Jefferson and Hamilton. Today.

I was swooping through some videos and found this most relevant video to the modern day.




If ever there was something to describe the problem we are in today, we see it here.

The problems of the US, as you can see, go back. And we must look to the past to know what comes next.


Thoughts?

Personally I am, as always, on the side of Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson has always been right on these issues and saw it a mile away and 2 and a half centuries before.

reply to post by Gorman91



Is this a movie? It seems wonderful!

I shall like to find out the name of this film, and spread it. Jefferson had such conviction and all his efforts were in vain. Our uber centralized government does nothing but restrict our liberties more and more each day, and bring us farther and farther into debt to those private bankers we so call the 'Federal Banks'. disgusting.

Jefferson would vomit at today's happenings.

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
reply to post by Gorman91

 

Is this a movie? It seems wonderful!

HBO Miniseries on John Adams and yes, a GREAT series.

You can rent/buy it on Blue Ray or DVD. You can pick it up here among other places...www.hbo.com...

Tralier here:


another great vid here

reply to post by Arcane Demesne


It's from John Adams. It was a movie by HBO some time. Heralded as one of the most historically accurate films ever for that time period.

And yea, Thomas Jefferson was epic. I wish he could come back. LOL. He's so depressed always, and for good reason. How he's portrayed here is perfect for today.




[edit on 23-7-2010 by Gorman91]

reply to post by Gorman91


Also great reading is the Jefferson/Adams letters.

they were friends/enemies/and friends again and two of the last surviving founding fathers.

They both wrote to eachother incessently later in life and on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the declaration of independance...the 4th of July 1826, Adams died...his last words were "Thomas Jefferson still survives". Adams was unaware that hours earlier Jefferson (also on the 4th of July/50th anniversary) had passed away and with that the spirit of 76 was left to future generations.

Amazing men.

In 1812 the 20 year Charter of the First National Bank expired.
That same year the British invaded Washington DC, and burned it down.
The war of 1812 was fought over the issue of renewing Rothchilds charter on the central Bank of America.

Criminal Rothschilds



"If my sons did not want wars, there would be none." ~ Gutle Schnaper, Mayer Amschel Rothschilds wife

reply to post by zzombie


No. The war of 1812 was because of America's switching sides and unsureness in a European war. It was its first experience of alliance entanglement. The fact that The bank expired then, and it was 1811, not 1812, has no correlation, considering that it was going to happen anyway. Don't create conspiracies where there are none. I've heard this total BS on the family names of losers for years now and the only thing I've concluded is that it is nothing more than the need to blame Jews or someone else on something else again. Please stop excreting piles of crap over truth. The bank and the war were over a year apart in their occurrence. And a second bank didn't come for another 5 years.

In addition to this, nothing much happened when that bank closed, and the US became a global super power before a new bank was issued. And that bank was issued was the federal reserve which has much more conspiracy to it then the pile of crap you just spewed.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by Gorman91]

reply to post by Gorman91



Are you seriously trying to say that because the war didnt start for a year there is not correlation? Heck it took that long to get the mail back and forth.


It is known that Madison was anti bank...and faced with a war found himself right back in the lap of debt.

reply to post by Logarock


And? It took that long to send a mail.

If you want to make that correlation, you have to go ahead and answer the following:

Why did it take years to re institute a bank?

Why did the British not invade when the 2nd bank closed down?

Why did it take half a century to make a new bank after that one?

Can you answer that? Because those are a massive shotgun to the face of your silly little conspiracy.

The second bank died in 1836 with a half decade of depression afterwards. No war with Britain, no war at all. The US simply got through it and carried on without a bank.



[edit on 23-7-2010 by Gorman91]

[edit on 23-7-2010 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Logarock

 

And? It took that long to send a mail.

If you want to make that correlation, you have to go ahead and answer the following:

Why did it take years to re institute a bank?

Why did the British not invade when the 2nd bank closed down?

Why did it take half a century to make a new bank after that one?

Can you answer that? Because those are a massive shotgun to the face of your silly little conspiracy.

The second bank died in 1836 with a half decade of depression afterwards. No war with Britain, no war at all. The US simply got through it and carried on without a bank.



[edit on 23-7-2010 by Gorman91]

[edit on 23-7-2010 by Gorman91]

Well why dont you answer you silly little questions?


One reason they didnt need a bank after 36 and at other points is because many of the privet banks were backed by for foreign captial and there wasnt a large need for big debt, nothing they couldnt take care of.

I know for a fact that around here anyway before the civil war the big privet banks were run by immigrants from the german banking familes. Durring the civil war almost all the iron industry that made cannon and the like were owned by foreigners english germans ect. They made big money from the war. The english intrests were making money from both sides and so didnt need to invade.

reply to post by Logarock


Actually, no. The Europeans wanted to invade because they lost major wealth from the blockade by the North. In fact, the English and French were incredibly pissed off by the North and more than happy to invade, but there were too many other issues to allow it. Germany at this time was a bunch of waring states and half-baked alliances that in ten years would become the German nation, so again, I highly doubt any money coming out of the war for them would balance the war debts.

There was many multitudes more reasons to invade during the civil war. But they did not. And they lost vast sums of money.

So yea, wrong again.

Shall I answer my own questions? Maybe I should. Where do you want another shotgun round to your conspiracy theory? I know its wrong to beat a dead horse, but if you's like me to, I can.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Logarock

 

Shall I answer my own questions? Maybe I should. Where do you want another shotgun round to your conspiracy theory? I know its wrong to beat a dead horse, but if you's like me to, I can.

Please do.

[edit on 24-7-2010 by Logarock]

reply to post by Gorman91


It's a very good series, I only ever saw Disc 1 from Net Flix a while ago, kinda forgot about it.

One important thing I think they did and highlighted more so than any other film.. is that nearly every single one of the Founders was wealthy. Even Jefferson. Washington was one of the wealthiest (possibly THEE wealthiest) person on the Continent.

Jefferson himself was the ultimate Libertarian.. liberal in mindset of personal liberties, and conservative in power of Government.. the others thought him a radical because he was damn near an Anarchist. Sadly Jeffersonian Ideology died out and eventually was entirely destroyed after the Civil War. Didn't really see a strong resurrection until the 1980's.

reply to post by Gorman91

There was many multitudes more reasons to invade during the civil war. But they did not. And they lost vast sums of money

There's lots of theories as to the true reason why no European Power invaded.. many had just claims to, Britain, France, Spain.. I subscribe to the Shock and Awe theory. The war was so brutal it literally shocked the Governments of Europe.. not the brutality in just mutilating our own people, but the sheer volume in which we produced war. The entire country, North and South, created a war time economy larger than any European country, and even during the war had the fastest growth in military technology, innovation and so forth, not to mention we still managed to lay down more rail road and build more factories than Europe. Couple our ability to in a blink of an eye convert our industry to War, but then we marched on ourselves in the single bloodiest war in Human History, and still had the ability to maintain absolute control.

I'd say the military leaders looked at the war and made logical calculations.. if we invaded, at such a distance, we would be destroyed.. and even if we won, the continuous flooding of troops would destroy survivors before reinforcements could arrive.

Had we been closer, it would have been another story perhaps, as it is we were finally to big, to powerful and to dangerous to attack from such a long distance.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Yea I can pretty much imagine what aliens up above are thinking now as they look at us lol.


But yea, pretty much, they said F that.


reply to post by Logarock



We re instituted the bank for the same reason it was first made. We had basically pissed on everything we had made since 1776 in terms of alliances. We shat on England and France and they had no reason to trust us. So we pressed the restart button. And seeing as France was decaying into a big fat genocidal maniac anarchist state, England was more reliable as an ally. So we made some debt and trust with the next bank. Then once it served its purpose, we dropped it like its hot and went free lancer. By that time it was the Victorian era of England and they were uninterested in those savage Americans and their slave. This was the time of European elitism. Europe was the center of the world, Africa and Asia was its slave, and the Americans were just there. No one cared about them. It would not be until Teddy Roosevelt that anyone would bother to look at America as a world power. The next bank, made in the early 20th century, a full hlaf century after the second one closed, was founded for a logical reason. The late 19th century was filled with economical bubbles. In fact, up to the panic of 1907, it can be said that we are repeating history. The similarities of the panic of 1907 and the panic of 2008 are amazing. The next bank was founded to ensure that the US could pump money into the economy when it went sour, and build up money when it was good. A simply strategy to stop the panics that happened literally every decade. The federal reserve worked, albeit it was unethical. Unfortunately in the time hence forth, the Federal reserve has become as lackluster at its job as the US economy was in the late 1800s. The Federal reserve is therefore obsolete. This is for a simple reason. The amount of money the federal reserve has for pumping into the economy is not proportional to the value of the money it pumps. It's like pumping oil into a car, but always getting more and more watered down. Eventually it fails to start because it is simply no longer oil. The same is true with the federal reserve. And not that it has realized its own obsoleteness, it is all coming down. Likewise, 20 years from now we will have a new Great depression.

And that's why it took half a century to make a new bank. Banks do not control the US. The US controls the banks. Today of course this is not true, but before the 1950s it was. The US controlled the banks. When we needed one we made one. When we did not, we threw it away like a sour fruit.



And yea, the Civil War was viewed by many as a rebirth of the nation. And to their views, we were no different than the savages of Africa or elsewhere. Why would Europe have any reason to trust us? We single handedly slaughtered hundreds of thousands of our own men, invented war machines like none other, and were horrid destructive people. What foolish European would touch that? So we spent the next 40 years building and developing until we became a world power, and after WW1, the premier super power of the world.

The Kentucky Resolution, drafted by Thomas Jefferson:

RESOLVED, That this commonwealth considers the federal union, upon the terms and for the purposes specified in the late compact, as conducive to the liberty and happiness of the several states: That it does now unequivocally declare its attachment to the Union, and to that compact, agreeable to its obvious and real intention, and will be among the last to seek its dissolution: That if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, annihilation of the state governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who adminster the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy: That this commonwealth does upon the most deliberate reconsideration declare, that the said alien and sedition laws, are in their opinion, palpable violations of the said constitution; and however cheerfully it may be disposed to surrender its opinion to a majority of its sister states in matters of ordinary or doubtful policy; yet, in momentous regulations like the present, which so vitally wound the best rights of the citizen, it would consider a silent acquiesecence as highly criminal: That although this commonwealth as a party to the federal compact; will bow to the laws of the Union, yet it does at the same time declare, that it will not now, nor ever hereafter, cease to oppose in a constitutional manner, every attempt from what quarter soever offered, to violate that compact:

AND FINALLY, in order that no pretexts or arguments may be drawn from a supposed acquiescence on the part of this commonwealth in the constitutionality of those laws, and be thereby used as precedents for similar future violations of federal compact; this commonwealth does now enter against them, its SOLEMN PROTEST.

Jefferson (after Ron Paul of course) is the best federal politician this country has ever had.

Now that is how you tell a criminal federal government to take a hike.

[edit on 24-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


I studied Thomas Jefferson in my youth and I intend to follow his life as an example for my own, in Addition to Jesus, Washington, and a host of others. But in terms of career and intelligence, Jefferson is the basis for it. Thus far it has done nothing but grand success. I am really excited to just keep following his example and see where it leads me.

You can also watch John Adams on Netflix. Truley and amazing series.Inspired by the book by David McCullough.

There is a reason the book was on John Adams and not Thomas Jefferson. The book was originally researched to be about Thomas Jefferson. The more the author researched, the more he learned that John Adams was the machine behind the revolution, and caused most things to happen.

Why we don't have a memorial to the man is beyond me.

Not that Thomas Jefferson was a dummy, and he said a great many things. But basically him and Benjaimin Franklin get more credit then they deserve.

reply to post by Gorman91


Good historical summary. Most people don't realize that before the 1930's depression American would cycle about every 5 to 10 years extreme boom bust cycles. Under the Gold Standard no less.

Granted I still despise the central banking philosophy as well. There has to be another option besides enslaving ourselves to the world and covering up our own poverty and inept abilities to provide for ourselves.

Not to mention the consolidation of power among the oligarchs and governing powers..

reply to post by Rockpuck


Certainly there is. Every time there is a depression we should take the money in the federal reserve and redistribute it to innovative companies. I posted this on you tube once:

Teleport back to 2009 January. Lets Imagine Obama takes a part of what he's spent: 4 trillion dollars. Now lets say we spent 10 million to higher 5 think tanks made of random people a told them to select 20 companies, like Tesla car, or other innovation companies. We split it up and give each company 190 billion dollars of what's left of the 4 trill. Banks invest, companies succeed, new jobs, no bailouts, and still 9 billion to spare.

Those inovational companies replace the dying, now dead corporations we bailed out. Their facilities are bought by these next-gen corporations, and new jobs become available to new companies. We get oil independence from Cars like Tesla Car inc, we get exports of such cars, we have manufacturing come back to America, and essentially new technology and a new world power called the US.

But no. We did not do this. We bailed out failing companies that failed us again. sadface.

This is essentially socialism used to create capitalism. It's an interesting hybrid that I have thought about. it could work for health care too. The federal reserve could be used as a health care single payer system. The government pays hospitals that has the fewest returning patients. Those hospitals with the lowest number of returning patients get payed more. Those that have repeat visitors get deductions. It pressurizes the hospitals to keep people healthy and innovate, rather than keep them sick and getting money off them. No insurance companies, no horrid public option. The only bureaucracy would be people who visit making sure all claims of health are valid and there are no lies. Big pharma goes bye bye because you lose money if people stay sick.


All this because I studied Jefferson too. Government should be out of the picture to the maximum level, and hospitals should compete with each other. If a hospital can't keep people healthy it has no business continuing to be open.

The borderline-anarchist Jefferson was a genius and I sometimes like to imagine him as a guardian angel by my side, guiding my thoughts in his memory.

reply to post by nixie_nox


It's like the biblical Moses and Joseph. Do we remember Joseph as much as Moses? Moses had the ideas, but Joseph did the handy work with the people and spoke for Moses. Tis a travesty of history indeed.

[edit on 24-7-2010 by Gorman91]