Additional Titles








Are Monetary & Banking Crises Inevitable in the Near Future?

"Homeland Security" -- For What and For Whom?













Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
June 19, 2006

Although human nature never changes, history need not repeat itself where circumstances differ. Contemporary Americans differ from the Plains Indians in that the Indians were always decidedly in the minority; whereas, even discounting the quislings and collaborators who serve the Establishment and "the sheeple" who mill around abiding events, common Americans constitute an overwhelming majority. So, unlike the white interlopers of the late 1800s, whom the Plains Indians called "wasichus"—"the people you can't get rid of"—contemporary Americans can liberate themselves from their oppressors simply by sheer weight of numbers.

On the other hand, contemporary Americans apparently differ from the Plains Indians in the extent of their courage to stand up against oppression: The Indians exhibited it; all too many Americans do not. This might be excusable if it derived from the prudential reserve noted in the Declaration of Independence, that "all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, when evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." To overcome the present-day Establishment, however, Americans do not need, or want, to "abolish[ ] the forms to which they are accustomed"—only to enforce them. Americans do not need to foment a rebellion, let alone fight a revolution, because under the Constitution they are the ultimate lawgivers and law-enforcers. Their opponents are simply criminals who have seized control over the levers of government. They have temporary position, but no abiding legitimacy.

To reassert their sovereign rights, Americans must regain control over those levers once and for all—specifically, the Power of the Purse, the Power of the Sword, and the Power of Constitutional Interpretation:

The importance of We the People's control over the Power of the Purse—in particular, by imposing constitutional requirements on money and banking—cannot be overemphasized. The Establishment has always recognized that usurpation and perversion of power over money is a sufficient, if not the necessary, condition for domination and exploitation of society. For that reason, since the independence of the United States not a generation has gone by in which the Establishment has not worked some scheme aimed at redistribution of wealth through manipulation of "currency" and "credit" created out of nothing in private banks or public treasuries—including the first and second Banks of the United States, various antebellum State banks, the legal-tender Treasury Greenbacks of the Civil War, the National Banks created at the same time, the contemporary Federal Reserve System, and some future regional, hemispheric, or global central bank. See especially the charts of proposed global organization set out in Hans Heymann, Plan for Permanent Peace (1941). Indeed, the very existence of these socially destructive schemes, generation after generation, provides conclusive evidence that an Establishment exists and can skew the political process to the detriment of everyone else. The present combination— of fractional-reserve central banking, irredeemable legal-tender paper "currency," ever-expansive bank "credit," "monetization of public debt," "forced savings" extracted from society as a whole for the enrichment of special interests, and the economic and political addiction and serfdom arising out of excessive consumer and public debt—is especially dangerous, because it enables the Establishment to redistribute, not only real wealth, but also political power and cultural influence from We the People to itself and its clients. Self-evidently, then, if We the People can strike the Power of the Purse from the Establishment's hands, the battle to restore economic security and self-government will largely be won.

Under present circumstances, however, We the People must reassert their constitutional control over the Power of the Sword—through revitalization of "the Militia of the several States" (Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 and Article II, Section 2, Clause 1)—as the precondition to their regaining permanent control over the Power of the Purse. This, for three reasons:

First, because the Federal Reserve System is inherently unstable, a crisis can erupt at any time. Should the present monetary and banking regimes self-destruct, nothing would be immediately available to replace them. Economic—shortly followed by political and social—chaos would ensue. And a paramilitarized National police state would be imposed from the top down. Once such a police state took over, the likelihood of salvaging freedom in this country in the near future, or even of preserving this country as an independent entity in which freedom might someday be restored, would be close to nil. To forefend this eventuality, common Americans must take into their own hands—from the bottom up and by constitutional means, but in any event as soon as possible—those powers the exercise of which will prove necessary in a major financial crisis: namely, the powers to execute the laws and suppress insurrections and domestic violence. The Constitution mandates that "the Militia of the several States" should exercise these powers (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15; Article II, Section 2, Clause 1; and Article IV, Section 4). The present concern with "homeland security" provides a perfect reason, opportunity, and occasion for revitalizing the Militia. And the recent incompetent performances of the central bureaucracies assigned the responsibility for "homeland security" (in particular, FEMA), point up the pressing need to do so right away.

Second, even if sound monetary and banking reforms can be initiated before a crisis breaks out, they cannot be brought to fruition overnight. Adequate changes cannot possibly be imposed all at once, from the top down, because such an approach amounts to "central economic planning" of the monetary and banking systems, which inevitably must fail due to the erstwhile "planners'" inability to employ the rational calculations only the free market can supply. Rather, through competition in the marketplace, the Federal Reserve System and its fictitious "currency" and "credit" must gradually be replaced with private financial institutions that operate no longer on "fractional reserves" but instead with real constitutional "Money" of silver and gold. Yet much can transpire during the course of such a gradual transformation—including, not least of all, sabotage of the program by special-interest groups. For that reason, We the People must maintain vigilant oversight of the transition throughout its course, which may last for several years. The institutions through which We the People exercise their control must be permanent, must be constitutionally mandated to execute the laws, and must be Local and above all popular in their composition, orientation, sympathies, and loyalty. "[T]he Militia of the several States"—and only the Militia—fill that bill.

Third, before this country can embark upon extensive monetary and banking reform, millions of common Americans must be educated, organized, and mobilized around some related, but more immediate issue that they can easily understand. "Homeland security" is that issue, the Militia the natural loci for the process. Reform of money and banking can thus be brought into focus as a vital component of "homeland security"—which it most definitely is—and then assigned to the Militia as a central responsibility.

Even before revitalization of "the Militia of the several States," though, We the People must reassert their control over interpretation of the Constitution. After all, "right" must precede "might," because "right" is a moral and legal precondition for exercising "might." And, because all questions relating to the nature and extent of the Power of the Purse and the Power of the Sword are specifically constitutional in nature, whoever interprets the Constitution with finality determines who may execute those powers, for what purposes, and to what extent. As to these powers—and all others of consequence—Americans enjoy no protection whatsoever without the Constitution firmly under their own interpretive dominion.

Absent that authority, they are as legally disarmed as were the Plains Indians in the 1800s. In dealing with the white men, the Indians were told that their own laws were inapplicable and without force, and that they were bound by the white men's laws, which the white men alone were entitled to interpret. And when the Indians entered into "treaties," white men violated them with impunity—proving that even their own laws did not constrain them whenever opportunities to cheat the Indians arose. In their relationship with the present-day Establishment, common Americans will be no better off if they continue to acquiesce in the Establishment's claim that public officeholders—in particular, elitist judges—selected by the Establishment are empowered to interpret the Constitution to the exclusion of We the People. The foremost fact of constitutional law is that We the People, of their own sovereign authority, "do ordain and establish this Constitution" (Preamble). No public official has anything to do with it. And the primary consequence of this fact is that "[t]he power to enact carries with it final authority to declare the meaning of the legislation." Propper v. Clark, 337 U.S. 472, 484 (1949). As the Founding Fathers' jurisprudential mentor, Sir William Blackstone, taught, "whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself: there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to." Commentaries on the Laws of England (American edition, 1771), Volume 1, at 212.

In practice, revitalizing the Militia and reasserting control over interpretation of the Constitution will go hand in hand. To obtain the Militia that the Constitution contemplates, common Americans will need to demand that their State legislatures (which in some States at least We the People may still be able to control), enact laws based on a correct interpretation of the Constitution. This, of course, entails the assertion of that interpretation by the proponents of the new law (that is, We the People themselves), and the implementation of that interpretation by their agents (that is, the State legislators). Thus, the very passage of these laws, at We the People's insistence, will exemplify We the People's authority to interpret and enforce the Constitution—because only perforce of their exercise of that authority will the Militia exist as the Constitution requires.

Throughout the 1800s, the Indians lost their struggles for sovereignty not least of all because they never fully combined against the white men, and were defeated in detail. Too often, they failed to think and act as men with a common cause, but instead fought as separate, mutually jealous or even hostile Tribes with different and sometimes conflicting interests. Although to some extent their way of life and geographical circumstances impelled them to such a self-defeating course, nonetheless they never exerted a serious effort to form an united Indian army for large-scale operations, or to concert their forces for a campaign of protracted irregular warfare throughout all of their domains. Unsurpassed as practitioners of the small-unit tactics of ambush and raid, and peerless as commandos, they never hit upon a grand strategy that by focusing all of their strength on one front might have salvaged something of their independence.

Today, patriotic Americans are no less divided, and consequentially ineffective, in self-defense against the Establishment. In independent groups, hither and yon, they are fighting all sorts of small, indecisive battles on dozens of separate issues, and being slowly but steadily defeated in detail almost everywhere. Their tenacity and spirit of self-sacrifice are inspiring. Yet—c'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre. Although laudable as minor tactics, such efforts are useless as grand strategy.

Americans must fight where the threat to this country is gravest and most immediate. Americans ought to fight where the Establishment stands to lose the most. And—unless they are suicidal—Americans can fight only where they have some reasonable chance to prevail. On this basis, the most consequential issues are: (i) the monetary and banking systems—because a crisis there can smash this country tomorrow, and surely will do so some day soon; (ii) the erection of a paramilitarized National police state—because the Establishment will employ it to clamp down on this country as soon as the monetary and banking systems fail, and eventually in any event; and (iii) the Establishment's monopoly on interpretation of the Constitution—because that camouflages all of the Establishment's wrongdoing with the cloak of "legality." If We the People take these matters in hand, they can save this country. If they fail or refuse to do so, their country cannot survive.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Can an oppressed people rise up against their oppressors? Yes. It has happened before. Other Americans have done it. And, as Thucydides observed, "the kind of events that once took place will by reason of human nature take place again." True enough, the Plains Indians lost their fight for freedom in the late 1800s. Nonetheless, they provided an example of the indomitability of the human spirit that still inspires everyone who recalls their history. Moreover, although human nature has not changed since then, circumstances today are more favorable than they once were. The Plains Indians were few in number. Today, common Americans are many. If God truly does favor the big battalions, common Americans can prevail. In any event, no less than the Plains Indians, they have no rational choice other than to defend themselves—because if they do nothing they will lose everything. And soon. So they need to get up and set about it. Now. As Crazy Horse would say: "HOKA HEY!" "Let's go!" End. To go back to part 1, 2, or 3 click below.

Click here for part ----- 1, 2, 3,

© 2006 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserved

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

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.

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

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

E-Mail: Coming soon









So, unlike the white interlopers of the late 1800s, whom the Plains Indians called "wasichus"— "the people you can't get rid of" —contemporary Americans can liberate themselves from their oppressors simply by sheer weight of numbers.