Downloaded from YTS.MX
Official YIFY movies site: YTS.MX
[introspective electronic music]
- Four United States presidents
have been assassinated,
and all four had something in common.
Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley,
and John F. Kennedy were the victimized
Commanders-in-Chief.
Conventional wisdom is that Honest Abe
angered many Southerners whose economy, in large part,
revolved around the legalization of slavery.
And what could Abraham Lincoln's murder
have to do with the assassination of James Garfield
17 years later in 1881,
or the shooting death of President William McKinley in 1901?
And what could possibly be the common thread
that connects all three of these historic leaders' killings
to the infamous 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy?
After all, Kennedy's murder was nearly 100 years
after the Lincoln assassination.
The beloved JFK was credited
with highly important civil rights advancements
helping black Americans.
Could this be the linking motive
between his murder and Abraham Lincoln's?
Racial tensions, of course,
were also raging during the McKinley
and Garfield presidencies.
Were the perpetrators all fueled by racism?
There were also grave matters involving foreign policy
that angered many Americans
during each of these presidents' terms.
Both Presidents McKinley and Garfield
had major international crises brewing
right before their assassinations.
But also, core to it all, is one common thread, money.
Our government, so simply, is run on the basis of money,
and how, and who issues and controls it
is as much a founding building block
as the First and Fourth Amendments.
Mayor Amschel Rothschild
of the powerful banking house
of Rothschild and Sons infamously said,
- [Amschel] "Give me the power to create
"a nation's money, and I care not who makes its laws."
- President Lincoln, President Garfield,
President McKinley, and President Kennedy
all died for the same reason.
And it has something to do with money.
[ominous piano music]
[suspenseful electronic music]
[ominous piano music]
[eerie piano music]
There are many odd similarities and eerie facts
that join together the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations.
Some are widely known,
others are rather obscure.
Of course, everyone knows
that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated
by John Wilkes Booth,
and John F. Kennedy was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald.
- [Narrator] John Wilkes Booth was born in 1839,
Lee Harvey Oswald was born in 1939.
After shooting Lincoln, Booth ran from a theater
and was caught in a warehouse.
Oswald ran from a warehouse
and was caught in a theater.
Booth was killed before his trial, and so was Oswald.
Abraham Lincoln was first elected to Congress in 1846.
John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.
Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860.
John F. Kennedy was elected president in 1960.
Both Lincoln and Kennedy were known for their advocacy
of civil rights.
Both presidents presided over major wars.
Lincoln was president during the Civil War.
JFK was president during the Vietnam War.
Both presidents were assassinated by Southerners.
Both presidents were succeeded by their vice presidents
who were southerners.
Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln,
was born in 1808.
Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy,
was born in 1908.
Both Andrew Johnson and Lyndon B. Johnson were Democrats.
Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy,
and Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln.
Lincoln's secretary warned him
not to go to Ford's Theater,
and Kennedy's secretary warned him
not to go to Dallas.
And both Kennedy and Lincoln were killed
in the presence of their wives.
- Although these similarities are mystifying
and maybe scary,
they don't explain the reason
why these two presidents were murdered
or the reason why Presidents McKinley
and Garfield were murdered,
as the reason for all four of them
was exactly the same.
These men didn't just attempt to do something.
They actually carried it out.
They changed the United States monetary system,
and it got them killed,
all four of them by the same method of execution.
They were shot to death.
[eerie electronic music]
Understanding how money is issued
and who actually controls it
and how these people and entities today
make hundreds of billions of dollars
from this system every year
will help to understand the reason why these four men
had their presidencies terminated earlier than planned.
When you look closely at the money in your wallet or purse,
you will notice at the top of each bill,
the words Federal Reserve note.
But what is the Federal Reserve?
Most Americans assume the Federal Reserve banks
are part of the government.
They are not, the Federal Reserve banks
are private corporations,
partially owned by foreign interests.
These banks and their stockholders
control the greater bulk of wealth in America.
To better understand the true identity and purpose
of these corporations,
one must go back to the earliest days of our nation.
During the period after the American Revolution
but before the drafting of the Constitution,
our Founding Fathers were approached by representatives
of wealthy banking families from Europe.
They proposed the establishment of a central bank
for use by America.
This bank would provide the money
that our young country needed
to grow into a vibrant nation.
However, the Founding Fathers rejected their proposal.
The United States, being a sovereign nation,
was fully capable of creating its own money supply.
This power, quote, "To coin money
"and regulate the value thereof," end quote,
was given to our Congress in the Constitution.
Aside from knowing that the United States
had the power to create its own currency,
the Founding Fathers were well aware
of the motives of the bankers,
namely, to siphon off the wealth and natural resources
of the people through various methods
of currency manipulation
just as they had done throughout history
in every major country in Europe.
- [Thomas] I believe that banking establishments
are more dangerous than standing armies.
Bank paper must be suppressed,
and the circulating medium must be restored
to the nation to whom it belongs.
[eerie piano music]
- The primary proponent of a central bank
for the early United States was Alexander Hamilton.
Sponsored by the international banking conglomerates
and wealthy elites,
Hamilton convinced the U.S. leadership
that this central bank, owned and controlled
by his wealthy patrons,
would partner with the United States
and establish a very profitable banking franchise.
Thus, a 20-year charter was granted to the first bank
of the United States in 1792.
Over the next 20 years,
this central bank issued bank notes
against the nation's gold coins.
The ever-evolving monetary monster,
financed and took an ownership interest
in nearly every major business endeavor
started in the United States.
The bankers, most of whom were Europeans,
soon convinced the new Congress
that the United States should sell their 20% share
to the bank,
and by 1808, the First Bank of the United States
was totally private, and its profits were enormous.
This did not escape notice of Congress,
who refused to renew their charter in 1811.
That same year, however,
the nation quickly discovered itself
embroiled in conflicts with Great Britain
which led to the War of 1812.
The British invaded and sacked Washington,
burning the White House and most government buildings.
Suffering financial difficulties created by the war,
Congress rechartered the bank,
and then the British withdrew from U.S. soil.
[ominous piano music]
This Second Bank of the United States
also had a 20-year charter.
And by the time it was up for renewal,
the president in office was Andrew Jackson.
And Jackson, well, he was a fiery man
who happened to strongly oppose
this central, private banking system
and paper money overall.
Andrew Jackson had gained fame
as a general in the United States Army
who fearlessly fought his British enemies
in the War of 1812.
He then served in both houses of Congress,
never finding an issue he didn't want to fight.
As president, Jackson sought to advance the rights
of the common man
against the corrupt aristocracy,
and the bank was on his hit list to eliminate.
- [Andrew] "The bold effort the present bank had made
"to control the government
"are but premonitions of the fate
"that await the American people
"should they be deluded into a perpetuation
"of this institution
"or the establishment of another like it."
- And kill the bank, Andrew Jackson did.
By a veto of the bank's new charter,
in hopes of extorting a rescue
of their privately-controlled central bank,
banking moguls and their political henchmen
introduced a short-lived financial panic
that was initially blamed on Jackson.
But the people were all the wiser
with grave concern that a single centralized private bank
had been issuing America's currency
instead of the U.S. government.
"Why should these private bankers profit so vastly
"when the government itself could issue
"and control the money supply?", Jackson asked.
This riled the majority of Americans
who were disturbed by the bank's monopoly power
to issue money and its political favoritism
in granting of loans.
The Second Bank of the United States
had overplayed its hand.
It very arrogantly and indiscreetly denied loans
to supporters of Andrew Jackson
while bestowing loans to his opponents.
By 1834, a general backlash
against the central bank's tactics had widely spread,
and all recharter efforts were abandoned.
At this point, their monopoly power was shattered,
and the power to issue money
fell to any state-chartered banking institution,
and there were many.
The Second Bank of the United States chieftains,
always crafty and highly funded, simply switched gears.
In February 1836, this central bank
became a private corporation
under Pennsylvania Commonwealth law.
Still having some power,
the centralized bankers utilized it through relationships
with numerous individual private banks.
And suddenly, a contrived shortage of money ensued,
causing the Panic of 1837.
Everyone, regardless of politics, was affected.
[melancholy piano music]
This panic lasted approximately seven years
until a system of banking
completely excluding a centralized bank
gained its full footing.
And from 1841 through 1857,
America lived the greatest economic prosperity
it had ever seen.
During this period, with no centralized
Second Bank of the United States involved in it whatsoever,
federal revenue was solely diverted
into smaller, unaffiliated banks by executive order.
Never willing to give up on their uber-powerful
and mega-wealthy wealth creating monster
of a business, however,
the international centralized bankers fostered a series
of purported bank panics
to highlight their indispensable role.
The Panic of 1857, the Panic of 1873,
the Panic of 1884, the Panic of 1893,
and the Panic of 1896.
There were many naysayers who recognized
that these panics were bogus,
but a combination of greed and stupidity
among the majority of top U.S. government decision makers
allowed the centralized bank, in one form or another,
to continually reemerge.
Finally, in 1907, one final alleged banking panic
shifted public opinion back in favor
of a centralized bank system.
The European families, led by the Rothschilds,
recognized that finally their chance to take full control
of America's banking system had once again arrived.
The European bankers began,
through the newspapers they own
and lobby groups they funded,
to call for full banking reform.
They clamored for Congressional investigations
into the current banking system
and offered their expertise in drafting reforms
that would protect the public against future bank failures.
[eerie piano music]
By 1912, so widespread was public concern
over banking reform
that presidential candidates from each political party
offered their own carefully-drafted versions
of a national monetary reform bill.
What the public had no way of knowing
was that the two main competing reform bills
were virtually identical, as both were written
by the same German banker, Paul Warburg.
The public also had no way of knowing
that the election campaigns
of the three 1912 presidential candidates
were financed by Warburg's firm, Kuhn Loeb and Company,
one of the wealthiest and oldest banking houses of Europe.
By controlling not only the content
of the banking reform bill
but also the results of the 1912 presidential election,
the foreign banking interests were guaranteed
that their dream of establishing
a new permanent central bank for America
would finally be realized.
This allowed for their complete control
over America's money as they once had
with the First and Second Banks of the United States.
In 1913, the Warburg central bank plan,
intentionally mischaracterized as the Federal Reserve Act,
was signed into law
by newly-elected president Woodrow Wilson.
This bill officially transferred
Congress' constitutional duty to issue America's money
into the hands of a private cartel,
the Federal Reserve banks.
Stock in these private corporations
was not made available to the public
and was purchased only by the banks' leadership who,
of course, were the powerful international banking families.
At its inception, the activities
of the Federal Reserve banks were intended
to be monitored by the president and Congress.
However, over the years,
through repeated subtle changes in legislation,
the operations of these corporations
have become completely independent
of all congressional control.
Extremely secretive in its operation,
these corporations even refuse to be fully audited
by the United States government,
with minimal congressional opposition
as both mainstream political parties
receive the majority of their funding
through these internationally owned banks.
To understand how the Federal Reserve banks
have successfully converted the U.S.
from the world's largest creditor in 1913
to the world's biggest debtor today,
it is only necessary to examine the procedure
that these corporations employ to create our currency.
When the management of the Federal Reserve banks
will claim that one billion dollars should be issued
for use by the American people,
they simply create one billion dollars
and lend it into the banking system.
By doing so, new money enters circulation
as the Federal Reserve banks,
the creators of money, are not required
to have any actual funds of their own.
With this money, they simply purchase
one billion dollars' worth of U.S. Treasury debt
from its member banks.
The banks now have one billion new dollars in their accounts
which they will then loan into the economy at high interest.
Is it any wonder, then,
that the bankers were so persistent in their efforts
to be granted the right to issue America's currency?
When the Federal Reserve banks take possession
of U.S. Treasury debt,
they also take possession and control
of the real wealth of America,
as it is the hard labor and property
of millions of citizens
transferred into the Treasury through taxes
that backs up the actual worth of this Treasury debt.
Each time these private corporations,
called the Federal Reserve banks,
purchase a billion dollars in debt,
one billion dollars' worth of American labor and property
must eventually be confiscated by the Treasury
to cover the new debt.
It may now be obvious why Thomas Jefferson
so vehemently fought the issuance of America's currency
by a private bank.
To add to the oppressive nature of our current money system,
the Federal Reserve Bank will collect annual interest
on the Treasury debt it holds,
further adding to the indebtedness of the American citizens
to the Treasury and thus the Federal Reserve banks.
One sometimes hears the term "debt money"
used to describe the notes issued by the Federal Reserve.
Under our present system of money creation,
it is a sad fact that each dollar note
issued by this corporation
places one dollar's worth of debt
onto the backs of the American population.
The effect of the Federal Reserve banks on our nation
and its citizens has been devastating.
Since 1913, the value of the American dollar
has fallen to 11 cents.
Our gold reserves have lost all correlation
to money in circulation.
Interest rates rise and fall arbitrarily,
and a continually inflated money supply
wipes out the value of lifelong savings.
And soon enough, interest payments on the national debt
will exceed all revenue collected annually by the Treasury.
It's frightening that not one in 100,000 Americans
would be able to guess the identity
of the actual group responsible for these tragic statistics.
The culprit is the Federal Reserve.
Federal Reserve notes in our wallets and purses
are not constitutional money.
They are in fact pieces of paper
which document America's ever-growing debt
to the very clever, very persistent
and very wealthy stockholders of the Federal Reserve banks.
As President Woodrow Wilson said
in that most important year of 1913,
- [Woodrow] "We have come to be one of the worst-ruled,
"one of the most completely controlled
"and dominated governments in the civilized world.
"No longer a government by free opinion,
"no longer a government by conviction
"and the vote of the majority,
"but a government by the opinion
"and the duress of small groups of dominant men."
- What got Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley
and Kennedy assassinated wasn't just
usual matters of money and greed.
No, it was much more.
It was that they were tampering
with the most powerful players
in the U.S. monetary system,
the international centralized private banks
who took over issuing America's money
instead of the U.S. Treasury.
Now each of these presidents was killed
by a lone gunman, right?
We're wrong, well, let's take a look
at what each assassinated president did one by one
and who may have killed them.
[suspenseful piano music]
Four months into his presidency,
James A. Garfield was shot by Charles Guiteau
at the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Station
in Washington, DC.
But who was Charles Guiteau?
He could best be described as an intellectual drifter
who failed at many professional endeavors.
Yet he craved praise for his botched undertakings.
Guiteau developed some sort of law practice.
He tried his hand at bill collections.
He doted on God with a stab at theology.
He even journeyed with John Humphrey Noyes's
Perfectionist religious commune, the Oneida Community.
A cult-like group, this community believed
that Jesus had already made his second coming
back in 70 A.D.
Through this theory, the Oneidas believed
that they could live perfectly, free of sin,
and live in a heaven on earth.
If Jesus had already returned,
then the Millennial Kingdom was here for them to realize.
The Oneida Community practiced communalism
and mutual criticism.
The latter meant that at weekly group meetings,
everyone could criticize each other without repercussions.
According to the group's leader, John Noyes,
this was designed to eliminate
undesirable character traits,
or perhaps it was a component of a communalism society
where not only possessions and property were shared
but thoughts, too, like a venue for shaping minds
where all share equally in the thought,
property, and money pie, sound familiar?
Maybe like socialism and communism?
After spending five years with the Oneida Community,
could Charles Guiteau have been
a socialist and communist sympathizer?
Does that type of assassin sound familiar,
like one Lee Harvey Oswald?
But why would a socialist-minded type person
want to assassinate James Garfield,
or John F. Kennedy, for that matter?
Perhaps this could have something to do with money.
Because isn't the basis of socialism and communism
one thing, money,
just like it is with any form of economy?
President Garfield was a tried-and-true capitalist.
He saw the economy as a moral issue
and that everyone should have the ability
to obtain the American Dream.
The only real way to succeed in that dream
is through capitalism, of course.
History has proven that every socialist society
has turned into communism,
which means that about 1% of the society is uber-wealthy
with the rest being super-poor.
There is no middle class in communist countries,
nor in socialist economies.
Accordingly, communism and socialism, well, stink.
That's what President Garfield thought, at least.
But not Charles Guiteau.
Oh, by the way, James Garfield wanted the U.S.
to return to the gold standard.
Would this upset a socialist?
Let's try to put it all together.
The United States government's story
is that Guiteau fired a bullet into Garfield
because he was enraged that the president
didn't appoint him to an ambassador post.
You see, Guiteau had written a speech
in favor of Garfield's candidacy.
According to official historical accounts,
Guiteau believed that this speech was integral
if not the deciding factor
in leading to Garfield's victory
over his Democrat opponent, Winfield Hancock.
Unfortunately for Guiteau, no one else thought that.
His speech, entitled "Garfield versus Hancock,"
was originally called "Grant versus Hancock."
That's because Guiteau first believed
that Ulysses S. Grant would win the Republican nomination
in the 1880 presidential election.
When Grant lost the nomination to Garfield,
Guiteau changed the title of his speech
to "Garfield versus Hancock."
With speech in hand, Guiteau seemingly joined
the Garfield campaign.
However, he never publicly read the speech,
and he only distributed a few hundred written copies.
The speech was criticized because it was replete
with references to Grant's policies,
which weren't necessarily promulgated by Garfield.
In a rush to switch the speech to pertain to Garfield,
Guiteau apparently was careless,
and it read more like a stump speech for Grant.
The general consensus is that his speech
was wholly ineffective
and had no bearing whatsoever on Garfield's campaign.
Still, most historians proclaim that Guiteau was delusional
and believed that his "Garfield versus Hancock" speech
was the linchpin to Garfield's win.
And after the election,
Guiteau sought to be appointed ambassador of Vienna.
It is reported that he bounced from Republican event
to Republican event, lobbying for this post
and citing his speech as the basis for the appointment.
He visited the White House,
even dropping off a copy of his speech
to the newly elected Garfield.
And for the next few months,
he bantered back and forth
between the State Department and the White House
fervently advocating his ambassadorship cause
to Cabinet members and whoever else
in the power hierarchy he could reach.
Finally, Mr. Guiteau advised that he would settle
for a diplomatic post in Paris.
He wasn't gaining much traction, however.
Guiteau had been staying in varied D.C. area boardinghouses,
allegedly beating his bills
and rarely changing his clothes.
The government says he was becoming
more and more desperate and crazed
to earn his appointment.
And after being banned from the White House,
he approached Secretary of State James G. Blaine
who reportedly told him,
- [James] "Never speak to me again
"of the Paris consulship as long as you live."
- Run-of-the-mill historical accounts
provide that the sum total
of this Garfield Administration rebuke
resulted in Guiteau electing to assassinate the president.
More so, it is said that Guiteau declared
that a higher power commanded him to kill President Garfield
and that he stated,
- [Charles] "I leave my justification to God."
- God's command and Justification for the shooting,
of course, was rooted in Garfield's lack of gratitude
for Guiteau's speech
until his decision to not appoint Guiteau
to one of the diplomatic positions.
Now, would God do that?
Would a crazy person even think
that God would issue such an order?
Maybe, maybe there was something more to this.
Do you know what else James A. Garfield
pushed extremely hard for?
A hint, it was something
that the first assassinated president was known for,
civil rights for black Americans.
While Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves as U.S. President,
James Garfield was one of his loyal soldiers
in the U.S. Congress.
Garfield was a staunch abolitionist prior to the Civil War,
and he became a brigadier general at only 31 years old,
successfully leading the Union troops
against the Confederates in a famous battle
at Middle Creek, Kentucky.
After Lincoln's assassination,
Garfield become one of the strongest voices in Congress
in favor of civil rights
for not only the newly-freed slaves
but for all blacks across America.
He was a proponent of increased black education,
and he actually called for black suffrage rights.
Now there was a direct connection
between Abraham Lincoln and James Garfield.
Both men were opposed to slavery.
But was this civil rights unity something
that would have caused either of their assassins
to pull the trigger?
After all, this was the most divisive issue of their time.
Of course, we all know that Lincoln's murderer,
John Wilkes Booth, was an ardent Confederate sympathizer
who hated Lincoln for making slavery illegal
in the Southern states.
But there is no evidence that Charles Guiteau
was influenced by this matter
or that he was even concerned
with the civil rights movement at all.
There is evidence, though,
that both Guiteau and Booth were angry
at their then-respective presidents.
The government's historical accounts
present different reasons for their presidential rage.
However, at their respective times,
their disdain was no secret.
And when anger is revealed, sometimes it can be seized upon.
There is known substantial evidence
which shows that both John Wilkes Booth
and Lee Harvey Oswald, JFK's killer,
were recruited and used as patsies
by other higher powers to commit their assassinations.
May the same be true with Charles Guiteau?
Was there a conspiracy to murder James Garfield?
And if so, was Charles Guiteau recruited
to be the trigger man
because of his well-known hatred for Garfield?
And because it was also well known
that he was clinically insane,
or could Charles Guiteau have been completely rational?
And could his socialist ideology have been
the core motive for the shooting?
Either way, an insane man with a motive
or a cult-like ideologue with a motive
makes for a good choice to conscript
into an assassination plot.
But who would want to enlist Guiteau,
and what would be these person's motives
to murder a president?
James Garfield actively opposed cooperative farm programs
such as those supported by the Grange,
an agrarian organization.
Recall who else employed communal property programs?
Yes, the Oneida Community,
which Guiteau was a longtime member of.
Garfield also opposed labor unions,
mandatory maximum eight-hour workdays,
and federally funded relief, welfare-type projects.
Yes, James Garfield was not a big government guy.
He was the furthest thing from a socialist.
He was known for saying that these liberal,
cooperative, and labor policies equated
to communism in disguise,
and also remember this.
James Garfield was an outspoken advocate
of the gold standard.
Arguments among congressmen raged
between those who wanted all U.S. money
to be backed by gold
versus those who demanded that paper currency be issued
along with silver being coined in greater quantities.
These greenbackers and Silver Rights opine
that such a monetary system would aid in debt relief,
especially for distressed farmers.
Garfield rebuked them,
instead promoting hard-money policies backed by gold.
Before being elected to the presidency,
Garfield was the chairman
of Congress's Banking and Currency Committee.
He was also a key member
of the House Ways and Means Committee.
There, he strongly backed the hard-money,
gold standard initiatives,
and he was a major proponent of the U.S. government
issuing its own money
instead of the private centralized banks.
[suspenseful electronic music]
By fighting against the issuance of paper currency
not supported by gold,
as well as advocating for the use of greenback dollars
issued under Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War,
Garfield became a target of those in favor
of soft money policies.
While his hard-money stance made him popular
with many Gold Bug Republicans
who wanted to thwart the country's
ever-expanding money supply,
it certainly infuriated many of those higher powers
in the private banking industry.
And that's because they stood to make
billions of dollars in the late 19th century
by controlling and issuing the U.S. currency.
During his campaign,
Garfield had a lot of opposition
from the Stalwarts faction of his Republican party.
This group were allied with the deep state power
of the international banking chieftains.
The Stalwarts pushed for Chester A. Arthur
to be Garfield's running mate.
To mend fences and maintain party cohesion, Garfield agreed,
and Arthur became his vice president.
It's interesting to note
that as Charles Guiteau was being wrestled to the ground
after shooting Garfield, he screamed,
- [Charles] "I am a stalwart of the Stalwarts,
"and Arthur will be president."
- No doubt Chester A. Arthur did become president
upon Garfield dying from his gunshot wounds.
Did the Stalwarts
and their centralized banking industry bosses
conspire with Charles Guiteau to murder James Garfield
because he wanted to take enormous power and wealth
away from them,
because he didn't want these bank moguls
to issue paper money and coin silver,
because he was a presidential voice
for the gold standard,
and because he wanted the U.S. government,
on behalf of the people, to issue its own money
and not international private bankers?
'Cause in that scenario,
Garfield was literally stripping billions of dollars
from these private banks.
Could this greed and power [cash register dinging]
have been the true reason
for President Garfield's fatal demise?
The centralized banks are quite adverse
to credit-based fiat money
delivered directly into circulation
by the federal government.
This type of money assists people
in escaping debt slavery as it does not come
with interest strings attached.
Garfield had plans for the U.S. Treasury,
and not the centralized private banks,
to issue dollars directly into the U.S. economy,
following in the footsteps of his mentor, Abraham Lincoln,
who did just that to finance the Civil War.
Unfortunately, Garfield also followed Lincoln's footsteps
into an untimely, unfinished presidential term
that ended in a graveyard.
During his inaugural speech, President Garfield said,
- [James] "Whoever controls the volume of money
"in any country is absolute master of
"all industry and commerce." [people cheering]
- Garfield had wanted the U.S. Treasury,
the people of the United States, to have this control,
and not some foreign, private bankers.
Officials would have you believe
that James Garfield's assassination
was carried out by a lone nut wrought with wrath
over a lack of a political appointment,
that is was an act perpetrated
by this one, singular insane man.
But it appears there were indeed others
who were involved in James Garfield's assassination,
men who cared a whole lot
about the United States monetary system
and about who controlled it.
James Garfield's quest to re-institute the gold standard
and have currency issued directly by the U.S. government
greatly angered these men.
The same as Charles Guiteau was greatly enraged
by Garfield's failure to grant
his desired political appointment
and/or Garfield's gold standard capitalism ideology.
Putting this together renders one likely outcome,
that these higher human powers, not Godly powers,
recruited Guiteau and used him as their gunman fall guy.
[typewriter chattering]
A bizarre tragic footnote
to James Garfield's assassination
was that he did not die immediately
from the gunshot wound inflicted by Guiteau.
He actually passed away two and a half months later,
on September 19th, 1881.
Many medical experts and historians argue
that Garfield would have survived the shooting,
and that severely botched treatment by his doctors
was the true proximate cause of his death.
Unsanitary medical instruments were used
to treat the president immediately after the attack.
In the weeks that followed,
many other unsterilized probing fingers and devices
were inserted into Garfield's body
searching for the bullet.
Even though newer medical technology
for the treatment of gunshot wounds had emerged by 1881,
Garfield's doctors were old school
and were adamant about their methods.
The combination of this outdated treatment
with the constant unsanitary conditions
caused Garfield to suffer gravely
as he spiraled towards death.
Infections caused blood poisoning
and his inability to intake and digest any food.
The president lost nearly 100 pounds before he died,
and ultimately succumbed to heart failure.
Could his medical doctors have been engaged
in a further plot to kill Garfield
once it was learned that Guiteau's bullet
didn't complete the job?
That would seem rather unlikely,
as it appears that he was just the victim
of good old-fashioned medical malpractice.
What is extremely likely, however,
is that the fired bullet was at the fingertip
of Charles Guiteau
connected to the arms of the very concerned
and very angry centralized banking cartel,
the same banking cartel
that was equally worried and infuriated
just 16 years earlier
when Abraham Lincoln was shot
by John Wilkes Booth.
[melancholy piano music]
President Lincoln had asked the private bankers
for a loan to finance the Civil War
and was quoted rates ranging from 24 to 36% interest.
In a a November 21st, 1862 letter
from Lincoln to his friend, William Elkin,
the president declared,
- [Abraham] "The government should create,
"issue and circulate all the currency
"and credit needed to satisfy the spending power
"of the government and the buying power of consumers.
"The privilege of creating and issuing money
"is not only the supreme prerogative of government,
"but it is the government's greatest creative opportunity.
"By the adoption of these principles,
"the long-felt want for a uniform medium
"will be satisfied.
"The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest,
"discounts, and exchanges,
"the financing of all public enterprises,
"the maintenance of stable government
"and ordered progress.
"And the conduct of the Treasury
"will become matters of practical administration.
"The people can and will be furnished
"with a currency as safe as their own government.
"Money will cease to be their master
"and become the servant of humanity.
"Democracy will rise superior to the money power."
- So Honest Abe rebuked
the big centralized banking cartels
and decided that the U.S. government
would issue and control its own money.
President Lincoln then asked Congress to pass a law
authorizing the printing
of full legal tender Treasury notes
to pay for the war effort.
This law authorized the printing
of $450 million worth of greenbacks
and interest-free money to finance the war,
which deprived the centralized bankers
of millions in interest.
It acted as legal tender for all debts, public and private.
It paid for soldiers and sailors
and necessary war supplies.
Lincoln realized the benefit to the Republic
in a letter to Edward Taylor in December 1862 when he wrote,
- [Abraham] "We gave the people of this Republic
the greatest blessing they have ever had,
their own paper money to pay their own debts."
- In July of 1861, Congress authorized
the multi-millions of dollars in demand notes.
They bore no interest and could be redeemed
for specie on demand.
They were not legal tender,
but like Treasury notes,
could be used to pay customs duties.
These demand notes were printed in green ink
on the reverse side, hence their nickname, greenbacks.
As they were fully redeemable in gold,
they traded at par.
Remember who else supported the gold standard
and government-issued money, President Garfield.
And guess who else supported government-issued money,
William McKinley and John F. Kennedy.
Things, of course, didn't turn out well
for any of these presidents
after they initiated their new
and bank-damaging monetary systems.
More so, immediately after their deaths,
massive money-issuing power went directly
back into the greedy hands of the centralized bankers.
Upon Abraham Lincoln's assassination,
all of his U.S. Treasury issued greenbacks
were retired from circulation,
leaving only national bank notes.
But what were national bank notes in the 1860s?
And why and how did they come into existence?
Because the 1860s Congress was so influenced
by the centralized banking cartel,
they would not grant Lincoln's greenback legislation
without a parallel system
where the private banks simultaneously issued money.
Thus, Congress enacted the National Banking Act,
which established a system of national banks
and created a national currency
maintained by private bank holdings
of U.S. Treasury bonds.
This resulted in a dual money-issuing system being born
which encompassed both the national bank notes
and Lincoln's greenbacks.
This, of course, greatly benefited
the international bankers who sought to again
control the issuing of America's currency.
The newly enacted two-fold monetary system
initiated out of necessity by Abraham Lincoln
to fund the Civil War
became the creature from Jekyll Island
as it not only was the perfect setup for the bankers,
but it also very likely led to Lincoln's death.
The leading demon of this mid-1800s banking cartel,
Rothschilds and Sons, seized the moment,
even publicly stating their plans
well in advance of the 1863 Banking Act.
At the marriage of Nathan Rothschild's eldest daughter
in 1857, he said,
- [Nathan] "I shall divide the United States in half.
"Half for you, Lionel, and half for you, James."
- Curiously enough, the Civil War was created
in just this fashion,
half with one Rothschild brother
financially supporting the North,
and half with the other Rothschild brother
supporting the South.
And the winner forced the loser to pay his debts.
So no matter who won the war,
the Rothschilds and their banking cartel
won over the U.S. monetary system.
Since Lincoln's greenbacks were immediately retired
after his death,
the only currency left were the national bank notes
issued by these private bankers.
From this foothold grew the forerunner
of the Federal Reserve System,
the modern centralized banking cartel
that controls the issuing of all American currency.
[melancholy piano music]
After learning the much less known circumstances
surrounding James Garfield's killing,
it makes the very likely true reason
for Lincoln's murder much more understandable.
On the assassin's side, Charles Guiteau
certainly had his own economic motivations
to murder President Garfield,
and he also presents as the perfect patsy
used to carry out the deadly deed.
Well, how about John Wilkes Booth?
The government's explanation
for the Lincoln assassination is well known.
A famous actor, John Wilkes Booth,
and a few other disgruntled Southerners of no notoriety
got together and plotted to kill the president.
This group have been portrayed
as racist Confederate patriots
whose motivation to kill Lincoln
was one of pure revenge for the president's refusal
to allow the Southern succession
and his freedom of the slaves.
This was indeed the one presidential assassination
where even the government admits
that it wasn't just a lone gunman.
However, the conspiracy, our officials say,
only goes so far.
It was more or less a case of just personal,
political animosity with no powerful brokers
connected to the murder.
But was it actually more than that?
Many theories have abounded.
A logical one is that Booth and his cohorts
were part of a larger, grandiose Confederate plot
which involved top Confederate leaders.
Certainly, there was considerable talk
and some planning by Confederate chieftains
to eliminate Lincoln many times during
and after the Civil War.
There also was evidence that Booth
may have been in dialogue with some of them.
Specially coded letters were found in Booth's belongings
at the National Hotel
which linked him to the Confederacy.
One of booth's co-conspirators, George Atzerodt,
stated before his trial that Booth had knowledge
of an unsuccessful Confederate plan
to blow up the White House.
And Booth's original design to kidnap Lincoln
as opposed to murdering him
has been tied to Confederate leadership involvement.
However, there is no demonstrable evidence
to firmly bound men like Jefferson Davis
or Stonewall Jackson into Booth's plans.
Surely, the Confederate bosses
had a motive to kill Lincoln,
but there were motives with strong proofs
that supersede even theirs.
You have often heard theories
that Lyndon B. Johnson was behind the Kennedy assassination,
that JFK's vice president was the mastermind.
Well, maybe people have conjectured
that the other Johnson VP was the brains
behind Abraham Lincoln's planned death.
You see, Andrew Johnson,
Lincoln's second in command, knew John Wilkes Booth,
and they weren't just acquaintances
according to many historians.
They say that when Johnson was the governor of Tennessee,
he and Booth kept a pair of sisters as mistresses.
During a lot of drinking and frolicking together,
could Johnson and Booth have hatched the plot
to kill Mr. Lincoln?
The president's wife thought so.
In an 1866 letter to her friend, Sally Orne,
Mary Todd Lincoln wrote,
- [Mary] "That miserable inebriate Johnson
"had cognizance of my husband's death.
"Why was that card of Booth's found in his box?
"Some acquaintance certainly existed.
"I have been deeply impressed
"with the harrowing thought
"that he had an understanding with the conspirators,
"and they knew their man.
"As sure and you and I live,
"Johnson had some hand in all this."
- Were Mrs. Lincoln's thoughts
those of a distraught, paranoid wife,
or were they the product of some credible evidence?
It's a fact that just hours prior
to firing a bullet into Lincoln's head
at the Ford's Theater,
John Wilkes Booth made a stop
at the Washington Hotel.
Why is that significant?
Because Vice President Andrew Johnson
lived at the Washington Hotel.
More so, Booth left a note with the hotel clerk
for Johnson and his private secretary,
William A. Browning.
The note simply said,
- [John] "Don't wish to disturb you,
"are you at home, J. Wilkes Booth."
- William Browning later testified
before a military court,
stating that he found a note in his box
that same afternoon.
Was John Wilkes Booth popping by
just to say "Hello" to Vice President Johnson
on the day of Abraham Lincoln's assassination,
or was he there to kill Johnson first?
That would seem rather unlikely,
given that his visit to Johnson's hotel
was about seven hours before he shot Lincoln.
If he attempted to kill Johnson that far in advance,
he definitely would not have been able
to find an unprotected President Lincoln
watching a play at Ford's Theater.
If Lincoln's VP had been shot,
Lincoln would have been scuttled away
to military protected safety.
So perhaps, as Mary Todd Lincoln thought,
Booth was visiting Johnson with regard
to their upcoming plot to kill the president
later that day.
The First Lady wasn't the only person in Washington
to think this.
Many members of Congress also conjectured
that Johnson was the ringleader
of Lincoln's assassination and conspiracy.
And they pointed to Booth's hotel visit
as proof of it.
If Vice President Johnson was involved,
the question is, why?
Was it just so that he could assume
to the highest political position in the land?
Was it because he was a Southerner
and was opposed to the freeing of slaves?
Or did his Southern roots and relationships
provide more of an economic reason
to see Lincoln dethroned?
Remember this, soon after Abraham Lincoln's assassination,
all of his U.S. Treasury issued greenbacks
were retired from circulation,
leaving only national bank notes.
This rendered a very critical and powerful result,
that only private banks now controlled
the issuing of America's money,
and under whose command did this occur?
One Andrew Johnson.
So did Andrew Johnson, at the behest
of the very powerful private centralized bankers,
orchestrate the assassination of Abraham Lincoln?
And did Johnson recruit his pleasure buddy,
John Wilkes Booth, to be the trigger-man patsy?
A man of staunch Southern ideas
who was angry about Lincoln's Civil War victory,
Booth was a prime choice to be a figurehead
in a conspiracy.
He was an individual of sizeable influence himself,
serving as an 1860s Hollywood type.
Booth's charismatic ability to recruit other players
in the murder plot would be key,
and these other players would identify him
as the ringleader.
A smart cartel-like plot
would have the bank moguls speaking directly to Johnson
with Johnson speaking only to Booth
and Booth speaking to the others
who helped carry out the deed.
Under these circumstances,
the Vice President would be far removed
from the street criminals executing the plot,
and the bankers would be even further away
from this sinister act.
Here, the perfect marriage would have been in place.
Booth and his street gang as a bunch
of Southern ideologues, in their minds,
gain hero status by righteously killing a man
who stole away the livelihood and lifestyles
of half of America.
Andrew Johnson ascends to the presidency,
and the international private bankers, well,
by gaining full control of the monetary system,
they earned billions of dollars forever on.
Just kill Abraham Lincoln,
which makes Andrew Johnson president,
and have Johnson retire the greenbacks,
which means only national bank notes are issued.
Here, the private banks control the issuance
of all U.S. currency.
It doesn't get any more powerful than that.
Wouldn't it be quite rational to conclude
that this was why Abraham Lincoln was assassinated?
As Mayor Amschel Rothschild said,
- [Amschel] "Give me the power
"to create a nation's money,
"and I care not who makes its laws."
- Since Lincoln wasn't giving the bankers
the full power to create this nation's money,
Andrew Johnson was a much better choice.
So maybe Rothschild cared just a bit
who was making America's laws.
It appears quite likely that both
Abraham Lincoln and his friend James Garfield
were murdered for the same motive,
and with a similar modus operandi in using patsies.
No doubt this tradition carried on
with the assassinations of William McKinley
and John F. Kennedy.
The conventional wisdom is
that President McKinley's assassination
was the work of a lone gunman, Leon Czolgosz.
An avowed socialist
like Garfield's gunman Charles Guiteau
and Kennedy's shooter, Lee Harvey Oswald,
Leon Czolgosz was livid by what he called
"a corrupt U.S. government."
Well, this indeed was the story put out
by the United States government in 1901,
the year McKinley was killed.
But perhaps this president's death
was the result of the more logical and clear reason,
that he had instituted what Lincoln and Garfield
had done years before him
in taking away money-issuing control
from private, centralized bankers.
William McKinley had successfully led a U.S. victory
in the Spanish-American War,
which led to an easy win for a second term as president,
but on September 6, 1901,
less than a year after his re-election,
McKinley was shot in the abdomen
at the Temple of Music in Buffalo, New York.
The shooter, Leon Czolgosz,
waited on a long line to shake the president's hand.
When he finally reached his Commander-in-Chief,
Czolgosz's right hand was draped in a white handkerchief.
As McKinley reached out to greet the man,
Czolgosz fired two bullets.
One harmlessly bounced off McKinley's chest bone,
but the other lodged in his gut.
The president fell to the ground thinking about two people,
his wife and the man who had just shot him.
McKinley notably said,
- [William] "Be careful how you tell her.
"Oh, be careful."
- And as for his assassin, he uttered,
- [Leon] "Be easy with him, boys."
- Like James A. Garfield,
William McKinley did not die quickly
from his bullet wounds.
Also like Garfield, failures by the treating physicians
contributed to his ultimate demise.
You've all heard of the magic bullet
in the Kennedy assassination.
Well, the McKinley assassination led to the coining
of the phrase "The Mystery Bullet."
This is because doctors spent over 90 minutes
looking for the bullet during the president's autopsy,
but it was never found.
Doctors, media, and political leaders were so perplexed
by McKinley's quick and unexpected decline
that many opined that the bullet must have been poisoned.
More so, the question was asked,
"Where the hell was the mystery bullet?"
And perhaps it might be a smarter question to ask
if McKinley was poisoned after he was shot,
not from a poison bullet,
but by someone simply poisoning him.
Were the doctors part of a conspiracy,
brought in to finish off an uncompleted job?
You recall what happened to James Garfield.
Mainstream history outright blames botched medical care
for the proximate cause of his death.
If the killers were successful once before
in eliminating a president after a non-lethal shooting,
why not try the same coffin-ensuring method again?
Bring in the dirty doctors.
Those who infect their presidential patients
with unsanitary probing fingers,
non-sterile instruments, and unclean conditions,
follow this by failing to remove a mystery bullet.
Or maybe quite the opposite,
locating the bullet, taking it out,
and acting like it's still there
to justify a certain type
of supposedly cautious treatment,
a treatment that allows gangrene to develop and kill.
Whatever the exact details,
we know that both President Garfield
and President McKinley died quite some time
after their shooting.
We also know that they died from infections
and blood poisoning.
It's hard to believe that two presidents,
people surely in line for the greatest of medical care,
apparently got the worst.
Was this just coincidental, bad luck,
or were the doctors hired hands,
brought in to suture an unfinished assassination?
Or perhaps the physicians
provided fine medical treatment,
and someone else with access to the president
poisoned their blood.
No matter, these two men could have survived their shootings
but mysteriously died with poisoned blood.
Just like we revealed in the murder of James Garfield
and the famous assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy,
the lone gunman theory in William McKinley's case
is wholly unbelievable.
Everyone knows that John Wilkes Booth
and Lee Harvey Oswald had personal motives
to kill Honest Abe and JFK.
We clearly identified Charles Guiteau's intimate reason
to eliminate Garfield.
Did Leon Czolgosz also have a private rationale
for his carnage upon William McKinley?
Yes, he did.
Leon Czolgosz was punched, kicked, and stomped
by police and bystanders after he shot McKinley.
Thereafter, he provided a full confession to authorities.
In fact, he presented them with a written letter
that outlined his premeditated actions.
Czolgosz referred to himself as Fred Neiman
which in German means Fred Nobody.
You see, Czolgosz was a total zero,
poor, unemployed, unskilled, and alone.
He was searching for a voice, the government says.
He wanted to become someone
and be known as smart and brave.
In his written confession, he proudly stated,
- [Leon] "I made my plans three or four days ago
"to shoot the president.
"When I shot him, I intended to kill him.
"And the reason for my intention in killing
"was because I did not believe in presidents over us.
"I was willing to sacrifice myself and the president
"for the benefit of the country.
"I felt I had more courage than the average man
"in killing the president
"and was willing to put my own life at stake
"in order to do it."
- He also wrote about meetings he attended
with the anarchists,
a burgeoning political group that impelled his shooting.
Czolgosz decried,
- [Leon] "I heard people talk about the duty they were under
"to educate the people
"against the present form of government,
"and they should do all they could
"to change the form of government."
- But who were the anarchists?
Many historians consider that the first global terrorists
were the anarchists.
These were a loosely-knit group of men
in both America and Europe
who believed in the isolation of the individual.
They were advocates of free thought,
which included freedom from religion and politics.
Anarchism in the 1890s was all about the pursuit
of man's right to his own tools, mind, and body.
He shall keep the products of his own labor
without government interference.
This anti-political philosophy, from time to time,
both in America and abroad,
manifested itself into a dynamite bombing
or a shooting spree.
In the United States, authorities believe
and newspapers reported
that a large swath of the anarchists were foreigners
who had immigrated to America.
Whether this is true or not is another story.
Also just a story
were most of the terrorist acts attributed to anarchists.
There were numerous media reports
of explosions, bomb blastings, and even viral plagues
that never existed.
Alternatively, many who committed terrorist acts
called themselves anarchist, but really weren't.
And many other attacks were deemed
carried out by the anarchists,
but the perpetrators really had nothing to do
with this freethinking group.
The phony accounts were the norm
rather than the exception.
The government and its media allies
used the alleged anarchist terrorism
as a fear-baiting tool to control its populace
and to sell newspapers.
Thus fake news had its roots with anarchism
in addition to modern day terrorism.
And was Leon Czolgosz actually an anarchist?
In the 1890s, there was no shortage
of young men who were screaming for attention
and longing to do daring things.
Leon Czolgosz was one of them,
and the anarchists with all of their media-driven fanfare,
was a logical outlet to turn Mr. Nobody
into Mr. Somebody.
In his quest for recognition,
Czolgosz did indeed attend some anarchist meetings
in Chicago during the year prior
to the McKinley assassination.
But after the president's shooting,
the anarchists did everything they could
to distance themselves from Czolgosz.
Could some group, more powerful
than the sensationalized anarchists,
have learned of Czolgosz through this publicity
and sought out this disaffected, rejected young man
and seized upon his yearning
to transform from a zero to a hero?
Was William McKinley's assassination
really the work of a loser lone gunman
with anarchist influences?
This government-skewed theory is troubled at its core
with the revelation of Czolgosz's
true tenuous anarchist ties
and the group's very public disassociation with him,
not to mention the fake news pandemic
that was metastasizing during these times.
A more realistic explanation for McKinley's assassination
was that it was carried out via a devious plot
which incorporated Leon Czolgosz as its patsy.
As a fact, we do know that Czolgosz's bullets
didn't execute the fatal damage.
It took some medical malpractice
or another method of blood poisoning
to complete the exterminating task.
But who was behind this presidential murder
if it wasn't just Leon Czolgosz
wanting to become Fred Somebody?
Who had a motive to kill the U.S. president in 1901,
and who could get away with it unscathed?
Who could manipulate the media
into portraying it as an anarchist act
and get it all swept under the carpet
before anyone could learn the truth
behind this executive treachery?
Well, let's look at William McKinley's political history
and his presidential goals,
and who had the most to gain by eliminating him.
After doing battle in the Civil War,
William McKinley began his political career
as an American isolationist,
not in the sense of the anarchists, of course, no.
He sought, like many leaders of the time,
to keep America, as much as possible,
economically independent from the rest of the world.
He was a great proponent of high tariffs
on foreign products.
As a Republican protectionist,
McKinley understood that substantial tariffs
prevented the importation of many international goods
because it made doing business in the U.S.
too expensive for many foreigners.
Another benefit of the high tariffs
was that it generated significant revenue
for the government,
thus downsizing the need to rely
upon American citizens' hard-earned money
to pay for the government's expenses.
In other words, it limited the need for income taxes.
A natural result was that American-made products
had much less competition at home,
which allowed them to be sold for greater prices.
The higher profits for American industry
permitted higher wages for American workers.
Did these protectionist plans get McKinley killed
by angry agents of foreign nations?
No, not at all.
McKinley's high tariff agenda persisted
during his tenure in Congress and as Ohio's governor.
It all ended when he became president in 1896.
President McKinley was thrown a curve ball
when he reluctantly entered the United States
into the Spanish-American War in 1898.
Upon the war's quick conclusion in America's favor,
to the victors went the spoils.
And America gained several territories from Spain,
including Puerto Rico, Wake, Guam, and the Philippines.
The U.S. also annexed the Hawaiian Islands that summer.
American businessmen were now much more excited
about the prospect of overseas trade,
and thus William McKinley was reborn as a free trader.
On September 5th, 1901, the day before he was assassinated,
William McKinley delivered a speech
to 50,000 people in New York, proclaiming,
- [William] "Isolation is no longer possible or desirable.
"The period of exclusiveness is past.
"The expansion of our trade and commerce
"is the pressing problem.
"Commercial wars are unprofitable.
"A policy of good will and friendly trade relations
"will prevent reprisals."
- Was William McKinley's reversal on trade
and what it meant to the private banks
the true cause of his mortal demise?
In March 1900, the Gold Standard Act of the United States
was signed by William McKinley.
This declared gold as the only standard
for redeeming paper money,
and it was a knife in the gut
to the international centralized banks
who had been in and out
of America's money-issuing control
for the previous 100 years.
Under this act, United States notes
became redeemable for gold
at the then historic rate of $20.67 per ounce.
This bolstered U.S. notes' credibility as money,
and it substantially injured the strength
of private bank notes,
thus greatly diminishing international bankers' profits.
Having just endured one of the centralized bankers'
contrived panics, the Panic of 1893,
the president was adamant about the gold standard,
and he threatened full enforcement,
so it wasn't directly McKinley's trade policy
that threatened these banks.
It was the institution of the gold standard.
Further enraging the international bankers,
McKinley sent negotiators to Europe
to attempt a silver agreement with France
and Great Britain.
This would have made large sums of silver money
available in the cash-starved U.S.
McKinley, no doubt, had become Enemy Number One
to these powerful banks.
The Gold Standard Act declared that,
- [Narrator] "The gold dollar shall be
"the standard unit of value,
"and all forms of money issued or coined
"by the United States shall be maintained
"at a parity of value with this standard."
- Bank notes, U.S. notes,
and all other forms of money
had to conform to this standard.
No longer free to value different forms of money
as they saw fit,
the international bankers were constrained
from issuing paper money
that couldn't be redeemed in gold.
The gold standard ensured that the money supply
and hence the price level
would remain relatively constant,
which of course was a complete financial disaster
for the international centralized bankers.
This all changed with the assassination
of William McKinley.
For the gold standard to work,
banks were supposed to play by the rules of the game.
They were supposed to raise rates
to encourage gold inflow,
and to lower their rates to create a gold outflow.
The centralized bankers wanted to do neither.
And that's simply because these gold standard rules
took money-issuing control away from them
and caused them massive monetary losses.
Very quickly after President McKinley's 1901 assassination,
his successor, the very famous and loved Theodore Roosevelt,
vastly limited the effect of the Gold Standard Act,
and the international bankers were back
in much better business.
Even more so, this initiated the meteoric rise
and creation of the Federal Reserve System.
With a motive of all motives in place,
these bankers just needed what was necessary
in the two prior presidential assassinations, a patsy,
and wouldn't Leon Czolgosz,
with his anarchist ties and his internal need
to become a somebody, be the perfect choice?
So perhaps common sense
coupled with an extraordinary motive
and a lot of history
makes it quite possible that Leon Czolgosz
did not act alone,
and that instead, he was a recruited patsy
for the international bankers
who needed William McKinley and his Gold Standard Act
out of the way.
One added interesting note about the McKinley assassination,
Leon Czolgosz was tried within a week of his shooting,
convicted the very next day,
and executed in under a month.
That was almost as quick a path
to rid the world of JFK's alleged lone assassin,
Lee Harvey Oswald.
As we all know, Oswald was gunned down
at the Dallas Police Department
just two days after he murdered John Kennedy.
Nice and tidy, get rid of the killers
before they can speak about any accomplices.
[eerie piano music]
You know the phrase "Where there's smoke, there's fire?"
Three presidents, Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield,
and William McKinley instituted major upheavals
in the U.S. monetary system.
Specifically, they took power of issuing America's money
away from the centralized private banking cartels
and gave it to the U.S. Treasury, to the people.
And then these three presidents ended up dead.
But like I said, where there's smoke there's fire,
and another gun was fired
that killed yet another president,
a very famous one, John F. Kennedy.
This man didn't just upset Richard Nixon
in the presidential race
or communist Cuba with the Bay of Pigs.
No, he upset something much more powerful,
the Federal Reserve banks.
Since their insidious inception in 1913,
no U.S. president had ever dared to upset
their trillion dollar cartel enterprise.
Kennedy, however, took them on.
But how often have you heard about this?
What everyone has heard about, almost ad nauseam,
are endless debates about how Lee Harvey Oswald
could have assassinated JFK on his own.
Was Oswald a good enough marksman,
could he have gotten off three separate shots
with his low-budget 6.5 millimeter Carcano rifle
in the very quick timing of the shooting?
How did the magic bullet go through both President Kennedy
and Texas Governor John Connally?
These questions and several more of their type,
you've heard over and over again.
The Warren Commission, a group of politicos
assigned by President Lyndon B. Johnson
to officially investigate JFK's assassination,
determined that Oswald acted alone
and the assassination was carried out
via three bullets fired by him.
The general consensus, however,
is that the Warren Commission's findings were bogus
for numerous reasons.
Here are just a few examples.
Kennedy was killed while riding in a convertible limousine
down a Dallas street near Dealey Plaza.
Oswald's shooting position
at Dallas' School Book Depository building
was behind the limousine.
But the majority of witnesses interviewed
by the Warren Commission
said the shots came from the right front.
Many testified that they saw unidentified armed men
in the area.
Three Dallas police officers said
they came upon multiple fake Secret Service agents.
Others provided evidence to the Commission
that suggested a radio-coordinated assassination team
was at Dealey Plaza.
These type of discrepancies go on and on and on.
No doubt the Warren Commission's findings
had been rebuked,
and most intelligent observers realized
that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone
in assassinating John F. Kennedy.
In 1979, even a Congressional House Select Committee
found that JFK's assassination was very likely
the product of a conspiracy.
But why, at whose behest?
There are, of course, numerous propagandized theories.
Was it a conspiracy rooted in Cuban government sympathizers,
or the work of the Mafia, the CIA?
Or did Lyndon B. Johnson want Kennedy dead
just so he could be the Commander-in-Chief?
Were big corporate defense contractors
behind the assassination
because they wanted an escalation of the Vietnam War
and Kennedy resisted?
Or how about this theory,
that it was the vengeful work of Richard Nixon?
Perhaps, think about this,
is all this battle over how Lee Harvey Oswald
carried out the shooting
and whether it was him alone
or as part of one of these many conspiracy theories
just being a smokescreen
to perhaps cover up the one true plot
that is quite obvious when you consider
the most basic of motives,
greed valued in the trillions of dollars,
and a plot, as we have revealed,
that is steep in the history
of American presidential assassinations?
Yes, it makes perfect sense
that John F. Kennedy was executed
for the same sinister reasons as his dead predecessors,
Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, and William McKinley.
But Kennedy took the money-issuing power
away from the centralized banking system
of the Federal Reserve.
In this big centralized bank scenario,
a few of the potential co-conspirators
identified in the various theories,
very likely could have been players
along with Lee Harvey Oswald.
Given that there surely was a coordinated effort
at Dealey Plaza, who was part of the hit team?
The Mafia, maybe.
The CIA, also maybe.
Cuban and other communist sympathizers,
another good maybe.
After all, Lee Harvey Oswald had,
a few years prior to the killing, defected to Russia,
and his ties to Cuban interests became public knowledge.
Could a conspiracy have gone all the way
to the vice-president, Lyndon B. Johnson?
The ultimate presidential power
is always a motive one can't ignore.
And as we will see, Johnson did immediately do something
after JFK's untimely death
that inextricably linked him to the favoritism
of the Federal Reserve banks.
Now as for Oswald,
the Warren Commission did seem to get one thing right.
When attempting to cite a motive for this man, they wrote,
- [Warren Commission Member] "Lee Harvey Oswald
"was perpetually discontented with the world around him.
"Long before the assassination,
"he expressed his hatred for American society
"and acted in protest against it."
- In other words, Oswald was the perfect pasty choice.
Much like the Garfield and McKinley assassins,
he was a loner and loser,
but one who was on the radar of powerful sources.
Remember, the government was well aware
of the discontent that Charles Guiteau had
with President Garfield
for not appointing him to a coveted ambassador position.
And officials during President McKinley's presidency
surely were well aware of Leon Czolgosz's anarchist ties
and the group's very public disassociation with him.
While John Wilkes Booth was no loser,
many of influence knew of his hatred of Abraham Lincoln.
All these men, including, quite saliently,
Lee Harvey Oswald, were easy to identify and recruit
into a plot that could be sold to the public
as disaffected gunmen who initiated their own plans
to kill the president.
But really, we know better.
In each of these cases, there was a central group
with that much more powerful motive
who had the resources to orchestrate true conspiracies
using unwitting pawns in their strategic processes.
Of course this group was the centralized bankers.
In John F. Kennedy's murder,
this extremely likely culprit was very specifically
the Federal Reserve,
the central bank of his and our time.
But what exactly did Kennedy do
that so upset the Federal Reserve banks
that would cause them to seek his quick removal?
[suspenseful piano music]
When John F. Kennedy narrowly defeated Richard Nixon
in the 1960 presidential election,
the Federal Reserve bankers were elated.
Kennedy was the son of one of the most powerful
and allegedly corrupt political
backroom bosses, Joseph Kennedy.
JFK's father had catapulted to mega economic prosperity
through, among other things,
high-level dealings in government
and the financial industry.
After many major banking successes
and numerous purported high-level criminal acts,
including a massive bootlegging operation
during the Prohibition era,
Joseph Kennedy was appointed by Franklin D. Roosevelt
to be the first chairman
of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
In referring to this appointment, FDR infamously declared,
- [Franklin] "I'm getting a crook to catch crooks."
- A well known historical account
is that Joseph Kennedy was obsessed
with getting his son the presidency.
And a well-known telegraph from the elder Kennedy
summed up his philosophy as he wrote,
- [Joseph] "Don't buy a single vote more than necessary,
"I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for a landslide."
- Joseph Kennedy wanted the absolute power
of the U.S. presidency in the family,
but he also wanted to maintain
the hundreds of millions of dollars
that he had accumulated.
May this be reminiscent of the thought processes
embraced by the international central bankers?
The banking cartels twofold goal
has forever been a mighty one,
control the issuing of the money
and obtain and retain the ultimate level of political power
and financial wealth.
No doubt with the Kennedy family history in place,
the Federal Reserve felt very comfortable
with the election of John F. Kennedy.
Business as usual would certainly persist
under his presidency.
But nay, JFK had other ideas.
With the stroke of a pen on June 4th, 1963,
President Kennedy signed Executive Order number 11110.
This order gave the U.S. Treasury the power to, quote,
"Issue silver certificates against any silver bullion,
"silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury."
This meant that for every ounce of silver
in the U.S. Treasury's vault,
the government could issue new money into circulation.
This was very bad news for the Federal Reserve banks.
You see, JFK had ambitious plans to put a man on the moon,
develop an internationally robust Peace Corps,
fund a growing war in Vietnam,
and further many social reforms in a manner
that had never before been accomplished in America.
To do so, he needed a lot of money.
The Federal Reserve was willing to issue this money,
but with big strings attached.
They wanted billions of dollars in interest paid to them.
Sound familiar, sound like a dilemma
that one Abraham Lincoln faced
when he needed to fund the Civil War?
And what did old Honest Abe do
when the centralized bankers wanted 35% in interest
paid to them?
He sidestepped them
and had the Treasury issue U.S. bank notes,
specifically his greenbacks.
What did Mr. Kennedy do?
He also kicked the centralized bankers to the curb.
When the Federal Reserve banks demanded
their usual high interest rates,
JFK instituted Executive Order number 11110
which allowed the U.S. Treasury to issue its own money
backed by silver.
President Kennedy's action
put the Federal Reserve's operations in serious jeopardy.
JFK's silver certificate program,
if carried out as planned,
would have reduced the necessity
to borrow Federal Reserve notes.
If implemented faithfully,
Executive Order number 11110
would have given the government the ability
to do all of the things on JFK's agenda
without paying interest on new Federal Reserve money.
This obviously would have been
a catastrophic financial disaster for these banks.
So like Lincoln, who greatly diminished the wealth and power
of the centralized bankers,
Kennedy was a major obstacle for this cartel.
And what better way to handle an obstacle
than to remove it?
In order for Executive Order number 11110
to be eliminated, John F. Kennedy had to be eliminated.
And on November 22, 1963,
just six months after the president had signed
this historic order, Kennedy was assassinated.
After JFK's murder,
no more silver certificates were issued.
Lyndon B. Johnson, Kennedy's successor,
ignored Executive Order 11110.
The Federal Reserve banking cartel maintained its monopoly
to issue and control America's money,
and no president since John F. Kennedy
has sought to interfere with this exclusive power.
The U.S. Treasury, the natural and logical choice
to control and issue America's money,
as it would save taxpayers hundreds of billions
of dollars yearly,
is powerless in this regard.
So do you think Lee Harvey Oswald hatched the plan
to assassinate JFK
and carried out the murder on his own?
Well, perhaps he had a little help from a friend,
a very wealthy and powerful monster cartel of a friend.
Abraham Lincoln's monetary policy, as codified in 1865
in U.S. Senate document number 23 provides,
- [Narrator] "Money is the creature of law,
"and the creation of the original issue of money
"should be maintained as the exclusive monopoly
"of national government."
- Of course the Federal Reserve banks
and their predecessor international centralized bankers
couldn't have disagreed more
with Lincoln's monetary policy,
as well as those instituted by Garfield,
McKinley, and most recently, Kennedy.
These policies caused massive monetary losses
to the centralized bankers,
men who have wielded the greatest power
in ensuring their stranglehold
over the U.S. monetary system.
Louis T. McFadden, a relentless congressman
who often took on the Federal Reserve banks
as Chairman of the House Banking Committee
back in the 1930s,
consistently explained that monetary issues
shouldn't be partisan.
He criticized both the Herbert Hoover
and Franklin Roosevelt administrations.
In describing the Federal Reserve, he remarked
in the 1932 Congressional Record that,
- [Louis] "We have in this country
"one of the most corrupt institutions
"the world has ever known.
"I refer to the Federal Reserve Board
"and the Federal Reserve banks.
"The Federal Reserve Board, a government board,
"has cheated the government of the United States
"and the people of the United States
"out of enough money to pay the national debt.
"The depredations and the iniquities
"of the Federal Reserve Board
"and the Federal Reserve banks acting together
"have cost this country enough money
"to pay the national debt several times over.
"This evil institution has impoverished
"and ruined the people of the United States,
"has bankrupted itself,
"and has practically bankrupted our government.
"It has done this through the maladministration
"of that that law by which the Federal Reserve Board
"and through the corrupt practices
"of the money vultures who control it."
- Congressman McFadden additionally stated,
- [Louis] "Some people think the Federal Reserve banks
"are United States government institutions.
"They are not government institutions.
"They are private credit monopolies
"which prey upon the people of the United States
"for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers,
"foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers
"and rich and predatory money lenders.
"In that dark crew of financial pirates,
"there are those who would cut a man's throat
"to get a dollar out of his pocket.
"There are those who send money into states
"to buy votes to control our legislation,
"and there are those who maintain
"an international propaganda
"for the purpose of deceiving us and of wheedling us
"into the granting of new concessions
"which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds
"and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime.
"Those 12 private credit monopolies
"were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this country
"by bankers who came here from Europe
"and who repaid us for our hospitality
"by undermining our American institutions."
- John F. Kennedy understood this,
and he tried to muscle out the Federal Reserve banks,
and thus, there was quite a logical reason
for his assassination.
He took major money issuing power
away from this banking cartel
and gave it back to the people of the United States,
[eerie piano music]
and then he was killed.
The Federal Reserve banks immediately got
what they desperately wanted
after President Kennedy's assassination.
They once again unilaterally controlled
the issuing of U.S. currency.
They once again had a business
that pays them literally over $500 billion annually
through the interest they charge to American taxpayers
for issuing our currency.
Was this a good enough reason
to launch a conspiracy to kill JFK?
Is it just a coincidence
that all four assassinated presidents,
Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy
were also the only four presidents
who disallowed the central bank's monopoly powers?
Is it also just a coincidence that upon taking office,
each vice president who assumed
the Commander-in-Chief's post
immediately repealed the decentralized banking orders
and re-instituted the money-issuing powers
to the central banks?
I highly doubt it.
History does have a way of repeating itself,
and what has history definitively shown,
the only four presidents who prevented
the international banking cartels
from having the sole power
to issue and control U.S. currency
are the only four presidents who were ever assassinated,
Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield,
William McKinley, and John Kennedy.
All were murdered after taking action
to have money issued by the U.S. Treasury,
not through centralized, international private banks.
That is an undeniable fact.
[drum beating]