💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › security.txt captured on 2020-10-31 at 14:56:22.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
SECURITY IN SOCIALISM
"Folks . . . have we got a good deal for the American
people. With all the soup kitchens, with all the hungry
people waiting in line for food, with all the elderly people
with no place to sleep or call home, we've decided to
implement a program to eliminate the chances for anything
like that ever happening again."
"It won't cost the average person much at all. We will
put a small charge on the salary of all working people.
Each employer will contribute a larger amount. All these
monies will be put into an insurance fund. Employers will
be able to afford the higher assessment. After all, look at
all the profits they make. We will pay these funds to
everyone at age 65 so no one will ever have to worry about
their golden years again."
"In fact, to be fair to the women, we will begin to pay
them at age 62 since women have less earning power and
outlive their husbands. The citizens will now have fewer
problems as they get older and receive benefits from this
system."
This system will be called Social Security. It's time
for the government to take care of it's hard working
people."
The length and depth of the depression in the early
1930s was a significant selling point for the social
security program. Many researchers and historians claim the
depression was orchestrated. Behind the scenes power
brokers wanted the slump to give the government reason to
implement socialistic programs. There is much reading
available in this area of history also.
This adventure in socialism began in earnest in August
1935 when Congress passed the Social Security Act. The act
established the Social Security Board. It consisted of 3
members who were chosen by the President and approved by the
Senate. They were to be so independent that they were to
report directly to the president. This continued until 1939
when the board became part of the Federal Security Agency.
They created this agency to include health and education
activities.
Health and education activities? It looks as though
our government recognized the importance of educating the
people in socialist principles way back in 1939.
What a farce. What a sham put over on the American
people. Show me where there is any security in socialism?
I'm not twisting words around. That's exactly what Social
Security means . . . security in socialism. Let me tell you
there is NO SECURITY IN SOCIALISM!
Our federal government has been violating the law since
the beginning of this program. There is no permission in
our Constitution for any socialist programs. We gave no
authority for free cheese, specific welfare such as food
stamps, medicare, medicaid or Social Security.
How did our nation ever manage 146 years without such
an idiotic program? Didn't we have any people who lived to
be 65? How did they ever survive without big brother
looking out for them? How did our country manage to endure
with all those old people dying right in our streets? Did
we just allow them to starve to death with no handouts from
government?
Regardless, you say, they only have our own good in
mind. Don't you believe it! There is only one thing they
have in mind . . . the destruction of our Constitution.
Control of the American people is also high on their list.
Looking at social security practically, it is simply another
form of taxation. The operation of the taxing provisions of
the social security system are now part of the Internal
Revenue Code.
Encyclopedia Americana tells us "The term 'social
security' is usually employed to indicate specific govern-
ment programs designed primarily to prevent want by assuring
to families the basic means of subsistence."
How white of them. What business is it of government?
Where can you find any authorization in our Constitution for
programs to prevent want? They are encroaching into lives
of citizens without a legal right. Unconstitutional . . .
it's a seizure of powers we did not grant when we estab-
lished the authority for government. If they assume any
power we did not allow, it's illegal. That's pretty strong
so now let's go ahead and prove it.
The supremacy clause of our Constitution makes that
crystal clear. We have established that our document is the
supreme law of our land.
Any laws made which don't conform to the authority we
granted in the basic document are NO GOOD!
And if that weren't plain enough for the people working
for government, the Tenth Amendment clears that up.
ARTICLE X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively or
to the people."
I'm certain any reader can understand that. Why do you
suppose the federal government can't understand it? Is it
possible they prefer to think the Tenth Amendment doesn't
exist? Either that is true or this is an obvious case of
collusion between the branches of our government.
Recently a program concerning our Constitution aired on
PBS. The moderator said he had gone to every lawyer and
judge he could find the day before the program. He asked if
any of them knew what the Tenth amendment said and NOT ONE
could answer his question! Not one even knew the general
subject matter of the amendment. Does our Constitution
still exist? So much for our intelligent judges and
lawyers. Give me a break.
When the first twelve proposed amendments were
submitted to the states in 1789 to become our Bill of
Rights, the Congress included this introductory statement
(or preamble):
"The Conventions of a number of the States, having
at the time of their adopting the Constitution,
expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconcep-
tions or abuse of its powers, that further
declaratory and restrictive clauses should be
added: And as extending the ground of public
confidence in the Government, will best insure the
beneficent ends of its institution:"
(Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union
of the American States. House Document No. 398, 69th
Congress, 1st Session 1965)
The First Congress is assuring the people that these
new amendments will be a tighter rope to confine the
government. And the legal eagles today do not know what the
tenth amendment says or means? When we get into a discus-
sion of the Bill of Rights, you will quickly see how the
federales believe the preceding preamble.
Going back to our venture into socialism, let's take a
look at the numbers for a moment. What happens to the money
which a man has paid into the system for 40 or more years?
And what if he should die before he becomes eligible to
collect benefits? Does it go to his wife or survivors? You
know better than that. It's gone . . . it has become a
gratuitous donation to Big Brother. An amount equal to
taxes collected from individuals are assessed from their
employers. All this money goes to the general fund and
spent for anything, legal or illegal.
And assuming there is now a widow, what would she
receive from his donations? Certainly not the amount paid
into the system, nor even the interest on those funds.
How many of our elderly citizens do not have enough money to
pay for their rent, utilities or food? We won't even
mention an occasional night out to the movies or a vacation
to enjoy their remaining years. How many of our older
citizens have to depend on a church function for a meal?
How many wait at the Salvation Army or some other private
charity for Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner? This is a
crime. What did they say was the intent of the Social
Security program? To prevent want by assuring to families
the basic means of subsistence.
Horse manure! People for generations have been led to
believe that this program would take care of them in later
years. What's the story we hear often now? The program
will be broke in 'X' numbers of years. Mercy, it's running
out of money so we have to increase the withholding levels.
The government, the way it is running today, is the solution
to nothing . . . it's the problem.
Alexander Hamilton argued fervently in Paper No. 84
that we did not need a Bill of Rights since the Constitution
was in itself a bill of rights. He asks the question, "For
why declare that things shall not be done which there is no
power to do?" (The Federalist Papers.) He insisted that
the national government could do nothing which was not
specifically allowed in the document. However the Congress
proposed a Bill of Rights. It was adopted to further tie
down the new government to prohibit any abuse of its powers.
How does this government get itself involved in the
business of welfare or social security? The amendment
process was not invoked to ask for our consent agreeing
to a change. I didn't agree to any change allowing for
socialism, did you?
Can our constitution be changed by an act of Congress
or by an order by the executive branch? Maybe an order by a
federal judge can do it. Not true! It can only be changed
under Article V if you and I agree to the change at the
voting booth. So--did you agree to the change? Remember
what the Tenth Amendment said?
Let's pretend for a moment there was no social security
program enacted. The people had not been lulled into a
false sense of protection by a devious government. Suppose
then the people had put the same amount of money into a
savings account for the same period. They could retire very
comfortably on the interest alone.
Let's carry our fairy tale a little further. As in the
previous illustration, let's say a man paid into a trust
fund for 30 or 40 years. Then he died before reaching 65.
What would the family live on in a case like this? Why all
the money which had not been donated to big government. His
widow and entire family could live extremely well on the
interest received from the trust fund. And there would be
money for education. That would be if our government in
their 'wisdom' had not tried to exercise control over people
in violation of our basic law.
I don't for a moment suggest that we cut off social
security payments tomorrow. There is no question what the
outcome of such a drastic measure would be. The vastness of
the dilemma and the people who exist only because of those
meager payments shows a real problem. The program should be
phased out over the next 15 to 20 years.
People who are now paying into the system should be
given the option for their money to be withheld as it is
presently. If they so choose, the money can go into a
private trust to gain interest and increase in value. The
difference now being that these monies will remain the
property of the one allowing the deductions. Naturally it
would pass on to his or her heirs as with any other prop-
erty. Congress could not use this money for any expenditure
they feel the urge to implement. For example, they couldn't
use these funds to raise their own salaries at whim.
For others who don't want money taken out of their
salaries, they should drop out of the system altogether.
Government has no right to intrude into the private affairs
of Americans. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpa-
tions, pursing invariably the same object 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." (Declara-
tion of Independence.)
The lone woman on the Supreme Court (Sandra Day
O'Conner) remarked to a TV reporter one day that she used to
think Social Security was unconstitutional. Now she doesn't
think so . . . wonder who gave her the indoctrination?
How do we correct the situation? Since Congress
created the boondoggle, Congress will have to be the ones to
change it. Call the local offices of your Senators and
Representatives and ask questions about this adventure in
socialism. Be certain to point out the lack of jurisdiction
for these type of programs. Tell them you want something
done about this violation of our Constitution. Further,
remind them you will be watching to see what is being done.
Phone calls every couple of weeks wouldn't be too often. It
has to be impressed on their minds that these socialistic
programs have to cease.
I'm certain you will hear a story like, "These things
are so interwoven in the fabric of our society, they would
be impossible to change." Remind our illustrious 'leaders'
that if any practice was unconstitutional when it began, it
is still unconstitutional. No amount of usage will make the
practice legal or give it an illusion of respectability.
There was never any intent on the part of the Founders
to allow the phrase "general welfare" to signify a right to
establish any specific welfare programs. To find the origin
of this statement, we must look to our first compact of
government, The Articles of Confederation.
Article III states: "The said states hereby severally
enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for
their common defence, the security of their Liberties, and
their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to
assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks
made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion,
sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever."
(Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union)
From this it's obvious what the term general welfare
means. There is no need to insult the readers intelligence
to imply that the general welfare clause magically became
authorization for specific welfare.
Another area in our Constitution which they may argue
is permission for social security, is the "necessary and
proper" clause (Art I, Sec 8). That's weak and won't hold
water. This only gives power to make laws which are
necessary and proper to carry out the duties and powers
listed in the basic document. It's not for anything they
decide is a great idea.
Hamilton, in Paper #78, said: "There is no position
which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a
delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission
under which it is exercised, is void." Anything they do
which is beyond what we have allowed or agreed to is void.
To return to the greatness this country was destined to
achieve, we must demand our government obey the law. It
must return to the confines to which we agreed when the
Constitution was established.
If you ever see the original of our Constitution (or an
exact copy), the first three words use decorative letters.
WE THE PEOPLE. Their authority for government comes from us
and only we can agree to a change.
If the members of Congress are not receptive to our
demands, we have a duty to vote them out of office. We must
sent Americans to Washington who will obey the oath to
support the supremacy of our Constitution which we ordered
in Article VI, Sec 3.
For this evil to continue, all we need do is nothing!
There is a limit to their power and that limit is you and
me.
Recently, in a controversy concerning the poor and
food, Reagen put his foot in his mouth. (Or, maybe it was
Nancy's foot!) He said the poor were unable to find food or
stamps due to a lack of knowledge. A late-night comedian
commented that if that is true, his staff must be starving
to death! 'Nuff said.
REGISTRATION IS ONLY $19.95.