Nationalists Use Guise of Education to Indoctrinate Young
The United States is marked by a philosophical division between the founding leaders who wanted to create a strong centralized national government and those who advocated a decentralized, libertarian model. Initially, the Nationalists lost—but they didn’t quit. Through various centers of power, they persevered to play a large role in shaping our modern political and economic systems. Now, cognizant of the perils of an informed electorate empowered to question the status quo, the powers behind the world’s central banking system have hatched a plan to make sure future voters and taxpayers don’t.
Led by Alexander Hamilton, the Nationalists, including Chief Justices Marshall and Story, Abraham Lincoln, Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, envisioned a powerful central government, supported by high taxes, corporate welfare for domestic manufacturers, and a large Navy used to open up foreign markets. Does this sound familiar?
In essence, the Nationalists desired a clone of British mercantilism. At the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton proposed a permanent president who would appoint governors and have veto power over all state legislation—virtually identical to the system against which the revolution had just been fought.
At the Constitutional Convention, the opponents to this big-government model were the Jeffersonian Democrats. They wanted a limited, decentralized government, resulting in local control and limited taxation. Their number included Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, and Andrew Jackson. Thankfully, James Madison and New York Chief Justice Robert Yates took notes of the convention proceedings. Madison’s papers, later released, corroborated those of Yates. Virginia Senator John Taylor cited Yates, recording in his own book that “A national government was proposed, nearly conforming to that of England, by Alexander Hamilton. Their intent was to create monarchy, and a national government dressed up in popular guises such as national splendor and national strength.” Taylor continues, “The convention attendees viewed the constitution as a compact among the free and independent states and not the creation of a national government. It was proposed to erase the word ‘national’, and substitute the words ‘United States’ in the plural, in the 4th resolution, which passed in the affirmative; thus we see an opinion expressed at the Constitutional Convention that the phrase “these united States” did not mean a consolidated American people or nation, but independent sovereign states voluntarily joining in a compact.
In 1787, Hamilton himself invented the lie that the states were never sovereign, that only the nation as a whole was sovereign. This is patently false, as Article 7 explains how the states’ legislatures would ratify their inclusion in the Constitution, voting yes or no; and there were states, such as North Carolina and Rhode Island, that abstained for years from joining the union. Hamilton’s argument had holes, and was not sufficient to usurp full control, so the bogus theory that the “whole people were involved in the founding” was fabricated. This implied that it was not up to “we the people” of the individual states who decided to join, as written, but rather the idea that the populace as a whole ratified the constitution--a silly thought as women did not have the right to vote, nor did slaves or freed men.
When the Nationalists did not get their way, Hamilton himself denounced the Constitution as “a frail and worthless fabric.” It was not the last heard from this group, as they immediately set out to undermine the protections sewn into the document and to remold the constitution into an instrument of national supremacy.
Money and power was their motive. George Washington asked Alexander Hamilton to defend the constitutionality of the First Central Bank of the United States against the protests of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the Democrats. To do this, Hamilton made up the implied powers of the Constitution, as if it were not specifically stated what the federal government would be tasked with in Article 1, Section 8. The 10th Amendment further clarified that any powers not delegated by the Constitution to the federal government were retained by the states. Over the years, Congress began exercising, illegally, these “implied powers,” which are not explicitly given by the constitution but are justified by the judicial branch.
In the infamous case, Marbury vs. Madison, the idea of judicial review of federal legislation was invented by Chief Justice Marshall himself. Marshall said that only he would have the final say regarding the constitutionality of federal legislation--a fabrication found nowhere in the constitution, but merely in his own inflated head. After this decision, Marshall said, “In the name of the people, the federal government claimed the right to legitimately control all individuals or governments within the American territory.” Marshall moved forward with the idea that specific complaints of a state would be subservient to the general welfare of the people, which he would decide. Furthermore, Marshall interpreted the supremacy clause to mean that the federal government is supreme over the states, as opposed to its written meaning, that the federal government is supreme only in those matters laid out for it specifically.
So the American Revolution was fought in the name of liberty against a colonial tyrant, yet the liberty of the new nation’s citizens was sacrificed to the justices, five government lawyers with lifetime tenure. It is this same system under which we live today.
But, perhaps concerned by recent grassroots calls for a return to Constitutional foundations, the propagandists supporting the system have launched a new disinformation campaign targeting the next generations. The Federal Reserve will now directly work to indoctrinate students in grades 8-12 in a distributed lesson plan for teachers. In its new curriculum, the Fed will elucidate on the premise of "Constitutionality of a Central Bank." You know, just in case some inquisitive student might chance upon President Andrew Jackson's letter to the U.S. Senate clearly explaining (again) why ending the Second Central Bank was consistent with the constitution.
Today we are witnessing the death throes of the third central bank, the Federal Reserve, as it attempts to ward off popular opposition by developing economic education schemes targeted to impressionable youth. The Fed’s lesson description says, “This lesson focuses on the express and implied powers of Congress and the power of the Supreme Court to decide whether a law is unconstitutional.” In the lesson described, students learn about McCulloch v. Maryland, a case decided by Chief Justice Marshall in 1819, in which he ruled that Congress did not violate the Constitution in establishing a national central bank. Hmm, seems a serious change of direction from “What is the money supply, and how is it important?”
Fed leaders undoubtedly know, as WealthCycles readers do, that the higher the fiat currency pyramid grows, the shakier its foundation—a foundation based on the confidence of a taxpaying public. By the time today’s 8th graders are paying taxes, that foundation may be very shaky indeed. Just as the fast-food and soft drink companies understand the power of establishing brand loyalty at the grade-school level, the central banking system PR machine likewise knows enough to catch ‘em while they’re young.
A fiat currency is created by a government decree. The Latin word fiat means “let it be done.” And with the stroke of a pen, or the crank of a printing press, “money” is created. Fiat currency has no inherent value—the paper that a $100 dollar bill is printed on is surely not worth $100. It might have been worth a few cents before the government ruined its utility as scrap paper by printing green words and numbers all over it! Compare this with gold, which is a precious, rare metal that is, in many cases, the only substance on earth that can be used for certain human purposes, including science, medicine, and of course—adornment.
The United States’ formative years marked by a philosophical divide between nationalists and libertarians. The Nationalists lost—but they didn’t give up—and used centers of power such as the courts to shape our modern society.