(6) The Development of American National Socialism
The system of government we live under today had its roots in the New Deal of the 1930's. This can be seen by anyone who takes the time to do the legal and historical research. I knew that the income tax was never designed to be a general labor tax when it began in 1913. In the May 17, 1913 issue of THE SATURDAY EVENING POST, an article by a ten term congressman named Benton McMillin clearly shows that the income tax was intended to tax, as McMillin put it, "vast accumulations of wealth in the hands of individuals or corporations." So logically, there had to be a period in history when the income tax was perverted to make slaves out of the laboring population. This is how I found the New Deal of the 1930's. George Lorimer, who was editor of THE SATURDAY EVENING POST from 1899-1936, saw the New Deal begin. His editorials and the articles written by others reveal that great violence was done to the Constitution to implement the socialist policies of the New Deal. Let us consider some quotes from Mr. Lorimer's editorials. Before reading these quotes, bear in mind that they were written before the labor of workers became an object of income taxation.
1. THE SOCIALIST VOTE, Jan. 21, 1933: "A remarkable and, in a sense, unexplained feature of last November's political overturn was the meagerness of the Socialist vote. According to last available figures, it was less than 900,000, or the smallest percentage of the total vote cast in 32 years."
2. THE EXCESSES OF REFORMERS, Dec. 9, 1933, pg. 22: "We are told that we are in a social revolution and that a new system is being evolved. What we actually have is a queer combination of Fascism and Socialism."
3. THE FIRST LAW OF NATURE, March 31, 1934, pg. 22: "By income taxes we strive to redress the balance and at the same time make the builders of great fortunes pay proper toll to the society which has made their success possible."
4. "SMILIN' THROUGH," Sept. 22, 1934, pg. 22: "The last administration went out on an ebb tide of confidence; the New Deal came in on a flood tide of over-confidence. The platform of the Democratic Party and the pre-election promises of its candidates carried sound and reassuring pledges to the country. But the new Administration was hardly warm in the saddle before it began to ignore these pledges, until today there is no document in history of political parties so thoroughly discredited as the Democratic platform."
5. IMPATIENT PROCEDURE, Nov. 10, 1934, pg. 22: "There can be no objection to frank avowals of state Socialism. Everyone has a perfect right to agitate in favor of the removal from all the constitutions of property safeguards. But they should do so openly, and urge the calling of constitutional conventions at which the people can pass on these subjects."
6. OPEN SEASON ON CAPITALISM, Jan. 19, 1935, pg. 22: "Well-dressed audiences hiss and boo the few modest and faltering defenders of this odious system, or applaud every sentence of the better known Socialist speakers...... Certainly it is wholly fair to raise the question of whether any form of liberty could long survive under a process of Socialism, even of the gradualist variety."
7. THE JIG IS UP, Aug. 17, 1935, pg. 22: "The dance of billions may go on for a time, but its merriment is shortly to be dimmed by the necessity of paying the piper...... On the other hand, an appeal to ‘soak the rich' is one of the oldest and most popular in the whole political game. Naturally, nothing is said about making other people pay. That will come later."
8. CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION, Sept. 14, 1935, pg. 22: "Shall the Constitution be changed by specific amendment, as heretofore, or by overhauling of the entire Constitution in a special convention called for that purpose by Congress on the application of two-thirds of the states? This is really the crux of the whole matter - here enters the New Deal. In our view, the Constitution should be changed, whenever desired, as in the past, by specific amendment. If the President desires to have transferred to the executive any functions now lodged in the Congress, this should be considered explicitly as a specific proposal before the 48 states. If the functions of the judiciary, and especially the Supreme Court, are to be abridged, this should be considered as a specific proposal...... The Constitution provides guidance and protection; it is not a menace or a handcuff."
9. POLITICS AND POPULAR DELUSIONS, Jan. 25, 1936, "If there is anything more injurious to a country than the capitalization and exploitation of ignorance, it has yet to be revealed. Ignorance is bad enough by itself, but when it is used by designing politicians to secure position and power, or to retain them, it becomes cruelty. This remark applies to those who make promises of sharing the wealth and extravagant pension schemes."
10. THE DUTY OF CONGRESS, Feb. 1, 1936, pg. 22: "When something like 2000 suits are brought to test the constitutionality of laws passed in a few brief years, the presumption is exceedingly strong that the lawmakers have been either extraordinarily careless and ignorant or else very astute in passing the buck in the hope of getting at least temporary political credit for doing something which they knew in their hearts could not be done."
11. POWER OVER LIBERTY, Feb. 15, 1936, pg. [This editorial is quoted in full.]
"Three months before he was elected, Mr. Roosevelt was saying: ‘We must eliminate actual perfunctions of government - functions, in fact, that are not essential to the continuance of government.' Three years after his election, in his annual message to Congress, he is calling for popular admiration of the fact that ‘in 34 months we have built up new instruments of public power.' And saying at the same time of those who distrust this sudden extension of the government's power, who oppose it, who criticize it, that they are the ‘unscrupulous' and the ‘incompetent,' that they ‘steal the livery of great national constitutional ideals,' that they represent ‘entrenched greed,' that they ‘hide in a cowardly cloak.' Then he challenges them to say which of the new instruments of power they would do away with. The dramatic value of this challenge is that it bears witness to the President's personal conviction that the results are wholly beneficent. Its political value is that it tends to force the debate on that one point, so that people shall be discussing what the Government has done, and tends to do, for them, as if that could be the only question. The flaw in the dramatic value is that a conviction of well-doing is no more a sign of good government than it is a sign of bad government. Some of the worst governments that have ever existed in the world fanatically possessed this conviction. One can think of at least three contemporary dictators who fairly sweat with it. Never has power disbelieved in itself; seldom if ever has great power failed to touch the minds of those who exercised it with the obsession that anyone who utters a contrary opinion, anyone who resists even in a lawful manner, is a public enemy - this be all the more if the power be seized with a zealotry of righteous intent. But the political value of the President's challenge is flawless. By raising debate on the magnificence of the New Deal's acts, supposing the beneficiaries to be very numerous, attention is distracted from the meaning of the fact that the extension of executive and bureaucratic power over the lives of people in these 34 months is such as never occurred before in the world in time of peace, without violence. The President says: ‘In the hands of a people's government this power is wholesome and proper. But in the hands of political puppets of an economic autocracy, such power would provide shackles for the liberties of the people.' This is a very significant utterance, apparently unguarded. The President is saying that the new instruments of government power in the bad hands could be used to shackle liberty. All that now saves liberty, therefore, is that the instruments are in good hands. These things we know about such power: First, that the instruments thereof, once created, never are surrendered; secondly, that in the course of human events they are bound to change hands; thirdly, that no authority, no administration, can guarantee the character of its succession. Whether the present Administration is a people's government or not is a matter of opinion. Certainly it is not the government they thought they were voting for in 1932 - not the kind of government that was represented to them then. If the President really believes that those who stand against him are but predatory public enemies, wishing only they had the power to enslave the people, he must shudder to think what would happen if the instruments he has created should fall into their hands. He must know, as everyone else knows, that this was one of the dangers foreseen when a people who cherished liberty above security or beneficence instituted in this country a system of representative, constitutional government of limited powers. The Federal Government was invested with three powers, executive, legislative, and judicial, so balance that each one was a limit to the two others, all three being limited by the Constitution. The total power of the Federal Government, again, was limited by the sovereign powers reserved to the states. The President's thesis is that the people now much choose between a government of unlimited powers and an economic autocracy of unlimited power. ‘Give them their way,' he says, of he calls the economic autocracy, ‘and they will take the course of every autocracy of the past - power for themselves, enslavement for the people." Such a question is not and never was. The power of government to limit the power of economic autocracy, without taking power to itself, was always adequate. If, nevertheless, an economic autocracy appeared, that was not owing to any impotency of government in the American form, but to irreducible human frailty in the conduct of government; and to suppose that the cure for this is to exalt the executive power of government, still in human hands, is one of the great delusions."
12. THE COURT, April 25, 1936, pg. 26: "Various New Deal senators have been outspoken in their criticism of the Supreme Court, large numbers of persons whose intellectual and emotional sympathies are with the New Deal have indicated their great antipathy to it, and 50 or more bills to hamper or throttle the courts are pending before Congress."
George Lorimer died in 1937, but we can see through his editorials and other press articles that the Socialists, even though they were overwhelmingly rejected at the ballot box in the 1932 election, were able to usurp power thanks to the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Herbert Hoover, the 31st President of the United States, also tried to warn the people back then not to allow the politicians to expand federal power without seeking the people's consent through constitutional amendment. On page 59 of his book THE CHALLENGE TO LIBERTY (Charles Scribner's Sons, N.Y., 1934), Mr. Hoover stated that: "The Socialists claim they would maintain democratic institutions and all other freedoms except economic freedom." Mr. Hoover stated that propaganda would be used to transform the mentality of the nation, and that "the government, in order to protect itself from the political consequences of its actions, is driven irresistibly and without peace to a greater and greater control of the nation's thinking." (Pg. 135) In a campaign speech he gave on Oct. 31, 1932 in Madison Square Garden, Mr. Hoover opened by stating: "This campaign is more than a contest between two men. It is more than a contest between two parties. It is a contest between two philosophies of government." (ADDRESSES UPON THE AMERICAN ROAD, by Herbert Hoover, Charles Scribner's Sons, N.Y., 1938, pg. 1) In this same speech Mr. Hoover said "that the changes proposed from all these Democratic principles and allies are of the most profound and penetrating character. If they are brought about this will not be the America which we have known in the past." (Pg. 3)
One thing many people don't realize is what the primary reason was behind the 13th and 14thamendments to the Constitution. These amendments were to see to it that all the workers of the nation would be guaranteed a free labor market. The Supreme Court, after the Civil War, knew this.
"The fourteenth amendment, in my judgment, makes it essential to the validity of the legislation of every State that this equality of right should be respected. How widely this equality has been departed from, how entirely rejected and trampled upon by the act of Louisiana, I have already shown. And it is to me a matter of profound regret that its validity is recognized by a majority of this court, for by it the right of free labor, one of the most sacred and imprescriptible rights of man, is violated." SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36, 110 (1872)
"To deprive any person of a privilege inhering in the freedom ordained and established by the 13th Amendment is to deprive him of a privilege inhering in the liberty recognized by the 14th Amendment. It is true that the present case is not one of the deprivation, by the Constitution or laws of the state, of the privilege of disposing of one's labor as he deems proper." HODGES v. U. S., 203 U.S. 1, 29 (1906)
"The undoubted aim of the Thirteenth Amendment as implemented by the Antipeonage Act was not merely to end slavery but to maintain a system of completely free and voluntary labor throughout the United States." POLLOCK v. WILLIAMS 322 U.S. 4 (1944)
"The language of the 13th Amendment was not new. It reproduced the historic words of the ordinance of 1787 for the government of the Northwest territory, and gave them unrestricted application within the United States and all places subject to their jurisdiction. While the immediate concern was with African slavery, the [219 U.S. 219, 241] Amendment was not limited to that. It was a charter of universal civil freedom for all persons, of whatever race, color, or estate, under the flag..... The words involuntary servitude have a 'larger meaning than slavery.' 'It was very well understood that, in the form of apprenticeship for long terms, as it had been practiced in the West India Islands, on the abolition of slavery by the English government, or by reducing the slaves to the condition of serfs attached to the plantation, the purpose of the article might have been evaded, if only the word 'slavery' had been used.' Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. p. 69, 21 L. ed. 406. The plain intention was to abolish slavery of whatever name and form and all its badges and incidents; to render impossible any state of bondage; to make labor free, by prohibiting that control by which the personal service of one man is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit, which is the essence of involuntary servitude.'" BAILEY v. STATE OF ALABAMA, 219 U.S. 219, 240-41 (1911)
But what is it that determines the status of slavery? Justice Curtis clarifies this in the Dred Scott decision.
"...the status of slavery embraces every condition, from that in which the slave is known to the law simply as a chattel, with no civil rights, to that in which he is recognized as a person for all purposes, save the compulsory power of directing and receiving the fruits of his labor." DRED SCOTT v. SANFORD, 19 HOW. 393, 624-25 (1856)
Let's face it, even though we can see that the right of workers to a free labor market once existed in this nation and was once a sacred right among the people, today it has been destroyed by the Socialists without seeking the consent of the people through constitutional amendment. As George Lorimer pointed out in his Feb. 15, 1936 editorial: "These things we know about such power: First, that the instruments thereof, once created, never are surrendered...." 1936 was the last year that American workers had their right to free labor respected, and Mr. Lorimer was right; once the Socialists gained power over the people's labor, they have only expanded that power. They have no intention of ever surrendering this power. If you do not believe me, then think of the fact that newborn children are assigned Taxpayer Identification Numbers shortly after birth. Their right to free labor is denied at birth. Before the New Deal of the 1930's, social security numbers did not exist at all. A worker today cannot sell their labor to an employer without giving the employer the number that identifies their labor as the property of the political power; and the employer cannot buy the use of the labor of the worker without requiring the number from the worker. This strikes at the very core of a person's ability to earn a living. The Socialists have created a new slave beast and have marked all labor for consumption.
"And no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." Revelation 13:17
Wage taxation and wage garnishment have become commonplace and this power is enforced upon the people by statutory enactments and upheld by judicial decisions; but then this is the way slavery has always been - slavery in all its forms must have the authority of law behind it. Without the police power behind it, slavery can have no force. Today we are slaves to Socialist cannibals. They want power over people's labor so that they can fund their massive and expanding social programs, such as social security. They want to be able to pay all of the officers and employees of the expanding bureaucracy that compliments the process of socialism. They want to be able to force people to be "responsible," for example, through mandatory insurance schemes and child support orders. But what they do not want is to have the responsibilities of masters imposed upon them, so judges are placed in the courts to deny the existence of any form of slavery and to use whatever legal fictions that are necessary to give power over labor a legal appearance. A good example of this was when President Roosevelt was able to pack the Supreme Court in the late 1930's and early 1940's when old justices died and retired. Herbert Hoover gave a speech on Feb. 5, 1937 in New York City entitled "Packing the Supreme Court," in which he stated: "The Supreme Court has proved many of the New Deal proposals unconstitutional. Instead of the ample alternatives of the Constitution by which these proposals could be submitted to the people through constitutional amendment, it is now proposed to make changes by ‘packing' the Supreme Court. It has the implication of subordination of the court to the personal power of the Executive." (ADDRESSES ON THE AMERICAN ROAD, pg. 228)
One of President Roosevelt's Supreme Court appointments, Felix Frankfurter, was openly reported as a Socialist in the press 3 years before his appointment in 1939. (See: THE SATURDAY EVENING POST article entitled "In and Out," by George N. Peek, May 16, 1936 issue, pg. 5) Frankfurter, in an opinion he wrote in 1940 stated: "Fictions have played an important and sometimes fruitful part in the development of law...." NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. v BROWNING, 310 U.S. 362, 369. It was also Frankfurter, not long after he was appointed to the supreme bench, who wrote the opinion in O'MALLEY v WOODROUGH, 307 U.S. 277 (1939). This was the case that upheld income taxation upon the salaries of federal and state court judges. This was deliberate attack upon the independence of the judiciary and a violation of Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution. Even the press of the time could see that this decision would not have been possible if not for the new justices that Roosevelt appointed to the supreme bench. Under the heading "JUDICIARY" in the May 29, 1939 issue of TIME magazine, we read: "For the first time since age purged the U.S. Supreme Court for Franklin Roosevelt, his four appointees this week lined up to give the New Deal a victory which it could not have had otherwise."All prior Supreme Court decisions upheld the constitutional provision that allowed judges to receive a salary free from being diminished. It was a provision that was designed to help secure the judge's independence from the coercive influence of the political departments of government. In fact, in 1933, the Supreme Court decided O'DONOGHUE v. U.S.. This case upheld this provision of Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution.
"In a very early period of our history, it was said, in words as true today as they were then, that ‘if they [the people] value and wish to preserve their Constitution, they ought never to surrender the independence of their judges." O'DONOGHUE v U.S., 289 U.S. 516, 532
Using legal fiction to gain jurisdiction over persons when the Constitution denies jurisdiction is fruitful when it comes to claiming that all American workers are "taxpayers" withing the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code. Fiction is also fruitful when it comes to denying that taxing the workers' labor imposes the status of slavery. In other words, it only stands to reason that Socialists would embrace the use of legal fictions, for they want to exercise power over people without seeking the people's consent through constitutional amendment. If this is what is fruitful, then the fruit is rotten. Only ten years after the Constitutional Convention, the Supreme Court stated: "No court in America ever yet thought, nor, I hope, ever will, of acquiring jurisdiction by a fiction." MAXFEILD'S LESSEE v LEVY, 4 Dall 330, 334 (1797) All courts that exercise power over the labor of persons to despoil them of the fruits of their labor without seeking the person's consent are courts that use fiction of law to usurp jurisdiction since the Constitution forbids the exercise of this enslaving power by virtue of the 13th and 14th amendments; the exception being punishment for crime after conviction.
In 1939 the Congress rubber stamped the Public Salary Tax Act. This expanded the income tax to include the salaries and wages of all government officers and employees. This is absurd for it produces no additional revenue. How do you produce revenue by taxing tax money? The purpose behind this law is obvious. This law is for the purpose of making everyone think they have a legal duty to file and pay income tax on their labor, even if such taxation produces no revenue.
Slaves do not receive the equivalent for their labor, but only an allowance. Today, this allowance is called "take home pay," but the results are the same. The people in power have structured the laws to determine what portion of your labor they will take and what portion you can keep. Many people today who are trapped in the child support system have less that half of their labor left to live on after taxes and garnishment take their toll on their labor. This is not a practice that is deeply rooted in the common law of this nation. It is a practice that has been revived in recent times that used to exist in pre Civil War times in the Slave States where masters claimed the right to determine the allowance of their slaves.
A man named Friedrich A. Hayek wrote a book that was published in 1944 called THE ROAD TO SERFDOM. Mr. Hayek was an Austrian who immigrated to the United States and who was also in close contact with German intellectual life during the time period prior to and after the National Socialists came to power. In his book, which was condensed into Reader's Digest back then, he tried to warn people that the doctrines of socialism create a planned economy where a person basically becomes a number that represents dollars and cents. Before the New Deal workers received their pay in a pay envelope with no tax or garnishment deductions. Equality in liberty has gradually been replaced by equality in servitude as massive social programs have grown. Before the New Deal a worker's labor was free from income taxation and no numbers were a condition of employment. Today you must give your SSN before you can work and your allowance from labor is determined by law. The people initially fell for the scheme back in the 1930's thinking that wealth would be taxed to provide all the benefits, and labor would not be adversely affected. The tax on wages, pursuant to the original Social Security Act of 1935, was only supposed to start at 1% in 1937 and peak at 3% in 1949. Ironically, the Supreme Court has never passed on the constitutionality of taxing labor in any of its decisions since then.
The reality is that it finally turns out that labor becomes the primary source of money to pay all of the benefits to millions of recipients. As the number of beneficiaries grows, the tax servitude imposed upon the labor of workers must also increase. Hence, it only stands to reason that the right to free labor must, out of necessity, be destroyed for this type of system to function. Mr. Hayek's book was a warning, and the opening page indicates who the book was primarily intended for: "TO THE SOCIALISTS OF ALL PARTIES." We do not have a two party system in America. We have a one party system, the Socialist Party, and it has two branches; the Democratic sub-party and the Republican sub-party, as it were. Mr. Hayek concluded that the infusion of socialist doctrines in the political systems of his day would eventually lead to "many national socialisms, differing in detail, but all equally totalitarian, nationalistic, and in recurrent conflict with each other. The Germans would appear as the disturbers of peace, as they already do to some people, merely because they were the first to take the path along which all the others were ultimately to follow." (THE ROAD TO SERFDOM, Univ. Of Chicago Press, 1944, pg. 221) Germany's social legislation started back in the 1880's under Bismark. Bismark was looked up to for a long time after he died. Even Hitler looked up to him as a great leader. Think about this. Even though it can easily be proven that Franklin Roosevelt's campaign platform of 1932 turned out to basically be a great lie, is he not today looked up to by many people? Do not the history books hold him up as a great president? Do not the media and the press still hold him up as one of America's greatest presidents? Just as the German people were trapped in a process of gradual socialism in the decades leading up to the National Socialists under Hitler, so we are trapped in America today, and there is no indication that things are going to change course. Therefore, we can only expect that our servitude will continue to slowly increase with time.
It only makes sense that if we were tending towards National Socialism, that some of the ideals of this political philosophy would become evident in our system of government. Some of the ideals of National Socialism can be seen in studying books like Hitler's MEIN KAMPF and H.W. Koch's THE HITLER YOUTH.
We can see the principle of the Volk in our system by looking at how the labor of the workers of the nation has been nationalized by the central power in Washington, D.C.. The labor of each individual worker is identified by that worker's SSN, which today was assigned to him/her shortly after birth. A claim upon the future labor of a newborn child, by the way, is nothing new. It is simply the restoration of the old servile maxim partus sequitur ventrem. Its application is explained in the Dred Scott decision, and simply means that the offspring follows the servile condition of the biological parents. This deserves a more critical examination.
A social security card from 1950 states: "SOCIAL SECURITY ACT Account Number has been [number] established for [name of worker]." Then there is a place for the worker's signature. The back of the card states: "KEEP this card. SIGN it immediately. SHOW it to your employer. Mention the number in all letters about your account. If you loose this card apply for a duplicate, not a new number. Once a year you can get a statement of wages credited to your account. Get a form for this purpose from any Social Security Board Field Office. If you change your name notify the nearest Social Security Board Field Office immediately. WHEN YOU REACH THE AGE OF 65 OR DIE THE NEAREST SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD FIELD OFFICE SHOULD BE NOTIFIED AT ONCE."
Compare this to a social security card that is issued today: "SOCIAL SECURITY [number] This number has been established for [name of worker]." The back of the card states: "This card is the official verification of your Social Security number. Please sign it right away. Keep it in a safe place. Improper use of this card or number by anyone is punishable by fine, imprisonment or both. This card belongs to the Social Security Administration and you must return it if we ask for it."
The social security number was originally sold to the people as an account number. The portion of your wages that were taxed were supposed to go into an interest bearing account. In other words, the number was only to be used in the same capacity as a checking account or savings account number. Today, forms are given to parents in hospitals all over America that assign social security numbers to children after they are born. Since it is obvious that a newborn child does not have the capacity to labor and earn wages, it also becomes obvious that the number is no longer used simply as an account number. It identifies something of value, namely, HUMAN LABOR. In the case of the newborn child, the political power has laid claim upon the future labor of the child. The child is born into a servile condition and is therefore the fruit of the State. With this thought in mind, consider the following quote from the Dred Scott decision:
"If, in Missouri, the plaintiff were held to be a slave, the validity and operation of his contract of marriage must be denied. He can have no legal rights; of course, not those of a husband and father. And the same is true of his wife and children. The denial of his rights is a denial of theirs. So that, though lawfully married in the Territory, when they came out of it, into the State of Missouri, they were no longer husband and wife, and a child of that lawful marriage....is not the fruit of that marriage, nor the child of its father, but subject to the maxim partus sequitur ventrem." Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 393, 599-600
Assigning Taxpayer Identification Numbers to children shortly after birth is not part of this nation's common law heritage, it is a development of recent times since the New Deal of the 1930's. In fact, it is the restoration of a principle of law that existed in pre Civil War times that applied to slaves, where the servile condition of the biological parents pre-determines the servile condition of the child - partus sequitur ventrem. It should also be noted that the status of slavery bastardizes the institution of marriage. This makes the Family Court system a mockery of justice where enslavement and plunder enrich the elite few who control the system.
H.W. Koch was a member of the Hitler Youth and stated that the Volk was an ideal that the National Socialists embraced. The national community, be it religious or national, was the Volk. The individual could only realize his/her full potential only within the Volk. "Without his Volk the individual is nothing, any more than the Volk is anything without its state." (THE HITLER YOUTH, by H.W. Koch, Barnes & Noble Books, N.Y., 1975, pg. 4) The income tax has been used to nationalize labor. This was not the intent of Congress when the 16th amendment was ratified in 1913. The SSN has become essential to work and earn a living in this nation. Without his/her SSN the individual is nothing and cannot acquire any property. Hitler expounded upon this ideal. On page 91 of Hitler's MEIN KAMPF (Houghton Miffin Co., Boston, 1973) we can see the term "Volksgemeinschaft." This describes the national community, "especially those who form a working association in the service of the nation as a whole." Have not all workers in America been labeled as "taxpayers," in that all are looked upon as persons who must file and pay income tax on their labor? Do not many people today look with contempt upon those who refuse to file and pay income tax on their labor? Do not the religious leaders in the churches tell us that it is our duty as Christians to file and pay income tax on our labor? If your labor does not belong to you, are you free or slave? Were the people of Germany free or slaves when Hitler and the National Socialists were in power?
If the Constitution does not allow either the federal or state governments the power to directly tax the people's labor, thereby directing and receiving the fruits of the people's labor and imposing the status of slavery upon the people, then why have such a large portion of the people bowed down to this gross violation of their Constitution? Why have they chosen slavery over liberty? Why do many refuse to see the truth? This is another attribute of National Socialism; it is a principle called Gleichschaltung. Professor Hayek, in chapter 11 of his book THE ROAD TO SERFDOM, discusses the power of propaganda. Hitler, in his MEIN KAMPF, said that propaganda was a "true art" and a "powerful weapon in the hands of an expert." Chapter 11 of Hayek's book is entitled "The End of Truth," and it shows how propaganda can destroy a people's respect for the truth. Mr. Hayek stated "that all the instruments of propaganda are co- ordinated to influence the individual in the same direction and to produce the characteristic Gleichschaltung of all minds." (Pp. 153-54) This principle that applies to socialist propaganda can easily be seen every year when income tax time rolls around. All information presented to the public gives the people the impression that they have a legal duty to file and pay income tax on their labor, even though the Supreme Court, in its 1959 term, stated: "Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint." (See: Flora v. U.S., 362 U.S. 145, 176) Every year when tax time rolls around there is no mention that the income tax system is a voluntary system as applied to labor. We should not be so blind as to not see that the people who rule over us and the people who feed our minds know what they are doing and that what they are doing is in violation of the Constitution. Is it possible to reduce the people to a servile condition and at the same time make them think they are free? What a testament to the awesome power of propaganda.
Another thing we can see by studying the National Socialist when Hitler was in power were the thousands of suicides among the oppressed classes. Herbert Hoover, on page 34 of his book THE CHALLENGE TO LIBERTY stated that "economic oppression is servitude." To get a sense of the economic oppression that the National Socialists imposed upon the Jews consider what was done to the Jews in the Lodz ghetto of Poland under Nazi lord Arthur Greiser. In the Lodz ghetto the Jews provided labor at a set rate and their labor was subjected to an income tax rate of 65%, thus leaving them 35% of their labor to live on. (Source: THE NAZIS, by Laurence Rees, The New Press, N.Y., 1997, pg. 159) Child support guidelines in this country today sanction economic oppression of this very magnitude, where up to 65% of the worker's labor can be taken away by the force of law, and those who refuse to submit to the authority of these despotic tribunals that are called "Family Courts" are jailed without the right to a jury trial. I have seen paycheck stubs where workers are left with less than $100/week to live on after taxation and garnishment take their toll upon their labor. How is a person supposed to live on, say, $300- $400/month? You can't do it. As Adam Czernaikow put it in his July 8, 1941 diary entry: "When Galileo invented the telescope some monk would not look at the skies lest he catch sight of some star not foreseen by the Holy Scriptures. The same is true with the wage voucher of 2.80 zlotys. It is asserted that there is no such thing as inflation, only high prices. Nobody wants to consider the fact that the worker cannot survive on 2.80 zlotys." (THE WARSAW DIARY OF ADAM CZERNIAKOW, Ivan R. Dee, Chicago, 1999, pg. 256) Czerniakow was the Nazi sponsored mayor of the Warsaw ghetto and committed suicide on July 23, 1942. So we can see that the National Socialists were very calloused when it came to considering how their economic oppression affected the people whom they oppressed. Thousands of Jews committed suicide when the National Socialists were in power. It was the only way they could emancipate themselves from their slavery. The same is true today in the child support system, and it has been estimated that around 5000 men per year commit suicide as a direct result of the socialist oppression imposed by the divorce growth industry. This figure was estimated by David Roberts, President, American Coalition for Fathers and Children, in an article he sent out via email on March 23, 2001. In fact, Mr. Roberts pointed out that according to the "World Almanac 2000, page 892, you will find that there are about 30,000 suicides a year in the United States." A man who makes $10.75/hour recently told me about his experience with a lawyer during a consultation that his brother paid for so he could see what could be done about the fact that 57% of his labor was taken by taxes and child support. His brother paid the $100 consultation fee. The lawyer advised this man that the only way he could get out of paying the child support would be to go up to the 10th floor of the building he was in and jump off. In other words, either you figure out a way to live on $4.62/hour or kill yourself; and it cost this man's brother $100 for him to find this out. The calloused attitude of family court judges can further be seen by an excerpt from the August-September issue of the Catholic World Report, pages 54-58. The article was written by Stephen Baskerville, Professor of Political Science at Howard University.
"The judges' contempt for both fathers and constitutional rights was openly expressed by New Jersey municipal court judge Richard Russell. Speaking to his colleagues during a training seminar in 1994, he said: ‘Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you're violating. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, "See ya around." . . . We don't have to worry about their rights.'"
Much more could be added to the argument that we are indeed slaves to socialist cannibals. George Fitzhugh of Virginia, in his 1857 book entitled CANNIBALS ALL! - OR SLAVES WITHOUT MASTERS, could foresee the development of a system of government that enslaved people in a cannibalistic fashion should the institution of slavery of his day be destroyed, which it was after the Civil War. He has been vindicated. Labor has become a great feast in America and other countries. According to Fitzhugh, being a cannibal of labor is a highly respected position. He stated: "But you will find yourself in numerous and respectable company; for all good and respectable people are ‘Cannibals all' who do not labor, or who are successfully trying to live without labor, on the unrequited labor of other people: - Whilst low, bad, and disreputable people, are those who labor to support themselves, and to support said respectable people besides." (CANNIBALS ALL!, by George Fitzhugh, Harvard Univ. Press, reprinted in 1960, pg. 16)
It was Abraham Lincoln who said "free labor has the inspiration of hope." In the joint debates Lincoln had with Judge Stephen Douglas in 1858, he stated:
"That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles - right and wrong - throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. 'You toil and work and earn bread, and I'll eat it.' No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle." THE COMPLETE WORKS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, Vol. V, pg. 65
The people have given their labor to the Socialists so that they may conduct their massive social experiments and force what they perceive as "responsibility" upon the people. I suppose that they think that since they have taken the dollar off the gold standard back in the 1930's and flooded the economic system with paper money (fiat money), they can do anything they want with people. In reality, all that is happening is the restoration of the servile doctrines of old that applied to slaves, but the people who rule over us will not admit this. They want power over people's labor, but the responsibilities of masters they do not want imposed upon them. They do not want to have their wealth diminished by providing housing, clothing, food, medical care, support for the offspring of their slaves, pension in old age, and all the other duties that used to be imposed on physical masters. They do not want to first have to purchase the rights to our labor before they exploit it. And as Fitzhugh put it back in 1857: "We have no doubt of their sincere philanthropy, and as little doubt that they are only ‘paving hell with good intentions.'" (pg. 86)
In the very beginning of the Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Taney stated that "Declaration of Independence does not include slaves as part of the people." Why did he say this? Simple. Slaves have no inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They have no inalienable rights at all, but only have the privileges their masters give them in the statute books. Ask yourself a question: What inalienable rights do you have that the State respects today? After all of the research I have done, I am inclined to agree with Mr. Koch's conclusion of things taken from the final paragraph of his book THE HITLER YOUTH, where he stated:
"But then bondage is an unalterable condition, a fact of life, compared with which the right to the pursuit of happiness as a self-evident truth is no more than a piece of high-minded eighteenth- century nonsense." (Pg. 266)
We need to realize that the old common law that existed prior to the New Deal is dead. A new common law has developed since then. We will examine this next.