Donald Trump, Andrew Jackson and the central bank
Today was a great day in history!
On this day (July 10, 1832) President Andrew Jackson vetoed a renewal of the charter of the Bank of the United States. This was the second attempt by the Rothschild dynasty and their agents to try to install and maintain a central bank (monopoly) over the control of money in the infant united States of America.
Their first attempt was implemented by Alexander Hamilton. They later succeeded in 1913 with President Woodrow Wilson’s signature on the creation of the Federal Reserve System, and America has been economically enslaved ever since. The good news is that it will soon be no more. See more in my previous blogs.
…speaking of my previous blogs about the Fed, I did not realize until today that 180 years ago today, on the same 10th day of the 7th month, President Jackson was also doing a “work” (i.e., shutting down) the Federal Reserve of his day. What a “God thing-coincidence!”
For on this day, exactly 10 years ago (the “Hezekiah factor,) our little group did our spiritual work at the Atlanta branch of the Fed, prophesying the shutdown of the modern ungodly money system. See those blogs for the biblical significance of the 10th day of the 7th month as it applies to the removal of the central bank/debt money system which still clings to power over us—but not for long!
Why do you think President Trump from virtually day one in office has had a portrait of Jackson prominently displayed in the Oval Office. He intends to bring down the Fed, but you won’t hear about the progress from the Lying Legacy Medianites.
And could the selection of Jacksonville, Florida for the site of the Republican National Convention have been chosen for its symbolic significance as much as the friendliness of its governor to the present administration?
Trump has signalled his intent from the beginning to dismantle the Fed. It is now a work in progress although the Medianites utter hardly a peep about it. That’s okay. It is still coming down! The following are some excerpts from President Jackson’s message listing a few of the reasons why he refused to sign the renewal of “the Fed” of his day. Emphasis mine.
“A BANK of the United States is in many respects convenient for the Government and useful to the people. Entertaining this opinion, and deeply impressed with the belief that some of the powers and privileges possessed by the existing Bank are unauthorized by the Constitution, subversive of the rights of the States, and dangerous to the liberties of the people, I felt it my duty,…
I sincerely regret that, in the act before me, I can perceive none of those modifications of the Bank charter which are necessary, in my opinion, to make it compatible with justice, with sound policy, or with the Constitution of our country…
“To acknowledge its force is to admit that the Bank ought to be perpetual; and, as a consequence, the present stockholders, and those inheriting their rights as successors, be established a privileged order, clothed both with great political power and enjoying immense pecuniary advantages from their connection with the Government. The modifications of the existing charter, proposed by this act, are not such, in my views, as make it consistent with the rights of the States or the liberties of the people…
“Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a Bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country. The president of the Bank has told us that most of the State banks exist by its forbearance. Should its influence become concentered, as it may under the operation of such an act as this, in the hands of a self-elected directory, whose interests are identified with those of the foreign stockholders, will there not be cause to tremble for the purity of our elections in peace, and for the independence of our country in war. Their power would be great whenever they might choose to exert it…
“It is maintained by the advocates of the Bank, that its constitutionality, in all its features, ought to be considered as settled by precedent, and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I cannot assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding questions of constitutional power, except where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered as well settled. So far from this being the case on this subject, an argument against the Bank might be based on precedent…
“If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court, must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution…
“The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. . . .
“. . . There is nothing in its [the Bank’s] legitimate functions which makes it necessary or proper. . . .
“. . . It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions.
“In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society–the farmers, mechanics, and laborers–who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government.
“There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles. . . .”