Right on the Money

Chester McAteer

The ruse of Fiat Currency is that a person can look at a $5 Federal Reserve Note and think that another note with $100 Dollars printed on it differs somehow from the $5 Dollar note they hold, when the only real difference is what image printed upon it. The intrinsic value of both notes are the same cost of paper and ink.

All fiat currency systems must "piggy-back” on Sound Money to get a start in the minds of people to be accepted as currency. The ruse is complete when there is no longer actual equitable value of the Paper Note.

The Dollar is NOT now nor has it ever been a Paper Note; a Dollar is by legal definition a coin containing approximately an ounce of fine silver.

Legally, in the U.S. there is absolutely no codified statute that now defines nor has ever legally defined a "one dollar” Federal Reserve Note as the "Dollar”, nor even a species of "dollar”.

In fact, to prove that Federal Reserve Notes are not, in fact legally defined as "Dollars”, the United States Code provides that all Federal Reserve Notes "shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States or at any Federal Reserve Bank.” Thus, Federal Reserve Notes are not, nor have they ever been "Lawful Money”, but only Notes that are useful and convenient substitutes for Lawful Money.

Now, given the fact that Federal Reserve Notes are not even "Lawful Money”, then it is completely illogical and in fact, intellectually inconceivable that they are, in any way, "Dollars”, which is the only way that ALL United States money is expressed and thus codified in Law. It is, of course, easy to see from where the confusion stems just by looking at the history of the subversion of definition. Federal Reserve Notes from Series 1928 through Series 1950E were all inscribed with this Obligation: "The United States of America will pay to the bearer on demand [some number of] Dollars.” Wait, if that's the case then how can gold be "pegged” to Dollars if the definition of Dollars are not nor have they ever legally been Paper Notes? The confusion almost looks intentional doesn't it? Hmmm…

Now, the U.S. Dollar Notes [not FRNs] prior to 1934 carried the inscription: Redeemable in Gold on demand at the U.S.Treasury, or in Gold or Lawful Money at any Federal Reserve Bank.” So, if a dollar Note is NOT a Dollar then what is it and how can an ounce of Gold be "pegged” to something that is, in fact, NOT a Dollar but a Note that is nothing more than a substitute for a Dollar, nothing, in fact, but a receipt for a real Dollar?

Now the really interesting period of definition corruption came with the release of the Series 1963 Notes when the wording, and therefore the assumed definition, was morphed into that looks like it came from the Orwellian 1984 "Doublespeak”: "Will pay to the bearer on demand.” The question of course, should be: Will pay WHAT ON DEMAND? The Promise of Redemption just disappeared, never to be seen again and naturally not many people ever questioned why! Good Sheep that they were, and are!

So, this country moved from a sound monetary system to a substitute promissory receipt system to an IOU system that neither paid nor promise to pay the Note face amount in Real Dollars to an IOU system that can't even buy what the face amount promises to buy because of Inflationary Depreciation of the Fiat Money Substitutes.

A point of understanding should be however, that throughout the metamorphosis of these Notes, not a single thing has changed nor can they legally be transformed in their Legal character from mere Notes into Money, they remain receipts for Money with no promises to pay. It of course, should be obvious that if Federal Reserve Notes were not Lawful Money (Dollars) when they promised to pay Lawful Money (Gold) then it is legally and logically impossible for Federal Reserve Notes to become Lawful Money or "Dollars” one it no longer promised payment in Lawful Money, nor can promissory Notes be "pegged” to Lawful Money, it would make no sense. It's been quite a Con-Job and the crazy thing about it is that even really smart people have completely been snookered by this monetary sleight-of-hand .

I know, I know that people believe that a piece of paper can be money as if a promise to pay money is itself actually money. Whether a Bank Note or a Government Note, they are nothing but a Note and a Note that makes no real promise and actually imparts no real value in and of itself. It is an odd construction, one that is founded and rests upon a past promise that no longer applies. It is an induced fallacy fostered upon the masses that only benefit the few who control the fallacy.

Read this.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:32 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 830 words, total size 5 kb.