Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Was Charles Lindbergh Sr. a prophet?

On December 22, 1913, the day before President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act, in a speech before the House of Representatives, Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr., (R-MN) said:

"This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized. The people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed. The trusts will soon realize that they have gone too far even for their own good. The people must make a declaration of independence to relieve themselves from the Monetary Power. This they will be able to do by taking control of Congress. Wall Streeters could not cheat us if you Senators and Representatives did not make a humbug of Congress... The greatest crime of Congress is its currency system. The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill. The caucus and the party bosses have again operated and prevented the people from getting the benefit of their own government."

Was he a prophet? Or just wise enough to understand the long-term implications of the decision?

3 comments:

DeeDee Liedel said...

Maggie - Ever heard of the book The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin? I originally picked it up because the title caught my attention; my husband and I honeymooned on Jekyll Island.

But it's a book about the creation of the Federal Reserve; the back blurb includes: "This book is about the most blatant scam of history. It's all here; the cause of wars, boom-bust cycles, inflation, depression, prosperity."

I must admit I haven't finished it yet, at 600 pages, it's almost as imposing as Atlas Shrugged, but some may be interested in finding out the history on the creation of the Federal Reserve.

Tim Higgins said...

Maggie,

Whether prophet or sage, let us hope that Congress, and if not them the People, remember the words of Laurence J Peter:

"It's never too late to change a bad decision."

Jay Ott said...

I realize this question is rhetorical not in need of an answer.

Being the philosphical geek that I am by nature, I wondered about people who never thought through this question.

And if people had, whether or not there would have been Jonestown, Waco, or Heaven's Gate, et. al., where so many people lost their lives because they were deceived by so-called "prophets". It's difficult if not impossible to be deceived when individuals think critically and objectively for themselves and check out what people tell them.

This question presupposes that "prophets" exist now or have ever existed at all and that the only meaning of a "prophet" is limited to predicting the futute.

If prophets do not exist or have never existed, then the question becomes moot--case dismissed.

But not so fast! Before it can be dismissed, we must be careful not to make the same logical mistake David Hume made regarding the miraculous by defining them out of existence rather examining alleged evidence.

On the other hand, if there is such a thing as a "prophet", then we would have to have some criteria of what a "prophet" is and what their purpose is.

Just because someone claims to be a prophet or others attribute "prophetness" to someone else, does not necessarily mean that someone is a prophet.

So at this point, it really isn't possible to know whether Charles Lindbergh, Sr. was a prophet. It would require further investigation which most people these days don't want to bother with because they're too interested in American Idol or the latest on Brittany Spears.

Google Analytics Alternative