It is time to wake up to reality. The “Deep State” will never be voted, or legislated out. Entrenched and unwilling to relinquish power, attained by deceit and lies, just because of the occasional loss at the voting booth. I have already explained how the shadow government finances their empire through a giant money laundering scheme, using taxpayer funds distributed to agencies and NGOs, which is funneled back to the empire in the form of donations.
Lazy, uneducated, and mainly disinterested Americans choose to listen, and believe, the same media and same rulers who have continually lied to them for decades. The election of Donald Trump, both times, was a once in a lifetime occurrence that the Republicans will squander away bickering on, not if, but how they will continue to raise the debt ceiling until a government default occurs. Sadly, most of the Republican leaders are in on the deep state scheme and don’t give one tinker’s damn about this nation, or its people.
Our government is over 37 trillion dollars in debt and pays over 3 billion dollars in interest per day, to service that debt, to the privately owned Federal Reserve. Say what you will about the debt being owed to the American public and foreign governments and entities but, while this may be true, every transaction involving Federal Reserve Notes benefits the Federal Reserve.
With this ticking time bomb hanging over America, it is time to think seriously about the probable “worst case scenario” and how its effects can be mitigated. One such solution would be for our government to produce a competing currency. This isn’t as far-fetched of an idea as it may seem. Consider the case presented in the following.
The U.S. dollar, in the form of the Federal Reserve Note (FRN), has reigned as the sole legal tender for all debts, public and private, since the Federal Reserve System was established in 1913. While the dollar has maintained its status as the world’s dominant reserve currency, its monopoly within the domestic monetary system has come under increased scrutiny—especially amid rising inflation, fiscal imbalances, and growing concerns over central banking power. The idea of introducing a competing government-issued currency—separate from the Federal Reserve—has entered policy discussions as a possible way to foster monetary stability, accountability, and financial innovation.
Before the dominance of the Federal Reserve Note, the U.S. had a diverse currency system. From state-chartered banknotes to “Greenbacks” during the Civil War, and gold and silver certificates in the late 19th century, the U.S. monetary system once reflected a broader spectrum of issuers and standards. The National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864 moved to standardize currency, and the 1913 creation of the Federal Reserve centralized monetary control under a quasi-public central bank.
However, by the early 20th century, gold and silver currencies were phased out in favor of fiat money, culminating in President Nixon’s 1971 decision to abandon the gold standard entirely. Since then, all U.S. currency has been fiat, issued solely by the Federal Reserve, and backed only by the “full faith and credit” of the U.S. government.
A Compelling Case for a Government Issued Competing Currency
A growing number of economists, policymakers, and thought leaders are questioning whether a monetary monopoly serves the best interests of the public. Introducing a competing currency—still issued by the government but outside the Federal Reserve System—could serve several strategic purposes:
1. Checks and Balances in Monetary Policy
Currently, the Federal Reserve enjoys near-total control over the issuance and regulation of U.S. currency. A competing government-issued currency—perhaps backed by commodities or governed by a different monetary rule (such as a fixed supply or price stability mandate)—could provide a market-based counterbalance. Citizens and businesses could choose between currencies based on stability, purchasing power, and trust.
2. Promoting Monetary Discipline
A second government-issued currency, perhaps pegged to gold, silver, or a fixed basket of goods, could force greater fiscal and monetary discipline. If the Federal Reserve continues to expand the money supply unchecked, the competing currency could rise in popularity, pressuring the Fed to rein in inflationary policies.
3. Reviving Sound Money Principles
For proponents of “sound money” (e.g., gold standard advocates), a competing currency presents a legal, non-revolutionary path to reintroduce hard assets into the monetary system. A Treasury-issued “Gold Dollar” or “Commodity Dollar,” redeemable for physical assets, could re-establish trust in money as a store of value.
4. Enhancing Financial Freedom and Innovation
Allowing Americans to choose their medium of exchange fosters innovation. For example, a digital Treasury dollar, separate from the Fed’s potential Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), could prioritize privacy, financial inclusion, or other values that might be overlooked by a central bank.
The following are a sample of the Legal and Structural Considerations that would need to be addressed.
Creating a competing currency would require significant legal reform. Currently, the Federal Reserve Note is the only currency designated as legal tender under U.S. law. Some potential pathways to introduce a competing currency include:
- Congressional Authorization: Congress could authorize the U.S. Treasury to issue an alternative currency, distinct from FRNs, possibly pegged to a commodity or operating under strict issuance rules.
- State-Level Currencies: Under the 10th Amendment, states could potentially explore alternative currencies for intrastate commerce, especially if denominated in gold or silver (as suggested in Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution).
- Private-Government Partnerships: A hybrid model could allow for government-supervised but privately-issued asset-backed currencies that compete with the dollar, similar to “free banking” eras in other countries.
Resistance to Change Presents a Daunting Challenge
The path to introducing a competing government currency is not without obstacles:
- Legal Resistance: The Federal Reserve System and its allies would likely oppose efforts to dilute its authority. Legal battles over currency definitions, tender laws, and banking regulations would be inevitable.
- Market Confusion: Introducing two government currencies could create confusion in pricing, accounting, and taxation—unless clear standards and infrastructure are developed.
- Global Implications: As the issuer of the world’s primary reserve currency, the U.S. risks unsettling global financial markets by introducing an alternate domestic currency.
Conclusion
The concept of a competing government-issued currency challenges the century-old assumption that centralized monetary monopoly is both necessary and desirable. Whether driven by a desire for sound money, monetary reform, or financial innovation, the case for an alternative to the Federal Reserve Note deserves serious consideration.
In a world of digital assets, rising public debt, and increasing political polarization, giving Americans the freedom to choose their currency may ultimately prove not only beneficial—but essential—for preserving trust in the nation’s monetary future.