Original subtitles

Downloaded from YTS.MX

Official YIFY movies site: YTS.MX

[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]