Today, we want to blend our discussion on education public policy-----LOCKE NOT DEWEY ----with that discussion of colonial battles over SOVEREIGN American banking vs HAMILTON as global banking 1% FEDERAL RESERVE BANK----US FED.
The video of our 99% GREEK citizens show how EURO CENTRAL BANKING staged their fleecing just as our US FED staged these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA fleecing of America. Most of our American founding fathers fought HAMILTON and did not want a FEDERAL RESERVE CENTRAL BANK because they just finished an American revolution to be free from those OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% -----and their global banking. As we say, our US citizens as voters kept all candidates wanting to bring global banking 1% to capture American economic and monetary funds OUT of our government----and did so all through 1800s. This is why when US 99% of citizens found out a candidate or pol was OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% FREEMASON-----as HAMILTON WAS-----AS CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ---NOW TRUMP are -----they booted them out of government.
'Many politicians of the period, especially those from the agricultural South, scorned banks as corporate monopolies that profited merchants and financiers, but defrauded farmers and other ordinary people. Jefferson, secretary of state in the Washington administration, saw banks, credit and stock markets subverting his ideal of America as a self-reliant, agrarian utopia with limited industry. Vice President John Adams abjured debt and dismissed bankers as “swindlers and thieves".
Above we see the quote that has indeed taken hold as US FED was installed in early 1900s AND is raging swindlers and thieves today. Notice back then the political party called DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICANS existed-----now, this issue of FEDERALISM is a broad one-----a citizen can hate the US FED and central banking but still fight for our US sovereignty and Federal Constitutional, Bill of Rights, Federal laws tied to a LOCKE SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE AMERICA.
Political defeat, economic victory
For all its successes, Hamilton’s bank could not overcome its political liabilities. When its charter came up for renewal in 1811, the Federalists were out of power; the Democratic-Republicans, who had remained hostile to the bank, now held the majority. Renewing Jefferson’s attack of 20 years earlier, they charged that the bank was unconstitutional, a perversion of the necessary-and-proper clause.
WHO DO WE THINK SEES TODAY'S FEW DECADES OF ROBBER BARON GLOBAL BANKING 1% AS WINNERS? CERTAINLY NOT OUR 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE, black, white, and brown citizens. This is why today the 99% are shouting KILL THE US FED. The policy stance that these FEDERAL CENTRAL BANKS did 99% of WE THE PEOPLE a favor with hyper-industrialization killing our domestic free market economy, killing our natural resource conservation, killing our rights as citizens----IS A FALSE STANCE. As we shout, the US would have grown economically for a thousand years as a stable, free and democratic nation without a US FEDERAL RESERVE BANK-----global banking 1%.
The Bank that Hamilton Built
At the dawn of the Republic, the First Bank of the United States created a model for American financial markets and monetary policy that endures to this day.Phil Davies | Senior Writer
Published September 1, 2007 | September 2007 issue
December 12, 1791, was a red-letter day in the financial history of the young United States. That day a bank unlike any previously seen in America opened for business in Carpenters’ Hall in Philadelphia, then the seat of the federal government. The new bank was a national bank, authorized by Congress to hold $10 million in capital—an astronomical sum at the time—and operate across state borders. And it was a quasi-public institution, owned mostly by businessmen and lawyers motivated by profit, but also intended to serve the public interest by improving the financial standing of the federal government and fostering economic growth.
Businessmen and investors across the nation had anticipated the opening of the Bank of the United States with mounting excitement for almost a year. In July 1791, a public offering of bank stock sold out in less than an hour, setting off frenzied speculation in bank shares. Stockholders had chosen directors hailing from eight states to run the bank. By December, it was ready to begin accepting deposits, making loans, selling U.S. Treasury bonds and issuing paper currency backed by gold and silver coin stored in its vaults. The following year, bank branches would be established in Boston, New York, Baltimore and Charleston, S.C., to facilitate the flow of money and credit to various regions of the country; four more branches would follow by 1805.
The intellectual architect of the bank—known today as the First Bank of the United States—was Alexander Hamilton, the founding father who most profoundly influenced the economic development of this country. As the Republic’s first Treasury secretary, Hamilton championed the idea of a national bank, proposing its establishment to Congress and convincing President George Washington—over the strenuous objections of Thomas Jefferson—that the bank would not violate the Constitution.
The man on the $10 bill, whom biographer Ron Chernow describes as “the clear-eyed apostle of America’s economic future,”1 believed that the new nation needed a national bank if it was to prosper. After the Revolutionary War, the economy was in tatters: Crushing war debt weighed down the federal government, and a shortage of sound currency and bank credit stifled commercial growth. Hamilton designed the First Bank to help the government get on its financial feet and to galvanize American commerce by providing currency and loans to businesses and individuals. The bank was a vital part of a national financial infrastructure that Hamilton created during his short but prodigious career, the template for today’s monetary economy based on a stable currency and access to credit.
A statesman with a natural genius for economics, Hamilton was far ahead of his contemporaries in perceiving how the country’s fortunes and those of free markets were intertwined, says Thomas M. Humphrey, a former senior economist with the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond who has written extensively about the history of economic thought. “Hamilton saw a system of sound, secure and resilient financial institutions as being necessary for the real economy to function efficiently,” Humphrey said in a telephone interview. “He also had this vision that America would one day become a huge, thriving economic success around the world, and he thought of these institutions as being necessary to promote that vision.”
The First Bank worked in consort with Hamilton’s other financial reforms—paying off war debt and establishing a stable monetary standard—to put the government’s finances in order and stoke the fires of enterprise at the beginning of the industrial revolution. By aiding in revenue collection, lending to the Treasury and marketing government debt to private investors, the bank served as a financial bulwark for the federal government. And its operations invigorated markets by providing a sizable, trustworthy currency and extending credit to businesses.
Hamilton’s bank was destined not to endure; constitutional challenges and opposition from state banks forced it to close after 20 years of operation. But the institution he created laid the foundation for a second national bank and, almost a century later, for the establishment of the Federal Reserve System. Although the First Bank was not a true central bank--the concept of centralized monetary control didn’t develop until the 20th century—its powers and operational scope presage the Fed’s stabilizing influence on the nation’s money supply.
The economic ideas that sprang from Hamilton’s fertile, industrious mind have informed financial practice and monetary policy in this country for more than two centuries. This article examines how those ideas became manifest in the First Bank of the United States—and transcended the death of the bank and Hamilton himself.
War and peace
The plan for the First Bank wasn’t cut from whole cloth, the product of an individual flash of inspiration or a snuff-fueled brainstorming session in Washington’s cabinet room. Hamilton mulled over the notion of a national bank for more than a decade before making his formal proposal in 1790.
During the Revolutionary War, as an aide-de-camp to General Washington, Hamilton saw firsthand how financial disorder undermined the patriotic cause. Because the Continental Congress had little power to tax, it was forced to finance the war by borrowing and issuing paper money, known as “continentals.” However, without collateral to back them, millions of dollars in this currency had become nearly worthless. Government debt was mounting by the day.
The cure for these ills, Hamilton believed, was a national bank. In a 1779 letter to a congressional delegate, Hamilton described a large banking and trading corporation owned by wealthy individuals, but partly controlled by the government. The institution would invest in war debt, converting deflated continentals into new currency and credit that would promote industry and trade.
Colonel Hamilton was just 24, but versed far beyond his years in matters of political economy. As a teenager, he had received a crash course in international commerce as a clerk for a trading firm on the island of St. Croix in the British West Indies. While studying at King’s College (now Columbia University) in New York and during the war years, Hamilton read extensively on economics and finance, absorbing the mercantilist theories of James Steuart and Malachy Postlethwayt as well as the classical, free-market teachings of Adam Smith and David Hume. “Hamilton was just a genius,” Humphrey says, “and he somehow managed to put it all together, although his style was not completely pro–free market, like the classical economists.”
In 1781, Hamilton again broached the idea of a national bank, outlining his vision in a letter to Robert Morris, superintendent of finance for Congress. The bank would issue pound notes backed in part by real estate, redeem the government’s outstanding paper money obligations and lend to both government and private businesses. Such an institution would furnish the needed capital to win the war and “be a source of national strength and wealth,”2 Hamilton wrote. Morris may have incorporated some of Hamilton’s ideas into his plan for the Bank of North America, the first independent bank in the country. (Domestic banks were banned under Colonial rule.) Incorporated in 1781, the Philadelphia bank was conceived as a national bank but devolved into a regional bank focused on private lending.
If a national bank was needed to defeat the British, an even stronger argument for establishing such an institution could be made after the war. The infant nation’s economy was depressed, hobbled by staggering war debt and a scarcity of specie (gold and silver coin) with which to pay taxes and trade goods and services.
Currency was so scarce in some cities that farmers, unable to sell their produce in the market, returned home at the end of the day with full wagons. Besides the Bank of North America, only a handful of state-chartered banks were in operation in the entire country, each issuing its own notes in a limited geographic area. The Constitution outlawed the issue of paper money by state governments.
In 1789, Washington appointed Hamilton his secretary of the Treasury. Finally, Hamilton was in a position to put his long-standing plan for a national bank into action.
A bold proposal
The 34-year-old secretary made his pitch to the first Congress in December 1790, in his Report on a National Bank. Like Hamilton’s three other major reports to Congress, on public credit, the Mint and manufacturing, it was lengthy, meticulously researched and highly persuasive. In his seminal 1910 treatise on the First Bank, banking historian John Thom Holdsworth calls the report “undoubtedly the most informing and illuminating presentation of banking principles and practice known to American literature up to that time.”
Noting that banks had proven their value to government and business in the world’s leading economies, Hamilton argued in the report that the country needed a national bank to help it shake off its financial malaise and join the company of modern commercial nations. A Bank of the United States would not only enhance the federal government’s creditworthiness by issuing a currency suitable for the payment of taxes, investing in war debt and lending to the Treasury in emergencies, it would also expand the money supply and provide credit to merchants and other businesses to foster trade, both within the country and across the sea.
DID YOU KNOW WEALTH OF NATIONS AND SMITH WARNED AGAINST ALL THAT HAMILTON WAS BUILDING?
Hamilton echoed Smith’s The Wealth of Nations in describing banks as “nurseries of national wealth” that transformed the “dead stock” of gold and silver into active and productive capital that rippled through the economy, creating wealth and increasing welfare.4 Deposits and stock investments in a national bank would support increased currency circulation, relieving farmers and merchants of the need to resort to barter.
To avoid the inflation caused by the wartime continentals, Hamilton proposed that the bank issue notes redeemable on demand for specie. The bank and all other banks in the country would operate under a mixed-money system, cutting-edge monetary practice in the age of the gold standard. Paper currency issued by the national bank and state-chartered banks would be a close substitute for gold and silver coin in financial transactions; thus the nation’s currency would be stable, anchored to a bimetallic monetary standard, and portable, expediting the transport of funds and speeding circulation.
As in his earlier proposals, Hamilton stressed the importance of a quasi-public structure for the bank. It would serve the national interest, but under the control of private individuals, not government officials. In studying other great banks of issue, such as the Bank of England and Bank of Amsterdam, he had concluded that a national bank must be shielded from political interference: “To attach full confidence to an institution of this nature, it appears to be an essential ingredient in its structure that it shall be under a private not a public direction, under the guidance of individual interest, not of public policy.”
The federal government would be a minority stockholder in the bank, authorized to hold up to one-fifth of its capital and vote for directors. But the remaining $8 million in stock would be held by private investors—merchants, landowners, speculators or anyone else who could pony up the required funds.
One of Hamilton’s primary goals in establishing the bank was financing the country’s war debt, which included the debts of individual states assumed by Congress. His plan for the bank provided for this by requiring that 75 percent of its privately held shares be bought with “government stock”—Treasury bonds paying 6 percent interest. (The balance was to be paid in specie.) Like the Bank of England, which had invested heavily in British government debt, the Bank of the United States would unite the interests of private enterprise in support of public credit. Bank shareholders would profit as the government paid off its debts over time. Meanwhile, the bank’s government debt—as good as gold in Hamilton’s calculus—would serve as collateral for increased currency circulation, stimulating commercial development.
In hindsight, Hamilton’s bold, financially creative proposal was more than a plan for a national bank; it was the springboard for a future U.S. economy based on private capital and the creative use of various forms of bank credit, including government debt.
This grand plan for economic unity and progress under the aegis of a national bank was not universally embraced. Hamilton had to summon all his analytical and rhetorical gifts to overcome the objections of men who received his proposal coolly, if not with disdain. Congressional debates in early 1791 over the constitutionality of the bank had political as well as monetary consequences; Hamilton’s proposal alienated him from founders Jefferson and James Madison, and helped to open a permanent schism in the halls of power.
Many politicians of the period, especially those from the agricultural South, scorned banks as corporate monopolies that profited merchants and financiers, but defrauded farmers and other ordinary people. Jefferson, secretary of state in the Washington administration, saw banks, credit and stock markets subverting his ideal of America as a self-reliant, agrarian utopia with limited industry. Vice President John Adams abjured debt and dismissed bankers as “swindlers and thieves.” Much of the debate turned on the interpretation of a clause in the Constitution that allows the federal government to enact “all laws which shall be necessary and proper” for the carrying out of explicit powers such as borrowing money and collecting taxes. Jefferson argued in a written opinion to Washington that a national bank may be convenient, but not truly necessary or indispensable for the execution of the government’s enumerated powers. Therefore, Hamilton’s bank was unconstitutional.
James Madison of Virginia, co-author with Hamilton of the Federalist Papers, agreed with Jefferson. He added that a national bank would conflict with state interests under the Constitution by interfering with the right of states to charter and oversee their own banks of issue.
Hamilton and allies, such as Congressman Fisher Ames of Massachusetts, countered that a national bank was indeed necessary for the reasons laid out in the proposal before Congress. If it was necessary, then it was proper under the Constitution and did not pose a conflict with states’ rights. Furthermore, the bank would energize state economies in the agricultural South as well as the mercantile North.
The bitter skirmish between Hamilton’s and Jefferson’s followers over the First Bank was the first clash in what would become an endless war of words in America—partisan politics. Quoting Chief Justice John Marshall, Chernow notes that the dispute led to the emergence of “those distinct and visible parties which in their long and dubious conflict for power have … shaken the United States to their center.” For the next 30 years, Hamilton’s Federalists vied with Jeffersonians (or Democratic-Republicans) for mastery of the government. Although the parties’ names and constituencies have morphed over the intervening 200 years, the lineage of today’s Republicans and Democrats extends back to these original foes.
After Congress passed a bill adopting Hamilton’s proposal, its fate lay on Washington’s desk; the president had been swayed by Jefferson’s arguments and was considering vetoing the measure. Hamilton defended it in a 15,000-word manifesto that articulated what would come to be known as the implied powers doctrine; that is, the government has the right to employ any means necessary to execute its express powers under the Constitution. In ringing phrases, Hamilton asserted that “every power vested in a government is in its nature sovereign and includes, by force of the term, a right to employ all the means requisite and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ends of such power.”8 This doctrine became embedded in constitutional law, giving the federal government broad scope to exercise its authority.
Washington was convinced. On Feb. 25, 1791, he signed the act incorporating the Bank of the United States, clearing the way for the sale of stock (the government borrowed $2 million from money lenders in Amsterdam to purchase its stake) and the start of operations.
The nation’s bank
Little is known about those operations; virtually all the bank’s records were destroyed in the early 1800s. But what evidence exists shows that the bank largely succeeded in accomplishing Hamilton’s aims—jump-starting the economy and building public confidence in the Treasury and financial markets. By virtue of the sheer volume of transactions flowing through its Philadelphia office and regional branches, the bank was by far the single largest financial entity in the country. The economic changes it wrought were pervasive and arguably long-lasting.
By converting war debt into bank stock, the bank relieved the government of that financial burden and sent a message to investors at home and abroad that the United States would honor its debts. (To this day, the Treasury has never defaulted on a bill, note or bond.) In an era when the government could not count on a steady income—there was no income tax; import duties and public land sales made up the bulk of federal revenue—the bank sustained daily operations with short-term loans. By the end of 1795, the Treasury, now led by Hamilton’s successor, Oliver Wolcott, had borrowed a total of $6.2 million from the bank, more than 60 percent of its capital.
A robust currency circulation and lending to other banks and businesses stimulated the economy, leading to increased domestic and foreign trade that generated income and job growth. Unlike paper issued by state banks, the First Bank’s widely circulated notes were accepted by the federal government for the payment of duties. Although the United States would not have a true uniform currency until after the Civil War, “it is certain that the notes of no state bank possessed to anything like the same degree the quality of universality” of the national bank’s notes, Holdsworth writes.
In its organization and many of its functions, the First Bank foreshadowed the Federal Reserve System. Like the Fed, the First Bank was quasi-public in nature; as Hamilton intended, it served a public purpose, but independently from the administration and under the direction of private interests. (Nominally, each regional Federal Reserve Bank is owned by its member banks.) Also like the Fed, the First Bank acted as the government’s fiscal agent and held its bank balances. And just as the Fed’s 12-bank network does today, the First Bank’s eight branches extended its influence throughout the country. “I think there are enough parallels, enough elements there that you could say that Hamilton’s bank was the progenitor for at least some functions of the modern Fed,” Humphrey says.
Scholars such as Richard Timberlake Jr., a former economics professor at the University of Georgia, have pointed out that neither Hamilton nor Congress intended the First Bank to control the size of the money stock—a defining function of the Fed and other modern central banks. Nevertheless, Timberlake contends that over the course of several years the bank took on that role, leveraging its large transaction volume and reserve balances to expand or constrain the money supply. To rein in credit, the bank promptly presented the state banknotes that passed through its offices for redemption in specie, reducing the lending capacity of the issuers. To ease credit, the bank lent more to businesses and banks and treated state banknotes with “forbearance.”11 Timberlake sees this activity as an early form of open market operations—resented by many state banks—that acted as a check on inflation.
The parallels with the Federal Reserve go only so far, however. The Fed neither lends to government nor operates as a commercial bank, accepting deposits from and making loans to businesses and individuals. Also, the Fed enforces reserve requirements, examines accounts and exercises other regulatory authority over banks—powers not contemplated by the creators of the First Bank.
Political defeat, economic victory
For all its successes, Hamilton’s bank could not overcome its political liabilities. When its charter came up for renewal in 1811, the Federalists were out of power; the Democratic-Republicans, who had remained hostile to the bank, now held the majority. Renewing Jefferson’s attack of 20 years earlier, they charged that the bank was unconstitutional, a perversion of the necessary-and-proper clause. Hamilton’s enemies had allies at many state banks, whose ranks had swelled to 90 since the First Bank’s founding. Coveting the bank’s federal government deposits, the directors of these banks—along with the representatives of state governments that owned bank stock—lobbied against recharter. The bank’s opponents also accused many of its directors of being Tories or monarchists, noting darkly that British investors held a large amount of its capital.
This time there was no Hamilton to mount a passionate and brilliant defense; Aaron Burr had killed him in a pistol duel seven years earlier. Despite support from President James Madison and Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin, Congress let the charter expire, and the bank closed its doors on March 3, 1811.
The Hamiltonian model of banking and monetary policy did not die with the First Bank, however. Out of the financial chaos that followed the War of 1812 rose a Second Bank of the United States. This federally chartered, well-capitalized institution was not as well managed as its predecessor, but in time it too exerted central-bank-like influence over the economy. During the war the number of state banks exploded, and they stopped redeeming their notes for specie, contributing to high inflation. Leveraging its large currency reserves, the Second Bank encouraged the redemption of those bank-notes for gold and silver, helping to shrink the money supply and stabilize prices.
The Second Bank’s life was also cut short; irked by its burgeoning monetary and political power, President Andrew Jackson refused to renew its charter, and the bank ceased operations in 1836. But even in the absence of a central bank, the ideas that Hamilton expounded and put into practice endured. In the 19th century, bank lending supported in part by state and federal credit spurred business growth, planting the seeds for the nation’s flowering into an economic power after the Civil War.
After a financial panic in the early 1900s, Congress revived Hamilton’s notion of a centralized, quasi-governmental bank exerting a positive influence on the monetary system and the overall economy. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 created the system of Reserve Banks that has provided a backstop for commercial banks and shaped monetary conditions ever since.
ROBBER BARON US PRESIDENTS ALLOWING SYSTEMIC FRAUDS ARE THOSE FINANCIAL PANICS IN EARLY 1900S----CREATED FAKE CRISES---AS THESE FEW DECADES.
In ensuring the demise of the First Bank, the Democratic-Republicans may have won their political battle with Hamilton, impugned by Jefferson as “the servile copyist” of British Prime Minister William Pitt. But history has given economic victory to Hamilton. The economy that developed in this country would not realize the Jeffersonian ideal of yeoman farmers and artisans producing goods from their own resources, unassisted by banks and financial markets. Instead, it would embrace Hamilton’s capitalist vision—sophisticated, multifarious commerce thriving on a sound currency and ready access to credit.
Successive generations of Americans have reaped the rewards of the economic revolution that began with the opening of the First Bank of the United States.
We read above that JOHN ADAMS was one thinking this HAMILTON capture of America's banking by global 1% FEDERAL RESERVE CENTRAL BANK was very, very, very, very bad for 99% of WE THE PEOPLE. Remember our BEN FRANKLIN and his ties to ROYAL MINT OF KINGS AND QUEENS ---and Philadelphia being that first established NATIONAL BANK. It was not that initial creation of a NATIONAL BANK that was a problem as we read----it was the gradual transition of that national bank into a global 1% banking FEDERAL RESERVE CENTRAL BANK. Corruption and banking go back for thousands of years so the ideal is keeping economy free from banking---today our US economy is completely controlled by US FED and global Wall Street.
THIS IS THE PROBLEM AND THE SOLUTION.
It just so happens that an US PRESIDENT ADAMS was NOT an OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% FREEMASON as was HAMILTON AND BEN FRANKLIN. This is when ANTIMASONIC feelings from 99% of WE THE PEOPLE kept freemasons out of our government because they are pledged to serve that global 1% RICH.
WE NEED AN ANTI-MASONIC PARTY RIGHT NOW.
So, yes, George Washington COULD tell a lie-----but not all our American founding fathers were tied to global 1% royals.
'According to the conspiracy loonies, all American presidents were “upper echelon” (whatever that means) freemasons. Not true. Adams’ own son, John Quincy Adams, actually ran for Congress as a representative of the Antimasonic Party. Of his father he wrote that he decided not to join freemasonry because “there was nothing in the Masonic Institution worthy of his seeking to be associated with it.” (source: Bessel) The series does feature other freemasons of renown, like George Washington and Benjamin Franklin but makes no comment on it'.
This early American battle against freemasonry was steeped in those with ties to OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% RICH and their freemasonry -----and our simple local masons who want only to have an economy creating jobs. It is that 5% to the 1% freemason/Greek that does not include all our local freemasons. What we must remember is this------we cannot have today's America steeped in secret societies if we are going to STOP MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1%.
'As Secretary of State (1817-1825), Adams helped to formulate the Monroe Doctrine and after his presidency he served in the House of Representatives where he advocated antislavery measures. (For those who view history through current movie interpretations, we'd also note that the movie Amistad is far from reality!)'.
So, HAMILTON is not a hero----unless you are that global 1% and their 2%----or that 5% player made temporarily merely rich.
Mar 28, 2013 @ 03:05 PM 22,141 The Little Black Book of Billionaire Secrets
Assuming We 'End The Fed,' What's The Next Step?
Nathan Lewis , Contributor FORBES
Throughout history, there have been "peasant uprisings" in response to ill-treatment by rulers. These "peasant uprisings" have many details but one basic message: "Please, Sir, don't beat me so hard."
From the perspective of the rulers, a few peasant uprisings are a sign of good management. If there were no such uprisings, it means that you should exploit the peasants a little more aggressively.
"Peasant uprisings" don't accomplish much. "Occupy Wall Street" was one such peasant uprising.
Sheep also go "baaaa" when they are shorn.
Hmmmm, Occupy Wall Street was a global banking 1% FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT group.
What does work is: a new vision. You need an alternative to the present power structure. Whether a Communist Revolution in some places, or an Independence Movement and Democratic Revolution in the United States in 1776 (and France in 1789), a very clear alternative to present rule is proposed. This vision animates the imagination of the people, and drives them to fight until the old order is deposed and the new order (for better or worse) is introduced.
This is revolution. It begins in the imagination.
THIS IS TEXAS FAR-RIGHT WING LIBERTARIAN RON PAUL CALLING HIMSELF A REVOLUTIONARY.
If you want to End the Fed, you need to create a vision of what would replace it. It needs to be a sound vision, not one with obvious problems, because nobody is going to risk it all to overturn the existing order for something that is clearly a pile of horse poop.
Historically, the choice between Mercantilist and Classical monetary approaches, floating currencies vs. a gold standard, has also been a choice between monopoly currency control and distributed or "free market" currency control. There are exceptions -- the Bank of England was both a monopoly currency issuer and the gold standard's greatest example -- but that pattern has recurred over time.
In the United States, we have had a Federal Reserve currency monopoly essentially since about 1940.
What if the U.S. Treasury managed the currency? Then, it could be managed "for the greater good," rather than the enrichment (as some argue) of too-big-to-fail banks and certain European banking families.
Alas, U.S. Treasury monopoly of currency has been just as problematic, in U.S. history, as Federal Reserve monopoly.
The last major experiment in Treasury control of currency was the Continental Dollar of 1776-1785. It was such a disaster that the Founding Fathers decided to move to a distributed, free-banking model for the new United States.
Since then, whenever the Treasury has had financial difficulties, it has printed money, just as it did during the Revolutionary War. In the War of 1812, it printed Treasury Notes. In the Civil War, it printed United States Notes. In World War I and World War II, it strongarmed the Fed to print Federal Reserve Notes. Today? Nothing new, I'm afraid.
The only reason these did not become Continental Dollar-type disasters is that the wars were over relatively quickly. They got lucky.
Unfortunately, someone has to manage the currency. Except for the case of bullion coins that trade on metal weight, currencies don't manage themselves. That system is now impossible due to the demonetization of silver in the 1870s. We would have no effective small-denomination money.
In any case, that system is rudimentary in the extreme. The United States outgrew it as early as 1810 or so, as dozens and then hundreds of commercial banks began issuing gold-linked paper banknotes as an alternative to metal coins.
This tends to leave us with some form of "free banking system," perhaps somewhat like what existed in the United States from 1789 to 1913.
In general, I suggest that there be "enough" independent banknote issuers, but "not too many." The U.S. currency system became bewildering by 1860, when nearly two thousand banks issued their own banknotes. (All of these banknotes were nevertheless linked to gold at the official dollar parity of 23.20 troy grains of gold, or $20.67 per troy ounce.) Who could tell what was a legitimate note and what was a counterfeit? Who knew what the financial condition of these banks were?
Banknotes traded "at a discount" based on perceived reliability. In other words, each "dollar bill" had a different market value. What a mess!
If it was a mess on a domestic basis, imagine foreign exchange and international trade
Why would a global banking FORBES write an article suggesting we finally need to END THE FED and why is a far-right wing global banking LIBERTARIAN Ron Paul being made this leader by national media which we know is total PROPAGANDA?
The next stage of MOVING FORWARD kills our sovereign US FED to create a ONE WORLD ONE CENTRAL BANK ----and that is for which RON PAUL as that far-right LIBERTARIAN is working. He is not the leader of a 99% of WE THE PEOPLE revolution against US FED and global banking----he is simply that FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT PLAYER pretending to END THE FED. We do not support a LIBERTARIAN pretending to want to END THE FED because that is more global banking propaganda.
Assuming We 'End The Fed,' What's The Next Step?
'The classic retelling of what happened next — and the story told in Lin-Manuel Miranda’s hit Broadway musical “Hamilton” — is that, at the dueling grounds, Hamilton fired his shot into the air, missing Burr on purpose, while Burr fired to kill, mortally wounding the Founding Father'.
So, how in the world does an OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% freemason BOLIVAR AND MIRANDA become central to today's MOVING FORWARD FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT 5 % player? BOLIVAR AND MIRANDA were then and are now today's HAMILTON working for global banking 1% ----so yes, they love ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE ONE WORLD CENTRAL BANK controlling all the world's monetary and economic policy killing all sovereign economic control and rights of citizens. BOLIVAR AND MIRANDA would be those 5% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA global human capital slave trade distribution system that US PRESIDENT ADAMS was trying to end.
'The Amistad revolt
www.law.cornell.edu/background/amistad/revolt.html The Amistad revolt. In January 1839, 53 African natives were kidnapped from eastern Africa and sold into the Spanish slave trade. They were then placed aboard a Spanish slave ship bound for Havana, Cuba. Once in Havana, the Africans were classified as native Cuban slaves and purchased at auction by two Spaniards, Don Jose Ruiz and Don Pedro Montez'.
So, yes, BURR and HAMILTON were simply 5% players trying to be WINNERS working for global banking 1% just as Clinton/Bush/Obama---just as US FED Greenspan, Bernanke, Yellen----just as today's Snow, Paulson, Geithner, and Lew------all HAMILTON GLOBAL BANKING 1% PLAYERS.
Burr killed Hamilton in a duel, now their descendants are BFFs
By Haley Goldberg
November 8, 2015
On July, 11, 1804, fierce political rivals Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr settled their differences with a duel in Weehawken, NJ, that left Hamilton mortally wounded and turned Burr into one of American history’s most notorious villains.
Today, less than 15 miles from the site of that famous shootout, the descendants of the men peacefully kayak together.
Alexandra Hamilton Woods — the four-time great granddaughter of Alexander Hamilton — and Antonio Burr — a descendant of Aaron Burr’s cousin — met at a party for those working in psychology several years ago. It didn’t take them long to realize they had a fraught family connection, but it was a love of the river that they quickly bonded over.
Burr was on the board of the Inwood Canoe Club, which offers kayaking and canoeing on the Hudson, and Hamilton Woods was keen to start paddling herself.
“Somebody introduced us,” recalls Hamilton Woods, 64, a psychoanalyst living in Manhattan. “I was very interested in this kayaking club, and he was the commodore.”
She soon joined the boating organization, and the two became good friends.
“I used to tease him about our respective history,” Hamilton Woods says. “We’ve had a number of interesting conversations. But I have great fondness and respect for Antonio.”
Their ancestors’ connection became quite the opposite.
Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton were once close, even practicing law together in New York. But in 1790, Burr drew Hamilton’s ire when he beat Hamilton’s father-in-law, Philip Schuyler, in a race for the US Senate. In 1800, Burr ran for president, and Hamilton humiliated him by voicing his support for Thomas Jefferson for president over Burr. Burr lost the race. In 1804 — when Burr ran for New York governor — Hamilton again worked to prevent his election. Burr lost once more, and tensions broiled.
The final straw came in February 1804, when it was reported in a New York newspaper that Hamilton shared a “despicable opinion” about Burr at a dinner party. Heated letters were exchanged between the two, Hamilton refused to apologize and Burr challenged him to a duel, set for 7 a.m., July 11, 1804, in Weehawken.
The classic retelling of what happened next — and the story told in Lin-Manuel Miranda’s hit Broadway musical “Hamilton” — is that, at the dueling grounds, Hamilton fired his shot into the air, missing Burr on purpose, while Burr fired to kill, mortally wounding the Founding Father.
But Antonio, 62, who happens to be a forensic psychologist, says that fateful day was more complicated than it’s typically presented.
Hamilton, he says, wanted to die.
“There was something either suicidal or death-wishy on [his] part,” says Burr, who played his notorious ancestor in a 2004 reenactment of the duel. “Hamilton did not avoid the duel and he sort of instigated it. Burr had asked for an explanation and Hamilton did not make any effort to explain anything.”
Antonio cites Hamilton’s state of mind when entering into the duel: his oldest child, Philip, had died just three years earlier in a duel, defending his father at the exact same spot in Weehawken. His eldest daughter, Angelica, went insane shortly after. And his political ambitions were extinguished back in 1797, when he publicly revealed his extramarital affair.
The night before the fateful showdown, Hamilton wrote a note, entitled “Statement of Impending Duel with Aaron Burr,” denouncing dueling and stating he would “throw away my first fire.”
But why, then, did he pursue a potentially deadly face-off?
‘We’ve had a number of interesting conversations. But I have great fondness and respect for Antonio [Burr]’
- Alexandra Hamilton Woods“I think [Hamilton] knew what would happen when those letters were made public,” Burr says. “Hamilton told the story that ensured he would pass on in history as a hero, and Burr would pass through as a despicable guy. I think he wanted that.”
Burr met with Miranda when the director was developing the play, sharing his thoughts on the Hamilton-Burr relationship with him over several bottles of wine.
While Burr calls the biography “Alexander Hamilton” by Ron Chernow, which inspired the musical, “poisonous” in its vilifying of his ancestor, he approves of Miranda’s representation on the stage.
“I thought he treated Burr with a lot of respect and not the usual condemnation,” he says. “And this is a theater production, so I give him all the artistic license that he needs, or wants.”
Hamilton Woods, who will gather with 11 other Hamilton descendants on Monday evening at a New-York Historical Society gala, has her own allegiances, but agrees with Burr that their ancestors’ rivalry was complex.
“Obviously I know where I lie and sit,” she says. “But I don’t think that it’s black and white.”
The two friends now find themselves in their own political situation. Hamilton Woods sits on the Inwood Canoe Club board as treasurer, and Burr is the president emeritus. They might have the occasional disagreement, but they settle things peacefully.
“We do a lot of negotiating,” says Hamilton Woods. “But he and I find ourselves usually on the same side.”
When we here today # OUR REVOLUTION this is global banking 1% and their 2%-----calling the taking of US to a colonial status their revolution. IT IS NOT THE REVOLUTION OF 99% WE THE PEOPLE. That is the same for this historic civil war and unrest back in 1800s for our Latin American 99% of citizens--------BOLIVAR was then what CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA---now TRUMP are today-------he was fighting as a 5% to the 1% OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE SPANISH RICH.
Remember, the SCOTTISH RITE is OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE CATHOLIC GLOBAL 1%-----it is not a 99% populist group. The history behind
'The Amistad revolt' and Spanish slave trade was tied to BOLIVAR and MIRANDA working for those OLD WORLD SPANISH MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1%-----they were not 99% REVOLUTIONARIES. They were not against the Spanish slave trade----they worked for those global 1% Spanish slave traders just as today's 5% to the 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA do today. A HIP HOP MUSICAL tied to a MIRANDA on Broadway is celebrating the return of OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% and that slave trading human capital distribution system filling our US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
WASHINGTON ET AL called in all kinds of foreign agents to fight the AMERICAN REVOLUTION against England so a BOLIVAR OR MIRANDA paid to help fight would not make them 99% revolutionaries.
This is why a today's MIRANDA on Broadway would love AN ALEXANDER HAMILTON who would be that OLD WORLD SLAVE TRADER global 1%.
Scottish Rite 32nd Degree Apron of Simon Bolivar
This is Simon Bolivar's cream silk 32nd degree apron depicting the camp of the 12 tribes of Israel. Simon Bolivar was the hero of over 200 battles liberating South America from Spain, freeing Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia. He founded and served as Master of Protectora de las Vertudes Lodge No. 1 in Venezuela; founded the Lodge Order and Liberty No. 2 in Peru. He received his Scottish Rite degrees in Paris in 1807 and also became a Knight of the Knights Templar in France in 1807.
This apron is on display at the Chancellor Robert R. Livingston Masonic Library at http://www.nymasoniclibrary.org/
by Elmer E. Rogers, 33rd Degree
THE NEW AGE - SEPTEMBER 1948
Born to the nobility and to wealth in Caracas, July 24, 1783, Simon
Bolivar forsook the luxurious life of material things and the
social position for the nobility of the spirit, and he died in
The Liberator's father was Juan Vincente Bolivar y Ponte, and his
mother was Maria de la Concepcion Palacios y Blanco. Both of his
parents were of noble families and both died before he was fifteen
years of age.
Bolivar had spent much time in Paris and there became a Mason in
the York Rite and received the Scottish Rite Degrees as far as the
Returning to Venezuela by the way of the United States of America,
where he visited many celebrities in the eastern cities, he
returned to Caracas at the end of 1809, at the age of twenty-six.
He soon offered his services to the junta of which he was a member
and which, on April 19, 1810, had revolted against the crown of
Joseph Bonaparte, King of Spain, in favor of Ferdinand VII, son of
Charles IV, who had been deposed by the French Government, and they
forced the Viceroy to abdicate. Thus Venezuela was th e first
Colony of Spain to declare its independence, an event which took
place July 5, 1811.
The spirit of revolt having been participated in early by General
Miranda, a Mason, who had served under George Washington in the War
for Independence, Bolivar was sent by the junta to England to call
him back from exile to the colors of the Revolutionaries. He
returned and headed the revolutionary forces with Bolivar as one of
--------------- where not a shot was fired, and won a
victory which, with the one at Ayacucho on December 9, 1824, under
General Antonio Jose de Sucre, forever ended the Colonial power of
Spain in the New World.
Intrepid, hopeful, farsighted, indomitable, and profound in his
thinking for the welfare of mankind, Bolivar proclaimed, to those
who had the vision to see, the following Masonic principles as his
life ebbed to the shores beyond:
"All of you must work for the inestimable good of the Union; the
people obeying the government in order to avoid anarchy; the
ministers praying to heaven for guidance; and the military using
its sword in defense of social guaranties. . . . If my death
contributes to the end of partisanship and the consolidation of the
Union, I shall be lowered in peace into my grave."
It was ADAMS and MONROE who were not OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% freemasons ACTUALLY 99% American revolutionaries fighting to install LOCKE'S I AM MAN freedom, liberty, justice, pursuit of happiness BILL OF RIGHTS for 99% of WE THE PEOPLE and Monroe Doctrine not only identified those OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% those very people from whom the US was to be freed from----it also made clear the SLAVE TRADE and slavery stance in America would END.
Today's Broadway musical-----sold as HIP HOP MIRANDA as HAMILTON a hero-----is a global 1% celebration of returning US to colonial status and bringing back global slave trade and yes, Obama and his 5% to the 1% black pols and players---as MIRANDA killing those 99% of Latino citizens celebrate the return of America as a colony and global slave trade filling US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES-----AS BALTIMORE.
The Monroe Doctrine by President James Monroe & John Quincy Adams - FULL AudioBook
Published on Dec 6, 2012
The Monroe Doctrine by President James Monroe - FULL Audio Book - The Monroe Doctrine was a policy of the United States introduced on December 2, 1823. It stated that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention. The Doctrine noted that the United States would neither interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries. The Doctrine was issued at a time when nearly all Latin American colonies of Spain and Portugal had achieved independence from the Spanish Empire (except Cuba and Puerto Rico) and the Portuguese Empire. The United States, working in agreement with Britain, wanted to guarantee no European power would move in. President James Monroe first stated the doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress. It became a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States and one of its longest-standing tenets, and would be invoked by many U.S. statesmen and several U.S. presidents, including Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Ronald Reagan and many others. The intent and impact of the Monroe Doctrine persisted with only minor variations for almost two centuries. Its primary objective was to free the newly independent colonies of Latin America from European intervention and control that would make the New World a battleground for the Old. The doctrine put forward that the New World and the Old World were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence, for they were composed of entirely separate and independent nations. However the term "Monroe Doctrine" was not coined until 1853.
What we are seeing on BROADWAY and embraced by OBAMA ----as CLINTON/BUSH -----is OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% SPAIN coming together with other OLD WORLD European global 1% to claim America as a colonial status and bring back the global slave trade distribution to America----built these few decades by CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA with Foreign Economic Zone policies in LATIN AMERICA and SOUTHEAST ASIA.
MIRANDA in this video LOVES HAMILTON who loved global banking FEDERAL RESERVE CENTRAL BANK------having just fleeced AMERICA and 99% of American citizens black, white, and brown citizens of all public wealth and personal wealth and assets.
THIS IS WHAT THE BROADWAY SHOW 'HAMILTON' has as its theme.
WHO WAS THE TOP SUPPORTER OF BILL CLINTON IN 1990S? BARBARA STREISAND........JUST AS TODAY'S GLOBAL BANKING 1% STARS
'But perhaps it was Barbra Streisand who summarized it best, before presenting the award for Best Musical to Hamilton: "Tonight, our joy is tinged with sorrow. But we’re here to celebrate Broadway, and the beauty that artistry can bring into this world."'
# OUR REVOLUTION is that global 1% ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE revolution for only the global 1% and 2% -----led by OLD WORLD JEWISH AND CATHOLIC MERCHANTS OF VENICE freemasons-----not a 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizen revolution.
All that talking point of OPEN BORDERS with those fake ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT UNITED NATIONS global 1% players singing about ONE WORLD being LOVE, PEACE, HOPE-----IS PROPAGANDA seeking to end MONROE DOCTRINE of US sovereignty and anti-slavery position. Those dastardly 5% to the % pols and players black, white, and brown citizens MOVING FORWARD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES-----
Hamilton’s Lin-Manuel Miranda Tells Orlando: 'Love Is Love Is Love'
He recited a sonnet for the city at the 2016 Tony awards
Erica Futterman 06/13/2016
The Tony Awards are a ceremony centered on inclusiveness, seeking to stretch the theater community beyond its New York parameters and into the far reaches of every theater-loving fan’s living room around the world. On a night when the annual best-of-theater celebration happened just hours after at least 50 people were killed in America's deadliest mass shooting, this spirit rang especially important and especially true.
"Love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love, cannot be killed or swept aside," Hamilton mastermind Lin-Manuel Miranda said, near tears, as he accepted his Tony award for Best Score on Sunday evening. “Now fill the world with music, love, and pride.” (You can read the full text of Miranda's poem below.)
Miranda’s missive followed a somber opening from host James Corden that let the victims of the Orlando shooting know they were not on their own: "Your tragedy is our tragedy,” Corden said, looking straight into the camera. "Theater is a place where every race, creed, sexuality, and gender is equal, is embraced and is loved. Hate will never win. Together we have to make sure of that. Tonight stands as a symbol and a celebration of that principle."
The night’s performances and winners, though previously selected, echoed this sentiment. All four of the major acting awards went to actors of color. The nominated productions included the stories of a breakthrough black musical, a Jewish family in 1900s Russia, four women during the Liberian civil war, deaf schoolchildren in 19th-century Germany, and, of course, our country’s $10 Founding Father. And these productions' performances — from Corden's recollection of his days as a small-town English boy dreaming of becoming a stage star to Hamilton's three performances and 11 wins — were vibrant depictions of the power of art and storytelling, and the strength found within them.
Celebrated actor Frank Langella also spoke about the shooting during his acceptance speech for Best Leading Actor in a Play: "When something bad happens, we have three choices: We let it define us, we let it destroy us, or we let it strengthen us. Today in Orlando we had a hideous dose of reality. And I urge you, Orlando, to be strong. Because I am standing in a room full of the most generous human beings on earth and we will be with you every step of the way."
Beyond these select few speeches, the show went off largely unchanged, outside of Hamilton's decision to remove a musket from its performance. Earlier in the day, the Tony awards account tweeted that this year’s show would be "dedicated to those affected by the events in Orlando” and created a special ribbon in remembrance of Orlando, which was seen on many of those in attendance:
But perhaps it was Barbra Streisand who summarized it best, before presenting the award for Best Musical to Hamilton: "Tonight, our joy is tinged with sorrow. But we’re here to celebrate Broadway, and the beauty that artistry can bring into this world."
Here's Miranda's full poem:
My wife’s the reason anything gets done.
She nudges me towards promise by degrees.
She is a perfect symphony of one.
Our son is her most beautiful reprise.
We chase the melodies that seem to find us
Until they’re finished songs and start to play.
When senseless acts of tragedy remind us
That nothing here is promised, not one day
This show is proof that history remembers
We live through times when hate and fear seem stronger
We rise and fall and light from dying embers,
Remembrances that hope and love last longer.
And love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love, cannot be killed or swept aside.
I sing Vanessa’s symphony, Eliza tells her story.
Now fill the world with music, love, and pride.
'Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew on Wednesday announced the most sweeping and historically symbolic makeover of American currency in a century, proposing to replace the slaveholding Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with Harriet Tubman, the former slave and abolitionist, and to add women and civil rights leaders to the $5 and $10 notes'.
As we listen to all those FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT 5% PLAYERS pretending MOVING FORWARD OUR REVOLUTION is about freedom, liberty, justice for our global labor pool 99%---------the symbolism of placing HARRIET TUBMAN on a US Treasury currency is shouting GLOBAL SLAVE TRADING IS BACK IN AMERICA-------the opposite of what those 5% global banking 'labor and justice' organizations are SELLING AS PROPAGANDA.
This is the FAR-RIGHT, AUTHORITARIAN, MILITARISTIC, EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POVERTY LIBERTARIAN MARXISM------ Tubman is now captured by a HAMILTON US TREASURY and yes, a far-right wing global 1% banking CLINTON NEO-LIBERAL LEW-------would lead in this.
LOCKE WILL LOSE AGAINST DEWEY IF WE DO NOT STOP MOVING FORWARD-------STOP US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUS RULE.
MARYLAND and Baltimore being hyper-global 1% banking and ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1% are pushing propaganda hard-----pretending TUBMAN's resurgence is about opening our US cities free from enslavement when the goals are the OPPOSITE------ groups pushing TUBMAN today are FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT 5% PLAYERS Clinton neo-liberals morphing into far-right LIBERTARIAN MARXISM--
Those 5% to the 1% black, white, and brown pols and players---MOVING FORWARD OPEN BORDERS ending MONROE DOCTRINE of US sovereignty and that policy stance ended AMERICAN SLAVERY. All that slavery stuff effected only global labor pool 99% black and brown citizens right? NO, 99% of white citizens were in that global labor pool slave trade during OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% freemasonry.
'But nothing so roiled the debate as the phenomenon of the musical “Hamilton.”'
Harriet Tubman Ousts Andrew Jackson in Change for a $20
By JACKIE CALMESAPRIL 20, 2016
WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew on Wednesday announced the most sweeping and historically symbolic makeover of American currency in a century, proposing to replace the slaveholding Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with Harriet Tubman, the former slave and abolitionist, and to add women and civil rights leaders to the $5 and $10 notes.
Mr. Lew may have reneged on a commitment he made last year to make a woman the face of the $10 bill, opting instead to keep Alexander Hamilton, to the delight of a fan base swollen with enthusiasm over a Broadway rap musical based on the life of the first Treasury secretary.
But the broader remaking of the nation’s paper currency, which President Obama welcomed on Wednesday, may well have captured a historical moment for a multicultural, multiethnic and multiracial nation moving contentiously through the early years of a new century.
From left, Sojourner Truth, Lucretia Mott, Susan B. Anthony, Alice Paul and Elizabeth Cady Stanton will be featured on the back of the new $10 bill. Credit From left: Hulton Archive, via Getty Images; via Library of Congress: via Library of Congress; Hulton Archive, via Getty Images; Associated Press
Tubman, an African-American and a Union spy during the Civil War, would bump Jackson — a white man known as much for his persecution of Native Americans as for his war heroics and advocacy for the common man — to the back of the $20, in some reduced image along with the White House. Tubman would be the first woman so honored on paper currency since Martha Washington’s portrait briefly graced the $1 silver certificate in the late 19th century.
While Hamilton would remain on the $10, and Abraham Lincoln on the $5, images of women would be added to the back of both — in keeping with Mr. Lew’s intent “to bring to life” the national monuments depicted there.
The picture of the Treasury building on the back of the $10 bill would be replaced with a depiction of a 1913 march in support of women’s right to vote that ended at the building, along with portraits of five suffrage leaders: Lucretia Mott, Sojourner Truth, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul and Susan B. Anthony, who in more recent years was on an unpopular $1 coin until minting ceased.
On the flip side of the $5 bill, the Lincoln Memorial would remain, but as the backdrop for the 1939 performance there of Marian Anderson, the African-American classical singer, after she was barred from singing at the segregated Constitution Hall nearby. Sharing space on the rear would be images of Eleanor Roosevelt, who arranged Anderson’s Lincoln Memorial performance, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who in 1963 delivered his “I have a dream” speech from its steps.
The final redesigns will be unveiled in 2020, the centennial of the 19th Amendment establishing women’s suffrage, and will not go into wide circulation until later in the decade, starting with the new $10 note. The unexpectedly ambitious proposals reflect Mr. Lew’s tortuous attempt to expedite the process and win over critics who have lodged conflicting demands, pitting mainly women’s advocates against Hamiltonians newly empowered by the unlikely success of their hero’s story on Broadway.
Mr. Lew’s design proposals are the culmination of 10 months of often-heated public commentary that began almost immediately after he invited Americans last June to help him decide which woman from history to honor on the $10 bill. That feel-good initiative proved to be hardly as simple as he first imagined.
Immediately an online group called Women on 20s insisted that the woman to be honored — Tubman was its choice — had to go on the more common $20 note, displacing not the popular Hamilton but Jackson, whose place in history has suffered lately with attention to his record of forcibly relocating Native Americans, supporting slavery and — despite his prominence on currency — opposing a national banking system and paper money. But the $10 was next in line for redesign, based on federal officials’ assessment of counterfeiting threats.
Yet other women mobilized by the Girls’ Lounge, a networking organization for female corporate leaders, demanded that a woman go on the $10 note, as Mr. Lew first proposed, because they did not want to wait years for a new $20 bill. Within the administration, Rosie Rios, who as treasurer of the United States oversees the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, was also pushing for a woman on the $10 bill.
But nothing so roiled the debate as the phenomenon of the musical “Hamilton.”
Weighing in for his place on the $10 bill were well-to-do theater patrons and teenagers rapping to the soundtrack, as well as the show’s creator and star, Lin-Manuel Miranda. When Mr. Lew and his wife caught a performance last August, the Treasury secretary hinted to Mr. Miranda that Hamilton would stay. Just this week, the show won the Pulitzer Prize for drama.
We will end this week's discussion on education public policy LOCKE NOT DEWEY by pointing out that baby boomers BEFORE CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA had strong public K-university that educated with REAL INFORMATION if not tied to a corporate state formerly being REPUBLICAN------today being captured by CLINTON/OBAMA to that same far-right stance------were educated in history KNOWING ALL OF WHAT WE SPEAK TODAY HERE AT REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE CITIZENS' OVERSIGHT MARYLAND. We knew this history because we received LOCKE public education----experienced LOCKE free press --------had access to LOCKE public libraries filled with texts educating BROADLY but especially REAL LEFT LOCKE SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE.........WHO LOVED LOCKE? A majority of our founding fathers----and US PRESIDENTS ADAMS AND MONROE-----who were ANTI-FREEMASON PARTY.
Ron Paul and the LIBERTARIAN PARTY today are simply more MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD pretending to lead this vital END THE FED movement ----when the goal is ending a US FED to replace it with a ONE WORLD ONE WORLD CENTRAL BANK''.
JOHN LOCKE Age of Enlightenment---I AM MAN-----freedom, liberty, justice, citizenship rights for all -----would ABHOR MOVING FORWARD. This article from MISES-------is captured media as MISES is that global 1% neo-liberal DEWEY organization that pretends to be populist----FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT----just as THE JACOBIN. MISES selling RON PAUL as END THE FED------Oh, really???????
Mises Daily Articles
End the Fed
[Chapter 2 of End the Fed by Ron Paul (Grand Central Publishing, 2009), pp. 12–31.
Most Americans haven't thought much about the strange entity that controls the nation's money. They simply accept it as though it has always been there, which is far from the case. Visitors to Washington can see the Fed's palatial headquarters in Washington, D.C., which opened its doors in 1937. Tourists observe its intimidating appearance and forbidding structure, the monetary parallel to the Supreme Court or the Capitol of the United States.
People know that this institution has an important job to do in managing the nation's money supply, and they hear the head of the Fed testify to Congress, citing complex data, making predictions, and attempting to intimidate anyone who would take issue with them. One would never suspect from their words that there is any mismanagement taking place. The head of the Fed always postures as master of the universe, someone completely knowledgeable and completely in control.
But how much do we really know about what goes on inside the Fed? With the newest round of bailouts, even journalists have a difficult time running down precisely where the money is coming from and where it is headed. From its founding in 1913, secrecy and inside deals have been part of the way the Fed works.
Part of the public-relations game played by the chairman of the Fed is designed to suggest that the Fed is an essential part of our system, one we cannot do without. In fact, the Fed came about during a period of the nation's history called the Progressive Era, when the income tax and many new government institutions were created. It was a time in which business in general became infatuated with the idea of forming cartels as a way of protecting their profits and socializing their losses.
The largest banks were no exception. They were very unhappy that there was no national lender of last resort that they could depend on to bail them out in a time of crisis. With no bailout mechanism in place, they had to sink or swim on their own merits. What was more, following the Civil War, American presidents actually worked to implement and defend the gold standard, which put a brake on the ability of the largest banks to expand credit without limit. The gold standard worked like a regulator in this way. Ultimately, banks had to function like every other business. They could expand and make risky loans up to a point, but when faced with bankruptcy, they had nowhere they could turn. They would have to contract loans and deal with extreme financial pressures. Risk bearing is a wonderful mechanism for regulating human decision making. This created a culture of lending discipline.
In the jargon of the day, the system lacked "elasticity." That's another way of saying that banks couldn't expand money and credit as much as they wanted. They couldn't inflate without limit and count on a centralized institution to bail them out. This agenda fit well with a growing political movement at the turn of the 20th century that favored inflation (sometimes summed up in the slogan "Free Silver") as a means of relieving the debt burden of farmers. The cause took on certain populist overtones, and many people began to believe that an elastic money supply would help the common man. They identified the gold standard as a system favored by large banks to keep credit tight. Even today, many writers on the Fed mistakenly believe that the central bank and the largest banks are working to keep credit tight in their own interest.
Even the Fed itself claims that part of its job is to keep inflation in check. This is something like the tobacco industry claiming that it is trying to stop smoking or the automobile industry claiming that it is trying to control road congestion. The Fed is in the business of generating inflation. It might attempt to stop the effects of inflation, namely rising prices. But under the old definition of inflation — an artificial increase in the supply of money and credit — the entire reason for Fed's existence is to generate more, not less of it.
What the largest banks desire is precisely what we might expect any large corporation to desire: privatized profits and socialized losses. The privatized profits come from successful loan activities, sometimes during economic booms. But when the boom turns to bust, the losses are absorbed by third parties and do not affect the bottom line. To cover losses requires a supply of money that stretches to meet the bankers' demands. This is something that every industry would like if they could get it. But it is something that the free market denies them, and rightly so.
The banking industry has always had trouble with the idea of a free market that provides opportunities for both profits and losses. The first part, the industry likes. The second part is another issue. That is the reason for the constant drive in American history towards the centralization of money and banking, a trend that not only benefits the largest banks with the most to lose from a sound money system, but also the government, which is able to use an elastic system as an alternative form of revenue support. The coalition of government and big bankers provides the essential backbone of support for the centralization of money and credit.
If we look back at banking history, we can see the drive for the centralization of power dates back centuries. Whenever instability turns up, so do efforts to socialize the losses. Rarely do people ask what the fundamental source of instability really is. For an answer we can turn to a monumental study published in 2006 by Spanish economist Jesús Huerta de Soto.1 He places the blame on the very institution of fractional-reserve banking. This is the notion that depositors' money that is currently in use as cash may also be loaned out for speculative projects and then re-deposited. The system works so long as people do not attempt to withdraw all their money at once, as permitted to them in the banking contract. Once they do attempt this, the bank faces a choice to go bankrupt or suspend payment. In the face of such a demand, they turn to other banks to provide liquidity. But when the failure becomes system-wide, they turn to government.
The core of the problem is the conglomeration of two distinct functions of a bank. The first is the warehousing function, the most traditional function of a bank. The bank keeps your money safe and provides services such as checking, ATM access, record keeping, and online payment methods. These are all part of the warehousing services of the bank, and they are services for which the consumer is traditionally asked to pay (unless costs can be recouped through some other means). The second service the bank provides is a loan service. It seeks out investments such as commercial ventures and real estate, and puts money at risk in search of a rate of return. People who want their money put into such ventures are choosing to accept the risk and hoping for a return, understanding that if the investments do not work out, they lose money in the process.
The institution of fractional reserves mixes these two functions, such that warehousing becomes a source for lending. The bank loans out money that has been warehoused — and stands ready to use in checking accounts or other forms of checkable deposits — and that newly loaned money is deposited yet again in checkable deposits. It is loaned out again and deposited, with each depositor treating the loan money as an asset on the books.
In this way, fractional reserves create new money, pyramiding it on top of a fraction of old deposits. Depending on reserve ratios and banking practices, an initial deposit of $1,000, thanks to this "money multiplier," turns into a $10,000.2 The Fed depends heavily on this system of fractional reserves, using the banking system as the engine through which new money is injected into the economy as a whole. It adds reserves to the balances of member banks in the hope of inspiring ever more lending.
From the depositor point of view, this system has created certain illusions. As customers of the bank, we tend to believe that we can have both perfect security for our money, drawing it in whenever we want and never expecting it not to be there, while still earning a regular rate of return on that same money. In a true free market, however, there tends to be a tradeoff: you can enjoy the service of a money warehouse or you can loan your money to the bank and hope for a return on your investment. You can't usually have both. The Fed, however, by backing up this fractional-reserve system with a promise of endless bailouts and money creation, attempts to keep the illusion going.
Even with a government-guaranteed system of fractional reserves, the system is always vulnerable to collapse at the right moments, namely when all depositors come asking for their money in the course of a run (think of the scene in "It's a Wonderful Life"). The whole history of modern banking legislation and reform can be seen as an elaborate attempt to patch the holes in this leaking boat. Thus have we created deposit insurance, established the "too-big-to-fail" doctrine, created schemes for emergency injections, and all the rest, so as to keep afloat a system that is inherently unstable.
What I've described is a telescoped version of several hundreds of developments, but it accurately explains the continued drive to push forward with money that is infinitely elastic and with banking institutions that are guaranteed, through government legislation, not to fail, i.e., central banking as we know it. Just so that we are clear: the modern system of money and banking is not a free-market system. It is a system that is half socialized — propped up by government — and one that could never be sustained as it is in a clean market environment. And this is the core of the problem.
In examining the history of the Fed in particular, we must start far into the story, since fractional-reserve banking had already become part of established banking practices in the 19th century, a fact which goes a very long way to explain the source of periodic instability.
The story can be said to begin in 1775, when the Continental Congress issued a paper money called the Continental, as in "not worth a Continental." The currency was inflated to the point of disaster, and price controls didn't come close to working to stop it. This was the first great hyperinflation in U.S. history, and it gave rise to a hard-money school of thought that would agitate against central banking and paper money for many generations since. It also explains why the Constitution placed a ban on paper money and permitted only gold and silver as money.
In 1791, the First Bank of the United States was chartered, and in 1792, Congress passed the Coinage Act recognizing the dollar as the national currency, the original of which dates back to the 1400s with the German coin, the "Thaler." Fortunately, the charter on the incipient central bank was not renewed and it expired in 1811.
In 1812, with the war raging between Britain and the United States, the government issued notes to finance the war, resulting in suspensions of payment as well as inflation. Inflation during a war is something you might expect, but instead of permitting normal conditions to return, Congress chartered the Second Bank of the United States in 1816. The bank aided and abetted ever more expansion and the creation of a boom-bust cycle.
The 19th century American banking theorist Condy Raguet explains:
Those who can remember the events of that period will not have forgotten the abuse of the public forbearance exhibited by them upon that occasion. The sanction of the community was extended to them during the continuance of the war then existing with Great Britain, on account of the belief that their condition was forced upon them by the peculiar circumstances of the country; but no sooner had peace returned in the early part of 1815, than all their pledges were violated, and instead of manifesting by their actions a desire to contract their loans so as to place themselves in a situation for complying with their obligations, they actually expanded the currency by extraordinary issues, whilst there was no existing check upon them, until its depreciation became so great that speculation and overtrading in all their disastrous forms, involved the country in a scene of wretchedness, from which it did not recover in ten years.
Finally, the inevitable downturn occurred with the Panic of 1819. This panic ended peacefully precisely because nothing was done to stop it. Jefferson pointed out that, in any case, the panic was only wiping out wealth that was entirely fictitious to begin with. Today this panic is but a footnote in the history books.4 After massive political agitation, and following Andrew Jackson's Executive Order that withdrew the federal government's deposits from the bank, the Second Bank was also allowed to be closed in 1836.
The war between North and South set off another round of inflationary finance, however, eventually killing off wartime currencies and prompting another deflation after the war that set the stage for a gold standard to be established that was solid but not perfect. It was the existence of flaws — banks were permitted fractional reserves and banks were beginning to rely on ever more regulations to dampen competition — that created the dynamic that led to the Federal Reserve.
The ostensible impetus for the creation of the Federal Reserve was the banking panic of 1907, but the drive, as mentioned before, began long before. Jacob Schiff, head of Kuhn, Loeb, and Co., gave a speech in 1906 that actually began the push for a European-style central bank. He explained that the "country needed money to prevent the next crisis." He worked with his partner, Paul Moritz Warburg, and Frank A. Vanderlip of the National City Bank of New York, to create a new commission that would deliver a report to the New York Chamber of Commerce in 1906. It called for a "central bank of issue under the control of the government." They began to work within other organizations to push the agenda, winning over the American Banking Association and many important players in government.
Once the groundwork was laid, the crisis atmosphere of 1907 assisted greatly in creating the conditions that led to the creation of the Fed. It was a brief contraction but during it many banks suspended specie payments, that is, they stopped paying out gold to depositors until the crisis passed. This led to a consolidation of opinion in favor of a general guarantor of all deposits.
A point we learn from this event and every other banking panic in U.S. history is that a crisis has always led to greater centralization. A system that is mixed between freedom and the state is a shaky system, and its internal contradictions have been resolved not by tending toward a free market but rather through a trend toward statism. It is not surprising, then, that academic opinion swung in favor of central banking too, with most important economists — having long forgotten their classical roots — seeing new magic powers associated with elastic money.
In 1908, Congress created a National Monetary Commission to look into the general idea of banking reform. The commission was staffed mostly by people close to the largest banks: First National Banking of New York, Kuhn Loeb, Bankers Trust Company, and the Continental National Bank of Chicago. The NMC traveled around Europe and returned to continue the propaganda.
By 1909, President William Howard Taft had already endorsed a central bank, while the Wall Street Journal ran a 14-part series on the need for a central bank. The unsigned series was written by a NMC member, Charles A. Conant, who was the chief public-relations man. The series made all the usual arguments for elasticity but added several additional functions that the central bank could play, including manipulating the discount rate and gold flows, as well as actively bailing out failing banks. What followed was a series of public speeches, pamphleteering, scholarly statements, political speeches, and press releases by merchant groups.
By November 1910, the time was right for the drafting of the bill that would become the Federal Reserve Act. A secret meeting was convened at the coastal Georgia resort called the Jekyll Island Club, co-owned by J.P. Morgan himself. The press said it was a duck-hunting expedition. They took elaborate steps to preserve their secrecy. But history recorded precisely who was there: John D. Rockefeller's man in the Senate, Nelson Aldrich, Morgan senior partner Henry Davison, German émigré and central banking advocate Paul Warburg, National City Bank vice president Frank Vanderlip, and NMC staffer A. Piatt Andrew who was also assistant secretary of the Treasury to President Taft.
So we had two Rockefellers, two Morgans, one Kuhn Loeb person, and one economist. In this group, we find the essence of the Fed: powerful bankers with powerful government officials working together to have the nation's money system serve their interests, justified by economists there to provide the scientific gloss. It has been pretty much the same ever since.
They worked in secrecy for a full week. The structure of the Federal Reserve was proposed at this meeting. It was not to be a European-style central bank — or rather, it would be, but the structure would be different. It would be "decentralized" into 12 member banks, providing something of a cover for the cartelization that was actually taking place. The full plan was presented to the National Monetary Commission in 1911. Then the propaganda was really stepped up with newspaper editorials, phony citizens' leagues, and endorsements from trade organizations. The next step was to remove the Republican partisanship from the bill and replace it with a bipartisan appearance, and the bill passed.
The essence of the Federal Reserve Act was largely unchanged from when it was first hatched years earlier. With a vote by Congress, the government would confer legal legitimacy on a cartel of the largest bankers and permit them to inflate the money supply at will, providing for themselves and the financial system liquidity in times of need, while insulating themselves against the consequences of bad loans and overextension of credit.
Hans Sennholz has called the creation of the Fed "the most tragic blunder ever committed by Congress. The day it was passed, old America died and a new era began. A new institution was born that was to cause, or greatly contribute to, the unprecedented economic instability in the decades to come."
It was a form of financial socialism that benefited the rich and the powerful. As for the excuse, it was then what it is now. The claim is that the Fed would protect the monetary and financial system against inflation and violent swings in market activity. It would stabilize the system by providing stimulus when it was necessary and pulling back on inflation when the economy became overheated.
A statement by the Comptroller of the Currency in 1914 promised a ridiculous nirvana would be ushered in by the Fed. It "supplies a circulating medium absolutely safe," the statement said. Further, "under the operation of this law such financial and commercial crises, or 'panics,' as this country experienced in 1873, in 1893, and again in 1907, with the attendant misfortunes and prostrations, seem to be mathematically impossible."
And here is another remarkable promise from the Comptroller of the Currency:
Under the provisions of the new law the failure of efficiently and honestly managed banks is practically impossible and a closer watch can be kept on member banks. Opportunities for a more thorough and complete examination are furnished for each particular bank. These facts should reduce the dangers from dishonest and incompetent management to a minimum. It is hoped that the national-bank failures can hereafter be virtually eliminated.
In practice the reality has been much different. One only needs to reflect on the dramatic decline in the value of the dollar that has taken place since the Fed was established in 1913. The goods and services you could buy for $1.00 in 1913 will now cost nearly $21.00. Another way to look at this is from the perspective of the purchasing power of the dollar itself. It has fallen to less than $0.05 of its 1913 value. We might say that the government and its banking cartel have together stolen $0.95 of every dollar as they have pursued a relentlessly inflationary policy.
The same is true of other currencies controlled by a central bank. It is not, however, true of gold. Here is a general overview, courtesy of the American Institute for Economic Research:
As for the business cycle and the abolition of panics, the data show otherwise. Recessions of the 20th century as documented by the National Bureau of Economic Research include: 1918–1919, 1920–1921, 1923–1924, 1926–1927, 1929–1933, 1937–1938, 1945, 1948–1949, 1953–1954, 1957–1958, 1960–1961, 1969–1970, 1973–1975, 1980, 1981–1982, 1990–1991, 2001, and 2007, which is the current panic of which there is no end in sight.
Some mathematical impossibility!
The one aspect of the great promise that has been kept, not entirely but generally, is the promise that banks will not fail in the way they used to. But consider whether this is really a good thing. What if we had a law against business failure? It raises an obvious question: if businesses are not allowed to fail, what guarantee is in place that will give them incentive to succeed with soundness and productivity to the common good? In a capitalist economy, the prospect of failure imposes discipline and consumer service. It is an essential aspect of the competitive marketplace, whereas a promise against failure only entrenches inefficiency and incompetency.
In other words, bank failures are no more to be regretted than any other business failure. They are a normal feature of the free enterprise system. What about depositors? In a competitive and free system, deposits would not be unsafe; any that were not paid back that were promised would fall under the laws of protection against fraud. Unsafe deposits would be loans to the bank that would be treated like any other risky investment. Consumers would keep a more careful watch over the institutions that are handling their money and stop trusting regulators in Washington, who in fact have not done a good job in ferreting out incompetence.
But this is not the place to explain the workings of a free-market banking system. I raise the point only to underscore the broader lesson that no firm in a free market should enjoy absolute protection against failure. A continued process of trial and error is the way that institutions achieve the goal of efficiency and soundness.
Consider the Soviet case: to my knowledge, no business ever went under with the Soviet system but society in general grew ever poorer. Think of that Soviet system applied to the banking industry and you have the Fed.
Understanding this history of the Fed's founding and effects helps take some of the mystery out of it. Some people claim that the Fed is nothing but a private corporation that is working to enrich itself at our expense. Other people claim that it is a government operation that works to provide funds for the government when it can no longer get away with taxing us.
Neither opinion is precisely correct. Actually, the Fed is a public-private partnership, a coalition of large banks who are the owners working with the blessing of the government, which appoints its managers. In some way, it is the worst of both the corporate and the government worlds, with each side providing a contribution to an institution that has been horribly detrimental to American prosperity.
In any case, William Greider is exactly correct that the advent of the Fed represented "the beginning of the end of laissez-faire." It turned the entire money system over to public management on behalf of political causes.
Over the years, the Fed has been granted ever more leeway in the means it uses to inflate the money supply. It can now buy just about anything it wants and write it down as an asset. When it buys debt, it buys with newly created money. It maintains a strict system of low-reserve ratios that allows banks to pile loans on top of deposits and take the new deposits as the basis for ever more loans. It can set the federal funds rate at a level to its liking and influence interest across the entire economy. It intervenes in currency markets and other markets.
There have been many consequences of the Fed that were unforeseen even by its architects. They might have imagined that the Fed would indeed help smooth out the business cycle, provided you think of the real problem of the cycle as its bust phase when credit contracts. The Fed can indeed provide liquidity in these times by a simple operation of printing more paper money to cover deposits. But if you think of the cycle as beginning in the boom phase — when money and credit are loose and lending soars to fund unsustainable projects — matters change substantially.
In 1912, Ludwig von Mises wrote a book called The Theory of Money and Credit12The Theory of Money and Credit (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953). that was widely acclaimed all over Europe. In it he warned that the creation of central banks would worsen and spread business cycles rather than eliminate them.
It works as follows. The central bank on a whim can reduce the interest rate that it charges members banks for loans. It can buy government debt and add that debt as an asset on its balance sheet. It can reduce the reserve coverage for loans at member banks.
But in doing all of this, it is toying with the signals that the banking industry is sending to borrowers. Businesses are fooled into taking out longer-term loans and starting projects that cannot be sustained. Investors flush with new cash put the money in stocks or buy homes, activities that spread a kind of buying-and-selling fever among the general population.
The problem is that all of this activity creates an illusory prosperity, a false boom. When lower interest rates result from real saving, the banking system is signaling that the necessary sacrifice of present consumption has taken place in order to fund long-term investment. But when central banks push down rates on a whim, the impression is created that the savings are there when they are in fact completely absent. The resulting bust becomes inevitable as goods that come to production can't be purchased, and reality sets in by waves. Businesses fail, homes are foreclosed upon, and people bail out of stocks or whatever the fashionable investment is of the day.
That phony money creates a false boom is not an unknown fact in history. Thomas Paine in the late 18th century observed that paper money threatened to turn the country into a nation of "stockjobbers." In fact, this can even happen when the money is not paper. The famous case of "tulipmania" in the Dutch golden era was driven by gold inflows from around Europe after the government gave a massive coinage subsidy to all comers.
International markets complicate the picture by allowing the boom phase of the cycle to continue longer than it otherwise would, as foreigners buy up and hold new debt, using it as collateral for their own monetary extensions. But eventually they, too, become ensnared in the boom-bust cycle of false prosperity followed by all-too-real bust. International markets can delay but not finally eliminate the inevitable results of monetary expansion.
Now, knowledge of this problem was not well spread among bankers and government officials in 1913 when the Fed was created. But it wouldn't be long until it would become apparent that the Fed would bring not stability but more instability, not shorter booms and busts but deeper and longer ones. The longest one of all, dramatically exacerbated by bad economic policy, was the Great Depression.
Our global banking STARS of stage and screen have always been 5% global banking players-------they are OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% MEDIEVAL RICH-----because our creative arts and music were always PATRONAGE FROM THE RICH.
Here is NATIONAL PUBLIC MEDIA PBS------selling the propaganda that HAMILTON is about a REVOLUTIONARY -------not telling us it is OUR REVOLUTION GLOBAL 1% AND THEIR 2% -----but pretending it is a 99% WE THE PEOPLE revolution. This killing of US sovereignty hits all 99% black, white, brown----women and men------REAL 99% Jewish, Protestant, Muslim, Hindi, Catholic hard. No one wanted to shed THE SPANISH INQUISITION Catholic Church of ROMAN EMPIRE more than our 99% of Catholics----and no one is harmed by those OLD WORLD JEWISH MERCHANTS OF VENICE global 1% then our 99% of Jewish citizens.
Taking down CIVIL WAR MONUMENTS----placing a MLK STATUE in Atlanta----placing TUBMAN on US Treasury currency is simply propaganda to make our global 99% labor pool workers being brought to US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones feel they are coming to A LOCKE AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT AMERICA-----and not a DEWEY FAR-RIGHT GLOBAL BANKING 1% enslavement and colonized AMERICA.
THOSE 5% TO THE 1% FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT 'GLOBAL WALL STREET BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT' LABOR AND JUSTICE ORGANIZATION POLS AND PLAYERS----MUST GO.
Remember, our US public media whether national NPR or PBS all the way to our local public media-----Baltimore's WYPR and WEAA ---have been captured to far-right CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA these few decades and are no longer left social progressive----they have been far-right wing neo-liberal/neo-conservative -------DEWEY NOT LOCKE.
Hip-hop and history blend for Broadway hit ‘Hamilton’
Published on Nov 20, 2015
He’s on the $10 bill and he died in a duel, but what else do you know about Alexander Hamilton? Now his life is the subject of a cutting-edge hip-hop Broadway musical, created by Lin-Manuel Miranda. Jeffrey Brown talks to the celebrated writer and performer about updating the history of one of the Founding Fathers to reflect and engage today’s America.
- JUDY WOODRUFF:
Now, what happens when you take a look at America before and after the Revolutionary War, throw in hip-hop and dance?
Just the biggest box office draw in New York City.
Jeffrey Brown has the story.
- JEFFREY BROWN:
It’s the coolest American history you’re likely to get, and the hottest ticket on Broadway. “Hamilton,” a kind of hip-hop musical, tells of Alexander Hamilton, immigrant, ambitious young rebel, aide to George Washington, a founding father who arguably never got the recognition he deserved.
- LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA, Playwright/Actor:
I’m actually working on a hip-hop album. It’s a concept album about the life of someone who I thinks embodies hip-hop, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton.
- LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA:
- JEFFREY BROWN:
“Hamilton’s” creator and star, Lin-Manuel Miranda, performed an early version of one of the play’s songs at the White House in 2009.
- JEFFREY BROWN:
When we talked recently, he told me how Hamilton’s life came to be about so much more.
- LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA:
The joy of discovery of, oh, if I tell Hamilton’s story, I actually tell the story of the forming of our country, that was a joyous experience.
And I think, honestly, that’s the secret sauce in the score. I was learning this stuff as I was researching it to write the show. I knew the basic outlines that everyone knows. He was on the $10 and he died in a duel. That’s pretty much anyone knows about him.
- JEFFREY BROWN:
But were you thinking from the beginning that this larger story was what would emerge?
- LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA:
I knew that reading — reading Ron Chernow’s biography of his life was like a Dickens novel, such humble beginnings to such incredible heights, and such incredible incident throughout, that, you know, I always tell people I feel like I’m a mosquito that hit an artery. Like, there’s so much here. How am I going to get it all?
- JEFFREY BROWN:
Story-wise, there’s so much there, yes.
- LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA:
What I’m always on the hunt for when I’m writing a song are details, and really attacking every moment in the most original way and theatrically compelling way possible. So, our mantra is, the political always has to be personal.
So if you’re going to write a song about the compromise that led to Hamilton trading his vote for the debt plan for the capital of the U.S. being down here in the newly formed D.C., well, that’s easy to say in a sentence, but let’s tell it from the perspective of Aaron Burr, who wasn’t in the room, and desperately wants to be in that room.
And, suddenly, we can get away with anything, because we have got dramatic tension.
- JEFFREY BROWN:
Miranda, now 35 and the son of Puerto Rican immigrants, is an actor, composer and playwright. He first made his name with “In the Heights,” an exuberant musical of life in New York’s Latin American community, the kind of life he knew.
“Hamilton” is set several hundred years earlier, but Miranda found a similar connection.
- LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA:
I would argue that Hamilton feels twice as autobiographical as “In the Heights” does.
- JEFFREY BROWN:
- LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA:
Yes, absolutely, especially — I actually think we kind of double down on the themes of “In the Heights,” and sort of blow them up to a grand scope. We’re not going to tell the story of an immigrant neighborhood. We’re going to tell the story of the first American immigrant and the formation of our country.
And so, in that sense, it felt intensely personal. It’s not the story of people who have been here for generations, but what it feels like to land here and make your way.
- JEFFREY BROWN:
And the language, the rhythms of hip-hop?
- LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA:
It’s the best form for Hamilton.
And when you extrapolate from him, it’s a wonderful language for our revolution. We need a revolutionary language to describe a revolution. And this was…
- JEFFREY BROWN:
You mean hundreds of years later?
- LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA:
We’re separated by an ocean from Britain, so this wasn’t a fist-fight. This was a war of ideas, in a sense.
And so we needed not only great fighters, but great thinkers to navigate us from rebellion to the forging of a new nation. And so hip-hop is uniquely suited to that, because we get more language per measure than any other musical form.
- JEFFREY BROWN:
What about the casting of the founding fathers as Latino, as black? Is that an important part of this to you?
- LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA:
I think so.
I think one of our overarching goals with this show is — with any show — is, you want to eliminate any distance between your audience and your story. And so let’s not pretend this is a textbook. Let’s make the founders of our country look like what our country looks like now. This is what our…
- JEFFREY BROWN:
So, it’s not a costume epic with a distance.
- LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA:
Correct. Correct. And this is what our country looks like now. It looks like, you know, we are — we are every shade and every color.
And it also comes organically out of the music. This is hip-hop and R&B music. These are the best people to sing this type of music.
- JEFFREY BROWN:
These days, Miranda is himself a new kind of rock star vetted all over.
We joined him in Washington as he received an Ingenuity Award from the Smithsonian Institution, and gave a talk to an adoring audience. I asked him about the use of the word ingenuity to describe his work, and that brought on a characteristic riff on how he develops his own word play.
- LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA:
I remember there is a lyric in our show where Lafayette says “ingenuitive and fluent in French.”
And I remember having a fight — not having a fight, but having a debate with my collaborators, because one of them was like, well, that’s not a word, ingenuitive. And I was like, I think it is.
And then we were split 2-2 whether ingenuitive was a word. And we looked it up. And it is an archaic conjugation of ingenuity. And I was right. And I don’t know why I knew that word, so — and other people didn’t, but…
- JEFFREY BROWN:
And, therefore, you use it.
- LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA:
And, therefore, we use it. Yes.
- JEFFREY BROWN:
But you can make up words if you want, can’t you?
- LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA:
Well, Shakespeare did it. And it worked out pretty great for him.
- JEFFREY BROWN:
So, writing musicals, entertaining musicals, telling stories, and now filling in large gaps in American history. Is there a hierarchy of that for you? What’s most important for you?
- LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA:
The most important thing for me, honestly, is meeting those expectations every night.
You know, we’re not film actors in that show. It’s not like you get it once on camera in the can and we’re done. We’re shots. And we have to make the experience happen for the audience that I’m going to see tonight after I get on the plane, for the same audience that — you know, for a difference audience that I saw last night.
- JEFFREY BROWN:
I saw where you said you think to yourself, what’s the thing that’s not in the world that should be in the world?
That’s a big idea, right?
- LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA:
- JEFFREY BROWN:
I mean, do you feel that? Like, what’s missing in our world?
- LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA:
I mean — and it goes back to I hope that what I can contribute is something that hasn’t been seen before. You know, “In the Heights” very much, came out of me wanting a career in musical theater, but there’s only about three great roles for Latino men in musical theater.
- JEFFREY BROWN:
- LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA:
You’re Bernardo, you’re Paul in “A Chorus Line” or, if you can really sing, you’re Man of La Mancha. I can’t sing well enough to be the Man of La Mancha.
- JEFFREY BROWN:
So you did two out of three.
- LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA:
So, I wrote — I wrote something that had so many parts for Latinos because I knew there was a void there. I knew it because I was going into that world, and I was scared.
- JEFFREY BROWN:
But it’s also a big idea to think that you can fill a vacuum.
- LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA:
I think that’s what we do about artists. It’s, what the thing that only I can contribute?
It’s not about the confidence to like, hello, world, here’s this idea that never existed. It’s, this is my brain, and unless I express it, it’s only going to stay in my brain. It’s more about personal expression than imposing your will on the world. It’s more about, you know, if I don’t get this idea out of my head and on to paper, it dies with me.
- JEFFREY BROWN:
All right, Lin-Manuel Miranda, thanks so much.
- LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA:
- Editor’s Note:
Lin-Manuel Miranda’s family was mistakenly referred to as immigrating from Puerto Rico, but Puerto Rican migrants are U.S. citizens.
Here is YAHOO NEWS being that YAHOO------while we shouted during the Trump protests whether that national women's march or the TRUMP IS A RACIST HATES ALL POPULATION GROUPS march-------the images national news showed all contained 5% ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT player protesters----including WORLD WORKER'S PARTY-----These are the FAKE left socialists/communists who are really global banking 1% far-right wing LIBERTARIAN MARXISTS-----when we hear that a nation has a SOCIALIST leader it is from these global MARXIST groups they come. Yes, LENIN, TROTSKY, STALIN, MAO were global banking 1% freemasons----not left revolutionary heroes.
PLEASE STOP MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE FAR-RIGHT, AUTHORITARIAN, MILITARISTIC, LIBERTARIAN MARXISM----COMING NEXT.
We KNOW all these founding father leaders had their own self - interests in mind so one is not necessarily a true hero of a 99% of WE THE PEOPLE-----but our 99% of US WOMEN would do well to be that revolutionary ABIGAIL ADAMS-------who married to US PRESIDENT JOHN ADAMS mothered that JOHN QUINCY ADAMS tied to ANTI-MASON PARTY partnered with MONROE battling those then global banking 1% HAMILTON freemason players-----who supported the JOHN LOCKE ----I AM MAN US Constitution----Bill of Rights----and the ideal of 99% WE THE PEOPLE as legislators enshrined with equal rights and protection under law.
All this involves REAL PUBLIC EDUCATION------REAL FREE PRESS-------REAL CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION------we were educated in a public K-university that taught all of which we speak here every day.
Abigail Adams was the wife of John Adams, who was the second President of the United States, and the mother of John Quincy…
When a local black civil rights activist knowing MOVING FORWARD kills 99% of black citizens asked---why are the far-right wing global banking 1% placing TUBMAN on US currency----we said---that symbolizes slavery and colonization is back in America-----that black activist said---NOW THAT MAKES SENSE. 99% WE THE PEOPLE must stop thinking MOVING FORWARD will only harm this population group or that population group----the global 1% WANT TO ELIMINATE all US citizens---and enslave all global labor pool coming to US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES---like Baltimore.
So, replacing JACKSON on the US $20 bill is an HONOR to JACKSON-----not a populist move
'The Jackson administration's handling of this controversy has generally been interpreted as evidence of its southern orientation. According to one account, the Democratic party's pro-South and pro-slavery bias was the "darker side to Jacksonian Democracy."'Andrew Jackson - Wikipedia
Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 ... Jackson was a Freemason, initiated at Harmon'
Abagail ADAMS was NOT a Hillary global 1% banking NASTY LADY...... We are from a very southern Virginia---does that mean we need to be a JACKSON voter? Of course not ---today 99% of WE THE PEOPLE are freedom, liberty, justice, pursuit of happiness sovereign US citizens-------this is NOT A DIXIE VS YANKEE ISSUE.
Will Trump Dare Purge Harriet Tubman, a Black Woman Civil Rights Pioneer, From the $20 Bill?
Newsweek5 September 2017
This article first appeared on the History News Network.
In the aftermath of the violent white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, President Trump posited a moral equivalence between those who marched under Nazi and Confederate flags and those who protested their parade of bigotry.
He also endorsed the ostensible cause that drew the former to Charlottesville: preventing the removal of a bronze equestrian statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee.
At his press conference in the lobby of Trump Tower, and later on Twitter, Trump argued that the removal of “ beautiful ” Confederate statues and monuments was a “foolish” attempt to change history—one that would threaten monuments to other great American slaveholders such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
The fact that Washington, Jefferson, and other founding fathers considered slavery a moral and philosophical wrong, despite being slaveholders themselves, and fought a war against Great Britain to advance the cause of human liberty, while Confederate leaders insisted that slavery was a blessing and fought a war against the United States to perpetuate the institution, is a distinction that seems to be lost on the president.
Since taking office, Trump has sought to place himself among the great men of the past.
One of his first acts as president was to remove all landscapes and other paintings depicting American life from the Oval Office and replace them with portraits of Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and Andrew Jackson. (Washington and Lincoln were already there and remain in place.)
Given Jackson’s reputation as a slaveholder and the architect of Indian removal, his presence near the Resolute Desk, where he often appears in photographs with Trump, has been especially controversial.
Yet Jackson is the historical figure with whom the president seems most eager to identify. He notes that Jackson was a “ people’s president ” who successfully fought the nation’s financial and political elites.
Not surprisingly, he fails to note that Jackson thought the people, and not the Electoral College, should elect the nation’s chief executive.
While Trump has no say in the fate of monuments located in city parks or on courthouse grounds, he does have the power to save the most famous monument to the seventh president, one that was slated for removal by the Obama administration last year: Jackson’s portrait on the $20 bill.
On April 20, 2016, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew announced major design changes to the $20, $10, and $5 notes. While Hamilton will remain on the front of the $10, the back will honor leaders in the movement for women’s suffrage—Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul, Sojourner Truth, and Susan B. Anthony.
Lincoln will likewise remain on the front of the $5, while the back will celebrate the role of the Lincoln Memorial in the Civil Rights Movement.
Jackson, however, will move to the White House on the back of the $20 while the famous champion of human rights, Harriet Tubman, takes his place on the front.
Public opposition to the proposed changes was minimal. However, support was not universal within the Republican Party.
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who has weathered criticism for displaying a Confederate flag on his desk and for insisting that slavery played only “a small part” in the coming of the Civil War, introduced an amendment to a bill funding the Treasury Department that would have prevented Lew from replacing Jackson on the $20.
The decision to place Tubman on the $20, King told Politico, was “divisive” and “racist,” part of President Obama’s effort “to do everything he can think of to upset this society and this civilization.”
Although Republicans on the House Rules Committee quashed King’s amendment, Trump, expressing the same aversion to historical reassessment he would later extend to Lee, denounced the “ pure political correctness ” that threatened to obscure Jackson’s “great history.”