The FED and JFK?

Wanted to start this thread for people to post supporting or debunking links for the idea that JFK was killed for EO 11110.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110

Note this bill here printed in 1963. Look at the top, and see where it says UNITED STATES NOTE, and not Federal Reserve.



A video on how the FED fraud supposedly works:

[video=youtube;wsf35OokAmU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=wsf35OokAmU[/video]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsf35OokAmU


Then I have also read things like this, that tend to debunk the idea:

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/was-jfk-assassinated-because-he-opposed-the-fed/


Now, one of my favorite lines is, I know enough to know I know nothing. So I am really just looking for more information here.

 

I believe that this is the very reason JFK was assassinated for the fact he and Lincoln were the only presidents who were against the fed, who then ended up dead......

 

Lincoln died in 1865. The Fed was created in 1913.

 

It was probably Joe Kennedy, Sr' idea.

Joe, Sr. was the brains of the family.

 

The FED/Central bank are the same EXACT entity...............

 

Oh. OK. I see. Then I suppose you're referring to the National Banks created under the National Banking Acts in the 1860s. Is that right? But why would Lincoln have had issues with them sufficient to cause them to want to assassinate him?

 

Lincoln was all for centralized government/centralized banks. Lincoln believed in a lot of the things Henry Clay (A member of the Whig party, of the time. More information here: http://www.answers.com/topic/whig-party) was stating. One of the key things was a centralized bank.

Furthermore, Lincoln wasn't assassinated because of that, he was assassinated because Booth loved the South and did it because how he felt Lincoln help destroy the South while aiding the North.

 

Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy
Two great presidents of the United States Assassinated for the cause of justice

français



by Melvin Sickler

November 22, 2003 marks the 40th anniversary of the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, and a majority of Americans still believe that there was a conspiracy behind this assassination. Both Abraham Lincoln and Kennedy were assassinated while they held the high office of President of the United States. Both of these former presidents had also created their own money system to run the United States while they were in office. Is this just a coincidence?

Why assassinate a President? Why must everything be kept so covered up? What are they trying to hide from the American people? The facts will speak for themselves.

Abraham Lincoln

During the Civil War (1861-1865), President Lincoln needed money to finance the War from the North. The Bankers were going to charge him 24% to 36% interest. Lincoln was horrified and went away greatly distressed, for he was a man of principle and would not think of plunging his beloved country into a debt that the country would find impossible to pay back.

Eventually President Lincoln was advised to get Congress to pass a law authorizing the printing of full legal tender Treasury notes to pay for the War effort. Lincoln recognized the great benefits of this issue. At one point he wrote:

“... (we) gave the people of this Republic the greatest blessing they have ever had – their own paper money to pay their own debts...”

The Treasury notes were printed with green ink on the back, so the people called them “Greenbacks”.

Lincoln printed 400 million dollars worth of Greenbacks (the exact amount being $449,338,902), money that he delegated to be created, a debt-free and interest-free money to finance the War. It served as legal tender for all debts, public and private. He printed it, paid it to the soldiers, to the U.S. Civil Service employees, and bought supplies for war.

Shortly after that happened, “The London Times” printed the following: “If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all coun(*)tries will go to North America. That govern(*)ment must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”

The Bankers obviously understood. The only thing, I repeat, the only thing that is a threat to their power is sovereign govern(*)ments printing interest-free and debt-free paper money. They know it would break the power of the international Bankers.

In retaliation

After this was published in "The London Times", the British Government, which was controlled by the London and other European Bankers, moved to support the Confederate South, hoping to defeat Lincoln and the Union, and destroy this government which they said had to be destroyed.

They were stopped by two things. First, Lincoln knew the British people, and he knew that Britain would not support slavery, so he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared that slavery in the United States was abolished. At this point, the London Bankers could not openly support the Confederacy because the British people simply would not stand for their country supporting slavery.

Second, the Czar of Russia sent a portion of the Russian navy to the United States with orders that its admiral would operate under the command of Abraham Lincoln. These ships of the Russian navy then became a threat to the ships of the British navy which had intended to break the blockade and help the South.

The North won the War, and the Union was preserved. America remained as one nation.

Of course, the Bankers were not going to give in that easy, for they were determined to put an end to Lincoln's interest-free, debt-free Greenbacks. He was assassinated by an agent of the Bankers shortly after the War ended.

Thereafter, Congress revoked the Green(*)back Law and enacted, in its place, the National Banking Act. The national banks were to be privately owned and the national bank notes they issued were to be interest bearing. The Act also provided that the Greenbacks should be retired from circulation as soon as they came back to the Treasury in payment of taxes.

In 1972, the United States Treasury Department was asked to compute the amount of interest that would have been paid if that 400 million dollars would have been borrowed at interest instead of being issued by Abraham Lincoln. They did some computations, and a few weeks later, the United States Treasury Department said the United States Government saved 4 billion dollars in interest because Lincoln had created his own money. So you can about imagine how much the Government has paid and how much we owe solely on the basis of interest.

The Federal Reserve Act

There were changes in the money and banking laws for the next fifty years. Finally, in 1913, the Bankers were able to get their Federal Reserve Act passed through Congress which replaced the National Banking Act that had earlier replaced the Greenback Law. If the Government would have continued the policy of Abraham Lincoln, the warnings given in “The London Times” would have come to pass. America would be a debt-free nation, the most prosperous in the world. And the brains and the wealth of the world would have come to America.

But with this Federal Reserve Act being passed, Congress gave up Its power to create its own money that it was given in the United States Constitution, and gave this power over to private Bankers who called themselves the Federal Reserve. The Bankers had achieved their ultimate goal, for now the United States operated under a central bank that was privately owned. They now had the power to run the country by controlling the creation of the money, and were free to charge the interest they so desired.

As Mayer Anselm Rothschild once said: “Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws...”

John F. Kennedy

No United States president since Abraham Lincoln dared to go against the system and create his own money, as many of these so-called elected presidents were actually only instruments or puppets of the Bankers. That is until President John F. Kennedy came into office.

President Kennedy was not afraid to “buck the system”, for he understood how the Federal Reserve System was being used to destroy the United States. As a just and honorable man, he could not tolerate such a system, for it smelled corruption from A to Z. Certainly he must have known about the Greenbacks which Abraham Lincoln created when he was in office.

On June 4th, 1963, President Kennedy signed a presidential document, called Exec(*)utive Order 11110, which further amended Executive Order 10289 of September 19th, 1951. This gave Kennedy, as President of the United States, legal clearance to create his own money to run the country, money that would belong to the people, an Interest and debt-free money. He had printed United States Notes, completely ignoring the Federal Reserve Notes from the private banks of the Federal Reserve.

Our records show that Kennedy issued $4,292,893,825 of cash money. It was perfect(*)ly obvious that Kennedy was out to under(*)mine the Federal Reserve System of the United States.

But it was only a few months later, In November of 1963, that the world received the shocking news of President Kennedy's assassination. No reason was given, of course, for anyone wanting to commit such an atrocious crime. But for those who knew anything about money and banking, it did — not take long to put the pieces of the puzzle together. For surely, President Kennedy must have had It in mind to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and return back to the United States Congress the power to create its own money.

It is interesting to note that, only one day after Kennedy's assassination, all the United States notes, which Kennedy had issued, were called out of circulation. Was this through an executive order of the newly installed president, Lyndon B. Johnson? Was President Johnson afraid of the Bankers? Or was he one of their instruments? At any rate, all of the money President Kennedy had created was destroyed. And not a word was said to the American people.

A lesson to learn

There is much that can be learned from our past history. Here we are in 2003, and the United States is still operating under the Federal Reserve System. It has already plunged this country over six trillion dollars into debt – Federal debt, (the total debt, including that of individuals and corporations, is over 20 trillion) a debt it will never be able to pay, and has been responsible for every kind corruption imaginable. Yet, barely a peep of protest can be heard from the American people.

All the Bankers have to do to keep their power is to get rid of the few politicians who are honestly working for a reform in our economic system, and the people at large remain ignorant and controlled. It is obvious the American people need to be awakened to the truth.

The population at large must be educated on the Federal Reserve, and then unite together to put pressure on the Government to get the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 repealed. Otherwise, it will spell disaster for the United States.

There can be no peace without justice, and there can be no justice without a reform in our economic system, for the financiers are behind all the corruption in our Govern(*)ment.

Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy both had the courage to stand up for principles and to fight for justice. They have both gone down in history as being true patriots of the United States. But do we, as citizens, have the courage to follow their example?

Melvin Sickler

This article was published in the Oct.-Nov.-December, 2003 issue of “Michael”.

 

The idea is that when the Rothchilds, I mean the New York bankers of the time, offered him loans to fund the civil war at 24-36% Lincoln began to print our own interest free money.

I think many people that give this idea credence find it a bit too convienient that two different presidents who tried to print their own interest free money were assassinated.

 

Interesting. I never knew that. I need to do some investigation.

[And am finding quite a lot under Conspiracy Theories - New World Order - Central Banking]

 

The idea of a Central Bank dates back to Alexander Hamilton.

The First Bank of the United States was chartered in 1791 to do more or less the same functions as the Fed.
The Second Bank of the United States (successor to the First chartered in 1817) was vanquished by Andrew Jackson and carted off to the dustbin of history by James K. Polk.

From the 1840s to 1913, the nation went through a series of "Panics" and "Depressions" every five to seven years. These tended to be deep but short. Almost always they were caused by cascading bank failures. A bank would fail, people would lose confidence and run to their bank to withdraw their deposits and then their bank would fail. Because of the "hard money" policies of 1941-1913, money lost in a bank run was lost forever. Bank robberies were somethings triggers for bank runs. Bank robbers were special enemies of the people and almost always hanged.

In 1893 and 1907 Presidents Grover Cleveland and Theodore Roosevelt had to turn to banker J.P. Morgan to bail out the country.

Contrary to sensationalist books, the existence of the Fed was not the result of some deep, dark conspiracy, but the realization that the old system of no central bank was not working and that J.P. Morgan would not live forever.

There are plenty of good sound reasons for the existence of the Fed. That is has performed as well as it has is fairly remarkable. Many blame the Great Depression on it, but the US bucked a worldwide Depression for a number of years in the 1920s, and finally monetarist policies in Britain sucked the gold out of the US and cause the 1929 crash.

Hamilton would have been aghast at the decades of inflationary policy that began in the 1930s. But the Fed's finest hour came in the early 80s as it put the brakes on the inflation of the 1970s.

It's there for a reason, people and it serves a function a lot better than a system of no central bank. Don't let your envy get the better of logical reasoning.

 

This right here is blowing my mind. I had never seen this all connected together, and so well documented and sourced.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...nking-all-tied-together-2.html#post1062436959

 

Your game is so weak!

Yes, our only two choices are no central bank, or the FED.........Here is your sign!

 

None of this refutes my point. JFK had different intentions, of which, one could easily see how they were involved in his assassination. Lincoln, I have my doubts because of the other stuff he was doing while in office. One could conclude in either direction. It's harder to write it up as that because of one instance when we look at the destruction Lincoln caused to the South because of his policies.

 

Either way, until this corruption of money power is halted, by the people,for the people,it will only progress as it has in plain sight since the adoption of the FEDERAL RESERVE ACT of 1913, AKA, the license to rob the AMERICAN people................

All the Bankers have to do to keep their power is to get rid of the few politicians who are honestly working for a reform in our economic system, and the people at large remain ignorant and controlled. It is obvious the American people need to be awakened to the truth.

 

They may have credence. However, I think we have to look at the overall policies each President enacted. For starters, both Presidents sent us into an unnecessary war (Lincoln sent us into a Civil War, JFK sent us into Vietnam). Purely a guesstimate, one could state that had we not been in either of these wars, there wouldn't have been a need to print out money.

If we begin to dissect things furthermore, Lincoln imposes heavy tariffs onto the South & never really looked to resolve slavery peacefully. As such, I believe we're the only country who fought a war to end slavery. One could even state that because of the high amount of racism we have today and even with the way the war ended, had we resolved the war peacefully, we might not have so much racism and even the KKK may never had come into existence. Bringing it back to my point, because of these high tariffs, the South was basically bailing out water and had a very hard time staying afloat. They relied on slavery to keep their economy going while the North was so far advanced, they relied on more people working in their advanced factories, for their time. As such, that's why the North wanted to abolish slavery, they no longer needed it.

If we go even further to Lincoln suppressing newspapers and suspending habeas corpus, too much of his policies leave the question of how badly were the South being treated during this time and even before the war? Let alone the fact that Lincoln wouldn't let them secede from the USA (Of which, nothing in the Constitution either allows or denies a state the right to secede. In which case, I believe the Supreme Court was wrong in that case), too much of it piles up on top of him to just chalk it up as hatred from the bankers. Again, I could be wrong but I think there is so much clout over him, I have a hard time just chalking it up as such.

When it comes to JFK, I think it's pretty clear something is going on. Forget any policy he enacted or any evidence, JFK was shot multiple times in different angles. That enough should raise questions to folks. I'm more willing to go on the side the banksters may had something to do with this over Lincoln. That's because it was clear he wanted to 'End The Fed'. With Lincoln, he believed in the Whig party agenda (Being a former member of the party as well) and that was getting as far away from what the founding fathers envisioned as possible. He believed in a centralized government and to not think he was for a centralized bank, regardless of him printing out money, I would go against that theory.

Then again, so much about these Presidents are up in the air, you're either a genius for writing good stories about them or a conspiracy nut if you say otherwise. Go from one extreme to the next and most people just get turned off to it. For me, I read up on it and see where the cookie trail takes me. As in JFK, I'm more interested into seeing where the cookie trail leads from/to Lyndon B. Johnson (IE: Malcolm Wallace).

EDIT: I even quoted you, pimptight. I didn't want you to add me to your statistics of not adding your name so you didn't get alerted

 

You're preaching to the choir. I'm all for stopping the complete and utter control of our monetary policy by the big banksters. You won't get any argument from me in regards to it.

 

I think the defender of this idea would quote that Rothschilds mother that said there would be no wars, unless her son wanted it so.

There is quite the documented history that the same people fund both sides of the major wars. This would seem unlikely unless you had already set the table to be so.

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to imply with your statements. I stated that I could be wrong in my assumptions. However, I will still continue to have my doubts. In either scenario, I don't really care if we chalk up every death in the world to the banksters, I want the big banksters out of our monetary policy and, to me, it doesn't matter how it's accomplished.

War = Profits, that's nothing new. Still doesn't change my opinion on the matter. Again, I never claimed to be right, my assumptions are purely speculation.

 

Fair enough.

Like I said, I know enough to know I know nothing.

Hell, that Sibel Edmonds/operation Gladio thread I started yesterday still has me messed up.

I don't know what to do about the fact that Edmonds was responding to questions about the NWO. I had always thought the secret society stuff was a false trail.

 

Nope. Greenbacker fiction. Lincoln got what he had coming. Tyrant. JFK was an establishment whore, killed for any reason but his opposition to the tit-bank.

 

Small detail.

- - - Updated - - -

Doesn't this thread belong in the "Conspiracy" section?

 

NWO/illuminati stuff is becoming more and more in the open. As I stated before, it's to the point where they come out in their face about it and if people call foul on it, you're instantly labeled as a conspiracy theorist or you are an extremist if you don't believe in it. It's so bad now that they are talking about Beyonce flashing the illuminati sign at the Super Bowl. Granted, they are saying it's the Roc-A-Fella sign (Roc-A-Fella or Rockefeller, you decide), people still have questions.

It doesn't take but someone who is really paying attention to the world to know what's going on. Wars are being started across the land, we're funding all sides of every war, we, the people, are hurting but the big banksters are making hand over fist in profits. Again, my assumption, but I'm just waiting for the big ball to hit the fan. Either that or the world revolution, not just locally within the various nations, but total world revolt.

 

You should be in the conspiring section.

Bring back the roaring 20s baby. oyeah

 

bump...