Symbol for the Nazi version of the USDA (Department of Agriculture)
Identical to the example illustrated and described in
Angolia's Labor Organizations of the Reich, page 50.
END THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) AND SOCIALISM IN THE USA'S FOOD
At the height of Nazi power in 1934, the USA stepped onto the same socialist
path by expanding the Department of Agriculture (USDA) with the Agricultural
Adjustment Act (AAA). The socialism copied the National Socialist German
Workers' Party (Nazis) and the soviet-style schemes of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics. It used a new broad power scheme to levy taxes
for the so-called “general welfare” as the basis for its program of agricultural
socialism, government spending and price controls. http://rexcurry.net/usda.html
Socialism's dog-eat-dog dogma caused poverty and misery. It was the same
dogma that led to the socialist Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust was a
part): 62 million dead under the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; 35
million dead under the People's Republic of China; 21 million dead under
the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
The USA's Department of Agriculture was similar to the National Socialist
German Workers' Party bureaucracy known as the National Food Estate. Both
bureaucracies interfered with the production of foodstuffs, as well as dictating
price distortions. The National Food Estate's membership stickpin is shown
at http://rexcurry.net/usda.html
It has a swastika with a barley stalk and a sword and was the emblem
of the Reichsnahrstand (National Food Estate).
In 1934 lower courts had begun overturning major parts of F.D.R.’s socialism.
The most courageous court opinions came from rulings invalidating the Agricultural
Adjustment Act (AAA). Lower courts ruled the AAA unconstitutional and the
Supreme Court followed in January 1936, ruling that “.... a statutory plan
to regulate and control agricultural production, [is] a matter beyond the
powers delegated to the federal government...." There was a dark cloud
around that silver lining, however, because the same opinion stated that:
".....the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for
public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power
found in the Constitution" and began to dig the grave of liberty.
The Supreme Court's ruling on the AAA was a major rebuff for F.D.R.’s socialism
and it was important for Social Security as well since it seemed to portend
what lay ahead for the Social Security Act. The AAA was a cynical attempt
to shift blame from the government for the collapse of the farm economy when
earlier government acts caused the Depression. The AAA was soviet style
“agrarian reform” similar to that tried in openly socialist countries for
the government to take control of all agriculture. The actual mechanism
by which this control was to be achieved was to levy taxes on the processing
of foodstuffs and to use the proceeds from this tax to fund agricultural
socialism --in effect, using the subsidies as “incentives” to take control
of free farmers. Fearing how the courts would see this new function of government,
the socialists who contrived the AAA deliberately placed the tax provisions
and the subsidy provisions in separate titles of the act, so they could argue
that they were not necessarily connected to each other; that is, so they
could argue that the purpose of the tax was not to control production but
was merely to raise revenue. This was the same cynical strategy adopted by
the socialists who contrived the Social Security Act, as can be seen in the
separate Titles II and VIII of the original Social Security Act.
In early 1937 President Roosevelt made what turned out to be the biggest
political blunder of his career, and it was a blunder that became a disaster
for liberty. F.D.R. was bitter about the Supreme Court striking down
his socialism in favor of liberty and F.D.R. would derisively refer to the
justices as "those nine old men." It didn’t matter that only four of them
consistently opposed his socialism. The Court was split down the middle in
political terms. There were three justices sympathetic to the F.D.R.’s socialist
programs (Brandeis, Stone and Cardozo); There were four justices who voted
against everything the Congress and the Administration tried to do (McReynolds,
Butler, Van Devanter and Sutherland). There were two, Chief Justice
Charles Evans Hughes and Justice Owen Roberts, who were often "swing votes"
on many issues. In the spring of 1935 Justice Roberts joined with the four
justices to invalidate the Railroad Retirement Act. In May, the Court threw
out a leviathan piece of F.D.R.’s socialism, the National Industrial Recovery
Act. In January 1936 a passionately split Court ruled the Agricultural Adjustment
Act unconstitutional. In another case from 1936 the Court had the good sense
to rule New York state's minimum wage law unconstitutional. The upshot was
that liberty was being protected from massive statism.
F.D.R.’s response to all of this was to seek even more socialist power.
On February 5, 1937 he sent a special message to Congress proposing legislation
granting the president new powers to add additional judges to all federal
courts whenever there were sitting judges age 70 or older who refused to
retire. Fraudulently couching his argument as a reform to help relieve the
workload burden on the courts, F.D.R.’s made it clear what he really had
in mind. F.D.R. would be able to appoint six new Justices to the Supreme
Court (and 44 judges to lower federal courts), rip up the constitutional
protections for liberty, and force socialism upon everyone. The debate on
this proposal was heated, widespread and over in six months. F.D.R. was rebuffed,
his reputation in history tarnished for all time. Even so, the Court
cravenly buckled. Beginning with a set of decisions in March, April and May
1937 (including the Social Security Act cases) the Court sustained a series
of socialist legislation.
Despite the intense controversy the court-packing plan provoked, and the
divided loyalties it produced even among F.D.R.’s supporters, the legislation
appeared headed for passage, when the Court itself made a sudden change.
In March 1937, in a pivotal case, Justice Roberts unexpectedly turned his
back on liberty, shifting the balance on the Court from 5-4 against to 5-4
in favor of most of F.D.R.’s socialist schemes. In the March case Justice
Roberts voted to uphold a minimum wage law in Washington state just like
the one he had earlier found to be unconstitutional in New York state. Two
weeks later he voted to uphold the National Labor Relations Act, and in May
he voted to uphold the Social Security Act. This sudden reversal in
the Court meant that the pressure on F.D.R.’s cohorts lessened and they felt
free to oppose the craven court-packing plan. This sudden switch by Justice
Roberts is referred to as “the switch in time that saved nine” or “the switch
in time that socialized nine.”
It has been downhill ever since. As an attorney, I consider the court
decisions under FDR to be the most shameful decisions of the U.S. Supreme
Court.
Though all of those justices (and F.D.R.) are long gone, the Court has never
reversed it’s humiliating disgrace. It is not too late for the Court
to reverse its betrayal of liberty. It is never too late to stand for freedom.
The unconstitutionality of FDR's socialism was clear. Under the "reserve
clause" of the Constitution (the 10th Amendment) powers not specifically
granted to the federal government are reserved for the States or the people.
The federal government cannot expand its influence because federal laws must
be based in the Constitution. Obviously, the Constitution did not mention
any method for interfereing in farms and agriculture, nor for Americans to
be robbed by the government for that purpose. The cynical Committee on Economic
Security (CES) schemed to circumvent the Constitution, either by claiming
the commerce clause or by claiming broad power to levy taxes and expend funds
to "provide for the general welfare," as the basis for the scams. Ultimately,
the CES propagandized the taxing power as the basis for the new program,
and Congress rubber stamped it. The courts were the last defenders
of liberty, and were striking down F.D.R.’s socialist legislation for a while.
The time was during the Depression. The Depression had been caused
by the federal government and by socialistic legislation (e.g. the Federal
Reserve Act of 1913 and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act). F.D.R. heaped
on more socialism that worsened the Depression, into a disaster that lasted
all the while that F.D.R. remained in office. That is why F.D.R.’s
depression is called the “Great Depression.”
The government still hides the chilling fact that the AAA and the Social
Security Act and so much of the USA's socialism was enacted in the mid 1930's,
and that the National Socialist German Workers’ Party had been in existence
since 1920 (with electoral breakthroughs in 1930 and dictatorship in 1933),
expanding Otto von Bismarck’s socialism. In 1935, U.S. politicians
intentionally stepped onto the same path that had already led to a police
state for the National Socialist German Workers' Party. http://rexcurry.net/ssnswastika.html
Earlier, the USA betrayed liberty and embraced socialism's dark side for
agriculture in 1862 when the Department of Agriculture was imposed. The USDA's
shield is set against a dark blue circle with 44 white stars, representing
the states of the Union at the time the seal was adopted. Below the shield
is a scroll inscribed "1862 Agriculture is the foundation of manufacture and
commerce 1889," 1862 being the date the department was originally established
and 1889 the date it was given cabinet rank.
Despite going out of existence in 1857, the Senate Agriculture Committee
was revived in 1863. The federal government was in the "War of Northern
Aggression" against the Southern States. In expanding his wartime government,
President Abraham Lincoln signed into law three Acts in rapid succession in
the spring and summer of 1862; first, the Organic Act creating the Department
of Agriculture; second, the Homestead Act; and third, the Morrill Land Grant
College Act. (Daniel J. Boorstin, The Americans: The Democratic Experience,
Vintage Press, New York, 1973, p. 119.)
As early as 1838, socialist farmers in the USA had been petitioning Congress
for the establishment of a Department of Agriculture. A Petition of
1840 received an unfavorable report by the House Agriculture Committee.
In the 1850s, support had grown for increasing federal theft from taxpayers
so that the government could throw more money at agriculture, and for consumers
to be forced to pay higher prices dictate by government regulations and price
controls. The Department of Agriculture was finally created when President
Lincoln signed the Department of Agriculture Organic Act, on May 15, 1862.
