Date published: April 9, 2012
Journal code: NEAM
The Welfare State and Socialism
I would like to commend Brian Fanner on his piece in the January 23, 2012 issue of TNA, "The Welfare Stale Is Socialism in Disguise." It would have done well to add to the piece that the road to socialism in America started with the Social Security Act in 1935, and forced participation by working Americans.
As the author pointed out, this was, and still is, a violation of one's rights. However, Farmer misinterprets rights as "inalienable" when they are actually "unalienable." Inalienable rights can be surrendered by individuals (Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.); unalienable ones cannot be divested under any circumstance (Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1,523).
You can surrender, sell, or transfer inalienable rights by your consent, either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Case in point: When you buy a home and pay it off, you still do not own it outright, for you have abrogated your property rights to the county and state at the time of purchase by the taxes you have agreed to pay indefinitely.
You cannot surrender, sell, or transfer unalienable rights; they are gifts from the Creator to the individual and cannot under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. AH individuals have unalienable rights. This does mean everyone!
If we, the people, would hold fast to our "unalienable" rights, as documented in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, we, as sovereigns, would have nothing to fear from our government. Instead, it would be government that would fear us!
Sent via e-mail
Capitalism and Christianity
In Brian Farmer's "Capitalism, Socialism, & Christianity" (January 9 issue), it is not enough to simply call Marx a hypocrite for his condemnation of profits and the profit motive while at the same time making money from selling his books. Farmer should have demonstrated that Marx himself acknowledged his hypocritical behavior. Taking Marx's own statements could have demonstrated the alleged hypocrisy much better.
In Marx's October 16, 1851 letter to friend Joseph Weydemeyer in the United States, he commissioned his friend to publish one of the first editions of the Communist Manifesto in the United States. A point that should jump out to the astute reader of that letter is the discussion regarding the profits derived from the printing, distribution, and sale of the pamphlet.
It is thus somewhat ironic that the father of modern communism admits that people deserve to receive the profits of their labor.
DR. STAN VAUGHAN
Sent via e-mail
Reasoning Doesn't Work With Nuts
The words on the cover of THE NEW AMERICAN of February 20 are "Is It Nuts to Let Iran Go Nuclear?" The answer is "Yes."
If Iran, a nation that has referred to the United States as the Great Satan, develops an A-bomb, then it is certain that a nuclear blast will go off in Omaha or Kansas City - the center of the nation - for maximum psychological effect.
Charles Scaliger, in the article that is referenced on that issue's cover, says that an act of nuclear terrorism- against the United States is slight, given the likelihood of massive retaliation by the United States. But what if a madman comes to power?
A theocratic regime that values martyrdom, and believes in rewards for martyrs in the hereafter, is not likely to be deterred from violence by the threat of retaliation. Also, if an A-bomb goes off in America, who would know where it came from? It could come from China or North Korea - other nations with whom we have trouble.
Then there's Murphy's Law: Anything bad that can happen will happen.
GEORGE BERNARD VAN HAVEN
Send your letters to: THE NEW AMERICAN, P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54912. Or e-mail: email@example.com. Due to volume received, not all letters can be answered. Letters may be edited for space and clarity.