Author Topic: SECURITY IN SOCIALISM  (Read 1064 times)

netfreak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member

  • Offline
  • *****
  • 299
    • View Profile
    • Higher Intellect
SECURITY IN SOCIALISM
« on: February 12, 2017, 01:34:58 am »
                             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. 


https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/politics/security.txt