the cause of the pending collapse of the dollar and the world's financial ills. The rich continue to get richer, the poor poorer, and the independent middle-class wiped out.



"If the debt which the banking companies owe be a is to themselves alone, who are realizing a solid interest of eight to ten per cent on it.

As to the public, these companies have banished all our gold and silver medium, which...before we had without interest, which never could have perished in our hands, and would have been our salvation now in the hour of war; instead of which they have given us two hundred millions of froth and bubble, on which we are to pay them heavy interest..."
(Letter to Eppes).

"Here we have a set of people...who have bestowed on us the great blessing of running in our debt about 200 millions of dollars, without our knowing who they are or what they are... And to fill up the measure of blessings, instead of paying, they receive an interest on what they owe...

And they are so ready still to deal out their liberalities to us that they are willing to let themselves run our debt ninety millions more, on our paying them the same premium of six or eight percent interest..."
(Letter to Eppes, November 6, 1813).

"(T)he toleration of banks of paper discount, costs the United States one-half of their war taxes, or, in other words, doubles the expenses of every war."
(Letter to Eppes).


"The monopoly of a single bank is certainly an evil."
(Letter to Gallatin, 1802).

Book edited by Saul Padover (1953)

"The bill for establishing a National Bank undertakes among other things...

7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under the national authority; and so far is against the laws of monopoly...

The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States by the Constitution."
(Opinion Opposing the Bank, February 15, 1791).


"My wish was to see both Houses of Congress cleansed of all persons interested in the bank or public stocks; and that a pure legislature being given us, I should always be ready to acquiesce under their deliberations, even if contrary to my own opinions; for I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority, honestly expressed, should give law."


"This institution (Bank of the U.S.) is one of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution... an institution like this, penetrating by its branches every part of the Union, acting by command and in phalanx, may, in a critical moment, upset the government."
(Letter to Gallatin, 1803).


"If the American People ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied.

The issuing power of money should be taken from the bankers and restored to Congress and the people to whom it belongs.

I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies."

"We are completely saddled and bridled, and the bank is so firmly mounted on us that we must go where they ill guide."

"The dominion which the banking institutions have obtained over the minds of our citizens...must be broken, or it will break us."
(Letter to James Monroe, January 1, 1815).


"Funding I consider as limited, rightfully, to a redemption of the debt within the lives of a majority of the generation contracting it; every generation coming equally, by the laws of the Creator of the world, to the free possession of the earth he made for their subsistence, unencumbered by their predecessors, who like them, were but tenants for life."
(Letter to John Taylor, Monticello, May 28, 1816).


"The unlimited emission of bank paper has banished all her (Great Britain's) specie, and is now, by depreciation ...carrying her rapidly to bankruptcy as it did France, and as it did us, and... every country permitting paper to be circulated, other than that held by public authority, rigorously limited to the just measure for circulation.

Private fortunes, in the present state of our circulation, are at the mercy of these self-elected money-lenders, and are frustrated by the flood of nominal money with which their avarice deluges us..."

"(P)aper is is only the ghost of money and not money itself."
(Letter to Edward Carrington).

"Although all the nations of Europe have tried and trodden every path of force and folly in a fruitless quest of the same object, yet WE still expect to find in juggling tricks and banking dreams, that money can be made out of nothing, and in sufficient quantity to meet the expenses of a heavy war..."
(Letter to James Monroe, January 1, 1815).

"There is scarcely a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh--get first the people's money, then all their lands, and then make them and their children servants forever."

"(S)pecie is the most perfect medium, because it will preserve its own level; because, having intrinsic and universal value, it can never die in our hands, and is the surest resource of reliance in time of war; that the trifling economy of paper...weighs nothing in opposition to the advantages of the precious metals; that (paper currency) has been, is, and forever will be abused, in every country in which it permitted; that it is already at a term of abuse in these States, which has never been reached in any nation, France excepted, whose deadly catastrophe (under John Law) should be a warning against the instrument which produced it; that we are already at ten or twenty times the due quantity of (necessary) medium; insomuch that no man knows what his property is worth...

Instead, then, of yielding to the cries of scarcity of medium... no endeavors should be spared to begin the work of reducing it by such gradual means as may give time to private fortunes to preserve their poise, and settle down with the subsiding medium; and that, for this purpose, the States should be urged to concede to the General Government...the exclusive power of establishing banks" with power to issue currency.

"The Federal Government--I deny their power to make paper money a legal tender."

"We are to be ruined now by the deluge of bank paper, as we were formerly by the old Continental paper.

It is cruel that such revolutions in private fortunes should be at the mercy of avaricious adventurers, who, instead of employing their capital, if any they have, in manufactures, commerce, and other useful pursuits, make it an instrument to burthen all the interchanges of property with their swindling profits, profits which are the price of no useful industry of theirs.

Prudent men must be on their guard in this game of Robin's alive, and take care that the spark does not extinguish in their hands.

I am an enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but coin.

But our whole country is so fascinated by this Jack-lantern wealth, that they will not stop short of its total and fatal explosion."

It's sad, but this last prediction of Jefferson is coming true today. Our children, and our children's children unto the third and fourth generation will have justification to curse us. Let's hope enough truth survives to allow the fifth generation to free itself from bondage.

Return to TOC

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

A Litmus Test for Enemies

I found the following article on the website of L. Neil Smith. While many criminal acts, including acts of treason have been committed by the people and groups listed in this blog, Smith provides a true litmus test that can be applied to any local, state, federal, or “world” government official, elected or appointed. Any politician or bureaucrat who wants to take away or infringe in any way upon your natural right to defend yourself, the natural right of all living organisms, recognized not granted by the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, is an enemy of YOUR ENEMY! Peoples from other countries can apply this test to their own government officials. If they don't trust you with the means to protect yourself, you should not trust them with the power of government.

Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?  by L. Neil Smith

Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—or political philosophy—is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil—like "Constitutionalist"—when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician—or political philosophy—is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun—but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school—or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway—Prussian, maybe—and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man—and you're not—what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

On the other hand—or the other party—should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue—health care, international trade—all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn't true, is it?

Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author—provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.

I think it appropriate to follow Mr. Smith's article with this summary of Paul Harvey's death count of disarmed peoples of the world. It offers a good test of the motivation of those seeking to disarm you.

"That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated."

The Harvey count is posted in:

Return to TOC