All language subtitles for 4.Presidents.2020.1080p.WEBRip.x264-RARBG

[introspective electronic music]

- Four United States presidents

have been assassinated,

and all four had
something in common.

Abraham Lincoln, James
Garfield, William McKinley,

and John F. Kennedy were
the victimized

Commanders-in-Chief.

Conventional wisdom is
that Honest Abe

angered many Southerners
whose economy, in large part,

revolved around the
legalization of slavery.

And what could Abraham
Lincoln's murder

have to do with the
assassination of James Garfield

17 years later in 1881,

or the shooting death of
President
William McKinley in 1901?

And what could possibly
be the common thread

that connects all three of
these historic leaders' killings

to the infamous 1963
assassination of John F.
Kennedy?

After all, Kennedy's
murder was nearly 100 years

after the Lincoln assassination.

The beloved JFK was credited

with highly important
civil rights advancements

helping black Americans.

Could this be the linking motive

between his murder and
Abraham Lincoln's?

Racial tensions, of course,

were also raging
during the McKinley

and Garfield presidencies.

Were the perpetrators
all fueled by racism?

There were also grave matters
involving foreign policy

that angered many Americans

during each of these presidents'
terms.

Both Presidents
McKinley and Garfield

had major international
crises brewing

right before their
assassinations.

But also, core to it all,
is one common thread, money.

Our government, so simply,
is run on the basis of money,

and how, and who issues
and controls it

is as much a founding
building block

as the First and
Fourth Amendments.

Mayor Amschel Rothschild

of the powerful banking house

of Rothschild and Sons
infamously said,

- [Amschel] "Give me the
power to create

"a nation's money, and I
care not who makes its laws."

- President Lincoln,
President Garfield,

President McKinley, and
President Kennedy

all died for the same reason.

And it has something to
do with money.

[ominous piano music]

[suspenseful electronic music]

[ominous piano music]

[eerie piano music]

There are many odd
similarities and eerie facts

that join together the Lincoln
and Kennedy assassinations.

Some are widely known,

others are rather obscure.

Of course, everyone knows

that Abraham Lincoln
was assassinated

by John Wilkes Booth,

and John F. Kennedy was
murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald.

- [Narrator] John Wilkes
Booth was born in 1839,

Lee Harvey Oswald was
born in 1939.

After shooting Lincoln,
Booth ran from a theater

and was caught in a warehouse.

Oswald ran from a warehouse

and was caught in a theater.

Booth was killed before his
trial, and so was Oswald.

Abraham Lincoln was first
elected to Congress in 1846.

John F. Kennedy was elected
to Congress in 1946.

Abraham Lincoln was
elected president in 1860.

John F. Kennedy was
elected president in 1960.

Both Lincoln and Kennedy
were known for their advocacy

of civil rights.

Both presidents presided
over major wars.

Lincoln was president
during the Civil War.

JFK was president during
the Vietnam War.

Both presidents were
assassinated by Southerners.

Both presidents were succeeded
by their vice presidents

who were southerners.

Andrew Johnson, who
succeeded Lincoln,

was born in 1808.

Lyndon Johnson, who
succeeded Kennedy,

was born in 1908.

Both Andrew Johnson and Lyndon
B. Johnson were Democrats.

Lincoln's secretary was
named Kennedy,

and Kennedy's secretary
was named Lincoln.

Lincoln's secretary warned him

not to go to Ford's Theater,

and Kennedy's
secretary warned him

not to go to Dallas.

And both Kennedy and
Lincoln were killed

in the presence of their wives.

- Although these
similarities are mystifying

and maybe scary,

they don't explain the reason

why these two
presidents were murdered

or the reason why
Presidents McKinley

and Garfield were murdered,

as the reason for all
four of them

was exactly the same.

These men didn't just
attempt to do something.

They actually carried it out.

They changed the United
States monetary system,

and it got them killed,

all four of them by the
same method of execution.

They were shot to death.

[eerie electronic music]

Understanding how
money is issued

and who actually controls it

and how these people and
entities today

make hundreds of
billions of dollars

from this system every year

will help to understand the
reason why these four men

had their presidencies
terminated earlier than planned.

When you look closely at the
money in your wallet or purse,

you will notice at the
top of each bill,

the words Federal Reserve note.

But what is the Federal Reserve?

Most Americans assume
the Federal Reserve banks

are part of the government.

They are not, the
Federal Reserve banks

are private corporations,

partially owned by
foreign interests.

These banks and their
stockholders

control the greater bulk
of wealth in America.

To better understand the
true identity and purpose

of these corporations,

one must go back to the
earliest days of our nation.

During the period after
the American Revolution

but before the drafting
of the Constitution,

our Founding Fathers were
approached by representatives

of wealthy banking
families from Europe.

They proposed the
establishment of a central bank

for use by America.

This bank would
provide the money

that our young country needed

to grow into a vibrant nation.

However, the Founding Fathers
rejected their proposal.

The United States, being
a sovereign nation,

was fully capable of creating
its own money supply.

This power, quote,
"To coin money

"and regulate the value
thereof," end quote,

was given to our Congress
in the Constitution.

Aside from knowing that
the United States

had the power to create
its own currency,

the Founding Fathers
were well aware

of the motives of the bankers,

namely, to siphon off the
wealth and natural resources

of the people through
various methods

of currency manipulation

just as they had done
throughout history

in every major
country in Europe.

- [Thomas] I believe that
banking establishments

are more dangerous than
standing armies.

Bank paper must be suppressed,

and the circulating
medium must be restored

to the nation to
whom it belongs.

[eerie piano music]

- The primary proponent
of a central bank

for the early United States
was Alexander Hamilton.

Sponsored by the international
banking conglomerates

and wealthy elites,

Hamilton convinced the U.S.
leadership

that this central bank,
owned and controlled

by his wealthy patrons,

would partner with the
United States

and establish a very
profitable banking franchise.

Thus, a 20-year charter was
granted to the first bank

of the United States in 1792.

Over the next 20 years,

this central bank
issued bank notes

against the nation's gold coins.

The ever-evolving
monetary monster,

financed and took an
ownership interest

in nearly every major
business endeavor

started in the United States.

The bankers, most of whom
were Europeans,

soon convinced the new Congress

that the United States
should sell their 20% share

to the bank,

and by 1808, the First
Bank of the United States

was totally private, and
its profits were enormous.

This did not escape
notice of Congress,

who refused to renew
their charter in 1811.

That same year, however,

the nation quickly
discovered itself

embroiled in conflicts
with Great Britain

which led to the War of 1812.

The British invaded and
sacked Washington,

burning the White House and
most government buildings.

Suffering financial
difficulties created by the war,

Congress rechartered the bank,

and then the British
withdrew from U.S. soil.

[ominous piano music]

This Second Bank of the
United States

also had a 20-year charter.

And by the time it was
up for renewal,

the president in office
was Andrew Jackson.

And Jackson, well, he
was a fiery man

who happened to strongly oppose

this central, private
banking system

and paper money overall.

Andrew Jackson had gained fame

as a general in the
United States Army

who fearlessly fought his
British enemies

in the War of 1812.

He then served in both
houses of Congress,

never finding an issue
he didn't want to fight.

As president, Jackson
sought to advance the rights

of the common man

against the corrupt aristocracy,

and the bank was on his
hit list to eliminate.

- [Andrew] "The bold effort
the present bank had made

"to control the government

"are but
premonitions of the fate

"that await the American people

"should they be deluded
into a perpetuation

"of this institution

"or the establishment of
another like it."

- And kill the bank,
Andrew Jackson did.

By a veto of the
bank's new charter,

in hopes of extorting a rescue

of their privately-controlled
central bank,

banking moguls and
their political henchmen

introduced a short-lived
financial panic

that was initially
blamed on Jackson.

But the people were
all the wiser

with grave concern that a
single centralized private bank

had been issuing
America's currency

instead of the U.S. government.

"Why should these private
bankers profit so vastly

"when the government
itself could issue

"and control the money
supply?", Jackson asked.

This riled the
majority of Americans

who were disturbed by
the bank's monopoly power

to issue money and its
political favoritism

in granting of loans.

The Second Bank of the
United States

had overplayed its hand.

It very arrogantly and
indiscreetly denied loans

to supporters of Andrew Jackson

while bestowing loans to
his opponents.

By 1834, a general backlash

against the central bank's
tactics had widely spread,

and all recharter efforts
were abandoned.

At this point, their
monopoly power was shattered,

and the power to issue money

fell to any state-chartered
banking institution,

and there were many.

The Second Bank of the
United States chieftains,

always crafty and highly
funded, simply switched gears.

In February 1836,
this central bank

became a private corporation

under Pennsylvania
Commonwealth law.

Still having some power,

the centralized bankers utilized
it through relationships

with numerous individual
private banks.

And suddenly, a contrived
shortage of money ensued,

causing the Panic of 1837.

Everyone, regardless of
politics, was affected.

[melancholy piano music]

This panic lasted
approximately seven years

until a system of banking

completely excluding a
centralized bank

gained its full footing.

And from 1841 through 1857,

America lived the greatest
economic prosperity

it had ever seen.

During this period, with
no centralized

Second Bank of the United States
involved in it whatsoever,

federal revenue was
solely diverted

into smaller, unaffiliated
banks by executive order.

Never willing to give up
on their uber-powerful

and mega-wealthy wealth
creating monster

of a business, however,

the international centralized
bankers fostered a series

of purported bank panics

to highlight their
indispensable role.

The Panic of 1857, the
Panic of 1873,

the Panic of 1884, the
Panic of 1893,

and the Panic of 1896.

There were many naysayers
who recognized

that these panics were bogus,

but a combination of
greed and stupidity

among the majority of top U.S.
government decision makers

allowed the centralized
bank, in one form or another,

to continually reemerge.

Finally, in 1907, one
final alleged banking panic

shifted public opinion
back in favor

of a centralized bank system.

The European families,
led by the Rothschilds,

recognized that finally their
chance to take full control

of America's banking system
had once again arrived.

The European bankers began,

through the newspapers they own

and lobby groups they funded,

to call for full banking reform.

They clamored for
Congressional investigations

into the current banking system

and offered their expertise
in drafting reforms

that would protect the public
against future bank failures.

[eerie piano music]

By 1912, so widespread
was public concern

over banking reform

that presidential candidates
from each political party

offered their own
carefully-drafted versions

of a national
monetary reform bill.

What the public had no
way of knowing

was that the two main
competing reform bills

were virtually identical,
as both were written

by the same German banker,
Paul Warburg.

The public also had no
way of knowing

that the election campaigns

of the three 1912
presidential candidates

were financed by Warburg's
firm, Kuhn Loeb and Company,

one of the wealthiest and
oldest banking houses of Europe.

By controlling not
only the content

of the banking reform bill

but also the results of the
1912 presidential election,

the foreign banking
interests were guaranteed

that their dream of establishing

a new permanent central
bank for America

would finally be realized.

This allowed for their
complete control

over America's money as
they once had

with the First and Second
Banks of the United States.

In 1913, the Warburg
central bank plan,

intentionally mischaracterized
as the Federal Reserve Act,

was signed into law

by newly-elected president
Woodrow Wilson.

This bill officially transferred

Congress' constitutional
duty to issue America's money

into the hands of a
private cartel,

the Federal Reserve banks.

Stock in these
private corporations

was not made available
to the public

and was purchased only by
the banks' leadership who,

of course, were the powerful
international banking families.

At its inception, the activities

of the Federal Reserve
banks were intended

to be monitored by the
president and Congress.

However, over the years,

through repeated subtle
changes in legislation,

the operations of
these corporations

have become
completely independent

of all congressional control.

Extremely secretive in
its operation,

these corporations even
refuse to be fully audited

by the United States government,

with minimal
congressional opposition

as both mainstream
political parties

receive the majority of
their funding

through these
internationally owned banks.

To understand how the
Federal Reserve banks

have successfully
converted the U.S.

from the world's largest
creditor in 1913

to the world's biggest
debtor today,

it is only necessary to
examine the procedure

that these corporations
employ to create our currency.

When the management of
the Federal Reserve banks

will claim that one billion
dollars should be issued

for use by the American people,

they simply create one
billion dollars

and lend it into the
banking system.

By doing so, new money
enters circulation

as the Federal Reserve banks,

the creators of money,
are not required

to have any actual
funds of their own.

With this money, they
simply purchase

one billion dollars' worth
of U.S. Treasury debt

from its member banks.

The banks now have one billion
new dollars in their accounts

which they will then loan into
the economy at high interest.

Is it any wonder, then,

that the bankers were so
persistent in their efforts

to be granted the right to
issue America's currency?

When the Federal Reserve
banks take possession

of U.S. Treasury debt,

they also take
possession and control

of the real wealth of America,

as it is the hard
labor and property

of millions of citizens

transferred into the
Treasury through taxes

that backs up the actual
worth of this Treasury debt.

Each time these private
corporations,

called the Federal
Reserve banks,

purchase a billion
dollars in debt,

one billion dollars' worth of
American labor and property

must eventually be
confiscated by the Treasury

to cover the new debt.

It may now be obvious why
Thomas Jefferson

so vehemently fought the
issuance of America's currency

by a private bank.

To add to the oppressive nature
of our current money system,

the Federal Reserve Bank
will collect annual interest

on the Treasury debt it holds,

further adding to the
indebtedness
of the American citizens

to the Treasury and thus
the Federal Reserve banks.

One sometimes hears the
term "debt money"

used to describe the notes
issued by the Federal Reserve.

Under our present system
of money creation,

it is a sad fact that
each dollar note

issued by this corporation

places one dollar's
worth of debt

onto the backs of the
American population.

The effect of the Federal
Reserve banks on our nation

and its citizens has
been devastating.

Since 1913, the value
of the American dollar

has fallen to 11 cents.

Our gold reserves have
lost all correlation

to money in circulation.

Interest rates rise and
fall arbitrarily,

and a continually
inflated money supply

wipes out the value of
lifelong savings.

And soon enough, interest
payments on the national debt

will exceed all revenue
collected
annually by the Treasury.

It's frightening that not
one in 100,000 Americans

would be able to
guess the identity

of the actual group responsible
for these tragic statistics.

The culprit is the
Federal Reserve.

Federal Reserve notes in
our wallets and purses

are not constitutional money.

They are in fact pieces of paper

which document America's
ever-growing debt

to the very clever,
very persistent

and very wealthy stockholders
of the Federal Reserve banks.

As President Woodrow Wilson said

in that most important
year of 1913,

- [Woodrow] "We have come to
be one of the worst-ruled,

"one of the most
completely controlled

"and dominated governments
in the civilized world.

"No longer a government
by free opinion,

"no longer a government
by conviction

"and the vote of the majority,

"but a government by the opinion

"and the duress of small
groups of dominant men."

- What got Lincoln, Garfield,
McKinley

and Kennedy
assassinated wasn't just

usual matters of
money and greed.

No, it was much more.

It was that they were tampering

with the most powerful players

in the U.S. monetary system,

the international
centralized private banks

who took over issuing
America's money

instead of the U.S. Treasury.

Now each of these
presidents was killed

by a lone gunman, right?

We're wrong, well,
let's take a look

at what each assassinated
president did one by one

and who may have killed them.

[suspenseful piano music]

Four months into his presidency,

James A. Garfield was
shot by Charles Guiteau

at the Baltimore and
Potomac Railroad Station

in Washington, DC.

But who was Charles Guiteau?

He could best be described
as an intellectual drifter

who failed at many
professional endeavors.

Yet he craved praise for
his botched undertakings.

Guiteau developed some
sort of law practice.

He tried his hand at
bill collections.

He doted on God with a
stab at theology.

He even journeyed with
John Humphrey Noyes's

Perfectionist religious
commune, the Oneida Community.

A cult-like group, this
community believed

that Jesus had already
made his second coming

back in 70 A.D.

Through this theory, the
Oneidas believed

that they could live
perfectly, free of sin,

and live in a heaven on earth.

If Jesus had already returned,

then the Millennial Kingdom
was here for them to realize.

The Oneida Community
practiced communalism

and mutual criticism.

The latter meant that at
weekly group meetings,

everyone could criticize each
other without repercussions.

According to the group's
leader, John Noyes,

this was designed to eliminate

undesirable character traits,

or perhaps it was a component
of a communalism society

where not only possessions
and property were shared

but thoughts, too, like
a venue for shaping minds

where all share equally
in the thought,

property, and money pie,
sound familiar?

Maybe like socialism
and communism?

After spending five years
with the Oneida Community,

could Charles Guiteau have been

a socialist and
communist sympathizer?

Does that type of assassin
sound familiar,

like one Lee Harvey Oswald?

But why would a
socialist-minded type person

want to assassinate
James Garfield,

or John F. Kennedy,
for that matter?

Perhaps this could have
something to do with money.

Because isn't the basis
of socialism and communism

one thing, money,

just like it is with any
form of economy?

President Garfield was a
tried-and-true capitalist.

He saw the economy as
a moral issue

and that everyone should
have the ability

to obtain the American Dream.

The only real way to
succeed in that dream

is through capitalism,
of course.

History has proven that
every socialist society

has turned into communism,

which means that about 1% of
the society is uber-wealthy

with the rest being super-poor.

There is no middle class
in communist countries,

nor in socialist economies.

Accordingly, communism and
socialism, well, stink.

That's what President
Garfield thought, at least.

But not Charles Guiteau.

Oh, by the way, James
Garfield wanted the U.S.

to return to the gold standard.

Would this upset a socialist?

Let's try to put it
all together.

The United States
government's story

is that Guiteau fired
a bullet into Garfield

because he was enraged
that the president

didn't appoint him to an
ambassador post.

You see, Guiteau had
written a speech

in favor of
Garfield's candidacy.

According to official
historical accounts,

Guiteau believed that
this speech was integral

if not the deciding factor

in leading to Garfield's victory

over his Democrat
opponent, Winfield Hancock.

Unfortunately for Guiteau,
no one else thought that.

His speech, entitled
"Garfield versus Hancock,"

was originally called
"Grant versus Hancock."

That's because Guiteau
first believed

that Ulysses S. Grant would
win the Republican nomination

in the 1880
presidential election.

When Grant lost the
nomination to Garfield,

Guiteau changed the
title of his speech

to "Garfield versus Hancock."

With speech in hand,
Guiteau seemingly joined

the Garfield campaign.

However, he never
publicly read the speech,

and he only distributed a
few hundred written copies.

The speech was criticized
because it was replete

with references to
Grant's policies,

which weren't necessarily
promulgated by Garfield.

In a rush to switch the
speech to pertain to Garfield,

Guiteau apparently was careless,

and it read more like a
stump speech for Grant.

The general consensus is
that his speech

was wholly ineffective

and had no bearing whatsoever
on Garfield's campaign.

Still, most historians proclaim
that Guiteau was delusional

and believed that his "Garfield
versus Hancock" speech

was the linchpin to
Garfield's win.

And after the election,

Guiteau sought to be appointed
ambassador of Vienna.

It is reported that he
bounced from Republican event

to Republican event,
lobbying for this post

and citing his speech as the
basis for the appointment.

He visited the White House,

even dropping off a
copy of his speech

to the newly elected Garfield.

And for the next few months,

he bantered back and forth

between the State Department
and the White House

fervently advocating
his ambassadorship cause

to Cabinet members
and whoever else

in the power hierarchy
he could reach.

Finally, Mr. Guiteau
advised that he would settle

for a diplomatic post in Paris.

He wasn't gaining much traction,
however.

Guiteau had been staying in
varied D.C. area boardinghouses,

allegedly beating his bills

and rarely changing his clothes.

The government says
he was becoming

more and more
desperate and crazed

to earn his appointment.

And after being banned
from the White House,

he approached Secretary
of State James G. Blaine

who reportedly told him,

- [James] "Never
speak to me again

"of the Paris consulship
as long as you live."

- Run-of-the-mill
historical accounts

provide that the sum total

of this Garfield
Administration rebuke

resulted in Guiteau electing
to assassinate the president.

More so, it is said that
Guiteau declared

that a higher power commanded
him to kill President Garfield

and that he stated,

- [Charles] "I leave my
justification to God."

- God's command and
Justification for the shooting,

of course, was rooted in
Garfield's lack of gratitude

for Guiteau's speech

until his decision to not
appoint Guiteau

to one of the
diplomatic positions.

Now, would God do that?

Would a crazy person even think

that God would issue
such an order?

Maybe, maybe there was
something more to this.

Do you know what else James A.
Garfield

pushed extremely hard for?

A hint, it was something

that the first assassinated
president was known for,

civil rights for
black Americans.

While Abraham Lincoln freed
the slaves as U.S. President,

James Garfield was one
of his loyal soldiers

in the U.S. Congress.

Garfield was a staunch
abolitionist
prior to the Civil War,

and he became a brigadier
general at only 31 years old,

successfully leading
the Union troops

against the Confederates
in a famous battle

at Middle Creek, Kentucky.

After Lincoln's assassination,

Garfield become one of the
strongest voices in Congress

in favor of civil rights

for not only the
newly-freed slaves

but for all blacks
across America.

He was a proponent of
increased black education,

and he actually called
for black suffrage rights.

Now there was a
direct connection

between Abraham Lincoln
and James Garfield.

Both men were
opposed to slavery.

But was this civil rights
unity something

that would have caused
either of their assassins

to pull the trigger?

After all, this was the most
divisive issue of their time.

Of course, we all know
that Lincoln's murderer,

John Wilkes Booth, was an
ardent Confederate sympathizer

who hated Lincoln for
making slavery illegal

in the Southern states.

But there is no evidence
that Charles Guiteau

was influenced by this matter

or that he was even concerned

with the civil rights
movement at all.

There is evidence, though,

that both Guiteau and
Booth were angry

at their
then-respective presidents.

The government's
historical accounts

present different reasons
for their presidential rage.

However, at their
respective times,

their disdain was no secret.

And when anger is revealed,
sometimes it can be seized upon.

There is known
substantial evidence

which shows that both
John Wilkes Booth

and Lee Harvey Oswald,
JFK's killer,

were recruited and
used as patsies

by other higher powers to
commit their assassinations.

May the same be true with
Charles Guiteau?

Was there a conspiracy
to murder James Garfield?

And if so, was Charles
Guiteau recruited

to be the trigger man

because of his well-known
hatred for Garfield?

And because it was
also well known

that he was clinically insane,

or could Charles Guiteau have
been completely rational?

And could his socialist
ideology have been

the core motive for
the shooting?

Either way, an insane
man with a motive

or a cult-like
ideologue with a motive

makes for a good
choice to conscript

into an assassination plot.

But who would want to
enlist Guiteau,

and what would be these
person's motives

to murder a president?

James Garfield actively opposed
cooperative farm programs

such as those supported
by the Grange,

an agrarian organization.

Recall who else employed
communal property programs?

Yes, the Oneida Community,

which Guiteau was a
longtime member of.

Garfield also opposed
labor unions,

mandatory maximum
eight-hour workdays,

and federally funded relief,
welfare-type projects.

Yes, James Garfield was
not a big government guy.

He was the furthest
thing from a socialist.

He was known for saying
that these liberal,

cooperative, and labor
policies equated

to communism in disguise,

and also remember this.

James Garfield was an
outspoken advocate

of the gold standard.

Arguments among
congressmen raged

between those who wanted
all U.S. money

to be backed by gold

versus those who demanded
that paper currency be issued

along with silver being
coined in greater quantities.

These greenbackers and
Silver Rights opine

that such a monetary system
would aid in debt relief,

especially for
distressed farmers.

Garfield rebuked them,

instead promoting hard-money
policies backed by gold.

Before being elected to
the presidency,

Garfield was the chairman

of Congress's Banking
and Currency Committee.

He was also a key member

of the House Ways and
Means Committee.

There, he strongly backed
the hard-money,

gold standard initiatives,

and he was a major proponent
of the U.S. government

issuing its own money

instead of the private
centralized banks.

[suspenseful electronic music]

By fighting against the
issuance of paper currency

not supported by gold,

as well as advocating for
the use of greenback dollars

issued under Abraham Lincoln
during the Civil War,

Garfield became a target
of those in favor

of soft money policies.

While his hard-money
stance made him popular

with many Gold Bug Republicans

who wanted to thwart
the country's

ever-expanding money supply,

it certainly infuriated
many of those higher powers

in the private banking industry.

And that's because they
stood to make

billions of dollars in
the late 19th century

by controlling and
issuing the U.S. currency.

During his campaign,

Garfield had a lot of opposition

from the Stalwarts faction
of his Republican party.

This group were allied
with the deep state power

of the international
banking chieftains.

The Stalwarts pushed for
Chester A. Arthur

to be Garfield's running mate.

To mend fences and maintain
party cohesion, Garfield agreed,

and Arthur became his
vice president.

It's interesting to note

that as Charles Guiteau was
being wrestled to the ground

after shooting Garfield,
he screamed,

- [Charles] "I am a
stalwart of the Stalwarts,

"and Arthur will be president."

- No doubt Chester A.
Arthur did become president

upon Garfield dying
from his gunshot wounds.

Did the Stalwarts

and their centralized
banking industry bosses

conspire with Charles Guiteau
to murder James Garfield

because he wanted to take
enormous power and wealth

away from them,

because he didn't want
these bank moguls

to issue paper money
and coin silver,

because he was a
presidential voice

for the gold standard,

and because he wanted the U.S.
government,

on behalf of the people,
to issue its own money

and not international
private bankers?

'Cause in that scenario,

Garfield was literally
stripping billions of dollars

from these private banks.

Could this greed and power
[cash register dinging]

have been the true reason

for President
Garfield's fatal demise?

The centralized banks
are quite adverse

to credit-based fiat money

delivered directly
into circulation

by the federal government.

This type of money
assists people

in escaping debt slavery
as it does not come

with interest strings attached.

Garfield had plans for the U.S.
Treasury,

and not the centralized
private banks,

to issue dollars directly
into the U.S. economy,

following in the footsteps of
his mentor, Abraham Lincoln,

who did just that to
finance the Civil War.

Unfortunately, Garfield also
followed Lincoln's footsteps

into an untimely,
unfinished presidential term

that ended in a graveyard.

During his inaugural speech,
President Garfield said,

- [James] "Whoever controls
the volume of money

"in any country is
absolute master of

"all industry and commerce."
[people cheering]

- Garfield had wanted the U.S.
Treasury,

the people of the United
States, to have this control,

and not some foreign,
private bankers.

Officials would have you believe

that James Garfield's
assassination

was carried out by a lone
nut wrought with wrath

over a lack of a
political appointment,

that is was an act perpetrated

by this one,
singular insane man.

But it appears there
were indeed others

who were involved in James
Garfield's assassination,

men who cared a whole lot

about the United States
monetary system

and about who controlled it.

James Garfield's quest to
re-institute the gold standard

and have currency issued
directly by the U.S. government

greatly angered these men.

The same as Charles
Guiteau was greatly enraged

by Garfield's failure to grant

his desired
political appointment

and/or Garfield's gold
standard capitalism ideology.

Putting this together
renders one likely outcome,

that these higher human
powers, not Godly powers,

recruited Guiteau and used
him as their gunman fall guy.

[typewriter chattering]

A bizarre tragic footnote

to James Garfield's
assassination

was that he did not
die immediately

from the gunshot wound
inflicted by Guiteau.

He actually passed away two
and a half months later,

on September 19th, 1881.

Many medical experts and
historians argue

that Garfield would have
survived the shooting,

and that severely botched
treatment by his doctors

was the true proximate
cause of his death.

Unsanitary medical
instruments were used

to treat the president
immediately after the attack.

In the weeks that followed,

many other unsterilized
probing fingers and devices

were inserted into
Garfield's body

searching for the bullet.

Even though newer
medical technology

for the treatment of gunshot
wounds had emerged by 1881,

Garfield's doctors
were old school

and were adamant about
their methods.

The combination of this
outdated treatment

with the constant
unsanitary conditions

caused Garfield to
suffer gravely

as he spiraled towards death.

Infections caused
blood poisoning

and his inability to
intake and digest any food.

The president lost nearly
100 pounds before he died,

and ultimately succumbed
to heart failure.

Could his medical
doctors have been engaged

in a further plot to
kill Garfield

once it was learned that
Guiteau's bullet

didn't complete the job?

That would seem rather unlikely,

as it appears that he was
just the victim

of good old-fashioned
medical malpractice.

What is extremely likely,
however,

is that the fired bullet
was at the fingertip

of Charles Guiteau

connected to the arms
of the very concerned

and very angry centralized
banking cartel,

the same banking cartel

that was equally worried
and infuriated

just 16 years earlier

when Abraham Lincoln was shot

by John Wilkes Booth.

[melancholy piano music]

President Lincoln had
asked the private bankers

for a loan to finance
the Civil War

and was quoted rates ranging
from 24 to 36% interest.

In a a November 21st,
1862 letter

from Lincoln to his friend,
William Elkin,

the president declared,

- [Abraham] "The
government should create,

"issue and circulate
all the currency

"and credit needed to
satisfy the spending power

"of the government and the
buying power of consumers.

"The privilege of
creating and issuing money

"is not only the supreme
prerogative of government,

"but it is the government's
greatest creative opportunity.

"By the adoption of
these principles,

"the long-felt want for a
uniform medium

"will be satisfied.

"The taxpayers will be saved
immense sums of interest,

"discounts, and exchanges,

"the financing of all
public enterprises,

"the maintenance of
stable government

"and ordered progress.

"And the conduct of the Treasury

"will become matters of
practical administration.

"The people can and
will be furnished

"with a currency as safe
as their own government.

"Money will cease to
be their master

"and become the
servant of humanity.

"Democracy will rise
superior to the money power."

- So Honest Abe rebuked

the big centralized
banking cartels

and decided that the U.S.
government

would issue and control
its own money.

President Lincoln then
asked Congress to pass a law

authorizing the printing

of full legal tender
Treasury notes

to pay for the war effort.

This law authorized the printing

of $450 million worth
of greenbacks

and interest-free money
to finance the war,

which deprived the
centralized bankers

of millions in interest.

It acted as legal tender for
all debts, public and private.

It paid for soldiers and sailors

and necessary war supplies.

Lincoln realized the
benefit to the Republic

in a letter to Edward Taylor
in December 1862 when he wrote,

- [Abraham] "We gave the
people of this Republic

the greatest blessing
they have ever had,

their own paper money
to pay their own debts."

- In July of 1861,
Congress authorized

the multi-millions of
dollars in demand notes.

They bore no interest
and could be redeemed

for specie on demand.

They were not legal tender,

but like Treasury notes,

could be used to pay
customs duties.

These demand notes were
printed in green ink

on the reverse side, hence
their nickname, greenbacks.

As they were fully
redeemable in gold,

they traded at par.

Remember who else
supported the gold standard

and government-issued
money, President Garfield.

And guess who else supported
government-issued money,

William McKinley and John F.
Kennedy.

Things, of course,
didn't turn out well

for any of these presidents

after they initiated their new

and bank-damaging
monetary systems.

More so, immediately
after their deaths,

massive money-issuing
power went directly

back into the greedy hands
of the centralized bankers.

Upon Abraham Lincoln's
assassination,

all of his U.S. Treasury
issued greenbacks

were retired from circulation,

leaving only
national bank notes.

But what were national
bank notes in the 1860s?

And why and how did they
come into existence?

Because the 1860s
Congress was so influenced

by the centralized
banking cartel,

they would not grant Lincoln's
greenback legislation

without a parallel system

where the private banks
simultaneously issued money.

Thus, Congress enacted
the National Banking Act,

which established a
system of national banks

and created a national currency

maintained by private
bank holdings

of U.S. Treasury bonds.

This resulted in a dual
money-issuing system being born

which encompassed both
the national bank notes

and Lincoln's greenbacks.

This, of course,
greatly benefited

the international bankers
who sought to again

control the issuing of
America's currency.

The newly enacted two-fold
monetary system

initiated out of necessity
by Abraham Lincoln

to fund the Civil War

became the creature
from Jekyll Island

as it not only was the
perfect setup for the bankers,

but it also very likely
led to Lincoln's death.

The leading demon of this
mid-1800s banking cartel,

Rothschilds and Sons,
seized the moment,

even publicly
stating their plans

well in advance of the
1863 Banking Act.

At the marriage of Nathan
Rothschild's eldest daughter

in 1857, he said,

- [Nathan] "I shall divide
the United States in half.

"Half for you, Lionel,
and half for you, James."

- Curiously enough, the
Civil War was created

in just this fashion,

half with one Rothschild brother

financially
supporting the North,

and half with the other
Rothschild brother

supporting the South.

And the winner forced the
loser to pay his debts.

So no matter who won the war,

the Rothschilds and their
banking cartel

won over the U.S.
monetary system.

Since Lincoln's greenbacks
were immediately retired

after his death,

the only currency left were
the national bank notes

issued by these private bankers.

From this foothold grew
the forerunner

of the Federal Reserve System,

the modern centralized
banking cartel

that controls the issuing
of all American currency.

[melancholy piano music]

After learning the much
less known circumstances

surrounding James
Garfield's killing,

it makes the very
likely true reason

for Lincoln's murder
much more understandable.

On the assassin's side,
Charles Guiteau

certainly had his own
economic motivations

to murder President Garfield,

and he also presents as
the perfect patsy

used to carry out the
deadly deed.

Well, how about John
Wilkes Booth?

The government's explanation

for the Lincoln
assassination is well known.

A famous actor, John
Wilkes Booth,

and a few other disgruntled
Southerners of no notoriety

got together and plotted
to kill the president.

This group have been portrayed

as racist Confederate patriots

whose motivation to kill Lincoln

was one of pure revenge
for the president's refusal

to allow the Southern succession

and his freedom of the slaves.

This was indeed the one
presidential assassination

where even the government admits

that it wasn't just a
lone gunman.

However, the conspiracy,
our officials say,

only goes so far.

It was more or less a
case of just personal,

political animosity
with no powerful brokers

connected to the murder.

But was it actually
more than that?

Many theories have abounded.

A logical one is that
Booth and his cohorts

were part of a larger,
grandiose Confederate plot

which involved top
Confederate leaders.

Certainly, there was
considerable talk

and some planning by
Confederate chieftains

to eliminate Lincoln
many times during

and after the Civil War.

There also was
evidence that Booth

may have been in dialogue
with some of them.

Specially coded letters were
found in Booth's belongings

at the National Hotel

which linked him to
the Confederacy.

One of booth's co-conspirators,
George Atzerodt,

stated before his trial
that Booth had knowledge

of an unsuccessful
Confederate plan

to blow up the White House.

And Booth's original
design to kidnap Lincoln

as opposed to murdering him

has been tied to Confederate
leadership involvement.

However, there is no
demonstrable evidence

to firmly bound men like
Jefferson Davis

or Stonewall Jackson into
Booth's plans.

Surely, the Confederate bosses

had a motive to kill Lincoln,

but there were motives
with strong proofs

that supersede even theirs.

You have often heard theories

that Lyndon B. Johnson was
behind the Kennedy
assassination,

that JFK's vice president
was the mastermind.

Well, maybe people
have conjectured

that the other Johnson VP
was the brains

behind Abraham Lincoln's
planned death.

You see, Andrew Johnson,

Lincoln's second in command,
knew John Wilkes Booth,

and they weren't just
acquaintances

according to many historians.

They say that when Johnson
was the governor of Tennessee,

he and Booth kept a pair
of sisters as mistresses.

During a lot of drinking
and frolicking together,

could Johnson and Booth
have hatched the plot

to kill Mr. Lincoln?

The president's wife thought so.

In an 1866 letter to
her friend, Sally Orne,

Mary Todd Lincoln wrote,

- [Mary] "That miserable
inebriate Johnson

"had cognizance of my
husband's death.

"Why was that card of
Booth's found in his box?

"Some acquaintance
certainly existed.

"I have been deeply impressed

"with the harrowing thought

"that he had an understanding
with the conspirators,

"and they knew their man.

"As sure and you and I live,

"Johnson had some hand
in all this."

- Were Mrs. Lincoln's thoughts

those of a distraught,
paranoid wife,

or were they the product
of some credible evidence?

It's a fact that
just hours prior

to firing a bullet into
Lincoln's head

at the Ford's Theater,

John Wilkes Booth made a stop

at the Washington Hotel.

Why is that significant?

Because Vice President
Andrew Johnson

lived at the Washington Hotel.

More so, Booth left a
note with the hotel clerk

for Johnson and his
private secretary,

William A. Browning.

The note simply said,

- [John] "Don't wish
to disturb you,

"are you at home, J.
Wilkes Booth."

- William Browning
later testified

before a military court,

stating that he found a
note in his box

that same afternoon.

Was John Wilkes Booth popping by

just to say "Hello" to
Vice President Johnson

on the day of Abraham
Lincoln's assassination,

or was he there to kill
Johnson first?

That would seem rather unlikely,

given that his visit to
Johnson's hotel

was about seven hours
before he shot Lincoln.

If he attempted to kill
Johnson that far in advance,

he definitely would not
have been able

to find an unprotected
President Lincoln

watching a play at
Ford's Theater.

If Lincoln's VP had been shot,

Lincoln would have been
scuttled away

to military protected safety.

So perhaps, as Mary Todd
Lincoln thought,

Booth was visiting
Johnson with regard

to their upcoming plot
to kill the president

later that day.

The First Lady wasn't the
only person in Washington

to think this.

Many members of Congress
also conjectured

that Johnson was the ringleader

of Lincoln's assassination
and conspiracy.

And they pointed to
Booth's hotel visit

as proof of it.

If Vice President
Johnson was involved,

the question is, why?

Was it just so that
he could assume

to the highest political
position in the land?

Was it because he was
a Southerner

and was opposed to the
freeing of slaves?

Or did his Southern
roots and relationships

provide more of an
economic reason

to see Lincoln dethroned?

Remember this, soon after
Abraham Lincoln's assassination,

all of his U.S. Treasury
issued greenbacks

were retired from circulation,

leaving only
national bank notes.

This rendered a very
critical and powerful result,

that only private banks
now controlled

the issuing of America's money,

and under whose command
did this occur?

One Andrew Johnson.

So did Andrew Johnson,
at the behest

of the very powerful
private centralized bankers,

orchestrate the assassination
of Abraham Lincoln?

And did Johnson recruit
his pleasure buddy,

John Wilkes Booth, to be
the trigger-man patsy?

A man of staunch Southern ideas

who was angry about
Lincoln's Civil War victory,

Booth was a prime choice
to be a figurehead

in a conspiracy.

He was an individual of
sizeable influence himself,

serving as an 1860s
Hollywood type.

Booth's charismatic ability
to recruit other players

in the murder plot would be key,

and these other players
would identify him

as the ringleader.

A smart cartel-like plot

would have the bank moguls
speaking directly to Johnson

with Johnson speaking
only to Booth

and Booth speaking to the others

who helped carry out the deed.

Under these circumstances,

the Vice President would
be far removed

from the street criminals
executing the plot,

and the bankers would be
even further away

from this sinister act.

Here, the perfect marriage
would have been in place.

Booth and his street
gang as a bunch

of Southern ideologues,
in their minds,

gain hero status by
righteously killing a man

who stole away the
livelihood and lifestyles

of half of America.

Andrew Johnson ascends to
the presidency,

and the international
private bankers, well,

by gaining full control
of the monetary system,

they earned billions
of dollars forever on.

Just kill Abraham Lincoln,

which makes Andrew
Johnson president,

and have Johnson retire
the greenbacks,

which means only national
bank notes are issued.

Here, the private banks
control the issuance

of all U.S. currency.

It doesn't get any more
powerful than that.

Wouldn't it be quite
rational to conclude

that this was why Abraham
Lincoln was assassinated?

As Mayor Amschel
Rothschild said,

- [Amschel] "Give me the power

"to create a nation's money,

"and I care not who
makes its laws."

- Since Lincoln wasn't
giving the bankers

the full power to create
this nation's money,

Andrew Johnson was a much
better choice.

So maybe Rothschild
cared just a bit

who was making America's laws.

It appears quite
likely that both

Abraham Lincoln and his
friend James Garfield

were murdered for the
same motive,

and with a similar modus
operandi in using patsies.

No doubt this
tradition carried on

with the assassinations
of William McKinley

and John F. Kennedy.

The conventional wisdom is

that President
McKinley's assassination

was the work of a lone
gunman, Leon Czolgosz.

An avowed socialist

like Garfield's gunman
Charles Guiteau

and Kennedy's shooter,
Lee Harvey Oswald,

Leon Czolgosz was livid
by what he called

"a corrupt U.S. government."

Well, this indeed was
the story put out

by the United States
government in 1901,

the year McKinley was killed.

But perhaps this
president's death

was the result of the more
logical and clear reason,

that he had instituted
what Lincoln and Garfield

had done years before him

in taking away
money-issuing control

from private,
centralized bankers.

William McKinley had
successfully led a U.S. victory

in the Spanish-American War,

which led to an easy win for
a second term as president,

but on September 6, 1901,

less than a year after
his re-election,

McKinley was shot in the abdomen

at the Temple of Music
in Buffalo, New York.

The shooter, Leon Czolgosz,

waited on a long line to
shake the president's hand.

When he finally reached
his Commander-in-Chief,

Czolgosz's right hand was
draped in a white handkerchief.

As McKinley reached out
to greet the man,

Czolgosz fired two bullets.

One harmlessly bounced
off McKinley's chest bone,

but the other lodged in his gut.

The president fell to the ground
thinking about two people,

his wife and the man
who had just shot him.

McKinley notably said,

- [William] "Be careful
how you tell her.

"Oh, be careful."

- And as for his assassin,
he uttered,

- [Leon] "Be easy with him,
boys."

- Like James A. Garfield,

William McKinley did
not die quickly

from his bullet wounds.

Also like Garfield, failures
by the treating physicians

contributed to his
ultimate demise.

You've all heard of
the magic bullet

in the Kennedy assassination.

Well, the McKinley
assassination led to the coining

of the phrase "The
Mystery Bullet."

This is because doctors
spent over 90 minutes

looking for the bullet during
the president's autopsy,

but it was never found.

Doctors, media, and political
leaders were so perplexed

by McKinley's quick and
unexpected decline

that many opined that the
bullet must have been poisoned.

More so, the question was asked,

"Where the hell was the
mystery bullet?"

And perhaps it might be
a smarter question to ask

if McKinley was poisoned
after he was shot,

not from a poison bullet,

but by someone simply
poisoning him.

Were the doctors part
of a conspiracy,

brought in to finish
off an uncompleted job?

You recall what happened
to James Garfield.

Mainstream history outright
blames botched medical care

for the proximate cause
of his death.

If the killers were
successful once before

in eliminating a president
after a non-lethal shooting,

why not try the same
coffin-ensuring method again?

Bring in the dirty doctors.

Those who infect their
presidential patients

with unsanitary probing fingers,

non-sterile instruments,
and unclean conditions,

follow this by failing to
remove a mystery bullet.

Or maybe quite the opposite,

locating the bullet,
taking it out,

and acting like it's still there

to justify a certain type

of supposedly
cautious treatment,

a treatment that allows
gangrene to develop and kill.

Whatever the exact details,

we know that both
President Garfield

and President McKinley
died quite some time

after their shooting.

We also know that they
died from infections

and blood poisoning.

It's hard to believe that
two presidents,

people surely in line for
the greatest of medical care,

apparently got the worst.

Was this just coincidental,
bad luck,

or were the doctors hired hands,

brought in to suture an
unfinished assassination?

Or perhaps the physicians

provided fine medical treatment,

and someone else with
access to the president

poisoned their blood.

No matter, these two men could
have survived their shootings

but mysteriously died with
poisoned blood.

Just like we revealed in
the murder of James Garfield

and the famous assassinations
of Lincoln and Kennedy,

the lone gunman theory in
William McKinley's case

is wholly unbelievable.

Everyone knows that
John Wilkes Booth

and Lee Harvey Oswald had
personal motives

to kill Honest Abe and JFK.

We clearly identified Charles
Guiteau's intimate reason

to eliminate Garfield.

Did Leon Czolgosz also
have a private rationale

for his carnage upon
William McKinley?

Yes, he did.

Leon Czolgosz was punched,
kicked, and stomped

by police and bystanders
after he shot McKinley.

Thereafter, he provided a full
confession to authorities.

In fact, he presented
them with a written letter

that outlined his
premeditated actions.

Czolgosz referred to
himself as Fred Neiman

which in German means
Fred Nobody.

You see, Czolgosz was
a total zero,

poor, unemployed, unskilled,
and alone.

He was searching for a
voice, the government says.

He wanted to become someone

and be known as smart and brave.

In his written confession,
he proudly stated,

- [Leon] "I made my plans
three or four days ago

"to shoot the president.

"When I shot him, I
intended to kill him.

"And the reason for my
intention in killing

"was because I did not
believe in presidents over us.

"I was willing to sacrifice
myself and the president

"for the benefit of the country.

"I felt I had more courage
than the average man

"in killing the president

"and was willing to put
my own life at stake

"in order to do it."

- He also wrote about
meetings he attended

with the anarchists,

a burgeoning political group
that impelled his shooting.

Czolgosz decried,

- [Leon] "I heard people talk
about the duty they were under

"to educate the people

"against the present form
of government,

"and they should do
all they could

"to change the form
of government."

- But who were the anarchists?

Many historians consider that
the first global terrorists

were the anarchists.

These were a
loosely-knit group of men

in both America and Europe

who believed in the
isolation of the individual.

They were advocates of
free thought,

which included freedom
from religion and politics.

Anarchism in the 1890s
was all about the pursuit

of man's right to his own
tools, mind, and body.

He shall keep the
products of his own labor

without government interference.

This anti-political
philosophy, from time to time,

both in America and abroad,

manifested itself into a
dynamite bombing

or a shooting spree.

In the United States,
authorities believe

and newspapers reported

that a large swath of the
anarchists were foreigners

who had immigrated to America.

Whether this is true or
not is another story.

Also just a story

were most of the terrorist
acts attributed to anarchists.

There were numerous
media reports

of explosions, bomb blastings,
and even viral plagues

that never existed.

Alternatively, many who
committed terrorist acts

called themselves anarchist,
but really weren't.

And many other
attacks were deemed

carried out by the anarchists,

but the perpetrators
really had nothing to do

with this freethinking group.

The phony accounts were the norm

rather than the exception.

The government and
its media allies

used the alleged
anarchist terrorism

as a fear-baiting tool
to control its populace

and to sell newspapers.

Thus fake news had its
roots with anarchism

in addition to modern
day terrorism.

And was Leon Czolgosz
actually an anarchist?

In the 1890s, there
was no shortage

of young men who were
screaming for attention

and longing to do daring things.

Leon Czolgosz was one of them,

and the anarchists with all
of their media-driven fanfare,

was a logical outlet to turn Mr.
Nobody

into Mr. Somebody.

In his quest for recognition,

Czolgosz did indeed attend
some anarchist meetings

in Chicago during the year prior

to the McKinley assassination.

But after the
president's shooting,

the anarchists did
everything they could

to distance themselves
from Czolgosz.

Could some group, more powerful

than the
sensationalized anarchists,

have learned of Czolgosz
through this publicity

and sought out this
disaffected, rejected young man

and seized upon his yearning

to transform from a
zero to a hero?

Was William McKinley's
assassination

really the work of a
loser lone gunman

with anarchist influences?

This government-skewed theory
is troubled at its core

with the revelation
of Czolgosz's

true tenuous anarchist ties

and the group's very public
disassociation with him,

not to mention the fake
news pandemic

that was metastasizing
during these times.

A more realistic explanation
for McKinley's assassination

was that it was carried
out via a devious plot

which incorporated Leon
Czolgosz as its patsy.

As a fact, we do know
that Czolgosz's bullets

didn't execute the fatal damage.

It took some medical malpractice

or another method of
blood poisoning

to complete the
exterminating task.

But who was behind this
presidential murder

if it wasn't just Leon Czolgosz

wanting to become Fred Somebody?

Who had a motive to kill
the U.S. president in 1901,

and who could get away
with it unscathed?

Who could manipulate the media

into portraying it as
an anarchist act

and get it all swept
under the carpet

before anyone could
learn the truth

behind this executive treachery?

Well, let's look at William
McKinley's political history

and his presidential goals,

and who had the most to
gain by eliminating him.

After doing battle in
the Civil War,

William McKinley began
his political career

as an American isolationist,

not in the sense of the
anarchists, of course, no.

He sought, like many
leaders of the time,

to keep America, as
much as possible,

economically independent
from the rest of the world.

He was a great proponent
of high tariffs

on foreign products.

As a Republican protectionist,

McKinley understood
that substantial tariffs

prevented the importation
of many international goods

because it made doing
business in the U.S.

too expensive for
many foreigners.

Another benefit of
the high tariffs

was that it generated
significant revenue

for the government,

thus downsizing the need to rely

upon American citizens'
hard-earned money

to pay for the
government's expenses.

In other words, it limited
the need for income taxes.

A natural result was that
American-made products

had much less
competition at home,

which allowed them to be
sold for greater prices.

The higher profits for
American industry

permitted higher wages
for American workers.

Did these protectionist
plans get McKinley killed

by angry agents of
foreign nations?

No, not at all.

McKinley's high tariff
agenda persisted

during his tenure in Congress
and as Ohio's governor.

It all ended when he
became president in 1896.

President McKinley was
thrown a curve ball

when he reluctantly
entered the United States

into the
Spanish-American War in 1898.

Upon the war's quick
conclusion in America's favor,

to the victors went the spoils.

And America gained several
territories from Spain,

including Puerto Rico, Wake,
Guam, and the Philippines.

The U.S. also annexed the
Hawaiian Islands that summer.

American businessmen were
now much more excited

about the prospect of
overseas trade,

and thus William McKinley
was reborn as a free trader.

On September 5th, 1901, the
day before he was assassinated,

William McKinley
delivered a speech

to 50,000 people in New York,
proclaiming,

- [William] "Isolation is no
longer possible or desirable.

"The period of
exclusiveness is past.

"The expansion of our
trade and commerce

"is the pressing problem.

"Commercial wars are
unprofitable.

"A policy of good will and
friendly trade relations

"will prevent reprisals."

- Was William McKinley's
reversal on trade

and what it meant to
the private banks

the true cause of his
mortal demise?

In March 1900, the Gold Standard
Act of the United States

was signed by William McKinley.

This declared gold as
the only standard

for redeeming paper money,

and it was a knife in the gut

to the international
centralized banks

who had been in and out

of America's
money-issuing control

for the previous 100 years.

Under this act,
United States notes

became redeemable for gold

at the then historic
rate of $20.67 per ounce.

This bolstered U.S. notes'
credibility as money,

and it substantially
injured the strength

of private bank notes,

thus greatly diminishing
international bankers' profits.

Having just endured one of
the centralized bankers'

contrived panics, the
Panic of 1893,

the president was adamant
about the gold standard,

and he threatened
full enforcement,

so it wasn't directly
McKinley's trade policy

that threatened these banks.

It was the institution
of the gold standard.

Further enraging the
international bankers,

McKinley sent
negotiators to Europe

to attempt a silver
agreement with France

and Great Britain.

This would have made
large sums of silver money

available in the
cash-starved U.S.

McKinley, no doubt, had
become Enemy Number One

to these powerful banks.

The Gold Standard Act
declared that,

- [Narrator] "The gold
dollar shall be

"the standard unit of value,

"and all forms of money
issued or coined

"by the United States
shall be maintained

"at a parity of value with
this standard."

- Bank notes, U.S. notes,

and all other forms of money

had to conform to this standard.

No longer free to value
different forms of money

as they saw fit,

the international bankers
were constrained

from issuing paper money

that couldn't be
redeemed in gold.

The gold standard ensured
that the money supply

and hence the price level

would remain
relatively constant,

which of course was a
complete financial disaster

for the international
centralized bankers.

This all changed with
the assassination

of William McKinley.

For the gold standard to work,

banks were supposed to play
by the rules of the game.

They were supposed
to raise rates

to encourage gold inflow,

and to lower their rates
to create a gold outflow.

The centralized bankers
wanted to do neither.

And that's simply because
these gold standard rules

took money-issuing
control away from them

and caused them massive
monetary losses.

Very quickly after President
McKinley's 1901 assassination,

his successor, the very famous
and loved Theodore Roosevelt,

vastly limited the effect
of the Gold Standard Act,

and the international
bankers were back

in much better business.

Even more so, this
initiated the meteoric rise

and creation of the
Federal Reserve System.

With a motive of all
motives in place,

these bankers just
needed what was necessary

in the two prior presidential
assassinations, a patsy,

and wouldn't Leon Czolgosz,

with his anarchist ties
and his internal need

to become a somebody,
be the perfect choice?

So perhaps common sense

coupled with an
extraordinary motive

and a lot of history

makes it quite possible
that Leon Czolgosz

did not act alone,

and that instead, he was a
recruited patsy

for the international bankers

who needed William McKinley
and his Gold Standard Act

out of the way.

One added interesting note about
the McKinley assassination,

Leon Czolgosz was tried
within a week of his shooting,

convicted the very next day,

and executed in under a month.

That was almost as quick a path

to rid the world of JFK's
alleged lone assassin,

Lee Harvey Oswald.

As we all know, Oswald
was gunned down

at the Dallas Police Department

just two days after he
murdered John Kennedy.

Nice and tidy, get rid
of the killers

before they can speak
about any accomplices.

[eerie piano music]

You know the phrase "Where
there's smoke, there's fire?"

Three presidents, Abraham
Lincoln, James Garfield,

and William McKinley
instituted major upheavals

in the U.S. monetary system.

Specifically, they took power
of issuing America's money

away from the centralized
private banking cartels

and gave it to the U.S.
Treasury, to the people.

And then these three
presidents ended up dead.

But like I said, where
there's smoke there's fire,

and another gun was fired

that killed yet
another president,

a very famous one, John F.
Kennedy.

This man didn't just
upset Richard Nixon

in the presidential race

or communist Cuba with
the Bay of Pigs.

No, he upset something
much more powerful,

the Federal Reserve banks.

Since their insidious
inception in 1913,

no U.S. president had
ever dared to upset

their trillion dollar
cartel enterprise.

Kennedy, however, took them on.

But how often have you
heard about this?

What everyone has heard
about, almost ad nauseam,

are endless debates about
how Lee Harvey Oswald

could have assassinated
JFK on his own.

Was Oswald a good
enough marksman,

could he have gotten
off three separate shots

with his low-budget 6.5
millimeter Carcano rifle

in the very quick timing
of the shooting?

How did the magic bullet go
through both President Kennedy

and Texas Governor
John Connally?

These questions and
several more of their type,

you've heard over
and over again.

The Warren Commission,
a group of politicos

assigned by President Lyndon B.
Johnson

to officially investigate
JFK's assassination,

determined that
Oswald acted alone

and the assassination
was carried out

via three bullets fired by him.

The general consensus, however,

is that the Warren Commission's
findings were bogus

for numerous reasons.

Here are just a few examples.

Kennedy was killed while riding
in a convertible limousine

down a Dallas street
near Dealey Plaza.

Oswald's shooting position

at Dallas' School Book
Depository building

was behind the limousine.

But the majority of
witnesses interviewed

by the Warren Commission

said the shots came from
the right front.

Many testified that they
saw unidentified armed men

in the area.

Three Dallas police
officers said

they came upon multiple
fake Secret Service agents.

Others provided evidence
to the Commission

that suggested a
radio-coordinated
assassination team

was at Dealey Plaza.

These type of discrepancies
go on and on and on.

No doubt the Warren
Commission's findings

had been rebuked,

and most intelligent
observers realized

that Lee Harvey Oswald
did not act alone

in assassinating John F.
Kennedy.

In 1979, even a Congressional
House Select Committee

found that JFK's
assassination was very likely

the product of a conspiracy.

But why, at whose behest?

There are, of course, numerous
propagandized theories.

Was it a conspiracy rooted in
Cuban government sympathizers,

or the work of the Mafia,
the CIA?

Or did Lyndon B. Johnson
want Kennedy dead

just so he could be
the Commander-in-Chief?

Were big corporate
defense contractors

behind the assassination

because they wanted an
escalation of the Vietnam War

and Kennedy resisted?

Or how about this theory,

that it was the vengeful
work of Richard Nixon?

Perhaps, think about this,

is all this battle over
how Lee Harvey Oswald

carried out the shooting

and whether it was him alone

or as part of one of these
many conspiracy theories

just being a smokescreen

to perhaps cover up the
one true plot

that is quite obvious
when you consider

the most basic of motives,

greed valued in the
trillions of dollars,

and a plot, as we have revealed,

that is steep in the history

of American presidential
assassinations?

Yes, it makes perfect sense

that John F. Kennedy
was executed

for the same sinister reasons
as his dead predecessors,

Abraham Lincoln, James
Garfield, and William McKinley.

But Kennedy took the
money-issuing power

away from the centralized
banking system

of the Federal Reserve.

In this big centralized
bank scenario,

a few of the potential
co-conspirators

identified in the
various theories,

very likely could
have been players

along with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Given that there surely
was a coordinated effort

at Dealey Plaza, who was
part of the hit team?

The Mafia, maybe.

The CIA, also maybe.

Cuban and other
communist sympathizers,

another good maybe.

After all, Lee
Harvey Oswald had,

a few years prior to the
killing, defected to Russia,

and his ties to Cuban interests
became public knowledge.

Could a conspiracy have
gone all the way

to the vice-president, Lyndon B.
Johnson?

The ultimate presidential power

is always a motive one
can't ignore.

And as we will see, Johnson
did immediately do something

after JFK's untimely death

that inextricably linked
him to the favoritism

of the Federal Reserve banks.

Now as for Oswald,

the Warren Commission did
seem to get one thing right.

When attempting to cite a
motive for this man, they wrote,

- [Warren Commission
Member] "Lee Harvey Oswald

"was perpetually discontented
with the world around him.

"Long before the assassination,

"he expressed his hatred
for American society

"and acted in protest
against it."

- In other words, Oswald was
the perfect pasty choice.

Much like the Garfield
and McKinley assassins,

he was a loner and loser,

but one who was on the
radar of powerful sources.

Remember, the government
was well aware

of the discontent that
Charles Guiteau had

with President Garfield

for not appointing him to a
coveted ambassador position.

And officials during President
McKinley's presidency

surely were well aware of
Leon Czolgosz's anarchist ties

and the group's very public
disassociation with him.

While John Wilkes Booth
was no loser,

many of influence knew of his
hatred of Abraham Lincoln.

All these men, including,
quite saliently,

Lee Harvey Oswald, were
easy to identify and recruit

into a plot that could
be sold to the public

as disaffected gunmen who
initiated their own plans

to kill the president.

But really, we know better.

In each of these cases,
there was a central group

with that much more
powerful motive

who had the resources to
orchestrate true conspiracies

using unwitting pawns in
their strategic processes.

Of course this group was
the centralized bankers.

In John F. Kennedy's murder,

this extremely likely
culprit was very specifically

the Federal Reserve,

the central bank of his
and our time.

But what exactly did Kennedy do

that so upset the
Federal Reserve banks

that would cause them to
seek his quick removal?

[suspenseful piano music]

When John F. Kennedy narrowly
defeated Richard Nixon

in the 1960
presidential election,

the Federal Reserve
bankers were elated.

Kennedy was the son of
one of the most powerful

and allegedly corrupt political

backroom bosses, Joseph Kennedy.

JFK's father had catapulted
to mega economic prosperity

through, among other things,

high-level dealings
in government

and the financial industry.

After many major
banking successes

and numerous purported
high-level criminal acts,

including a massive
bootlegging operation

during the Prohibition era,

Joseph Kennedy was appointed
by Franklin D. Roosevelt

to be the first chairman

of the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

In referring to this
appointment,
FDR infamously declared,

- [Franklin] "I'm getting
a crook to catch crooks."

- A well known
historical account

is that Joseph
Kennedy was obsessed

with getting his son
the presidency.

And a well-known telegraph
from the elder Kennedy

summed up his
philosophy as he wrote,

- [Joseph] "Don't buy a single
vote more than necessary,

"I'll be damned if I'm going
to pay for a landslide."

- Joseph Kennedy wanted
the absolute power

of the U.S. presidency
in the family,

but he also wanted to maintain

the hundreds of
millions of dollars

that he had accumulated.

May this be reminiscent
of the thought processes

embraced by the international
central bankers?

The banking cartels twofold goal

has forever been a mighty one,

control the issuing of the money

and obtain and retain the
ultimate level of political
power

and financial wealth.

No doubt with the Kennedy
family history in place,

the Federal Reserve felt
very comfortable

with the election of John F.
Kennedy.

Business as usual would
certainly persist

under his presidency.

But nay, JFK had other ideas.

With the stroke of a
pen on June 4th, 1963,

President Kennedy signed
Executive Order number 11110.

This order gave the U.S.
Treasury the power to, quote,

"Issue silver certificates
against any silver bullion,

"silver, or standard silver
dollars in the Treasury."

This meant that for every
ounce of silver

in the U.S. Treasury's vault,

the government could issue
new money into circulation.

This was very bad news for
the Federal Reserve banks.

You see, JFK had ambitious
plans to put a man on the moon,

develop an internationally
robust Peace Corps,

fund a growing war in Vietnam,

and further many social
reforms in a manner

that had never before been
accomplished in America.

To do so, he needed a
lot of money.

The Federal Reserve was
willing to issue this money,

but with big strings attached.

They wanted billions of dollars
in interest paid to them.

Sound familiar, sound
like a dilemma

that one Abraham Lincoln faced

when he needed to fund
the Civil War?

And what did old Honest Abe do

when the centralized bankers
wanted 35% in interest

paid to them?

He sidestepped them

and had the Treasury
issue U.S. bank notes,

specifically his greenbacks.

What did Mr. Kennedy do?

He also kicked the centralized
bankers to the curb.

When the Federal Reserve
banks demanded

their usual high interest rates,

JFK instituted Executive
Order number 11110

which allowed the U.S.
Treasury to issue its own money

backed by silver.

President Kennedy's action

put the Federal Reserve's
operations in serious jeopardy.

JFK's silver
certificate program,

if carried out as planned,

would have reduced the necessity

to borrow Federal Reserve notes.

If implemented faithfully,

Executive Order number 11110

would have given the
government the ability

to do all of the things
on JFK's agenda

without paying interest on
new Federal Reserve money.

This obviously would have been

a catastrophic financial
disaster for these banks.

So like Lincoln, who greatly
diminished the wealth and power

of the centralized bankers,

Kennedy was a major
obstacle for this cartel.

And what better way to
handle an obstacle

than to remove it?

In order for Executive
Order number 11110

to be eliminated, John F.
Kennedy had to be eliminated.

And on November 22, 1963,

just six months after
the president had signed

this historic order,
Kennedy was assassinated.

After JFK's murder,

no more silver
certificates were issued.

Lyndon B. Johnson,
Kennedy's successor,

ignored Executive Order 11110.

The Federal Reserve banking
cartel maintained its monopoly

to issue and control
America's money,

and no president since John F.
Kennedy

has sought to interfere
with this exclusive power.

The U.S. Treasury, the
natural and logical choice

to control and issue
America's money,

as it would save taxpayers
hundreds of billions

of dollars yearly,

is powerless in this regard.

So do you think Lee Harvey
Oswald hatched the plan

to assassinate JFK

and carried out the
murder on his own?

Well, perhaps he had a
little help from a friend,

a very wealthy and powerful
monster cartel of a friend.

Abraham Lincoln's monetary
policy, as codified in 1865

in U.S. Senate document
number 23 provides,

- [Narrator] "Money is
the creature of law,

"and the creation of the
original issue of money

"should be maintained as
the exclusive monopoly

"of national government."

- Of course the Federal
Reserve banks

and their predecessor
international centralized
bankers

couldn't have disagreed more

with Lincoln's monetary policy,

as well as those
instituted by Garfield,

McKinley, and most recently,
Kennedy.

These policies caused
massive monetary losses

to the centralized bankers,

men who have wielded the
greatest power

in ensuring their stranglehold

over the U.S. monetary system.

Louis T. McFadden, a
relentless congressman

who often took on the
Federal Reserve banks

as Chairman of the House
Banking Committee

back in the 1930s,

consistently explained
that monetary issues

shouldn't be partisan.

He criticized both the
Herbert Hoover

and Franklin Roosevelt
administrations.

In describing the Federal
Reserve, he remarked

in the 1932
Congressional Record that,

- [Louis] "We have in
this country

"one of the most
corrupt institutions

"the world has ever known.

"I refer to the Federal
Reserve Board

"and the Federal Reserve banks.

"The Federal Reserve
Board, a government board,

"has cheated the government
of the United States

"and the people of the
United States

"out of enough money to
pay the national debt.

"The depredations and
the iniquities

"of the Federal Reserve Board

"and the Federal Reserve
banks acting together

"have cost this
country enough money

"to pay the national
debt several times over.

"This evil institution
has impoverished

"and ruined the people
of the United States,

"has bankrupted itself,

"and has practically
bankrupted our government.

"It has done this through
the maladministration

"of that that law by which
the Federal Reserve Board

"and through the
corrupt practices

"of the money vultures
who control it."

- Congressman McFadden
additionally stated,

- [Louis] "Some people think
the Federal Reserve banks

"are United States
government institutions.

"They are not
government institutions.

"They are private
credit monopolies

"which prey upon the
people of the United States

"for the benefit of themselves
and their foreign customers,

"foreign and domestic
speculators and swindlers

"and rich and predatory
money lenders.

"In that dark crew of
financial pirates,

"there are those who
would cut a man's throat

"to get a dollar out
of his pocket.

"There are those who
send money into states

"to buy votes to control
our legislation,

"and there are those
who maintain

"an international propaganda

"for the purpose of deceiving
us and of wheedling us

"into the granting of
new concessions

"which will permit them to
cover up their past misdeeds

"and set again in motion
their gigantic train of crime.

"Those 12 private
credit monopolies

"were deceitfully and disloyally
foisted upon this country

"by bankers who came
here from Europe

"and who repaid us for
our hospitality

"by undermining our
American institutions."

- John F. Kennedy
understood this,

and he tried to muscle out
the Federal Reserve banks,

and thus, there was quite
a logical reason

for his assassination.

He took major money
issuing power

away from this banking cartel

and gave it back to the
people of the United States,

[eerie piano music]

and then he was killed.

The Federal Reserve banks
immediately got

what they desperately wanted

after President Kennedy's
assassination.

They once again
unilaterally controlled

the issuing of U.S. currency.

They once again had a business

that pays them literally
over $500 billion annually

through the interest they
charge to American taxpayers

for issuing our currency.

Was this a good enough reason

to launch a
conspiracy to kill JFK?

Is it just a coincidence

that all four
assassinated presidents,

Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley,
and Kennedy

were also the only
four presidents

who disallowed the central
bank's monopoly powers?

Is it also just a coincidence
that upon taking office,

each vice president who assumed

the Commander-in-Chief's post

immediately repealed the
decentralized banking orders

and re-instituted the
money-issuing powers

to the central banks?

I highly doubt it.

History does have a way
of repeating itself,

and what has history
definitively shown,

the only four
presidents who prevented

the international
banking cartels

from having the sole power

to issue and control U.S.
currency

are the only four presidents
who were ever assassinated,

Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield,

William McKinley, and
John Kennedy.

All were murdered after
taking action

to have money issued by the U.S.
Treasury,

not through centralized,
international private banks.

That is an undeniable fact.

[drum beating]