Take the 2-minute tour ×
Skeptics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for scientific skepticism. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This is a slightly unusual request; I look forward to finding out whether it is considered on-topic or not.

I was recently directed to a YouTube video to help value your "Birth Certificate Bond" (or perhaps, as it looks like to me, a fund that happens to coincidentally have the same number as your US birth certificate). It makes a lot of assumptions about background knowledge, so I started searching around for context.

I couldn't make head or tails of any of the pages I found. I recognise the writing style as similar to that of crackpot conspiracy theorists, but that isn't a valid reason to dismiss a claim.

The best I could come up with is that is seems they might be related to the Redemption Movement.

The Redemption movement is drawn from Roger Elvick's theory that for every citizen's birth certificate issued in the U.S. since the 1936 Social Security Act, the government deposits $630,000 in a hidden bank account linked to the newborn American and administered by a Jewish cabal. Redemptionists assert that by completing certain legal maneuvers and filing a series of government forms, the actual person may entitle themselves to the $630,000 held in the name of the doppelganger persona created for them at their birth, and may then access these government funds using "sight drafts". The government views these sight drafts as "rubber checks" and the entire scheme as fraudulent. The federal government has convicted the practitioners of fraud and conspiracy.

I wondered if someone had already looked into this, and could explain it to me. My question is: Are these valuations of Birth Certificate Bonds part of the Redemption Movement's theory? Are the basic claims that underly this theory clearly expressable? (If so, what are they?)

I assume they have some (perhaps specious) reasoning why the government and/or the market would have secret bonds for each person, but even reading the Wikipedia description (linked above) I couldn't make it out. I figure you can't examine a claim until you understand roughly what it is.

share|improve this question

closed as off-topic by Oddthinking Apr 11 at 23:28

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Skeptics Stack Exchange is for challenging unreferenced notable claims, pseudoscience and biased results. This question might not challenge a claim, or the claim identified might not be notable." – Oddthinking
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

It's also difficult to examine a claim when it is indeed made by crackpots (though I suppose that is part of the point of Skeptics). I've not investigated this at all, but I feel confident in saying, no, the basic claims underlying this theory aren't really too sound. I think a good general rule of thumb is that any time the phrase "administered by a Jewish cabal" crops up, you can pretty safely ignore anything else being said/written. But the point of Skeptics is to provide a well cited answer, so we can certainly wait on that. –  erekalper May 31 '11 at 12:27
@Oddthinking: I understand that, and as I said, I wasn't providing a hard answer. I was just being a bit snarky in saying that the basic claims are probably... out there, as you already clearly think they are, but that someone here can probably provide an actual sound answer. –  erekalper May 31 '11 at 12:51
Just this "happens to coincidentally have the same number as your US birth certificate" part of the claim is a problem. In most case the US governement does not issue Birth Certificates---the states and their subdivisions do---and there is no uniform numbering scheme. That's why we have to have a Social Security or Taxpayer ID number: so that the feds can have a unique number associated with each person. –  dmckee May 19 '12 at 21:56
@DEBBIESMITH: Welcome to Skeptics.SE. If you look around, you will soon find claims that you have heard many times and that are not true. There is probably absolutely NO truth to this. Feel free to ask the question as a separate one to find out, but before you do, make sure the claim makes some sort of sense - so far, there is no sign that it does. –  Oddthinking May 20 '12 at 1:48
@Fayiza: requiring people to have specific experiences before they have an opinion is a fallacy known as "Special Pleading". I have legitimate opinions on murder without ever having conducted it. –  Oddthinking Sep 18 '12 at 23:47

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Taken from the comments, written by @MrHen:

Okay... as best as I can tell, this is how it works. Tildes mark what potentially mislabeled terms.

A Birth Certificate Bond allegedly acts as a loan against your lifetime workforce ~energy for the purposes of minting money.

The US Treasury needs to ~borrow against something to put money into circulation and the idea of a Birth Certificate Bond is that they are using each ~birth in the US as the ~collateral. The bank account that matches on your birth certificate holds the actual ~balance of this loan.

There are plenty of issues with this, so I am not sure I understand the finer points.

share|improve this answer

Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.

To be clear for future visitors, I explicitly suggested that @Oddthinking should post the answer like this. –  MrHen Jun 5 '11 at 17:34
IT DEPENDS ON IF YOUR NAME IS IN ALL CAPS OR NOT :-) see teapartypatriots.org/… or scribd.com/doc/6967949/… or just google "name in all caps". And enjoy a bologna biscuit: youtube.com/watch?v=rt9maSxkP3E –  Paul Sep 29 '11 at 3:50
@Oddthinking, any references for this? I'd love to see any kind of truth behind this, as economists would tear their hair out. –  Christopher May 19 '12 at 21:14
Yep please reference (as is, it's a broken window). –  Sklivvz May 19 '12 at 21:29
@Sklivvz: This is an unusual case. There are references, but they are all provided in the question itself. The answer is just the sanest interpretation of the question. When I asked it, and again in the comments, I feared it may be off-topic. I'll accept such a ruling. –  Oddthinking May 20 '12 at 1:42

protected by Community Sep 18 '12 at 20:43

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.