Theism.net Options: home | articles | books | search | webmaster
.gif){kind=small}
e-mail:
j
The
Effect on
What is the effect on
· · Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers [Administrations], too plainly proves a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery.
Thomas Jefferson 1
In contrast to Swindall and
·
· 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc.
The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx
Some Americans claim some Marxist ideals are
not so bad. These individuals overlook, that though
such ideas sound ideal, the former
Does the
One conservative economist, educated in the
late 1960s and early 1970s, surprised me when I asked how he escaped the usual
socialist, one-world view in his humanistic education. "I
didn’t," he replied. "I used to be a social liberal, but five
years ago I took a three-week trip to
Pat Swindall proved himself a politician who honored the U. S. Constitution he swore to uphold. For instance, even as a radio talk show host, he advocated a national sales tax as an alternative to the unconstitutional, communistic "heavy graduated income tax."
How many Americans feel they truly own their lives, homes and property? How many feel they are at liberty to do with them as they please? Before forming an opinion about Swindall’s politics, one should consider the following:
Communist Plank similarities in
Plank 1. Property tax in itself deprives "property owners" of any true liberty over their land. Even in times of hardship a property owner should not fear losing the property to government over money. (Mortgagors are another issue, for the property owner enters voluntarily into the relationship with the mortgagor.) Add city, county, state, and federal ordinances to the scenario, and perhaps the term "property owner" is most accurately defined as "live-in maintenance personnel for The Authorities."
Plank 2. Opponents to this highly unconstitutional totalitarian act of 1913 feared that, if enacted, the U. S. Government would abuse that power to eventually impose an astronomical rate of 10%. Well, the good ol’ days of 10% are decades behind. What percentage of your income did you dole out last April 15th?
Plank 3. Assume you have managed to win the struggle for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You gave the authorities close to half of your income throughout your lifetime. You paid "your" property taxes. Now the time comes for you to move on to the ECF (Eternal Care Facility). Not to worry; you have ensured the well being of your progeny and their progeny. Now that you have passed on, they will enjoy your bequeathed gains. Not necessarily. Can they afford the inheritance tax? Many Americans cannot. Again, not to worry, the IRS will be willing to keep the property in lieu of the tax.
Plank 4. Case histories exist too lengthy for this publication. However, the big-government-protection-loving skeptic may wish to consider this scenario. A casual drug user ("User") rents a home. User stashes his "stuff" in various places, for example, a power socket. User’s memory is not what it used to be before the marriage when User’s maiden name remained "Clean." User forgets about one of the little baggies of powder. User later moves on to a land richer in milk, honey, and purer cocaine. Mr. Property Owner decides renting out his home provides excessive challenges, so he sells the home to Mr. and Mrs. Straightnarrow, who do not even know the color of cocaine. While remodeling, the Straightnarrows hire Ms. Electrician. Ms. Electrician discovers User’s stash and imagines how much more these "detestable dealers" have stashed. Ms. Electrician, being a concerned citizen, opts to inform "The Authorities." They raid the Straightnarrow’s home, find the baggy, arrest them, and confiscate their property. Those who think these invaders announce their unwelcome arrival civilly are deceived. It is not a matter of a knock on their door and presentation of a search warrant. Instead, "The Authorities" kick open the doors and shoot the pets and any human pointing a gun in the direction of the invaders (the Straightnarrows think the house is being invaded by traditional criminals). In the American constitutional republic of 1787 this would be an unfortunate circumstance at worst. 2 It would not be the end of life as the Straightnarrows knew it; for with no criminal history, a presumption of innocence, a right to know their accuser, a reasonable bail or release on their Own Recognizance (OR), and speedy trial, the matter would be resolved and the Straightnarrows would regain their straight and narrow reputation.
Not so in 1990’s
The complacent skeptic would be wise to study the findings of the Drug Policy Foundation. 3 This is not to claim Swindall is a proponent of re-legalizing drugs. He is not. However, he should re-examine that position.
The foundation exposes the injustices
resulting from the unconstitutional power granted "law enforcement
agencies." Many persons apparently think advocates of re-legalizing drugs
are themselves drug users. Do these foundation leaders actually snort powder or
shoot up heroin with one hand and petition
Plank 5. Congress unconstitutionally enacted the Federal
Reserve Board in 1913. The U. S. Constitution requires Congress (only Congress)
to "coin and print money and regulate the value thereof." Congress
enjoys no liberty of delegating that authority to any other entity. What
happened? On Christmas Eve of 1913 "a majority of a quorum of The
House" met and passed the Federal Reserve Act. The result: private bankers
began the printing process. Henceforth this private
(understood by many Americans to be a governmental entity) enterprise has
printed
Moderate scrutiny will reveal that the income tax collected from hard-working Americans is actually used to pay merely a portion of the interest on the national debt before one nickel finds its way to the "services" Americans think their tax dollars provide. The middlemen on the Federal Reserve Board pocket these revenues. To quote Ronald Reagan’s 1984 Grace Commission Report:
· · 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt and by Federal transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government. 4
One chilling claim is that
· · I believe the banking institutions, having the issuing power of money, are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson 1
In 1829, President Andrew Jackson vetoed the
Second Bank of the
· · The bold efforts that the present bank has made to control the government and the distress it has wantonly caused, are but premonitions of the fate which awaits the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it [Federal Reserve Board?]...If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system there would be a revolution before morning! 4
Plank 6. American radio, television, and telephone communications are all regulated by government agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which currently attempts regulation of the Internet.
Plank 7. Although the U. S. Government is not the deed holder of all American land, commercial landowners quickly learn the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) dictates usage.
Plank 8. Feminists understood The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to offer women equal employment opportunities. However, the Equal Employment Act of 1972 had already secured them such rights. Imagine their shock when many proponents of the ERA, living in states which have an ERA in their constitutions, discovered that "equal rights" actually meant equal obligation to alimony claims by male spouses on female spouses; equal child support payments to former male spouses who maintained child custody; and equal liability to physically match males on job duties without regard to size or stamina, etc. This is not to say such changes are positive or negative. However, the reality of the ERA differed dramatically from its promises.
Plank 9. Thanks again for the EPA and taxpayer funded farm subsidies.
Plank 10. Taxpayers fund indoctrination of the nation’s youth. If you are an atheist, the government could force you to fund Christian indoctrination of your children. Or, as is currently in place, vice versa. If you are a liberal, government could, against your will, indoctrinate your children into constitutional republicanism. Or, as is currently in place, vice versa.
Did "liberal" Americans knowingly,
willingly, and intentionally choose the current socialistic philosophies that
conform to The Communist Manifesto in
Tell many Americans our country has possibly
been infiltrated by communists presenting socialistic ideals in the name of
"liberalism," and they will most likely brand you a
fanatic-extremist-deluded paranoid. Yet often, the same individuals express a
lack of desire to participate in general elections because "all candidates
are liars, crooks and cheats." However, share with them claims made by the
John Birch Society that communists are taking over
Senator Joseph McCarthy died a broken,
disgraced, and defamed alcoholic after naming and accusing high-level
established politicians as communists.
Was the media merely mistaken? In Battle for the Mind, LaHaye addresses American media. He presents a strong case that our nation’s mainstream media, film producers, and network television stations have humanist roots. He demonstrates Humanists and Communists are closely aligned, even intertwined, allies. He also illuminates the fact nearly all newspapers, though privately owned, rely on either United Press International (UP) or Associated Press (AP) to provide news coverage for them on national and worldwide events. The skeptic should check local newspapers to tally the UP and AP articles covering national and worldwide events. Merely one editor could propagate the same misleading ideas as a group of independent writers. A major conspiracy need not require the massive number of co-conspirators at which skeptics scoff. Yet only a few are needed if the conspirators are strategically located.
Had McCarthy been accurate, probably even he had no idea how much power the opposing forces wielded. Though no McCarthy, could it be Pat Swindall proved too true to his conviction to uphold the U. S. Constitution (to which he swore allegiance) for the establishment’s agenda?
The big-government, compassionate, complacent, constitutionally unaware, socialistic liberal may (and often does) argue "So what? What if we have been socialized? It is probably a good thing. The U. S. Constitution is obviously flawed, for it overlooks the needy. Someone has to care for them. If not the government, who?"
Swindall related a story of a woman who phoned him late one evening. He described her emotional state as "frantic." The IRS had enacted a garnishment on her meager wages for a previous tax debt (incurred through her husband’s abandonment of her and their children). He had successfully evaded his court-imposed financial obligation to his children. After deliberating, she decided it would be more advantageous to go on the public dole (welfare, food stamps, and various other government entitlements) than not. Certain she miscalculated, he attempted dissuading her. However, he assured her he would look into it. He did. He discovered that via the Aid for Families with Dependent Children program, food stamps, Medicaid benefits, public housing subsidies, and school lunch subsidies, she could quit working and receive welfare benefits totaling a $48.00 annual profit.
What is the taproot of
Consider the lady in the previous illustration. Even if the poverty rate today plummeted to a mere 1%, would she or society really need to trade her respectable, dignified role modeling to her children of working for a living for dependency on taxpayers? Of course not. At worst, merely supplementing her income would be far less expensive for taxpayers and far less degrading to her and her children.
A better solution, however, is Swindall’s. He again values a "return to the real thing" via the Constitution, preventing the federal government from assuming unconstitutional programs which "demise" the American workers and their families. The Founders placed that responsibility on private institutions such as churches, synagogues, and other private associations, recognizing their effectiveness. Unconstitutional government programs have failed miserably to eliminate the poor. Pat reminds us:
· · The Founders understood further that the key to
economic prosperity and freedom in the
Volunteerism versus Government Aid
A Case in Point
Vickie L. Patterson, Ph.D. (Community Psychologist, Gerontologist), completed a study entitled Meals-on-Wheels: Historical Development and Current Issues (1995) while a doctoral student. Her study revealed:
·
· In 1955 private U. S. organizations began their first
home-delivered meals programs in
Volunteers mistakenly interpreted the amendments to mean federal funding for their programs. Instead, they became subject to federal regulations so voluminous and ambiguous they lacked the resources to comply.
Dr. Patterson concluded that the federal government never provided the necessary funds to realize the OAA mandates. Further, logistical and political issues plagued the programs, and regulations imposed on the industry left "volunteers trapped between the Scylla of governmental regulations and the Charybdis of insufficient private contributions" (Patterson, 1995, p. 9). Again, government failed to fix the unbroken.
If only Americans had a government big, strong, and able to protect them from believers of big government!
More on Volunteerism:
Many conservatives would support an outright abolition of all governmental aid programs on understandable grounds of unconstitutionality. However, not only would havoc ensue in the populace, but catastrophic results would also affect legitimate (truly needy, not fraudulent) recipients of the benefits. Consider that issues not specifically delineated in the Constitution are issues for the states or the people to resolve. Therefore, volunteer programs voted in by the citizenry and managed by a state (with a state constitution permitting) would be constitutional.
By stretching the imagination, assume a state could (withhold laughter) devise a cost efficient program. Using the welfare lady presented earlier as an example, she could continue earning her approximate $14,000 income while the state supplemented her income by even a mere $2,000. This amount would not require federal funds acquired at gunpoint (tax collection). Voluntary contributors could and would pay the state via a separate lottery, an added dollar or two on an income tax form, or an added dollar at driver’s license and automobile tag renewal, etc. Many state citizens would contribute such dollars if not "taxed to death already." Also, many private businesses would offer, as in the past, matching funds. The meals-on wheels program need be no different. On a state level, volunteer citizens would provide extra non-mandatory dollars to meals-on-wheels programs.
Why does government oppose such solutions? It loses control over the lives of the benefactors.
e-mail:
j
Theism.net Options: home | articles | books | search | webmaster