Saturday, April 23, 2016




Supporter urges Clinton to take on "the sons and daughters of Charlton Heston"

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Hillary Clinton plans to use executive orders to chip away at the gun rights of American citizens.
During an event in Philadelphia, a Hillary-supporting gun control advocate rose to urge Clinton to take on “the sons and daughters” of former NRA icon and legendary actor Charlton Heston.
“We need you to be able to use your executive powers to legislate that you can’t carry guns in cars,” said the man, adding, “You can’t bring guns in buildings that are not insured to carry them.”
Hillary nodded in agreement before the man asserted, “We need executive powers that say we will fight for life and will not kowtow to the sons and daughters of Charlton Heston. We can’t kowtow to the sons and daughters of Charlton Heston.”
“We must have a greater voice. Thank you for coming and I will elect you,” concluded the man.
“Whoa…let the congregation say, ‘Amen,'” responded Hillary.
Hillary hasn’t shied away from expressing her support for gun control while on the campaign trail.
Earlier this month at a similar event, the former Secretary of State nodded along vigorously as a member of the panel described gun owners as terrorists.
“Citizens are the terrorists, right?” the woman states as Hillary nods multiple times. “We’re so worried about terrorism but we have terrorism on our own soil,” she continued.
Earlier this month at a similar event, the former Secretary of State nodded along vigorously as a member of the panel described gun owners as terrorists.
“Citizens are the terrorists, right?” the woman states as Hillary nods multiple times. “We’re so worried about terrorism but we have terrorism on our own soil,” she continued.
The Clinton’s appetite for gun control runs in the family.
During a separate speech, Chelsea Clinton expressed enthusiasm about the opportunity to restrict firearms rights now that Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia had died.

Chelsea Clinton: Gun Control Can Now Be Passed Thanks To Scalia's Death
Published on Apr 23, 2016
During a speech in support of Hillary Clinton’s campaign for President, her daughter Chelsea told those gathered that there is now a great opportunity to pass strict gun control laws since Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia has passed away.


"The next time the Court rules on gun control, it will make a definitive ruling."

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

During a speech in support of Hillary Clinton’s campaign for President, her daughter Chelsea told those gathered that there is now a great opportunity to pass strict gun control laws since Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia has passed away.

“It matters to me that my mom also recognizes the role the Supreme Court has when it comes to gun control.” Clinton said
“With Justice Scalia on the bench, one of the few areas where the Court actually had an inconsistent record relates to gun control,” she added.
“Sometimes the Court upheld local and state gun control measures as being compliant with the Second Amendment and sometimes the Court struck them down.”
Clinton then touted several gun control lobbyist groups who have supported Hillary Clinton, and predicted that if Hillary becomes president, new laws will be implemented.
“So if you listen to Moms Demand Action and the Brady Campaign and the major efforts pushing for smart, sensible and enforceable gun control across our country, disclosure, have endorsed my mom, they say they believe the next time the Court rules on gun control, it will make a definitive ruling,” Clinton said.
“So it matters to me that my mom is the only person running for president who not only constantly makes that connection but also has a strong record on gun control and standing up to the NRA.” Chelsea continued.
“This is one of those issues I didn’t know I could care more about until I became a mother. And I think every day about the Sandy Hook families whose children every day, don’t come home from school. And I can’t even imagine that living horror and tragedy.” she concluded.
Scalia’s death in February was mired in confusing circumstances after he was found alone in his room with a pillow over his head, and his body was quickly embalmed following the decision not to conduct an autopsy.
poll conducted by the Conservative Outfitters website finds that 79% of its readers suspect “foul play” was involved, while intelligence insiders also surmised that all was not right with the circumstances of Scalia’s passing.
Although the leftist media has attempted to portray any examination of the narrative about Scalia’s death as crass and insensitive, the same standards seemingly don’t apply when it comes to leftists themselves celebrating the death of the Supreme Court Justice.



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) 
has introduced legislation to stop President Barack Obama from imposing a stealthy gun ban on an estimated 75,000 Social Security beneficiaries.

Breitbart News previously reported last July that Obama’s gun ban would hit Social Security beneficiaries who are labeled as having “mental health” issues. That category is so broad that it includes people who need help to handle personal finances.
Obama added this gun ban into the executive gun controls he announced in January.
The White House explained that the Social Security Administration would execute the ban by reporting beneficiaries with a “mental health issue” to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This, in turn, would bar them from purchasing a gun.
The reporting would happen “in consultation with the Department of Justice” and would “cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment.”
Senator Paul has now introduced legislation to shield beneficiaries from losing gun rights simply because they need help balancing a checkbook.
Paul’s legislation–Protecting Gun Rights and Due Process Act–explicitly “prevents the Social Security Administrator from reporting individuals to NICS unless [that] individual has been adjudicated as mentally incompetent.”
In other words, it makes a finding of mental incompetence the result of a process rather than a proclamation. This protects the due process rights of each individual who might otherwise have simply been proclaimed mentally incompetent.
Moreover, even after the proper process has been followed, Paul’s bill requires the Attorney General to certify each adjudication–which is one more way of taking pains to ensure the protection of individual rights. And once an adjudication is lifted or absolved, rights are restored to the individual.

Sen. Rand Paul Introduces Protecting Gun Rights and Due Process Act

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Rand Paul today introduced the Protecting Gun Rights and Due Process Act, which would provide protection for gun owners by ensuring due process rights are upheld in the event an individual’s eligibility is questioned and reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
“The Obama administration is at it again, and this time they are unilaterally stripping gun rights from our nation’s veterans and seniors. The Protecting Gun Rights and Due Process Act will provide necessary protection for gun-owning Americans, and ultimately ensure that the Second Amendment is not infringed upon,” Sen. Paul said.
The Protecting Gun Rights and Due Process Act has gained support from the following organizations: the Gun Owners of America and the National Association of Gun Rights.
“Senator Paul’s ‘Protecting Gun Rights and Due Process Act’ will do much to block President Obama’s ability to strip the Second Amendment rights from law-abiding gun owners, veterans, and senior citizens without due process. Furthermore, it would restore rights for thousands of law-abiding gun owners, veterans, and senior citizens who were stripped of their Second Amendment rights without getting their day in court. Once again this bill shows that Senator Paul is one of Washington’s leading advocates for gun owners and the Second Amendment,” said the National Association of Gun Rights.
To read the legislation in its entirety, click HERE. Top-line bullet points and background information on the Protecting Gun Rights and Due Process Act can be found HERE or below.
  • Prohibits the sale or disposition of a firearm or ammunition to an individual that has been adjudicated as mentally incompetent or committed to a psychiatric hospital. Adjudication requires findings by a judicial officer or court and the individual receives notice to participate with counsel. 
  • Within 90 days, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs must review and remove from NICS any veteran that has not been adjudicated as mentally incompetent. The Attorney General will certify that the removal of names has taken place.
  • Prevents the Social Security Administrator from reporting individuals to NICS unless individual has been adjudicated as mentally incompetent. Attorney General will conduct a yearly review to certify reported names have necessary documentation.
  • Attorney General must certify a state’s report indicating a person had been adjudicated as mentally incompetent prior to inclusion to NICS.
  • All individuals considered to no longer be adjudicated as mentally incompetent will be notified and have their rights restored. 



Pamela Geller & Robert Spencer
on Sean Hannity Radio Discussing
Saudi involvement in 9/11

This Is Why The Saudi's Are So Scared Of Trump And The 28 Pages

Bailout The Truth! Saudis Attempt $750B Blackmail Over Secret 28 Pages
Published on Apr 19, 2016
When it comes to allowing the American people to know what the 9/11 Commission said about Saudi involvements, the Senators running for President — Clinton, Sanders, Cruz — are either indifferent or oppose disclosure and compensation as the Saudi’s threaten economic blackmail.

Senator Bob Graham tells 60 Minutes
the secret 28 pages prove Saudi Arabia
financed 9/11 attacks

Ron Paul Reports:
Saudi 9/11 Blackmail: 'We'll Dump Dollar!'
Streamed live on Apr 18, 2016
The Saudi foreign minister threatened to dump $750 billion in US Treasuries if Congress passes a bill suspending sovereign immunity over state involvement in terrorist attacks on US soil. The possible release of the secret 28 pages of the 9/11 report may implicate Saudi state organs in the attack. Who will blink?

Be sure to visit for more libertarian commentary.







Except Trump Wants Republican Platform Changed to Include Abortion Exceptions 

(Even if it Causes Strife)

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Trump abortion-compressed
During his appearance on NBC’s “Today” show on Thursday, Republican presidential candidate Donal Trump said that he would like the Republican platform changed to include exceptions to abortion.
Co-host Savannah Guthrie noted to Trump during the broadcast that the current platform does not cite any exceptions, and asked Trump if he would like them to be included.
“The Republican platform, every four years, has a provision that states that the right of the unborn child shall not be infringed. And it makes no exceptions for rape, for incest, for the life of the mother. Would you want to change the Republican platform to include the exceptions that you have?” she asked.
“Yes, I would,” he replied. “Yes, I would. Absolutely. For the three exceptions, I would.”
“Would you have an exception for the health of the mother?” Guthrie inquired.
“I would leave it for the life of the mother,” Trump responded, “but I would absolutely have the three exceptions.”
The current Republican platform reads in part, “Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”
As previously reported, in January, Trump wrote in an op-ed for the Washington Examiner that he supports abortion exceptions.
“Let me be clear—I am pro-life,” he stated. “I support that position with exceptions allowed for rape, incest or the life of the mother being at risk.”
Trump said that he “did not always hold [his current] position,” but, without explanation conveyed that he “had a significant personal experience that brought the precious gift of life into perspective for me.” Trump stated that he now sees that Roe v. Wade has resulted in the deaths of millions of Americans.
“Over time, our culture of life in this country has started sliding toward a culture of death,” he wrote. “Perhaps the most significant piece of evidence to support this assertion is that since Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Count 43 years ago, over 50 million Americans never had the chance to enjoy the opportunities offered by this country.”
Roe v. Wade, however, centered on a Texas woman named Norma McCorvey who sought an abortion over an alleged rape, which Trump states that he would allow for an exception. McCorvey later admitted that she had lied, as she was never raped. She also never obtained an abortion, but placed her child up for adoption and became a vocal pro-life advocate.
Trump’s statements allowing for exceptions are similar to those made by other recent Republican presidents, including George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.
“My own position on abortion is well-known and remains unchanged. I oppose abortion in all cases except rape or incest, or where the life of the mother is at stake,” George H.W. Bush said in 1992.
”My position has always been three exceptions: rape, incest and the life of the mother,” George W. Bush likewise outlined in 2006.
Last month, following controversy over his remarks about abortion, Trump said that “at this moment, the laws are set, and I think we have to leave it that way.”
“You had told Bloomberg in January that you believe abortion should be banned in some pregnancies,” John Dickerson with CBS’ “Face the Nation” asked. “Where would you like to see a ban…?”
“Well first of all, I would’ve preferred states’ rights,” Trump said. “I think it would’ve been better if it were up to the states. But right now, the laws are set. And that’s the way the laws are.”
“But do you have a feeling on how they should change?” Dickerson asked. “There are a lot of laws you wan to change. You’ve talked about them—everything from libel to abortion. Anything you’d want to change on abortion?”
“At this moment, the laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way,” Trump replied.

Trump: Let Men Dressed Like Women Into Women’s Restrooms

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Being interviewed at a town hall event in Indianapolis on Thursday, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump expressed objection to North Carolina’s “bathroom bill” and said that he is fine with those who identify as the opposite sex using the restroom of their choice.
“Tell us your views of LGBT and how you plan to be inclusive,” he was asked by a viewer of NBC’s “Today” show. “Please speak about the North Carolina bathroom law.”
“Oh, I had a feeling that question was going to come up, I will tell you. North Carolina did something that was very strong. And they’re paying a big price. There’s a lot of problems,” he replied.
Trump said that he believes that matters should have been left alone as disagreement over North Carolina’s law caused controversy in society and effected the state economy.
“[O]ne of the best answers I heard was from a commentator yesterday saying, leave it the way it is right now,” Trump said. “There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go. They use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate. There has been so little trouble.”
“And the problem with what happened in North Carolina is the strife and the economic—I mean, the economic punishment that they’re taking,” he continued.
The Republican presidential candidate said that he doesn’t like the idea of creating separate restrooms for “transgendered” persons.
“First of all, I think that would be discriminatory in a certain way. That would be unbelievably expensive for businesses in the country,” he explained. “Leave it the way it is.”
Trump was also asked if Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner were to enter Trump Tower, if he would be fine with Jenner using the restroom of his choice.
“That is correct,” Trump replied.
As previously reported, in February, Trump was asked by a lesbian reporter if he would support homosexual causes as president, to which he replied that he would in the name of bringing people together.
“[W]e’ve had some great progress for the gay and lesbian community through politics, through all sorts of judicial actions and elected actions over the past 20 years,” said Susan O’Connell, the publisher of Bay Windows, which according to its website is “New England’s largest publication for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender readers.”
“When President Trump is in office can we look for more forward motion on equality for gays and lesbians?” she asked.
“Well, you can,” Trump replied. “And look, again, we’re going to bring people together. And that’s your thing and other people have their thing. We have to bring all people together, and if we don’t we’re not going to have a country anymore. It’s going to be a total mess. It’s a mess right now, and it’s going to be worse.”
Trump has stated that he does not support same-sex “marriage,” but also told reporters last year that he believes the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges is “the law of the land.”
“I like the idea of amending the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation,” he told the homosexual publication “The Advocate” in 2000. “We don’t need to rewrite the laws currently on the books, although I do think we need to address hate-crimes legislation. But amending the Civil Rights Act would grant the same protection to gay people that we give to other Americans. It’s only fair.”

A Warning to Conservative Christians Supporting Trump
Published on Apr 21, 2016
In light of Donald Trump's comments on 4-21-16 re: abortion, transgender rights, and the North Carolina bathroom privacy bill, Dr. Brown raises concerns for conservative Christians looking to Trump for support and protection.



Donald Trump Is (Slightly) Wrong About
Harriet Tubman And The 20 Dollar Bill

Americans Petition to Ban Cash and Issue New Digital Dollar for a Cashless Society

Why The Fed Wants To Memory Hole Andrew Jackson
Published on Apr 20, 2016
It has been announced that Andrew Jackson will be replaced on the $20 by Harriet Tubman. Regardless of whose face we use, it’s the Federal Reserve that needs to go. We look at why the faces on our money are there, why Hamilton is not being removed as originally announced and what Andrew Jackson’s Bank War tells us about the Federal Reserve, the Supreme Court and the Constitution in our time. 

$20 Bill is About Creating Racial Division
Published on Apr 21, 2016
Jackson needs to come off because he owned slaves? Jackson saved his country from slavery to the British, from slavery to the Central Bank slavery and from slavery to the dictates of the Supreme Court. Do you realize YOU’RE the slave of the Federal Reserve and Obama? 


Andrew Jackson, Who Fought Central Bank, Removed From $20 
As “Public Concern For Liberty” Erased
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The War on Cash has many fronts.
The latest battle is for the face of the currency itself, and the central bankers, who control the front anyway, have imposed a symbolic defeat against the leaders in America’s past who have fought against the stranglehold of the money makers.
Naturally, there are liberal politics at play, fighting for every inch of ground in the war for ideological re-engineering. History is being whitewashed, various figures of antiquity rolling in their graves….
At stake is a dispute for the powers of government even better than the more famous duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton, of whom we also speak.
The iconic $20 bill, with the face of President Andrew Jackson, and the $10 bill, with the face of the nation’s first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, have long pitted two ideological extremes against each other as they pass along as some of the most used denominations in circulation.
But now, the money powers at the Treasury Department have decided that it is time to add a woman’s face to the money supply as well.
As such, the powers-that-bank have decided to oust Andrew Jackson from the line up, and with it, part of his legacy.
It will be “removed in favor of a female representing the struggle for racial equality,” according to CNN, while an early proposal to remove Alexander Hamilton’s bill will be scrapped, though the proposal includes a redesign on the backs of his and several other notes with scenes from the Woman’s Suffrage Movement, Susan B. and all the gals.
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is expected to announce this week that Alexander Hamilton’s face will remain on the front of the $10 bill and a woman will replace Andrew Jackson on the face of the $20 bill, a senior government source told CNN on Saturday.
Dramatically, it seems that there was a backlash to counter the coup against Hamilton, including support from former Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke:
The decision to make the historic change at the expense of Hamilton drew angry rebukes from fans of the former Treasury Secretary. The pro-Hamilton movement gained steam after the smash success of the hip-hop Broadway musical about his life this year.
Those pressures led Lew to determine that Hamilton should remain on the front of the bill.
And there’s a reason for Bernanke’s bias towards Hamilton.
It was Hamilton, who from the early days of the nation clamored for a central bank and a strong interventionist federal government.
I have quoted Thomas DiLorenzo on the evil Hamilton before:
Hamilton was a compulsive statist who wanted to bring the corrupt British mercantilist system — the very system the American Revolution was fought to escape from — to America. He fought fiercely for his program of corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, public debt, pervasive taxation, and a central bank run by politicians and their appointees out of the nation’s capital….
Hamilton complained to George Washington that “we need a government of more energy” and expressed disgust over “an excessive concern for liberty in public men”…
The Philadelphie Federal Reserve publication. A History of Central Banking in America, reports:
Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, urged Congress to also assume the war debts of the individual states and then create a national bank to help refinance all these debts. Hamilton’s proposal faced major opposition. Critics said that Hamilton’s bank was unconstitutional, would be a monopoly, and would reduce the power of the states. Although Hamilton won, the bank’s charter was limited to 20 years.
And that’s right where Andrew Jackson’s legacy with the banks picks up.
With the charter of the first “Bank of the United States” ending, Jackson was determined to stop the charter of the second “Bank of the United States” and famously stated:
“You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out.” (Andrew Jackson, to a delegation of bankers discussing the recharter of the Second Bank of the United States, 1832)
President Jackson likened their agents to the hydra-beast, with its many heads, and even survived an assassination attempt, by staving off an attacker personally.
jackson-banks-vipersThe bankers, and the powerful families including the Rothschilds who supported it, wanted a “national bank” because they could load the board with “their” guys and outweigh the will of the people and the normal channels of government.

You’ll be kicking yourself for not picking up silver at these prices (Ad)

jackson-route-bankers-national-bankOf course, the same exact state of affairs has been going on today for more than a century with the Federal Reserve, which is run by the successors to the same exact banking interests, including the still immensely-powerful Rothschild family.
The struggle is depicted well in The Money Masters, which spans several centuries of history with the threat of banking powers over individual sovereignty in stark contrast. To be sure, there is an important and nefarious plot afoot to ensnare you, your family and everyone on the block with debt.
There is a line, and you should figure out what side of it you’re going to be on.
Jackson narrowly succeeded in staving off banker domination of the U.S. during his day.
Of course, Andrew Jackson, who was the United States’ seventh president, was also a complete controversy his entire lifetime. It is no surprise that the same people who took down the Confederate flag from the South on the back of a mass shooting tragedy are now trying to tear down the image of a particularly controversial and intriguing figure from the American past.
Jackson was a recalcitrant and unyielding general and war hero, and later an outsider riding a wave of populist support into the White House, bringing in sometimes unscrupulous companions, and plenty of Masons. Many of his backers were diametrically opposed to the entrenched power of New York bankers and speculators, as well as patrician politicians who dominated the first phase of politics in the nation’s history. Jackson played a nasty role in the Trail of Tears affairs with Indians, too, and with the South and Western expansion of slave-friendly territories. Many shades of grey.
Meanwhile, behind the scenes in the founding days of this country, Alexander Hamilton, an advocate of strong central government, and maneuvered on behalf of his banker masters to collectivize the war debt from the states and create a central bank to control the financial strength of the country, and ingrain the early United States with the mindset of the British masters they had just fought to shake off.
After the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, and the crisis and consolidation of wealth during the Great Depression, and ever since the 2008 economic collapse, the rule by bankers has become a foregone conclusion, though there will be more chances to shake off their yoke of control. (BitCoin is one possible avenue; Congressionally-controlled greenbacks another; gold and silver yet another…)
Erasing Andrew Jackson from the faces of the fiat funny-money that is passed around by an increasingly ignorant and dependent society (which itself has adopted digital currency as the new norm) will further cut off the past from the masses, and ensure their enslavement.
Read more:

Tubman’s Replacement of Jackson Highlights Currency Changes

Tubman’s Replacement of Jackson 

Highlights Currency Changes

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Harriet Tubman (shown) was an escaped slave who became a major leader in the Underground Railroad — the organized effort to help escaping slaves in the early part of the 19th century. The Underground Railroad used “safe houses” and a network of anti-slavery activists. Tubman died in 1913. After the abolition of slavery, Tubman turned her attention to women’s suffrage. Now, she will become the first person of black African ancestry on American currency, but not the first woman. That honor was held by Pocahontas. The last woman’s whose image appeared on American paper money was Martha Washington.
Tubman replaces Andrew Jackson, who first made it onto a $20 Federal Reserve Note in 1936 (the 100th anniversary of his election as president). Jackson will remain on the back of the note, sharing space with an image of the White House.
Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew announced that Tubman will appear on the $20 bill and added that the $10 and $5 bills are also scheduled to have updates, as well. Presently, the Lincoln Memorial is on the back side of the $5 bill. Now, the $5 bill will be redesigned to highlight certain events that took place there, including the famous “I have a dream” speech by Martin Luther King. But Alexander Hamilton, considered the father of American central banking, and Abraham Lincoln, the nation’s 16th president, will continue to grace those denominations of money.
The $10 note had been the next bill scheduled for an overhaul, with the plan to replace Hamilton, but that plan met with a great amount of resistance. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke contended that Hamilton, as the father of the First Bank of the United States, had a better claim than any other person to be on American currency.
Predictably, any mention of Andrew Jackson includes the obligatory derogatory comments that he was a slave owner and, in the words of the LA Times, his polices “led to the deaths of countless Native Americans.”
Cherokee Chief Bill John Baker weighed in, praising the selection of Tubman, adding that Jackson’s legacy “was never one to be celebrated, and his image on our currency is a constant reminder of his crimes against Natives.”
Certainly, “Old Hickory” is now reviled by the “politically correct” crowd and cast as a man of almost unbelievable evil. The image now perpetuated in the popular American culture, the media, and in academia is more like a comic book villain rather than a real flesh-and-blood human being with many flaws — and many heroic features.
A little perspective is in order.
Andrew Jackson’s role in the Indian removals is certainly part of a dark chapter in American history. He carried out the will of Congress in negotiating resettlement treaties with various tribes. These treaties were overwhelmingly approved by the American public. If we are going to erase the other positive contributions of Jackson to American history because of this, then it is only fair to spread the blame to Congress — and to the people themselves who were alive at the time. And Jackson was not even president for all of the removals. The Cherokee removals actually took place after Jackson was living in retirement at the Hermitage in Tennessee. The Indian removal was an indefensible policy, but Jackson did not even originate the idea of moving the indigenous tribes west of the Mississippi River. After Thomas Jefferson and Congress purchased the Louisiana Territory from the French in 1803, Jefferson urged Native American tribal chiefs to voluntarily move west.
Jefferson was troubled by continued westward expansion, which was leading to the destruction of the Indians’ tribes and culture. As farms moved westward, forest lands, so critical to the tribal economy, were diminished. After Jefferson, others, notably Secretary of War John C. Calhoun, advocated Indian removal. Had public opinion polls been conducted at the time, there is little question that removal would have received strong majority support — whether that removal was effected through voluntary or involuntary means.
Though the Indian removals were certainly a prime example of “democracy in action” (of course, our country was founded as a republic, not a democracy), the back side of the new $5 bill will honor events at the Lincoln Memorial that, in the words of the folks at the Treasury Department, “helped to shape our history and our democracy.”
As Americans pushed up against, and even into, Indian lands, pressure was brought for the government to purchase more and more land from the indigenous tribes. With increasing reluctance, tribes signed away land, extracting promises that the federal government would keep white settlers off the remaining Indian land.
But once again, “democracy” won out. Jackson, a military man, saw firsthand the difficulty in enforcing these promises. Before he removed the Indians, he removed whites — from Indian lands. Then they would return. Any president who actually cracked down on settlers violating tribal sovereignty would face the settlers’ wrath at the polls. These poor settlers may not have had much wealth, but they did have the vote. And they were not afraid to use it.
By the time Jackson took the White House in 1828, it was clear that either Jackson would remove the Indians in the east, or the people would elect a different president who would accomplish the removal of the Indians.
Jackson’s removal of the Indians is certainly a blot on his reputation. But if we are going to delete every person off the currency who has flaws, Federal Reserve Notes would have no portraits.
And Jackson never said, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.” In fact, Jackson and his wife, Rachel, adopted a little Creek Indian orphan boy.
To say that Jackson is not alone in having done some things wrong is not an argument for keeping him on the $20 bill. So, what did he ever do to deserve his place on American currency in the first place?
Jackson certainly has significant achievements. On January 8, 1815, leading a rag-tag army composed of frontier militia, pirates, and allied Indians, Jackson annihilated the British army at the Battle of New Orleans — an army that had just bested Napoleon. Had he lost, the city might very well not be part of the United States today. Historical illiterates often comment that the battle was actually fought after the War of 1812 was over. Their contention is that the Treaty of Ghent, ending the war, was signed in Belgium several days earlier. Such an assertion does not consider that the treaty was as yet unratified by Parliament, and therefore not yet in effect. Had the British won at New Orleans, it is doubtful the Parliament would have ratified the Treaty of Ghent, and then simply handed the city back to the United States.
Before Jackson became the seventh president, the Republican Party launched by Thomas Jefferson had drifted into adopting many of the policies of the rival Federalist Party, led by Hamilton. While Jefferson had begun his Republican Party largely to oppose Hamilton’s Bank of the United States, regarded by Jefferson as unconstitutional, it was his own party that later chartered a Second Bank of the United States in 1816.
This was a major complaint of the “Old Republicans,” who wanted to restore the party to its constitutionalist roots. The movement needed a popular man who could attract enough voter support to regain control of the government.
That man was Andrew Jackson. In 1832, in an effort to stop Jackson from winning reelection, Nicholas Biddle, the president of the Second Bank of the United States, brought up its 20-year charter for a renewal vote four years early. The opposition Whig Party thought if Jackson dared to veto the measure, he would lose the election to Henry Clay. If he signed it, their central bank was safe for another 20 years.
Jackson vetoed the bill, leading to the eventual demise of America’s second central bank. In his veto message, he argued that the bank was an unconstitutional granting of a monopoly by Congress (much as Jefferson had argued against Hamilton’s bank many years earlier). He believed it was an example of the wealthy and powerful elites using the power of the federal government to achieve an unfair advantage — much like the “crony capitalism” of today — and was a dangerous concentration of power in the hands of that elite.
The Federal Reserve System, created in 1913, was, in effect, America’s third central bank. Some have wondered if the decision to put Jackson on a Federal Reserve Note — paper money of the sort that was despised by Jackson — was some little joke against the man who had once snuffed out the life of central banking in the United States.
Certainly, Andrew Jackson did both good and bad as president. But Jackson’s victory over the British in 1815, and his killing of central banking in 1832 are certainly both great achievements. While there are other Americans who, it could be argued, have made even greater positive contributions to the country than Jackson (as well as the others who are presently the faces of our currency), there would certainly not be very many.
Jackson would have, no doubt, approved of his removal from a note issued by a central bank in exchange for the abolition of the central bank itself, known in America as the Federal Reserve System.
And as long we are talking about changes to the currency, perhaps we should note that the biggest and most devastating change to the currency has already occurred — making it fiat currency (money not back by a precious commodity such as gold) that can be created out of thin air at a whim, causing inflation.
That was the very thing that Jackson tried to prevent with his great veto, killing central banking in 1832. Hopefully, we will have another president again who will have Jackson's courage to kill the Federal Reserve Bank — and with it, restore the soundness to American currency, making it once again as good as gold.