SOCIAL SECURITY--OFFICIAL EXTORTION
by Kirk Brothers
CLICK HERE to return to Index
INTRODUCTION It is obvious to anyone with the brains of a box of rocks that America is in a state of crisis of "nuclear" nature, and is rapidly approaching the point of critical mass. By "nuclear" we mean a crisis that goes to the core, root, or nucleus as its cause--not a minor problem based upon peri- pheral and/or irrelevant issues. If one, either optimistically or sophistically, maintains that the evidence of a crisis is not yet clear, consider for a moment the sobering fact that in the last Presidential election, less than forty-nine percent of the electorate bothered to vote. How significant is this fact? Well, before the election, Clinton campaign aides were talking in enthusiastic tones about a "landslide" victory of a sixty-percent majority. Let as assume, for the sake of argument, that Clinton did, in fact, win sixty percent of the votes cast. Sixty percent of less than forty-nine percent means that, in fact, he was supported by less than thirty percent of the American people. A full seventy percent, propor- tional to the votes actually cast, found Clinton so lacking in leadership that they failed to vote for him. Dole's humiliating defeat becomes more pronounced if it is borne in mind that he won the support of only forty percent of less than forty-nine percent--or less than twenty percent of eligible voters. In short, roughly three out of four voters as a whole rejected both the Democratic and Republican platforms and candidates alike. The fact of this record-low turnout by voters cannot be ignored by any thinking person as being trivial or irrelevant. Leaders of both parties, however, naturally prefer to gloss over harsh realities--including public sentiments expressed before the election, which clearly showed widespread hatred for our present political choices. One well-known Hollywood actor commented that choosing between Dole and Clinton was like choosing between being kicked or gouged. His remarks were not an isolated example--one highly respected news commentator, when the final results were known, expressed his vie that Clinton was a bore without a creative bone in his body, who will give us four more years of God-damned nonsense. The newsman later apologized to Clinton, presumably under coercion to do so (which will be hotly denied)--in itself is a significant fact of the political realities of our time, here in the land of the free. WHAT IS THE REVOLUTIONARY RIGHT? The phrase was coined in the hope that it might become a rallying cry for Libertarians who believe that it is time that we, the People of the United States, in order to form a more per- fect union, establish justice, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, must get our Oedipal- incestuous government off our backs (we use the compound adjective in its complimentary sense). THE REVOLUTIONARY RIGHT accepts as a given that Americans have a historical mission to perform in demanding--by force if necessary--broad, genuine, and incorruptible reconstruction of the slimy and stinking cesspool of American politics. The name is derived from Lincoln's first inaugural address: "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or THEir REVOLUTIONARY RIGHT to dis- member or overthrow it." If the great Republican's rhetoric sounds radical to modern ears, consider the words of the great Democrat, Thomas Jefferson, in letters to (a) James Madison and (b) William Smith: (a) "I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary to the political world as storms to the physical." (b) "What country ever before existed a century and a half with- out a rebellion?...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants." THE REVOLUTIONARY RIGHT is forced to the unhappy conclusion that our government at all levels is unspeakably corrupted by partisan politics--that our bureaucracy becomes more and more intrusive and coercive with every passing year--and that our Courts, AS WE SHALL PROVE, knowingly and maliciously subvert clearly-written Constitutional rights to a Judge's personal theories of political correctness. We hold that the American people feel betrayed and exploited by bureaucracy running amok--and the people are correct. We be- lieve that the United States is headed for civil war in the next 20 years if our politicians do not wake up, smell the coffee, and take drastic corrective action immediately. We hold that the existence of organized armed militias, and an inevitable clandestine fringe of terrorists with bombs--plus the various incidents of bloody confrontation between sincere political dissidents and a power structure which WE SHALL PROVE IS UNBRIDLED TYRANNY--are setting the stage for bloodshed on a massive scale, unless our nation's drift toward Big Brother socialism is decisively halted by sane and responsible leaders. America has become a travesty of the ideals we were taught in childhood--only to learn that, in the adult world, our elected and appointed officials hold all ideals in contempt, to satiate their rapacious drive for power. We advocate heading off the violence that must otherwise erupt in a few short decades at the most, by taking an orderly series of steps to drastically revise the Constitution of 1787. For obvious reasons of self-serving expediency, any such sane and modest proposals will be hotly rejected by our leaders, who expend much energy, and considerable ingenuity (translation: shyster tactics of half-truths and whole lies), in trying to pin the blame on everyone but themselves and their own parties. WHO IS TO BLAME? It is regrettable, but apparently true, that most Americans are either too stupid or too lazy (or both) to even read--much less seriously study--history and, as Santayana said, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. But one thing should be clear to even the most ignorant American--every- thing that exists must have a cause, and the dismal condition of American social and political life did not spring into life spontaneously. It is a direct result of prior political causes. Unfortunately, because most Americans cannot relate to things that happened before they were born, they tend to blame today's problems on a politician's speech last month, or a law passed last year, or a veto by the most recent President of the opposite political party. But if we are to pin responsibility for the degradation of our nation's great promise upon the one true culprit, we must go back more than sixty years, to the election of our thirty-second President, Franklin D. Roosevelt. We of THE REVOLUTIONARY RIGHT make no bones about the truth: the appalling state of American political and social life must be laid on the doorstep of the man long buried with honors and exalted--if not almost deified--in his memorial in Warm Springs, Georgia. We will show that FDR's legacy was a curse upon the United States in the form of an insidious, pernicious and debilitating, if not evil, social and political philosophy. THE LEGACY OF THE NEW DEAL FDR, to give him credit for sincerity, had the very best of good intentions, with which the road to hell is paved. He was an idealistic pipe-dreamer with Socialist leanings, and gifted with oratorical talent that could sell you the paint off your own walls. He combined charisma with his own version of Norman Vincent Peale's power of wishful thinking and denial of reality, with deadly consequences upon our nation's fiscal integrity and acceptance of individual responsibility. If this seems an overly broad condemnation, let us be a bit more precise. Roosevelt apparently never learned--or cared about knowing-- any of the basic hard facts of economics, such as: 1) you cannot get something for nothing--nothing is free; 2) you cannot get rich by borrowing spending money; 3) you cannot balance the books by writing a staggering sum in red ink and saying, "and that's the deficit". FDR's denial of reality apparently blinded him to the fact that we are NOT, as he said, "merely borrowing money from our- selves". For more than a half century our lying and cheating politicians in Washington have been borrowing from future generations--taxation clearly without representation--running up a bill that our posterity will never be able to pay. The inexorable laws of mathematics are already catching up with Social Security and Medicare. Mathematics, and other laws of nature, were ignored by FDR and his flunky Congresses, who passed a series of social reforms based upon the sentimentality of Charles Dickens' Victorian novels and the morality of the legendary Robin Hood. Robin Hood may have robbed the rich to give to the poor, but nobody audited Robin Hood's books. Roosevelt pooh-poohed the inescapable consequences of uncurbed deficit financing, saying that "we have nothing to fear but fear itself"--the "big lie" technique expounded in Nazi Germany by Propaganda Minister Goebbels. In fact, our nation has been fiscally and morally bankrupt for a half-century as part of FDR's legacy, and our political and social ills are merely Roosevelt's Socialist chickens coming home to roost. Again let us be a bit more precise. Roosevelt called himself a liberal. He was not--nor are his many adulating defenders. Voltaire was a true liberal--he once wrote, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Today's so-called liberals' motto appears to be, "I disagree with what you say, so shut up." The long-range effects of FDR's misguided, but politically successful, economic policies were foretold by Spengler in DECLINE OF THE WEST, and the ultimate consequences of Socialism in general were depicted in chilling fictional tones in Orwell's prophetic novel, 1984. Try to remember one of the principles of Big Brother's brain-washing dictatorship. In the novel, the use of traditional words with traditional (realistic) meanings was prohibited in favor of "Newspeak"--the foundation for "political correctness" --in which unpleasant truths were sugar-coated (a subtle form of denial of reality) to make Big Brother and his henchmen look benevolent. What evidence of "Newspeak" do we see in our lives every day? Here are just two examples. 1) It is politically incorrect to use any word that implies a gender--such as actress, waitress or, in the masculine sense, chairman. An actress has become an actor, and both waiters and waitresses (you know the difference when these traditional terms are used) are both known as "servers" but not the traditional "servants", which implies an inferior status. The taboo against "chairman" (the "correct" term is now "chairperson") is an illustrative example of feminist activism carried to the heights of inanity. These women (and some men) appear to have never learned that "man" is a biological class which includes both genders. Just as felines and canines are commonly known as cats and dogs of both sexes, homo sapiens is in common parlance quite properly known as "man" of both sexes. "Chairmen" of all-female organizations for generations saw no indignity or incongruity in being addressed as "Madame Chairman." Given time enough, the words "man" and "woman" might themselves become taboo, replaced by "person" and "woperson" (a bit of persiflage). Will the day come when the navies of the world have a rank of "Yeoperson", and foundries cast steel "personhole covers"? This is Newspeak with a vengeance, and it is the language now taught in schools as being "correct". It is also arbitrary, con- trived, and utter nonsense. 2) It is politically incorrect to use any word that implies that a person to whom it refers is inferior in any way. Therefore, handicapped persons become "challenged," and mentally retarded children become "special". In another more insidious application, welfare RECIPIENTS have now become welfare CLIENTS--a total misapplication of that traditional term. A client in fact is someone who PAYS for services rendered--not one who is paid as an act of charity (oops! maybe "charity" is no longer correct). An inevitable consequence of shifting one's thinking away from the reality of individual NON-equality (the traditional realistic use of language) is that an individual who refuses to conform to even the most basic societal norms of behavior becomes "troubled", and it is implied that somehow society has "failed" in its "duty" to help each and every person achieve lofty goals which are tacitly (no matter how ludicrously) presumed to inspire each and every citizen. The liberal virtue of tolerance has degenerated into the vice of permissiveness. Therefore, murderers are routinely characterized by their lawyers as being somhow misunderstood victims, and not simply evil. So-called "bleeding heart" newspersons (often of the female variety) play up the emotional--especially the tragic-- element in stories of crime and criminals. The result is that most Americans have lost whatever respect they had for self- reliance, or willingness to accept a responsibility for every right--the principles upon which our forebears created our nation two centuries ago. Why is FDR to be held at least partially accountable for this degradation of moral fiber? Simply because acceptance of his Socialistic ideal of cradle-to-grave economic security makes people too lazy to create their own security--insofar as security might be attainable. FDR attempted to institutionalize charity as a legitimate aim of government, and the keystone of his presidency was undeniably the Social Security Act. WE SHALL NOW PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that Social Security violates the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of 1787. Our proof is in the form of a legal argument, or Memo- randum of Law, and we respectfully challenge each and every reader to find even the slightest error in our logic and/or stare decisis. QUESTION ASKED Does enforcement of the Social Security Act deprive a person of property without due process of law? SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Amendment V of the Constitution of the United States mandates that no American shall be deprived of property without due process of law. It will be shown that: a) the Social Security Act, in its entirety, comprises a coercive contract within the meaning of UNITED STATES V BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1, (1935); b) by definition of terms, enforcement of a coercive contract comprises the crime of extortion; c) therefore enforcement of the Social Security Act comprises, in effect, the crime of extortion by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and deprives every taxpayer of money (a form of property) without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. AUTHORITIES CITED U.S. Constitution, Amendment V Clarke v Commissioner, 1957 TCt 861 United States v Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1935) Helvering v Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1936) Steward Machine Co. v Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1936) United States v Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982) ARGUMENT Social Security is a scheme of bilateral and unilateral financial transactions between taxpayers and government. Such transactions imply Common Law contractual relationships which are subject to the inviolable rule that each and every lawful contract must be consensual. Social Security tax is collected simultaneously with Income Tax, using one tax-return form, but the two taxes may not be merged. The Tax Court ruled in CLARKE V COMMISSIONER that Social Security tax is not part of Income Tax, but part of a separate revenue raised to finance benefits paid under the Social Security Act. Therefore, Income Tax per se has Constitutional authority under Amendment XVI, while Social Security Tax has only statutory authority, as the financing portion of a specific "tax and spend" legislative act. But participation in Social Security is compulsory. There- fore, if Social Security be a contract, it is also a coercive one by virtue of its compulsory nature. Most Social Security transactions are bilateral, and most beneficiaries are retired pensioners who had paid taxes into the funds for years in order to receive their benefits. U.S. V BUTLER concerned the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), a New Deal program which preceded the Social Security Act. In finding the AAA unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled: "There is an OBVIOUS [emphasis supplied] difference between a statute stating the conditions upon which moneys shall be expended, and one effective only upon the assumption of a contractual obligation to submit to a regulation, which otherwise could not be enforced." (297 U.S. 3, #17) Thus, the fact that most transactions are bilateral, the fact that benefits vary, and are calculated so as to reflect the amount of tax paid by each beneficiary, the fact that each beneficiary is assigned a unique numbered account to record the tax paid and benefits due, and the fact that the government has committed itself to pay such benefits, lead inescapably to one conclusion: that the bilateral transactions of Social Security comprise an implied de facto contract. The government is obviously the offeror, the taxpayer the offeree, and the moneys exchanged comprise mutual consideration. The one element missing for a valid contract is consensuality. It is obvious that taxpayers may not compel the government to pay retirement benefits: the government, in the text of the Social Security Act, has de facto assumed a contractual obligation to do so. The tax paid and benefits received by bilateral participants are linked by cause and effect, and not merely a fortuitous coincidence of taxing and spending. The cause/effect relationship between tax and benefits clearly proves the fact of mutual consideration. However, some Social Security transactions are unilateral: some beneficiaries are younger than normal retirement age, and perhaps have never made any payments into the funds. It might be suggested that unilateral transactions of Social Security are non-contractual because the element of mutual consideration is absent. The definitive answer may be found in BUTLER, in which the Supreme Court rejected the tax-and-spend argument as a defense of the AAA program. The AAA was a scheme intended to raise the price of farm products by reducing agricultural production. All AAA trans- actions were unilateral: from wholesale grocers to government in the taxing and from government to farmers in the spending. Butler was a grocer who was taxed on produce he handled in order to pay farmers not to grow crops. Butler raised a Tenth Amendment question of abuse of legislative powers, which the government defended as a proper exercise of Constitutional powers to tax and spend under the "general welfare" phrase of ARTICLE I, #8. The Supreme Court ruled that the AAA was an unconstitutional abuse of the power to tax, on multiple counts, and an abuse of the power to spend, also on multiple counts. In specific reference to the tax portion of the AAA, the Supreme Court wrote: "A tax...is an exaction for the support of the government; the term does not connote the expropriation of money from one group to be expended for another." (297 U.S. 1, #2) "...the phrase, 'to provide for the general welfare,' is not an independent provision authorizing Congress to enact wel- fare statutes, but is a qualification defining and limiting the power 'to lay and collect taxes,' etc." (297 U.S. 2, #13) It is self-evident that the above points apply word for word to the Social Security tax as well as to the AAA tax. In addressing the AAA spending program, the Supreme Court ruled that the AAA established an implied contract with farmers to comply with AAA regulations. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the payments to farmers comprised a form of coercion--in plain words a bribe--to induce compliance with the contract implied by the transactions, so that a farmer's apparent freedom of choice was illusory. "There is an obvious difference between a statute stating the conditions upon which moneys shall be expended, and one effective only upon the assumption of a contractual obliga- tion to submit to a regulation, which otherwise could not be enforced." (297 U.S. 3, #17) "The tax, the appropriation of the funds raised and the directions for their disbursement, are but parts of a plan --the means to an unconstitutional end....The regulation of the farmer's activities...is in fact coercion." (297 U.S. 3) Therefore it has been shown that the Social Security Act, including both bilateral and unilateral transacions, is a coercive contract within the meaning of U.S. V BUTLER. It is well known that in several cases subsequent to BUTLER, the Supreme Court denied challenges to the Social Security Act-- but it must be noted that in each and every such case, the question before the Court failed to focus on the Common Law of Contracts and the meaning of BUTLER in the context of the Fifth Amendment rather than the Tenth. The three most commonly-cited precedents in defense of the Social Security Act are as follow: Helvering v Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1936) Steward Machine Co. v Davis 301 U.S. 548 (1936) United States v Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982) In NONE of these major decisions (nor 16 other minor cases which are often cited by government lawyers) did the Supreme Court state that a tax is NOT necessarily an exaction for the support of the government, and that the term MAY connote the expropriation of money from persons who HAVE earned it, in order to give money to persons who have NOT earned it. Furthermore, in NONE of these cases did the Supreme Court hold that the "general welfare" phrase of ARTICLE I, #8, PERMITS forcible redistribution of wealth in compliance with some *unproved economic theory and/or vague moral philosophy. In addition, in NONE of thse cases did the Supreme Court declare that, while regulation of a farmer's [economic] activity is, in fact, coercion, regulation of a NON-farmer's economic activity is, in fact, NOT coercion. And finally, in NONE of these cases did the Supreme Court affirm that it is permissible for the government to bribe any citizen to obey any law. BUTLER implies the obvious: that valid laws are enforceable absent any contractual obligation to obey them. Would any District Attorney dream of paying a felon not to rob a bank? Thus the question raised herein is apparently novel, but is not without precedent, and the merits of argument herein are clear. It will now be shown that the present argument is, in fact, unanswerable. Proof of this point is to be found in a single word in BUTLER which has been twice cited, namely: "There is an OBVIOUS [emphasis supplied] difference between a statute stating the conditions..." etc. (297 U.S. 3, #17) First, because Supreme Court opinions are not written for a popular audience, but for persons practicing law, it must be inferred that an implied contract is OBVIOUS to each and every member of the legal profession. Second, because the Common Law of Contracts is tacitly pre- sumed by the Supreme Court to be OBVIOUS to every lawyer, it fol- lows that an implied contract is identifiable as such prima facie. Thus, any argument to the effect that the contractual nature of Social Security is unclear must be rejected. Contracts must be presumed to be a fundamental part of every lawyer's special knowledge, because the Supreme Court has ruled that implied contracts are OBVIOUS. Therefore it may not be denied that bilateral transactions of Social Security comprise implied de facto contracts; unilateral transactions comprise implied de jure contracts; and all such contracts are de jure coercive. Enforcement of a coercive contract comprises the crime of extortion. The crime of extortion by government officials is a blatant denial of due process. Therefore it is shown that Social Security is unconstitutional as applied, because enforcement infringes Fifth Amendment rights of property and due process. Q.E.D. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * If you are distressed at the possibility of a Court test of our argument--fear not! There will be no successful challenge to Social Security, no matter how many concerned Americans might unite in a class action to force the issue. Why not? Because, based upon our indisputable proof that Social Security is unconstitutional, WE SHALL NOW PROVE by the standard of probable cause that Judges routinely suppress Consti- tutional rights in order to favor partisan political theories, and maintain the corrupt status quo. Our proof consists of damning excerpts from documents suppressed by District and Circuit Courts, showing OUTRIGHT LIES BY JUDGES when asked to rule on our Social Security Memorandum of Law. It will be a revelation that our judges, politicians, and news media don't want you to see.