Posts Tagged ‘Social Security


Why outlaw milk in a free country?

rawmilkAs I get older I am constantly amazed that people in society believe that it is government’s job to take care of us and make everything safe for us. They want to take care of our finances via Social Security (that very well may be bankrupt). They want to take care of our bad business decisions via bailouts (that have usurped money and power from the people into corporate interests). They want to keep us safe via engaging every country that refuses to become our ally (only to create more animosity around te world). They want to make sure we are healthy via giving us all “free” health care (which as my momma always said, “nothing is ever free,” which in turn means that in the end Obamacare will cost us dearly). They want to make sure that we are all cognizant via outlawing drugs (even the ones that have little to no scientific negative evidence such as marijuana, while promoting the BigPharma medicine that kills more people every year than car accidents).

But the one that makes me the most furious is that they control what we can eat via the Federal Drug Administration. For centuries people have eaten raw food out of the ground and from local animals with little to no issue. Make no mistake about it, people have gotten sick from such food but then again… people have got sick from processed food as well.

For a “land of the free” it seems plausible to believe that it’s government would believe that people should do as they please to themselves regardless of whether it is good or bad. Although, that isn’t the case in America.

I’ve always been interested in American government and what laws meant and why they were created. For the first time in history America vested all powers in the people. The only thing that the government did was what the people ceded to them. Anything that was unable to do by a citizen to their neighbor was unable to be ceded to the government to regulate or manage.

For years this is how it was.

Then the government started creating powers to regulate and manage what the citizens never even had rights to do. Citizens didn’t have the right to legislate what their neighbors did unless it imposed on their property. Nobody in their right mind would tell their neighbor that they couldn’t eat a steak or eggs because that would be absurd and rude. However today we do just that through the FDA. The FDA dictates what we can and cannot eat “for the better of society.”

I was browsing the WhiteHouse.Gov petition site. A petition was signed by 25k people asking the government why it didn’t allow us to drink raw milk (unpasteurized). This was their answer.

By Doug McKalip

Thank you for signing a petition about legalizing raw milk and for participating in the We the People platform on We appreciate consumer concerns on food issues and understand the importance of letting consumers make their own food choices.

This Administration believes that food safety policy should be based on science. In this case, we support pasteurization to protect the safety of the milk supply because the health risks associated with raw milk are well documented.

Pasteurization of milk was adopted decades ago as a basic public health measure to kill dangerous bacteria and largely eliminate the risk of getting sick from one of the most important staples of the American diet. In 1987, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a regulation prohibiting the interstate sale of raw milk to reduce the number of illnesses and outbreaks associated with its consumption.

In recent years, some Americans have rejected pasteurization in favor of raw (or unpasteurized) milk, citing a range of taste, nutritional, and health benefits they believe are associated with raw milk consumption, as well as a general preference for unprocessed food.

As a science-based regulatory agency, the FDA looks to the scientific literature for information on benefits and risks associated with raw milk. While the nutritional and health benefits of raw milk consumption have not been scientifically substantiated, the health risks are clear. Since 1987, there have been 143 reported outbreaks of illness – some involving miscarriages, still births, kidney failure and deaths – associated with consumption of raw milk and raw milk products that were contaminated with pathogenic bacteria such as Listeria, Campylobacter, Salmonella, and E. coli. The FDA’s position on raw milk is in concert with the Center for Disease Control and the American Academy of Pediatricians.

The FDA does not regulate intrastate raw milk sales, or selling raw milk within a state, which is left up to the individual states. Today, 20 states explicitly prohibit the intrastate sale of raw milk in some form and 30 allow it. FDA bans interstate raw milk sales, or selling raw milk across state lines. The FDA has never taken, nor does it intend to take, enforcement action against an individual who purchases and transports raw milk across state lines solely for his or her own personal consumption.

Thank you for participating in this important process. We appreciate your opinions and look forward to hearing from you again soon.

Doug McKalip is Senior Policy Advisor for Rural Affairs in the White House Domestic Policy Council

Of course each state should be allowed the latitude to legalize (or not legalize) whatever they want. This is a right of a state. But why would the federal government not allow states to trade such an item such as raw milk? It seems ridiculous. But it really isn’t all that ridiculous because the FDA is a business – they control the market. It is no coincidence that the milk industry (the pasteurization type) lobbies the FDA vigorously. Why do you think the food pyramid is set up as it is even though there are studies that grains and pasteurized dairy is hard for our bodies to process?

I say, let us put what we want in our bodies. As an adult I should be afforded the ability to take chances as I see fit – one of them being raw milk.


Taxes: This or That

If someone came to you on Day 1 of your working life… or even now… what option would you choose?

Option 1:
The government will take out a small portion of your paycheck to help pay for services for you in the future (taxes). The services would include money for if you become unemployed, money for if you should you become disabled, and money for when you get old and want to retire (among other things, but let’s just go for these items).

Option 2:
The government does not take anything out of your paycheck (no taxes). If you fall on unfortunate times the government will not help you out – unemployed? Too bad. Disabled? Too bad. Want to retire? Hope you saved.

Option 1 offers you more of a safety net. However, Option 2 gives you more money up front to save, spend, and possibly invest and make more in the long run.

What would you pick?


Social Security and Medicare Taxes: Who is Subject?

Social Security and Medicare Taxes are taken out of our paychecks “because they have to.”

But do they?

This is from the Treasury Financial Manual (TFM), the Department of the Treasury’s “official publication for financial accounting and reporting of all receipts and disbursements of the Federal Government. Treasury’s Financial Management Service (FMS) issues the TFM to provide policies, procedures, and instructions for Federal departments and agencies, Federal Reserve Banks (FRBs), and other concerned parties to follow in carrying out their fiscal responsibilities.” (link)

4030.20—Employees Subject to Social Security and Medicare Taxes

Both Social Security and Medicare taxes are imposed on the following groups:

All Federal employees hired on or after January 1, 1984, including those with previous Federal service who have experienced a break in Federal service of 366 or more days.

All legislative branch employees not participating in the CSRS as of December 31, 1983.

All members of Congress, the President, and the Vice President.

All sitting Federal judges, executive level and noncareer appointees in the Senior Executive Service, and noncareer members of the Senior Foreign Service. (link)

Which one are you?


Social Insurance

“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be non the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor or to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.” – Edward Mandell House had this to say in a private meeting with Woodrow Wilson (President) [1913-1921]


Social Security Numbers: Mandatory Requirement?

Today anywhere we go we are asked to provide our Social Security Number (SSN), whether it be to open a bank account, to have a cell phone plan, to work, to go to school, to get a driver’s licence, etc. It seems that in many cases the number itself is more important than who we actually are. This is why identity fraud is rampant – we no longer need to provide who we really are, we only need to have a 9-digit number and bingo, we are someone else.

How is it that we come to get this number anyways though? Despite some conspiracy theories and maybe some sci-fi movies, I am pretty sure that I didn’t pop out of the womb and the doctor read the SSN off my neck.

Through my research it seems that we are generally given the number at birth by our parents when we are born. Reading from the Social Security Administration (SSA) webpage we read:

Must my child have a Social Security number?:  No. Getting a Social Security number for your newborn is voluntary. But, it is a good idea to get a number when your child is born. You can apply for a Social Security number for your baby when you apply for your baby’s birth certificate. The state agency that issues birth certificates will share your child’s information with us and we will mail the Social Security card to you. (link)

It seems pretty clear to me that one can be born in the United States of America – even a natural citizen – and not have to have a SSN. So why do we all have one and what is it used for? And who is telling us that we must have one?

The Social Security Act of 1935 (Pub. Law 74-271, August 14,1935, 49 Stat. 620; as amended; and is codified at 42 U.S.C. §§301.1399) is when it all started. I find it odd that the SSN is not that old. There are still plenty of people around today that never had SSNs until they applied for one. Weird, right? That’s right, people functioned prior to 1935 without SSNs.

The only place that I can find where the law mandates that one has a SSN is in 1943 with Executive Order 9397 by Franklin D Roosevelt. Executive Order 9397 reads: 

WHEREAS certain Federal agencies from time to time require in the administration of their activities a system of numerical identification of accounts of individual persons; and

WHEREAS some seventy million persons have heretofore been assigned account numbers pursuant to the Social Security Act; and

WHEREAS a large percentage of Federal employees have already been assigned account numbers pursuant to the Social Security Act; and

WHEREAS it is desirable in the interest of economy and orderly administration that the Federal Government move towards the use of a single, unduplicated numerical identification system of accounts and avoid the unnecessary establishment of additional systems:

NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, it is hereby
ordered as follows:

1. Hereafter any Federal department, establishment, or agency shall, whenever the head thereof finds it advisable to establish a new system of permanent account numbers pertaining to individual persons, utilize exclusively the Social Security Act account numbers assigned pursuant to Title 26, section 402.502 of the 1940 Supplement to the Code of Federal Regulations* and pursuant to paragraph 2 of this order.
2. The Social Security Board shall provide for the assignment of an account number to each person who is required by any Federal agency to have such a number but who has not previously been assigned such number by the Board. The Board may accomplish this purpose by (a) assigning such numbers to individual persons, (b) assigning blocks of numbers to Federal agencies for reassignment to individual persons, or (c) making such other arrangements for the assignment of numbers as it may deem appropriate.
3. The Social Security Board shall furnish, upon request of any Federal agency utilizing the numerical identification system of accounts provided for in this order, the account number pertaining to any person with whom such agency has an account or the name and other identifying data pertaining to any account number of any such person.
4. The Social Security Board and each Federal agency shall maintain the confidential character of information relating to individual persons obtained pursuant to the provisions of this order.
5. There shall be transferred to the Social Security Board, from time to time, such amounts as the Director of the Bureau of the Budget shall determine to be required for reimbursement by any Federal agency for the services rendered by the Board pursuant to the provisions of this order.
6. This order shall be published in the FEDERAL REGISTER. (link)

The important thing here to notice is the “WHEREAS” parts. The first one mentions Federal agency administration while the second, third, and fourth ones clarify that those individuals are Federal Employees and or the Federal Government. Nowhere does it mention that a private-corporation needs to have it’s workers provide SSNs nor does it mandate that Average Joe Citizen have a SSN (unless he is working at a Federal agency).

The SSA admitted this in a letter dated 18 March 1998 from Associate Commisioner Charles Mullen. In this letter the SSA states,

The Social Security Act does not require a person to have a Social Security number to live and work in the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one. However, if someone works without an SSN, we cannot properly credit the earning for the work performed. (link)

This clearly states that the Act does not require a person to have a SSN simply for the sake of having one unless they want to earn credits so they can be a part of the Social Security Insurance Program.

But why are our parents signing us up for an insurance program at birth? Well, as with many things it leads back to taxes. In 1986 the Tax Reform Act mandated that if you were claiming children as dependents on your tax return (to lower your taxes) they had to have SSNs (link). Of course to m this still raises the question of what exactly a SSN was used for originally. Originally it was used to give Federal employees a number and then later for anyone who wanted to participate in a Federal insurance program.

I think it is interesting when we dig into 5 USC § 552a, Records maintained on individuals. Section 552a(a)(13) reads,

the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits). (link)

I mention this because a “Federal person(nel)” is anyone who is (a) an officer of the Government of the United States, (b) an employee of the Government of the United States, (c) member of the uniformed services, or an individual entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States. Oddly enough this seems to encompass all Americans – I am not working for the government nor am I a soldier; however, under force I am expecting* to receive retirement benefits because my workplace is taking money out of my paycheck for SS.

* expecting: I do not desire to be in the retirement program and for that matter, I do not expect to get anything due to SS being bankrupt.

All this raises so many questions in my mind of what this entire SS program is all about. It seems by having a SSN I am automatically enrolled in this SS retirement/insurance plan and by proxy I am being classified as “Federal personnel.” What is more interesting is that government (employees) are bound by what the Code (U.S.C) is, which is versus a non-government citizen is not bound by Code but rather Regulations (C.F.R.).

Guess what the Tax Code is largely written in?

You guessed it, only Code. There are no implementing regulations for much of the tax laws.

But what if I don’t want to be a part of the SS retirement plan? While I was under 18 my parents gave me a SSN so they could claim me as a dependent on their taxes. However, now that I am over 18, can I release myself from the program? I would think that I could and should be.

Would my payor can me or would I be protected under 18 USC § 242,

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

or 42 USC § 1983,

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

I don’t know…

The system seems to be a vicious circle, but what I am sure of is this – I do not want to be a part of the SS retirement program. I am good with money and even if I was bad I am pretty sure that I would be better at it than my government.


How Do You Feel About a 103% Tax Hike?

Digg This I am not the biggest Glenn Beck fan. I think he is way off base sometimes and completely disagree with him. But, that is the beauty of being a human, right? You can be unique as you want to be, or try to xerox yourself…

With that said, sometimes Glenn Beck spits out some absolutely beautiful jems. Things that need to be said, addressed, and spread.

One thing that has been mentioned over the last decade but never talked about and definitely not addressed. In fact, many people think that it is some sort of fairytale. This issue is Social Security and how it is going to bankrupt our economy. BANKRUPT, people! There is no way around this unless we all start giving up a whole lot more of our paychecks.

Yes, we need $54 TRILLION dollars to finance Social Security for just the baby boomers. That means that we need to raise payroll taxes by 103% to cover that. Can you afford a 103% tax hike to cover this tab? If you can’t cover this type of hike, I hope that you (a) send this page to your friends (b) Digg this page and/or (c) write your Congressman. We need to get on this as soon as possible because, guess what, the baby boomers are already starting to draw their checks.

It doesn’t matter if you are an anarchist or a fascist, a Republican or a Democrat, a socialist or a conservative – you need to act…. no, you have to act. We all need to demand that this problem is addressed and fixed. At the very least, we need to demand that our politicians quit trying to bury the $%#@!$ truth from us like they always do. This is not a problem they can just continue to bury because it is a problem that is going to bury us.

Below is the video of Glenn Beck – Touching the Third Rail.


"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain