Go to: => TOP Page;   ROAD MAP;   Search Page;   What's New? Page;   Emmaus Ministries Page

Money, Credit, & Banking
Free Enterprise vs. Control

[COMMENT:  The title above is mine, as I could not interpret the one below...  Maybe an Indian phrase for OK?    Bold emphases are mine also. 

Vieira is an excellent writer, and is, I believe, right on the money about our future.

The only salvation for Western Civilization, i.e., Western Christendom, is a powerful spiritual renewal.  The kind of tyranny to which both Vieira and Griffin (see below) point is unassailable other than under the law and grace of God.  In a world without God, there is no hope of anything but long-term tyranny, which eventually self-destructs, only to get ready for the next one. 

That is because only in God's world can we be "in" the world but not "of" it.  Being not "of" the world means getting our ontological stability and our moral compass from outside the world.  Our trust and our obedience is focused outside the world, not in it. 

Because we are from outside the world, because our dependencies are outside, not in the world, we can be open and free in the world, unassailable by the world.  We may be crucified, but so what?  Like Jesus, they cannot kill us, not even get rid of us, because the blood of the martyrs really is the seed of the Church.  They might as well be sowing dragons' teeth which spring up as warriors behind them. 

That is what happens when Christians get serious about their faith.  It is happening in China and other societies where there is severe persecution.  Tyrants can do nothing to stop the power of life and freedom of spirit which comes from sources higher and deeper than they can reach with their coercion or brain-washing.   Deo gratia!   

For other articles on the Road to Emmaus by Edwin Vieira, do search for Vieira. 

For more on this subject, get "The Creature from Jekyll Island" (book, or summary CD - audio tape) by G. Edward Griffin from www.realityzone.com.   He gives a very understandable history of the Federal Reserve, how it came about, and how it works, in short -- why those behind it can rightly be called evil-minded.                           E. Fox]

Part 1 -


Go to Part 2 - Part 3


 Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
May 30, 2006

An old adage warns us that "those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it." This is not because of some inexorable, mysterious decree of Fate, but because (as the ancient Greek historian Thucydides observed) "the kind of events that once took place will by reason of human nature take place again." One need not look to the distant past, either, to glean material predictive of the immediate future.

For an outstanding example, patriotic Americans can find many ominous, yet also instructive, parallels between their situation today and the predicament of the Plains Indians during the late 1800s. These parallels are particularly striking where money and banking are concerned. For example:

Just as the Establishment of the late 1800s was intent on extending its version of "civilization" to—or, perhaps more descriptively, running it roughshod over—the Tribes, so too does the contemporary Establishment intend to bring to—or, perhaps more descriptively, to impose upon—common Americans a new and improved brand of "civilization," under the trademark of "the New World Order."

As to money and banking especially, this is an old song, as fallacious as it is familiar. Innovations in the manipulation of "currency" and "credit" are always touted as the products of advanced thought; whereas gold and silver are invariably derided as "barbarous relics" from a primitive age. And the Federal Reserve System—the apogee of modern central banking—is everywhere praised as the great exemplar of "scientific" management of money. Yet gold and silver are obviously no more "barbarous relics" than the free market itself, because they are the media of exchange that a truly free market always chooses (otherwise, their use as money would not so often have been inhibited, even prohibited, by governments and central banks).

And the main tenets of central banking(i) that the supplies of "currency" and "credit" must expand step by step with production of goods and services, so as to maintain a stable "price level;" and (ii) that the self-destructive tendencies of fractional-reserve banking can be fended off by cartelizing the banks under governmental aegis and supplying them with an open-handed "lender of last resort"—are no more "scientific" than the utterly discredited theories of "central economic planning," of which central banking forms a subset. Or, for that matter, no more plausible than dialectical materialism, historical determinism, and the other assorted pseudo-intellectual claptrap of Marxism—which shares a mutual affinity with central banking, according to a key plank in The Communist Manifesto that calls for "[c]entralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly."

Just as the Establishment of the late 1800s disparaged the Plains Indians as incorrigible "savages," stubbornly and stupidly standing in the way of "progress," so too does the contemporary Establishment dismiss average Americans as a culturally backward and politically reactionary booboisie whose outmoded ideas, traditions, and way of life retard social evolution.

In the field of money and banking as well, proponents of the precious metals as money are roundly derided as doctrinaire "gold bugs," economic "Neanderthalsm," or worse; whereas the Federal Reserve System's touts are fulsomely described as "enlightened." Yet, as a form of "central economic planning," central banking is economically atavistic in theory and ultimately unworkable in practice, because it always operates on the basis of ignorance, in comparison to the wealth of relevant information available only to the free market. And, as a species of unrepresentative, elitist—and, if the truth be told in the bluntest possible terms, fascist—bureaucracy, politically privileged central banking is far removed from the "Republican Form of Government" that the Constitution requires the United States to "guarantee to every State in this Union" (Article IV, Section 4).

Just as the Establishment of the late 1800s denuded the Indians of their Tribal sovereignties and degraded them to ill-treated "wards" of the General Government, so too does the present-day Establishment decry America's National sovereignty as a ridiculous anachronism and a galling impediment to the New World Order, and plan to set it aside—first, through regionalization, involving the economic and political merger of the United States, Canada, and Mexico; then, through hemispheric to finally full-fledged global government.

Where money and banking are concerned, globalization is also an imperative. Indeed, the present push for globalization of national economies and then polities probably results more from what the Establishment perceives as the necessity to globalize the contemporary monetary and banking systems than from any other cause. The economic reason is that a global "lender of last resort," and perhaps a source of some altogether new "currency" and "credit," will be required to keep the major central banks of various countries—the Federal Reserve System included—afloat in a global liquidity crisis. After all, to stave off the collapse of major banks within various countries during domestic liquidity crises was the purpose of setting up independent central banks in each nation. And the same strategy applies in spades to an international liquidity crisis among national or regional central banks that now operate without an apex to their pyramid of "currency" and "credit" expansion.

The political reason for the globalization of money and banking is that, although the Federal Reserve System now functions as a de facto global central bank (at least to the extent that its "currency" is employed as a "reserve" by most other countries), a truly global central bank, functioning both de facto and de jure for the world as a whole, cannot be the instrument of only one nation or regional grouping of nations. For that nation or group could change its political views on money and banking at any time, throwing a money wrench into the globalist machinery. True enough, if a national central bank, operating as a de facto global central bank, returned to some form of free-market gold or silver standard, the common people of the whole world would eventually benefit. The Establishment, however, would lose out, because its position depends on monetary and banking systems utterly divorced from gold and silver, and thereby from the economic discipline of the free market. And, because the Establishment cannot take that chance, it must promote the globalization of money and banking.

The pressing legal reason for the globalization of money and banking is that the present de facto global central bank—the Federal Reserve System—is subject to the Constitution of the United States, which mandates "gold and silver Coin" as the only official "Money" and "Tender in Payment of Debts" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1). An international liquidity crisis could easily turn into an American constitutional crisis, in which the illegality of the Federal Reserve System could be identified as the cause of the economic chaos, and the System's political supporters the culprits. Such a situation could sweep into office a political movement that would reverse a century of monetary and banking policy, and return the economy of one major country—and, soon enough, the economy of every other country dependent upon it—to money bottomed on a specie standard and banking stripped of the abusive special privilege of "fractional reserves."

For all these reasons, to maintain its power the Establishment must eventually separate and insulate the present systems of money and banking from each and every national sovereignty. That is, each and every national sovereignty must be denied jurisdiction over money and banking, even within its own territory. The monetary and banking systems must themselves become wholly independent—and, in fact, private—sovereignties, with global extraterritoriality allowing them to operate within every nation but subject to none. They must become totally unresponsive to (as well as unrepresentative of) the popular will everywhere, yet capable of imposing their will on the people anywhere.

Just as the Establishment of the late 1800s declared the Plains Indians to be "hostiles" if they dared to defend themselves and their homelands against economic, political, and cultural aggression, so too does the contemporary Establishment denounce Americans as "extremists" if they strenuously oppose—even only through force of argument, rather than force of arms—the systematic destruction of their country and impoverishment of her citizens.

Perhaps nowhere is the historical parallel more patent than with respect to money and banking. Today, of course, "gold bugs" are subjected only to ridicule in the mass media. In the early 1930s, though, Americans who resisted the General Government's seizure of their gold were most definitely treated as "hostiles"—even to the extent of having President Franklin Roosevelt apply against them the Trading With the Enemy Act of World War I. Even now this statute remains on the books, providing that "[d]uring time of war, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, and under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, * * * investigate, regulate, or prohibit * * * the importing, exporting, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion" (Title 12, United States Code, Section 95a(1)(A)). In this era of a perpetual (albeit undeclared and therefore unconstitutional) "war on terrorism," during the course of a monetary and banking crisis this statute could be employed just as it was in the 1930s, on the strength of the precedent created at that time. And, once more, common Americans who held gold would be falsely designated their own country's "enemy."

Finally, just as the Establishment of the late 1800s employed certain historically proven techniques of oppression to beat the Plains Indians into submission, so too does today's Establishment—albeit with far greater subtlety, sophistication, and sinister cynicism. The next part of this commentary will explain how.

© 2006 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserved



 - Part 2 -


Go to Part 1 - Part 3

 [COMMENT:  Bold emphases below are mine.   E. Fox]

Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
June 6, 2006

Inasmuch as human nature never changes, hardly surprising are the similarities between the oppression visited upon the Plains Indians and the oppression common Americans suffer today. For example:

(i) The Establishment of the late 1800s destroyed the Plains Indians' economic independence, self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and security by killing off the buffalo and thereby rendering the nomadic hunters abjectly dependent on niggardly handouts from the Great Father in Washington's corrupt Indian agents. This was economic subjugation through control of the actual physical resources necessary for the Indians' survival.

Yet even before that era, the Establishment had already created institutions designed to deprive all common Americans of their economic independence, self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and security—as well as the ability to retain the real wealth they created and earned by dint of their own efforts. These institutions included the first and second Banks of the United States, numerous State banks, and the National Banks first set up during the Civil War. Eventually, these schemes for the incestuous coupling of bank and state matured into the modern Federal Reserve System, under the aegis of which bank and state now appear inseparable. This was—and remains—economic subjugation through control over so-called "financial" resources.

Control over "financial" resources does provide an extensive measure of control over physical resources of all kinds—otherwise, to modern men steeped in the sin of avarice, it would be pointless. But its great strength as a devious device for social control is that it is indirect, operating through the pseudo-intellectual and legalistic fictions called "currency" and "credit" that not one person in ten thousand understands. Contemporary "currency" purports to be a medium of exchange, a measure of value, a store of value, and even "legal tender" for all debts, public and private—although, in contradistinction to the "money" of the free market and the Constitution, it is not itself composed of silver, gold, or any other valuable physical substance, and is not redeemable in any such substance at a fixed rate of exchange guaranteed by law.

At base, such "currency" amounts to nothing more than the politicians' trick of transmuting their naked command into an instrument for transferring real wealth. After all, translated from the Latin, the familiar term "fiat currency" means "let it be currency." Such "currency" is not akin to true "money" by dint of its economic nature and free acceptance among people in the marketplace, but is required—by dint of the government's physical compulsion when other means fail—to be taken or treated as "money" by everyone. And contemporary "credit" is even more ethereal, being nothing other than the creation of new "currency" out of new debt—the bankers' alchemical trick of transforming liabilities into assets simply by saying it is so.

[COMMENT: I understood the meaning of fiat currency versus the value of a precious metal base for the first time upon reading the above two paragraphs.  

In a free market, the medium of exchange is itself something valued in the market place.  In our system, our money is of no value at all, and in actual fact represents no value at all.  It only pretends to.   It's value is all "fiat" -- "It is true because the government says so!".  That is what makes it infinitely flexible and infinitely manipulable.   We MUST get rid of the Fed and government banking (& the IRS, government education, government welfare, etc.), and establish a separation of Commerce and State (i.e., ban fascism).   We have become slaves on a government plantation.  

So our economy is run on "faith", that blind belief in a mirage of a kind which atheists accuse religious believers.  The mirage is the illusion of  value created by our overlords, the economic oppressors who own and control the marketplace.  We are asked to have faith in our virtual money.   Not because it has any value, but because as long as we believe it does, the system will work.    None of us can take our money, go to the "lender of last resort", and get anything of worth for it. 

If we do not return to a system where our money has its own intrinsic worth in the free market, beyond the control of anything but the free market as a whole, we will remain under the monetary oppression of our overlords, and continue to have vast amounts of our economy siphoned off into their pockets -- the very money which they use then to enslave us. 

If that is not being suckered, what is???      E. Fox] 

Moreover, modern "currency" and "credit" are not even necessary resources for contemporary Americans. The Plains Indians could not survive without food—if not buffalo meat, then whatever rations the Indian agents deigned to provide. Their dependency was physical, and eventually became insurmountable by any actions within their power. Contemporary Americans, conversely, could easily survive without today's fictitious "currency" and "credit"—and would be far better off without them, and certainly without the parasitical politicians and special-interest groups that fatten off of them. Modern Americans' dependency is psychopathological, and its continuation largely self-imposed, proving once again the truth in the wag's dictum that "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time—and that's good enough!."

Yet, although ultimately derived from nothing more substantive than economic, political, and legal fictions and deceptions, the Establishment's ability to create "currency" and "credit" ex nihilo and ad infinitum remains the primary source of its tremendous economic, political, and cultural power, both open and subterranean.

On the surface, that power dominates both the economy and the political process. The entire economic life of the United States has degenerated into servile dependence upon whether the Federal Reserve System increases or decreases interest rates (and by how much)—that is, upon how fast the banks create new "currency" and "credit" (because no significant overall contraction in the so-called "money supply" has occurred since the banking collapse of the early 1930s). The Constitution identifies "We the People of the United States" as its authors. The markets are composed of We the People in their capacity as free economic actors. Congress is the agent of We the People in their capacity as political sovereign. And the Board of Governors as well as the entire Federal Reserve System are the mere statutory creatures of Congress. Nonetheless, the markets await each announcement of the bankers' pleasure with baited breath. Congress sits in awed silence as the various Chairmen of the Board of Governors lecture it. And We the People do nothing. Self-evidently, this state of affairs proves that, as a practical matter, where money and banking are concerned the free market is held captive by a special-interest group, the constitutionally empowered National legislature is not the actual lawgiver, and worst of all the titular National sovereign is subordinate to someone else.

During the late 1800s and early 1900s, the alliance among politicians, bankers, and their clients in high finance and big business to control America was widely known as "the Money Power." As Frederick Townsend Martin observed in 1911, in his book Passing of the Idle Rich, [Also read the book; "The Coming Battle" originally published in 1899]

[i]t matters not one iota what political party is in power or what President holds the reins of office. We are not politicians or public thinkers; we are the rich; we own America; we got it, God knows how, but we intend to keep it if we can by throwing the tremendous weight of our support, our influence, our money, our political connections, our purchased senators, our hungry congressmen, our public-speaking demagogues into the scale against any legislature, any political platform, any presidential campaign that threatens the dignity of our estate.

Nothing has changed since then. Today, perspicacious Americans can identify the people who "own America" economically and politically. The question is what can common Americans do about them.

Under the surface, too, the power over modern "financial" resources—the power to create "currency" and "credit" ad libitum—exercises an insidiously corrupting and self-reinforcing influence over Americans. This is no accident. Those seeking to exploit, dominate, and oppress others usually attempt, at an early stage of the process, to corrupt their victims, so that they can manipulate and control them through their vices. In the late 1800s, the Establishment corrupted the Plains Indians and undermined their personal self-respect and communal coherence by plying them with "fire water". That was simple psychological corruption mediated through physical addiction. False prosperity generated through unlimited debt made possible by expanding supplies of new "currency" and "credit" emitted by the banks is the contemporary "fire water" on which the Establishment has hooked all too many Americans.

Importantly, whereas each Indian's addiction to "fire water" was a personal predicament, and became a social problem only after sufficient numbers succumbed, Americans' intoxication by contemporary "credit" is a socially destructive phenomenon from the inception in every instance in which it is involved. Traditional "credit" is simply a deferred execution of a contractual obligation, as when a buyer purchases some commodity today, but pays for it only later on. In such a transaction, the seller has extended "credit" to the buyer, in the form of time. The buyer may pay more for the commodity than the original price (if the "credit" incurs "interest" or some "service charge"); or the seller may receive less than that price in real terms (if the "credit" does not incur such a surcharge, and the seller has a positive time preference). But, in either event, the transaction involves just those two parties, and has no effect whatsoever on the so-called "money supply" of society as a whole. Different amounts of "money" change hands, depending on the terms of the transaction; but the total supply of "money" throughout society remains the same, whatever the terms.

Much contemporary "credit," distinguishably, is made possible only through the creation of new "currency" when the "credit" is extended and for that purpose. A bank "credits" a client's account with some amount of "currency" created in order to make that very loan. Thus, the transaction increases the total "money supply." More consequentially, the new "currency" then enters the economy at a particular point and time, and then spreads through the market on some idiosyncratic path, changing the structure of prices and redistributing real wealth as the market realizes there has been an injection of new purchasing power, and reacts to it. Exactly who the losers in this process may be is difficult to predict. But the bank that generates the new "credit" and its client who employs it are always the winners. And surely society always loses overall. For if banks throughout the system create significant amounts of new "credit" in the capital markets—thereby imposing so-called "forced savings" on the rest of society—their actions set in motion the familiar "business" (or "boom and bust") cycle, leading eventually to depression, or perhaps to hyperinflation followed by depression. And if the banks create new "credit" for the public treasury—that is, by "monetizing public debt"—their actions facilitate a particularly vicious species of "taxation without representation," in which part of the present generation receives the benefits of governmental deficit spending, while future generations of taxpayers—who have cast no votes in the matter—are expected to pay for them.

Although socially destructive and politically abusive, the contemporary "currency" and "credit" scheme is self-reinforcing in its degeneracy. Its first stage involves simply the organization of avarice: providing the means by which some people can obtain something for nothing by redistributing other people's wealth through spending new "currency" into circulation. This is bad enough. For the easy availability of "credit" convertible into new "currency" encourages an unbridled, debt-based consumerism, steeped in hedonism, materialism, and a mania for "economic growth" which inevitably results in a self-imposed serfdom of consumers to the creators of "credit" and "currency"—whether those consumers be private individuals or public treasuries.

The second stage is worse. It entails support by the clients of the creators of "credit" and "currency" for the entire economic, political, and ideological system that allows the latter to ply their trade—because that system is the only source of future "credit" to subsidize the clients' on-going exorbitant life-styles that require spending beyond their real means. A never-ending cycle of overconsumption, financed with private and public debt floated by expansion of "credit" and "currency," demands support for politicians who promote policies that grease the skids for such false prosperity. This turns voters hooked on debt-based consumerism into dependents of the politicians, rather than the politicians being servants of the voters. In their turn, the politicians become dependent on the bankers—so that political, as well as economic, power inexorably gravitates towards one special-interest group to a degree no free society would ever countenance.

The third stage is worse yet. For the types of politicians who support endless expansion of "credit" and "currency" tend to bring with them a compendious agenda of other economic, political, social, and cultural corruptions. For example, no politician who approves of Congress's creation of the Federal Reserve System, and the System's "monetization of public debt," likely employs "original intent" in constitutional interpretation, opposes the delegation of governmental powers to private special-interest groups, believes in limited government, or wants to reduce to the minimum bureaucratic intervention in the free market. Rather, he most probably advocates "the living Constitution" (that is, the Constitution politicians and judges make up as they go along, to serve their immediate interests), political-cum-economic "partnerships" between government and influential private interests, and comprehensive political "management" of the market (what used to be called "central planning," before the collapse of the East bloc finally discredited that rubric).

The fourth stage is worst of all. For, after this process has worked its insidious wiles on several generations, spiritual corruption takes over. Whatever they may believe, people act as if there were no god but Mammon, with Caesar his prophet and the bankers his priests.

In sum, contemporary "credit" and "currency" constitute a social narcotic more dangerous than the alcohol to which the Plains Indians became addicted. For chemical dependencies hardly ever approach the point at which so many people are affected that an entire society collapses. But a general breakdown has not infrequently afflicted countries hooked on the endless expansion of fictitious "currency" and "credit"1—such as Germany in the early 1920s, and Argentina and other major South American countries serially since World War II.

And this is not the only parallel in the history of oppression that contemporary Americans need to recognize as applicable to them.


© 2006 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserved 

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.

He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective.  

He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. www.crashmaker.com

His latest book is: "How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary"

He can be reached at:
13877 Napa Drive
Manassas, Virginia 20112.



- Part 3


Go to Part 1 - Part 2

 [COMMENT:  Bold emphases below are mine.   E. Fox]

 Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
June 12, 2006

Other forms of oppression the Plains Indians suffered should serve as object lessons to contemporary Americans.

(ii) The Establishment of the late 1800s deceived the Plains Indians politically through numerous "treaties" that the Great Father in Washington imposed on the Tribes but never honored. Similarly, through its phony "two"-party system, the present-day Establishment has stripped Americans of electoral power to regain control of their country's economic system and thus their own lives in their own land. This disability is not primarily a matter of rigged elections. Even where elections are scrupulously honest, the results do not matter. The names and party labels of the politicians who are voted in or out may change, but the policies they eventually enact into law do not. As their forebears did with the Indians, contemporary politicians make innumerable "treaties" with common Americans—platforms of political parties, pledges by candidates, promises of officeholders—the vast majority of which none of them has the least intention of honoring.

Even more revealing than this deceitful conduct in general is that modern politicians say nothing at all about reforming—or even investigating the shaky performance of—the monetary and banking systems in particular. Neither the "two" parties, nor their nominees for high office, nor politicians once elected make any promises about money and banking (except, perhaps, that they will urge the Federal Reserve System to expand "credit," thereby exacerbating the problem). None of them questions the legality or expediency of the Federal Reserve System and its special privilege to create "credit" and "currency" out of debt. And none of them proposes to return the country to constitutional "Money" of silver and gold (as Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 requires), to rein in "fractional-reserve banking," or otherwise to establish a system of sound money and honest banking on free-market principles. This calculated reticence exposes whose interests the "two" parties really serve.

(iii) The Establishment of the late 1800s generally reviled the Plains Indians' religion, on the ground that it offended the mainstream Christianity of that era. In dealing with white men, the Indians' only recourse was to petition the Great Father in Washington, not the Master of Life (often interpreted by white men as "the Great Spirit") to whom even Christians believed the Great Father was subject. Foresighted Christians (as well as all other monotheists) should have taken no comfort from this, because in less than a century the Establishment came openly to revile Christianity, too—and aggressively to deprive common Americans of any appeal to religion in public affairs, perforce of radical "separation of church and state." Many individuals assume that this dogma is intended only to stop theological bickering among different religious sects from spilling over into practical politics. Its real purpose, however, is far less benign.

For the modern Establishment, the only "law" is "positive law"—that is, "law" enacted in some statute, or declared in some judicial opinion. No "higher law" of any kind exists by which to judge the legitimacy—and especially the illegitimacy—of "positive law." This belief plainly negates the principles set out in the Declaration of Independence, that Americans are entitled to "assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"; that "all men * * * are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"; that "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"; that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government"; and that "when a long train of abuses and usurpations * * * evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

To the contemporary Establishment, however, that contradiction is of scant moment. Indeed, where the Establishment is concerned, outright denial of the Declaration's tenets is the order of the day. To set up its New World Order, the Establishment must deny America's national independence. To that end, it must deny that Americans are entitled "to assume among the powers of the earth" a "separate and equal station"—and assert instead that their incumbent government can tell them so. To that end, the Establishment must deny both that "unalienable Rights" set limits to governmental power, and that, to be legitimate, governmental authority must encompass "just powers" only. To that end, it must deny Americans the right to choose their own form of government—and, in particular, the right to change the form of their government when public officeholders threaten their liberties and prosperity. Above all, the Establishment must deny the very existence of any "higher law"—"the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"—to which the people can appeal from all these other denials.

This complex of negations has long been the rule where money and banking are concerned. As a medium of exchange intended for free and honest men, true "money" self-evidently rests on a "higher law" that binds individuals, private banks, and governments: Thou shalt not steal. Doubtlessly, that inherent connection between function and precept led the Framers of the Constitution to set out Congress's power "[t]o coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin" in the selfsame provision that contains its power to "fix the Standard of Weights and Measures" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 5). This juxtaposition teaches, as a matter of constitutional principle, that "Money" cannot be suffered to be dishonest, any more than "Weights and Measures" can.

Yet the recent history of money and banking in America—which must be described as political history, because it can claim next to no basis in constitutional law—is rife with dishonesty. For example, where "Money" is concerned:

  • In the 1930s Congress removed gold coin from the monetary system—not "coin[ing] Money" (as the Constitution requires), but uncoining it.
  • In the 1960s Congress debased America's silver coinage—not honestly "regulating the Value" of "Money," but falsifying it. And,
  • Today, Congress declares paper "currency" to be "legal tender" for all debts, even though all such "currency" is absolutely irredeemable in gold or silver. See Title 31, United States Code, Sections 5103 and 5118(b and c).

Similarly, where banking is concerned, Congress licenses "forced savings." Apparently, this is predicated on the assumption that, by redistributing real wealth from average Americans to the bankers and their clients through the emission of new "credit" and "currency," this country will experience greater "economic growth"—and, derivatively, the tax bureaucracies can rake in larger revenues—than if that wealth were left in the possession of the people who actually earned it. (On an analogous theory, in the Kelo case the Supreme Court erased constitutional protections for private property against direct seizure by eminent domain.) Of course, such reasoning would rationalize every variety of dishonest weights and measures, too—because imposing "forced savings" on Americans by short-changing them on goods would also leave more real tangible wealth in the hands of special interests purportedly better able to use it.

(iv) The Establishment of the late 1800s assaulted the Plains Indians with the systematic immigration of aggressive, acquisitive white settlers, and incursions by avaricious miners and buffalo hunters, into Tribal lands—all too many of these invasions being illegal, at the least because they violated outstanding treaties. The tactic of conquest through immigration was intended, not simply to despoil the Indians of their lands, but also to destroy them as independent peoples, by denying them the very territory and resources that alone could support their traditional way of life—leaving them with no alternative except to give up their political, economic, and cultural institutions, and be absorbed into an alien society. Unless they forcibly resisted the settlers and other trespassers—in which case the Tribes were subjected to punitive campaigns by the Army aimed at their extermination.

Contemporary Americans are victims of the same tactic. Today's massive illegal immigration is no accident, but an agenda; not something about which public officeholders can do nothing, but as to which they are intentionally facilitating everything. If the present-day Establishment cannot deprive the generality of common Americans of their land and their way of life in the straightforward way the Indians were dispossessed, it can and has set about demolishing their traditional culture—economic, social, and political—through an all-out attack of "multiculturalism" in which illegal immigrants serve as shock troops. The goal is to destroy America's national independence—her "separate and equal station" "among the powers of the earth"—first by merger of all the countries in the Northern Hemisphere; followed by merger of all the countries in the Western Hemisphere; and completed by globalization.

The means are floods of aliens who, by failing or refusing to assimilate, will deprive America of a cohesive national identity and integrity. Economically, massive illegal immigration provides a cheap and submissive work force, in order to lower the general American standard of living (even more than exportation of jobs is already doing), and thereby grease the economic skids for a regional merger with Mexico. Socially, massive illegal immigration sows division, dissension, and conflict, and sets up opportunities for the Establishment to employ "divide-and-conquer" tactics, so that Americans will not stand shoulder-to-shoulder in defense of national sovereignty. And politically, massive illegal immigration infests this country with people who know and care nothing about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in particular, or constitutionalism in general, and thus dilute the influence of those who still do. All this will lay the groundwork for a Caesaristic police state, because that is the only form of "government" most illegal immigrants have ever known; that is what they will assume prevails here, too; that is what they will expect of "government;" and at length that is what they will help to make of it.

The monetary lesson this situation teaches is clear. Most illegal immigrants come from countries with no constitutional tradition of sound money, and certainly no recent experience with it. For such people, in comparison to the media of exchange they knew in their native lands Federal Reserve Notes are "hard currency!" And the "solution" they have almost always seen their leaders apply to economic and political problems at home has been rampant inflation of "currency" and "credit." Vanishingly small, then, will be the likelihood that here they will align themselves with Americans who press for a return to constitutional money and banking. Rather, they will demand more of that to which they have been accustomed. And,

(v) The Establishment of the late 1800s would have totally disarmed the Plains Indians had the situation warranted it. For native Tribesmen with a tradition of waging war who had recently proven their mettle in numerous engagements could not be systematically dispossessed and oppressed if left with adequate means to fight back. And such a policy could easily have been rationalized on the ground that, as euphemistic "wards" of the United States—or, more realistically, as conquered, subjugated, and dependent peoples stripped of their sovereignty—the Indians had no right to arms. Pervasive "gun control" never proved necessary in that era, however, because so few warriors remained to claim their ancestral prerogatives by wager of battle. Contemporary Americans pose a far more difficult problem for the present-day Establishment.

Far from being mere dependent "wards" of the United States, legally subject to politicians' whims, Americans—in the Constitution's first and most important words, "We the People"—are this country's earthly sovereigns, who have reserved to themselves "the right * * * to keep and bear Arms" on the ground that "[a] well regulated Militia[ is] necessary to the security of a free State" (Amendment II). Moreover, although most common Americans share no particular tradition as warriors of recent memory, tens of millions of them now possess and know how to use firearms well enough to be potentially dangerous to aspiring usurpers and tyrants. Therefore, inasmuch as the Establishment intends to eliminate America's national sovereignty, which resides in We the People—and inasmuch as arms have always been throughout Western history the primary indicia of, and means for retaining, sovereignty—the Establishment must at some stage in the not-too-distant future attempt to employ pervasive "gun control" to strip common Americans of the arms that symbolize, and in a crisis could be used to claim and confirm, their sovereignty. Doubtlessly, the Establishment plans to achieve this goal through the paramilitarized National police state it is setting up under the guise of "homeland security."

The relation of this situation to money and banking is plain enough. The two great powers of government are the Power of the Sword and the Power of the Purse—in that order. In his Discourses on Livy, Macchiavelli exploded the shibboleth that "gold forms the sinews of war," with his commonsensical observation that "gold cannot always find good soldiers, but good soldiers can always find gold." This insight Mao Tse-tung confirmed in the dictum he drew from experience, that "[p]olitical power grows out of the barrel of a gun": For the Power of the Purse is a political power; and if (as with all other political power) it "grows out of the barrel of a gun," then the Power of the Sword must be its antecedent and superior. Moreover, the Second Amendment codifies this relationship as a principle of American constitutional law: For if "[a] well regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State," and the Power of the Purse is a power of such a State, then "[a] well regulated Militia[ is] necessary" for "the security," and ultimately the exercise, of the Power of the Purse—making the Power of the Purse dependent upon the Power of the Sword.

So, should the Establishment ever succeed in disarming common Americans, their hopes for sound money and honest banking would be dashed on the rocks of despair. Based on economic theory, it is a near certainty that, absent extensive reforms, the present regime of fictitious "currency" and "credit" will collapse. Based on America's own political experience, a very strong possibility exists that, absent Militia "organiz[ed], arm[ed], and disciplin[ed]" and "call[ed] forth to execute the Laws" as the Constitution mandates (Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16), a financial dictatorship will take over in response to the ensuing chaos. (Indeed, on a small scale this is exactly what happened from 1932 to 1934, with the implosion of the Federal Reserve System and the installation of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, the central policy of which was to "go off the gold standard"—that is, to empower bankers and politicians to expand the supplies of unsound "currency" and "credit" more than ever before). And, based on the adage that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," the likelihood that such a dictatorship, on its own initiative, will ever relinquish power to We the People and return this country to constitutional standards asymptotically approaches zero for as long as the dictatorship persists.

Go to Part 1 - Part 2

(For other articles on the Road==>>  by Edwin Vieira, do search for Vieira.)

© 2006 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserved

To be continued...

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.

He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us

He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. www.crashmaker.com

His latest book is: "How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary"

He can be reached at:
13877 Napa Drive
Manassas, Virginia 20112.




* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Go to: => TOP Page;   Economics;   Politics;   ROAD MAP