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.
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?
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?
BLACK TO THE FRONT;
WHITE TO THE BACK
OF THE $20 BILL
(NOT THE BUS THIS TIME,
BUT YOU GET IT)
Andrew Jackson, Who Fought Central Bank, Removed From $20
As “Public Concern For Liberty” Erased
BY MAC SLAVO
SEE: http://www.activistpost.com/2016/04/andrew-jackson-removed-from-20-dollar-bill.html; republished 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.
Here’s the scoop from the Economic Policy Journal, who called it a “despicable decision”:
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.
The 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)
Of 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:
- Americans Face Impoverishing War on Cash: “More Big Banks Are Shunning Cash”
- As Banks Seek Monopoly Over Economy, “Cash Is Being Gradually Taken Away”
- Action Star Jean-Claude Van Damme Calls Out Rockefeller/Rothschild Puppet Masters Who “Won’t Let Trump Win”
- Too Big To Fail Is Now Bigger Than Ever Before
Tubman’s Replacement of Jackson
Highlights Currency Changes
BY STEVE BYAS
SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/item/23019-tubman-s-replacement-of-jackson-highlights-currency-changes; republished 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.
