4 Presidents (2020) Movie Script

[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
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
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.
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'
Both Presidents
McKinley and Garfield
had major international
crises brewing
right before their
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
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.
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
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
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
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,
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,
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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,
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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,
- 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.
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
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,
- [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
"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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
and financial wealth.
No doubt with the Kennedy
family history in place,
the Federal Reserve felt
very comfortable
with the election of John F.
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.
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
couldn't have disagreed more
with Lincoln's monetary policy,
as well as those
instituted by Garfield,
McKinley, and most recently,
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
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
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.
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.
not through centralized,
international private banks.
That is an undeniable fact.
[drum beating]