1. Andrew Jackson loved slavery. He loved slavery that much that he was one of the most powerful slaveholders in the USA, owning 300. And he loved slavery that much that when his runaways were captured and returned he would have them beaten. One such runaway called Gilbert died during his beating. And Jackson loved slavery that much that he organised a raid on a fort on Spanish territory where runaway slaves had found sanctuary with the Seminoles. Jackson planned to capture the fugitive slaves and return them to their 'rightful owners'. But the officer commanding the raid fired a cannonball into the fort's arsenal and blew the fort to pieces, killing 300 men, women and children;

2. "Andrew Jackson paid off the debt", cry the Jacksonites. Yes, that is true.

But he did not pay off all the debt. Most of the hard work had been done by Nicholas Biddle who paid off most of the debt. Jackson only paid off the last few dollars;

[Is this true, I'll have to research this.]

1. Jackson was a tool of the British by destroying the BUS2. The BUS2 was financing the contruction of the USA into a threat to the British Empire.

Jackson had previously flirted with treason against the USA when he plotted with Aaron Burr after Burr had assassinated Alexander Hamilton. Burr fled to the UK and stayed with the head of British Intelligence, Jeremy Bentham. When Burr returned to the USA he began to propose using Jackson as the tool to destroy the USA, using Jackson's adventures at New Orleans in the 1812 war as propaganda. Burr was aided in this by Martin van Buren. Jackson's main aim was to destroy the BUS2. But by withdrawing the federal funds from BUS2, Jackson was committing a crime. And he also risked the stability of the economy of the USA by placing the funds in 'pet banks' that were chosen not for their banking acumen but because they were owned and/or run by Jackson cronies. Those cronies could not resist the temptation and issued large amounts of credit based on the federal funds for land speculation, which eventually produced the 1837 panic.

1. Jackson was the Godfather of the Confederacy. Not only did he destroy the BUS2 and condemn the south to a rural economy based on slavery, he also began the process of the removal of the Native Americans from states like Georgia to what is now Oklahoma. The ancestral lands of the Native Americans were sold to planters who built plantations which were worked by slaves, thus increasing the number of slaveholders prepared to support the Confederacy;

2. The Rothschilds did not have any influence over BUS2. It was the Barings. Jackson helped to make the Rothschilds what they are by making them official agents for the United States in Europe.

[I do not known if this is true but did not a Rothschild thank Jackson for his endeavours?]

So for Trump to compare himself Jackson?

HOLY SHIT!!

From this point on until further noted, is quoted from the Truth-Serum blog:

I thought it was already really bad when Trump said that nobody loves Israel more than he does, and that he has promised to move the U S Embassy to Jerusalem, a move that is guaranteed to detonate the Middle East.

But this comparison to Jackson is really, really, really bad.

Barings were the agents in Europe for the United States Government and the first and second Bank of the United States for the best part of the 19th Century, and could easily have let the USA crash if the British government had ordered them to do so. But no such order was ever given, or if it was it was ignored.

Barings financed the annexation of Texas from Mexico, and the purchase of Alaska from Russia. These are not tiny plots of land with space for just a few houses. Louisiana, Alaska and Texas were very, very significant pieces of land.

But, get this. During the Civil War Barings financed the purchase by the United States Federal Government, i.e. Lincoln and the north, of Ironclads, which were the new military ships of their day, as well as arms!

Barings as a house unequivocally supported the North and deplored the British government's policy of non-intervention. So much might have been expected of a staunch New Englander like Joshua Bates, but Thomas Baring was a little less enthusiastic. 'People in this country look upon you as a friend of the country', Samuel Ward assured him, '...I was applied to lately for your autograph to go in an album containing autographs of "our friends in Europe".' Benjamin Moran, at the American Legation, noted with approval a speech that Baring made in the House of Commons in May 1864:

The man is a gentleman...It is mortifying to me that while he is loyal to us, the only citizen of the United States belonging to his firm, Mr Russell Sturgis, is a rebel sympathizer.' Sturgis was indeed a considerable embarrassment to his colleagues. While Samuel Ward deplored the fact that he 'did not take the view of American affairs natural for a Northern man', he thought Sturgis' 'personal friendliness and efficiency' would make up for this. The American Government took the matter more seriously.

'The man's disloyalty has caused the Government to think seriously of transferring its business to some other House', recorded Moran. The minister, Charles Adams, formally called on Sturgis to express his displeasure.

On the whole, though, Barings proved loyal friends of the Federal government. William Aspinwall visited London to buy ironclads for the Northern government and paid a rousing tribute to Barings' role in the transaction. 'These gentlemen unhesitatingly authorized us to draw on them, at sight, for a very large amount - some millions - and on terms at once liberal and most considerate as to the time of the reimbursement by our Government, thus showing a most exceptional degree of confidence and sympathy at a period when the public feeling in London was almost universally in favour of the South...From motives of delicacy, no public mention has been made of this honourable act, which certainly no other house in Europe could have or would have done.' In August 1861 Barings advanced $500,000 so that George Schuyler could purchase arms for the American government even though the documents he produced did not authorize any such activity. By the time the proper authorization was received in October the amount had risen to $634,000.

With so creditable a record Barings had reason to feel a little aggrieved when they lost the agency of the United States government in 1871. It was by no means the first time such a setback had seemed possible since they had recaptured it from Rothschilds in 1843. Rothschilds, Peabody, Rothschilds again, and Brown Brothers each in turn thought that the prize was theirs. Yet as late as 1869 the Secretary to the Navy had gratuitously assured Barings that 'we have every reason to be satisfied with the transactions that have taken place between yourselves and the Government, and hope the feeling may long continue'.

...'Though we should of course be proud to be once more the agents of the United States Government', Barings told Ward, 'we can quite understand the difficulty which the existing cabinet would have in appointing us.' They were right, and not only for the existing cabinet. Morton, Rose and Co. were appointed. The days were past when a British bank could represent the American government in London.

[source : The Sixth Great Power : Barings, 1762 - 1929, p213-215]

All this under the noses of the British Government!?

The EIR/LPAC crowd lump Barings in with the Hofjuden, calling them opium runners, etc.

Yes, Barings owned a slave plantation, and directed The British East India Company through Francis, and even The Bank of England through Alexander.

But can anyone explain why The United States of America would conclude so much very important business with Barings, and why it is being covered up?

From "The Sixth Great Power : Barings, 1762 - 1929" by Philip Ziegler:

Thomas Willing of the Bank of the United States had been one of Francis Baring’s staunchest allies since the early 1790s. Cazenoves had previously been the closest associate of the Bank and were not at all pleased to see their cosy relationship disturbed. In July 1793 Baring wrote to thank Willing for trying to steer all the Bank’s business in his direction.

…In February 1803, however, Willing, with some help from Rufus King in London, secured Barings the prize they had long coveted – the agency of the government of the United States in London. When Barings took over the payment of dividends on US government stock, Alexander had argued that in this way they would ‘secure a species of monopoly in the direction of American Stocks in Europe and become more obvious for individual operations of commerce.’ The government agency was the logical next step. After the failure of the previous agents Bird, Savage and Bird, Rufus King told Barings, the American government had decided to employ ‘an English house of the first Reputation and Solidity’ to make the ‘large Remittances to the Continent’ which were periodically necessary and to keep in funds various US diplomatic missions. The work was often troublesome and the recompense in commission income insignificant, but the prestige was all important. From 1803 no one could doubt that Barings were the leading ‘American’ house in London.