It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a Bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country. The president of the Bank has told us that most of the State banks exist by its forbearance. Should its influence become concentered, as it may under the operation of such an act as this, in the hands of a self-elected directory, whose interests are identified with those of the foreign stockholders, will there not be cause to tremble for the purity of our elections in peace, and for the independence of our country in war. Their power would be great whenever they might choose to exert it; but if this monopoly were regularly renewed every fifteen or twenty years, on terms proposed by themselves, they might seldom in peace put forth their strength to influence elections or control the affairs of the nation. But if any private citizen or public functionary should interpose to curtail its powers, or prevent a renewal of its privileges, it cannot be doubted that he would be made to feel its influence.
Should the stock of the Bank principally pass into the hands of the subjects of a foreign country, and we should unfortunately become involved in a war with that country, what would be our condition? Of the course which would be pursued by a bank almost wholly owned by the subjects of a foreign power, and managed by those whose interests, if not affections, would run in the same direction, there can be no doubt. All its operations within would be in aid of the hostile fleets and armies without. Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence, it would be more formidable and dangerous than the naval and military power of the enemy….
A $20 bill has President Andrew Jackson on the front, and the White House facing north on the reverse. The bill is folded in half so that Jackson is inside and the White House is on the outside. The bill is folded in half and held in such a way that the White House shown on the $20 bill appears to be contiguous with the "real" White House in the background.
The number 20 appears in the upper left corner. It appears again in the lower left corner but in much larger type. The number 20 appears one more time at the bottom and is spelled out.
The words that can be seen are "The" "United" "In" and "God," having taken into account already the number 20 being spelled out as a word.
The word "States" is divided in half so that the letters S-T-A appear. The letter "A" would have the sound of the long "A" vowel, like the word "stay."
There is a left hand holding the bill out in such a way that the person looking at the photo becomes part of the photo; it's as though the viewer himself is holding the bill.
All three of the number "20's" appear to the left of the fold. These "20's" could appear to read as a phrase, as in "20-fold."
Thus, "20-fold, 20-fold, I will spell it out for you, T-W-E-N-T-Y-fold!" (When we want to make ourselves VERY CLEAR, we will say, "Do you want me to 'spell' it out for you?" The same emphasis is what is found here.)
Originally, the $20 bill featured Grover Cleveland. He was both our 22nd (1885-1889) and our 24th (1893-1897) president. He was our only non-consecutive president.
In 1928, he was replaced by President Jackson. Why? Records at the U.S. Treasury do not reveal why Jackson was chosen. Some historians, though, consider it an irony that he was put on the $20 bill, because they think Jackson would have hated the "honor." Jackson was opposed to both the Central Bank (later Federal Reserve) as well as paper money.
It is interesting to note that he was placed on the $20 bill in 1928, one year BEFORE the stock market crash of October 29, 1929.
By having President Jackson "reappear" in 1928, his words "reappeared" with him. Had they been heeded, would the excesses that caused the stock market to crash in 1928 been averted? Have we learned ANYTHING since 1929? Do we not have someone at the helm of the Federal Reserve who is considered a scholar of the Great Depression?