Okay, so sooner or later on every show about the New World Order the subject of Assassinations comes into play. Now I have never been one to be too interested in the finer details of the JFK assassination; I don’t really care if there was one shooter, two shooters, a knoll that was grassy or not so grassy, etc.

Is There a Common Thread?

However, I am quite interested on a more “macro” level and looking at not just the assassination of JFK, but at all of the Presidential assassinations to see if there is a common thread. To that end some basic details need to be reviewed.

Lincoln

First there have been four successful Presidential assassinations, at least three of which were ardent opponents to the central banking monopoly of power. Starting with Abraham Lincoln, the first successful Presidential assassination, we see that the bankers and the President were diametrically opposed. Lincoln did serve the interest of the bankers in bringing the country into Civil War (both sides of which the banks financed). While engaging in the war Lincoln made two very significant changes in monetary policy, both were done to raise money for the civil war.

The first measure was the signing of the National Banking Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Banking_Act). This act tied the issuing of Bank Notes to government debt. In other words, it allowed National banks (and all but forbade smaller State chartered banks) to issue bank notes, or paper promises to provide real money, which circulated as currency. The reason this war time measure was taken was because the National bank reserves now had to be in the form of government bonds (debt). This is one of the main factors that funded the Civil War. The more money the National Banks created and used to buy government bonds, the more the government was going into debt to the bankers.

National Bank Notes - Created by Banks and Backed By Government Debt

The second measure, which was much less popular with the bankers, was the issuance of “greenbacks” from the Treasury. These greenbacks, or United States Notes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note), were actually issued by the government whereas today there are “Federal Reserve Notes” which are issued by the Federal Reserve, a corporation whose stock is owned by powerful multi-national banks. Greenbacks were the first non-debt based national currency since the Revolutionary War. This meant that when the government authorized and printed these greenbacks they could spend them into the economy (largely for the war effort) and there was no debt to pay back left in their wake. In most other cases the government needs to “borrow” new money that is created by bankers and pay the bankers back plus interest.

Does Your Money Say "United States Note"?

So Lincoln’s greenbacks were in direct competition with the National Bank notes. The more the government printed and used the greenbacks (US Notes) the less they were dependent on selling debt to the bankers in exchange for money (National Bank Notes) they created. Since the government’s war-time need for money was so huge the bankers didn’t mind too much sharing the market with the greenbacks. After the civil war ended, when the governments demand for cash was drastically reduced, the bankers wanted to kill the issuance of greenbacks so that any deficit spending of the government would mean the government, or by extension the general public, would become more and more indebted to the bankers.

While they did successfully stall any further issuance of greenbacks, Lincoln had big plans for the post-Civil War Reconstruction period. Notice the following quote from Lincoln taken from Senate document 23, page 91 from 1865:

• The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency… needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.”

Not exactly music to the ears of the bankers who were planning to have the power to issue all the currency in the form of national bank notes that were built on government debt. They would one day have their wish as is the case today when none of the money in your wallet says “United States Note” instead it is all issued by the authority of the “Federal Reserve” which is a privately owned bank under very limited government regulation. However, this dream may never had been able to be realized if Lincoln had been able to expand the US Notes to the point where they would have satisfied the nations need for currency and the public would have enjoyed the benefits of having money provided without the government going into debt in the process (as is the case today).

The Monetary War

So, what did the bankers do about it? Well, I must pause a moment just to say that the implication that is about to follow is somewhat speculative. In life there is always a difference between what you believe and what you can prove definitively, I just like to make it clear when I am presenting a belief. However, in the context of the other assassinations you will see that this is not such an unreasonable belief. I am of course referring to the fact that 5 days after General Lee surrendered, officially ending the war and opening the way for Lincoln to phase out National Bank Notes in favor of United States Notes, he was shot dead.

Again, all of the above is 100% fact, the only speculative portion being the implication that the bankers arranged the assassination. Look, of course Booth was the one who shot him and he was a Confederate that wanted to be immortalized in history. The stories we are taught in school about these events are “true” but are they the whole truth? Was he helped along, given access and other help to complete the difficult act of assassinating a world leader? In Latin there is an expression that is used to cut right to the heart of a matter: Cui Bono, which means “to whose benefit?”. I leave you with the facts above showing how the ones who had the most to gain from Lincolns death were the central (or national) bankers that wanted to keep control of the power to issue money.

In this context, notice what a contemporary had to say about Lincoln’s assassination, namely the statesman of Germany, Otto Von Bismark:

• “The death of Lincoln was a disaster for Christendom. There was no man in the United States great enough to wear his boots… I fear that foreign bankers with their craftiness and tortuous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of America, and use it systematically to corrupt modern civilization. They will not hesitate to plunge the whole of Christendom into wars and chaos in order that the earth should become their inheritance”.

Unfortunately, this would not be the only President he would live to see assassinated. It is interesting how he puts the onus on foreign bankers that had been seeking to gain control of the issuance of money in the U.S. since its independence from Great Britian. What’s interesting is that often times xenophobia is blamed for any mention of “international bankers” but Bismark also being foreign to the United States was not speaking out of xenophobia but was just plainly explaining the state of affairs that was understood then but which has been obscured in modern history books and in the media.

Garfield

James A. Garfield was not a friend of the central bankers. Unfortunately for the bankers they didn’t know this until after he was inaugurated. Notice the speech he gave shortly after his rise to the office of President:

• “Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce… when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate”.

Quote is from just weeks before his assassination!

To give some context to the above statement, Garfield became in favor of forcing banks to provide the gold they claimed to have when customers came in to redeem their Bank Notes or withdraw their demand deposits. In the National Banking Act we discussed there were several loop holes where banks could avoid having to fork up the real money the certificates claimed to represent.

For banks this meant that their ability to, not just loan out their money but to create new money that had no gold to back it would be greatly reduced. In a sense, depositors would have a means of keeping a bank “honest” if Garfield had his way.

Now before his election the bankers may have thought he would be useful since he did oppose silver which the banks hated because again it competed with their National Bank notes. However, the reason Garfield opposed silver was because it had been overvalued as compared to gold but it became clear that he would be open to silver money if the exchange of Gold to Silver would be more equitable.

Anyway, to get back to the main point here, we can plainly see that President Garfield was not happy with the fact that a few powerful bankers had the power to control the volume of money in circulation, which he rightly equated with them being the unknown masters of society.

A few weeks after he is recorded as making that daring attack on the banking elite, he was shot by his eventual assassin. I say eventual because he did not die on the spot. It was a slow death that was hastened by his doctors that ruptured his liver while apparently attempting to remove a bullet. Thomas Edison even tried to help with this difficult bullet inventing a metal detector to find it, but to no avail.

What was the result? Ten years later the letter below was issued by the American Bankers Association in 1881. While reading the quote keep in mind that they are talking about what they will do three full years in advance:

• “On September 1st, 1894, we will not renew our loans under any consideration. On September 1st we will demand our money. We will foreclose and become mortgagees in possession. We can take two-thirds of the farms west of the Mississippi, and thousands of them east of the Mississippi as well, at our own price… Then the farmers will become tenants as in England.”

So the letter, while sounding sinister also sounds like they will just be enforcing their legal options – which is true. However, if Garfield had lived he would have drastically limited the power of the banks, or at least attempted to by limiting their ability for the banks to create money out of thin air. With the laws remaining in their favor it made the above letter more than idle words.

It may be wise to reflect on these statements made by Lincoln and Garfield and ask yourself this question: when was the last time you heard a President ardently denounce the banking system (not just bonuses to banking CEO’s which ironically could be considered one of the more legitimate aspects of banking by comparison)? Well, while you are thinking of the answer we will just tell you to make it easier: John F. Kennedy.

John F. Kennedy

Now, historically speaking, the Kennedy family was involved in many shady business dealings that are well documented and don’t need to be harped on here. My point in bringing it up is not to brand the Kennedy family as corrupt boot-legging Nazi-collaborators (although there is evidence to that effect) but to point out that the banking establishment had reason to believe that JFK would have been easy to manipulate. Also, he expressed in his campaign support for various spending programs that had the potential to put the government in greater debt to the banks by running deficits.

Banker Friend or Foe?

However, shortly after JFK became President they were abruptly woken up by the fact that JFK was not afraid to discuss some touchy topics. Indulge me a bit in the following simplified timeline:

January 20th, 1961 – JFK enters office as the President of the United States. Three months later he gives what is often referred to as the “Secret Societies” speech to the American Newspaper Publishers Association. In this speech he says that America had been “inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings.” He then went on to describe what can only be a description of the international banking elite when he said “we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.”

Some may say he was simply referring to the soviet empire, but yet if so there would be no reason to leave out any reference to the Russians. Also the connection to secret societies would have no relevance in the context of the Cold War. Not too say that they didn’t play a part in this “monolithic conspiracy” of which he was referring. We could speculate all day about the finer details but what is of much greater use is to examine the public record.

There were a few significant steps that Kennedy was taking that would have been hubris in the banking community. First, on October 11, 1963, Kennedy signed NSAM 263, initiating a withdrawal of 1,000 troops (roughly 5 – 10%) from the American presence in Vietnam. Other documents, including planning documents from the spring of 1963, show that this was the first step in a planned complete withdrawal. There is always some question with regard to government documents because often times there are several contradictory plans that are being championed by different interests in an administration.

The Role of Bankers Is Downplayed

What is known for a certainty is that the bankers, who had financed both sides of every war since the days of Napoleon, made major profits financing the war. In recent history, the banks are set up in multiple ways to profit from war. The most direct way is by ownership in most of the defense companies. Every company, individual and even government are in debt to the banks paying vast sums of interest to them annually which they shrewdly use to increase their ownership of not only defense companies but the Fortune 500 which they own directly and indirectly via holdings of the Federal Reserve. Another way the bankers, who own and control the Federal Reserve Corporation, make out in war time is by the debt built up by the Government which is justified as needed to win the war. Remember when the Government goes into deficit territory it makes up the budget difference by going to the federal reserve and giving them an IOU (or treasury bond) in exchange for newly created money.

What is also a matter of public record is what happened in Vietnam after JFK was assassinated; President Johnson drastically escalated the logistics police action into an all out war. I bring up Vietnam first because in actuality there was something much more threatening JFK had done to the banking elite. Wars come and go, but one thing the bankers don’t ever want to lose is their authority to create money.

Now JFK wasn’t about to take that power away from banks, but he did take an enormously significant step in that direction with the signing of Executive Order 11110. There is a scant description of the order on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110) but it does not express the significance of this order.

Executive Order 11110 ordered the re-circulation of more silver certificates, among other provisions. This may sound in itself insignificant, but remember that these silver certificates were “United States Notes” that were issued by the Treasury and represented real silver. This form of money, which was essentially Lincoln’s greenbacks, could be issued by the government and spent without creating debt. Just like the Vietnam troop withdrawal this was just a first step towards fulfilling Lincoln’s dream that “The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency…” as we discussed earlier. This would have put the power to issue money back in the hands of the government and taken it away (at least partially) from private bankers. That should strike the average person as strange that bankers can, in any way, create or issue money. This strange privileged has been compared to putting the police department under the control of the Mafia.

It took just five months after the signing of Executive Order 11110, and just one month after the signing of the first troop withdrawal from Viet Nam, for John F. Kennedy to be assassinated. Every President since has steadily increased the power of the privately owned Federal Reserve and none has said so much as a word about the reintroduction of the “greenbacks”, the United States Notes. The 150 year struggle for the central bankers not to take over has been nearly erased from the history books and no one in the media ever questions why we all walk around with money that proudly declares it was issued by a privately owned bank with the words “Federal Reserve Note”.

AJ on a Federal Reserve Note?

By

Jordan Kaufman

Jordan is host of the Las Vegas based radio program Corruption Radio, on KDWN 720 AM and is editor and main contributor of CorruptionRadio.com

Send Jordan your comments to Jordan@CorruptionRadio.com (VM: 702-560-1948). Follow on Twitter: CorruptionShow