If the Republican Party would reject the principles that Lincoln came to represent, …what might those be, oh,…maintaining the Union and Emancipation of American slaves, we’d think their Party would have gone seriously astray. Many now think that conservatives are no longer providing a serious argument about how to run the country. That’s because it seems their Party no longer bases their argument on basic principles.
The Democratic Party seems to be in a similar predicament. Yes, the Party has a lot of power in Washington. But, does it stand for anything? Can you count on it to support any principles worth defending?
The Democratic Party at one time supported slavery. A bad thing. For much of the past 50 years it has supported wars of conquest all over the world. Also a bad thing.
In the past, way in the past, the Democrats fought against there being a Central Bank in this country. What was that all about?
Here’s a short video about President Andrew Jackson who ran and won his Presidency based on his argument that an American Central Bank was a bad thing for this country.
I want to quote a piece of one of Jackson’s speeches, one where he makes his argument about how bad the Central Bank of the United States was for the country,
The following two paragraphs are President Andrew Jackson in his veto message for the renewal of the privately-owned Bank of the United States, which would have continued their private monopoly of creating US money. July 10, 1832.
“It is maintained by some that the bank is a means of executing the constitutional power ‘to coin money and regulate the value thereof.’ Congress have established a mint to coin money and passed laws to regulate the value thereof. The money so coined, with its value so regulated, and such foreign coins as Congress may adopt are the only currency known to the Constitution. But if they have other power to regulate the currency, it was conferred to be exercised by themselves, and not to be transferred to a corporation. If the bank be established for that purpose, with a charter unalterable without its consent, Congress have parted with their power for a term of years, during which the Constitution is a dead letter. It is neither necessary nor proper to transfer its legislative power to such a bank, and therefore unconstitutional…
It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society — the farmers, mechanics, and laborers — who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing.”
And another piece from his Farewell Address,
“I have no hesitation to say if they can re-charter the bank (2nd Bank of the US – a privately-owned central bank) with this hydra of corruption they will rule the nation and its charter will be perpetual and its corrupting influence destroy the liberty of our country. When I came into this administration…I had a majority of 75. Since then it is now believed it (the bank) has bought over by loans, discounts, etc until…there were 2/3 for re-chartering it.” – President Andrew Jackson, April 7, 1833 letter to R. H. M. Cryer referring to votes in Congress. Ralph Catterall, The 2nd Bank of the U.S., Univ. of Chicago Press, 1902.
"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing." - Farewell Address, March 4, 1837.
Wouldn’t Andrew Jackson run against Obama arguing that instead of giving more money to the Federal Reserve, the Central Bank of our time, we should be rooting out its influences in our country primarily because our current economic problems are caused by that Institution?
So, why shouldn’t Obama be asked the question about his support of the Federal Reserve? If Obama hired a bunch of officials to reinstitute slavery and support work plantations where these new American slaves could work without their suffering being exposed, then wouldn’t we want to ask him about this? Wouldn’t we find this shockingly wrong and want to expose the crime he would be engaged in performing?
Well, maybe not. Obama is currently engaged in defending torturers and promoting torture. He is going about the business of making special exceptions to habeas corpus, a protection people have had against lawless governments since the 12th century. Why should we be surprised, shocked, or concerned, then, if Obama makes us slaves through the actions of the Federal Reserve?
Wow! Attack on Obama once again... When I thought we where talking about Andrew Jackson. People get over it.
Posted by: Londa | November 16, 2011 at 10:20 AM