Dulocracy n. A government where servants and slaves have so much license and privilege that they domineer.
About Dulocracy in America
Ever wonder what grant of power the federal government uses as their authority to monitor, regulate, and control every aspect of an individual’s life from the cradle to the grave? Answer: the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Unbeknownst to most, virtually every US citizen has been issued a federal license to engage in interstate commerce. This license scheme began in November 1936 in order to give Congress free-reign under the umbrella of “regulating interstate commerce.”
Dulocracy in America: The Commerce “Claws” exposes the true intent behind the New Deal legislation of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The book details the events that led Roosevelt to bring all “persons” under the jurisdiction of the commerce clause. The evidence presented in this work offers conclusive proof the Social Security Number (SSN) and the Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN) are federal licenses to engage in interstate commerce and by virtue of the number, the account holder is presumed to be a “person” who is engaged in congressionally controlled and regulated commerce.
This work contains important legal references to the statutes and regulations that were passed and promulgated by the federal government during the Roosevelt era, along with historical records from government archives, legal writings of eminent constitutional scholars, newspaper articles from the 1930’s and court decisions adjudicating and construing the New Deal legislation and its relationships to the commerce clause of the Constitution. This work has been painstakingly edited and compiled to present you – the reader – with “clear and convincing evidence” that the citizenry at large have effectively connected themselves with congressionally controlled privileges in exchange for what they perceived as promises of security from the cradle to the grave. This work is destined to become the standard for other works on the origin of dulocracy in America.
Excerpts from Dulocracy in America
Chapter 1: Introduction
Security Number is Tattooed
Leon Roofener, 45-year-old building engineer for a Memphis theatre, is almost certain he will not lose his Social Security Act number. He has it tattooed on his left arm. Nashville Banner, January 13, 1937
“WE HAVE THEM NOW!” a smiling Franklin Delano Roosevelt told the Committee of Seven[1] in January, 1937 after being informed that 22 million federal licenses to engage in interstate commerce had been issued to employees across the United States. For four long years Roosevelt and his Brain Trust worked diligently to achieve the president’s vision of an all-powerful centralized government. The seedling that was planted in America’s political soil in 1933 had taken root and this tree was finally starting to bear fruit. Roosevelt’s fruit of dulocracy was ripe and ready for the harvest.
Dulocracy in America: The Commerce “Claws” is in no sense a biography of President Franklin Roosevelt. It rather sets out some of the legal history behind his New Deal legislation and how these programs were utilized in the United States, at both the state and federal levels. The story is one of subterfuge and apostasy. It illustrates how the opportunists in government have worked diligently to create a scheme for relieving an uninformed citizenry of their inherent and constitutionally secured rights, through a process that has been evolving for over one hundred years. In the first half of the twentieth century, the citizenry by clearly abandoning their individual responsibilities to their posterity, aided in the transformation of this nation from a constitutional democracy in republican form to a cleverly cloaked socialistic oligarchy.[2] What was conceived as a nation of confederated sovereign states united by and under the Constitution as the result of the direct and deliberate act of the duly authorized representatives of a once free and self-regulating People, metamorphosed into a collective endeavor pointed to the management of a large population under principles legally associated with mass peonage; the citizenry being converted into little more than commodities or resources, to be consumed and controlled for the purpose of promoting a socialistic concept of utopia founded on a hopelessly insolvent welfare state. The saddest part of the story is that the people, by active counter-revolutionary endeavor or by indolent acquiescence have, with the rarest exceptions, both promoted and enforced upon their neighbors, the values and norms of this usurpation system.
[1] The origin of the Committee of Seven is discussed in Chapter 11 – The “Great Secret.”
[2] An oligarchy is a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society.
Excerpt from Dulocracy in America: The Commerce “Claws.”
Chapter 11: The “Great Secret”
The purpose of this chapter is to set forth as simply as possible the reasons for believing that a vital change in the relations of the federal government to local government and business has taken place since Roosevelt’s presidency, and that this change is based chiefly upon the construction put upon the commerce clause of the Constitution. This is not based on theory, but an accomplished fact; that with the sanction of the United States Supreme Court, the federal government regulates all business activity, whether local or national.
To fully understand the changes which have taken place since 1933, a review of the historic background proceeding this change was necessary, namely: First, the setting and the circumstances in which Roosevelt submitted his New Deal legislation and the discussion which took place in attempting to validate these acts under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution; second, the meaning attributed to the commerce clause by the Supreme Court in the long period of years following the adoption of the Constitution; third, the Supreme Court’s invalidation of Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation; fourth, the violent controversy over Roosevelt’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court and finally, the surrender of the Supreme Court in 1937 and the Court’s adoption of an expanded interpretation of the commerce clause which resulted in the conversion of the corporation and private citizen into articles of commerce.
This chapter explains how the citizens of this nation have traded their sovereignty for security and protection from the cradle to the grave and how the federal government acting as parens patriae regulates all our activities for our own protection. Since the 1930’s federal regulatory acts have increased fifty-fold. At the present time we find that our national government is now dictating to all individuals and businesses such matters as hours of labor, wages, retirement pensions, and now health care.
It should now be well established after reading the previous chapters of this work, that the federal government has only such powers as are expressly conferred upon it by the Constitution. So long as Congress is acting within its proper sphere, its power is supreme. Its activities cannot be limited or interfered with by the states or judiciary. Accordingly, when Congress acts within the limits of its Congressional authority, it is not the province of the judicial branch of government to question its motives.[1]
[1] Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co., 255 U.S. 180, 210 (1921).
Excerpt from Dulocracy in America: The Commerce “Claws.”
Chapter 12: Conclusion
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” Samuel Adams, 1776.
A equilibrium of balance within the federal government itself has not always been obtained in our national history, but it is correct to say that with the exception of a state of war, there never has been heretofore such vast concentration of congressionally delegated power in the office of the Chief Executive as existed under Roosevelt’s New Deal administration. In 1933, the justification for such a deposit of power was that the emergency nature of the times demanded it and that the Chief Executive himself, or his office, could with greater efficiency exercise or execute it. As in a state of war, the president is empowered by Congress to declare by public proclamation when this emergency status had ended. This has not yet been done, even seventy years after the so-called “great depression” ended, and the view now widely held in Congress is that the powers delegated to the Executive arm will be retained indefinitely, or until Congress itself reassumes the powers or repeals the statutes.
Under the Constitution, of course, there was no legal machinery to prevent this deposit of power by Congress, in the first instance, or to compel repeal of such legislation. The only possible constitutional remedy was for a private litigant in a proper case or controversy to question exercise of a given instance of such power, if he could prove special damage. This might be difficult to prove. The recipients (a state or individual) of any benefit or federal funds would not challenge the source of power and even had they done so would not have been met by well established judicial doctrines of estoppel or waiver, as the case might be. Government by executive order or decree has been made possible under the vast powers thus entrusted to the president by a compliant Congress, thus substantially destroying, for the time, equilibrium of power within the federal framework. That Congress during the 1930’s or even today may have been or may be motivated by laudable intentions does not validate it as constitutional.
Excerpt from Dulocracy in America: The Commerce “Claws.”
Table of Contexts
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Let’s Make a “New Deal”
Chapter 3: The New Deal and the Commerce Clause
Chapter 4: The Court’s Interpretation of the Commerce Clause Before 1937
Chapter 5: Railroad Retirement Act Case
Chapter 6: National Industrial Recovery Act Case
Chapter 7: Criticism of the Supreme Court in 1935-36
Chapter 8: The Supreme Court and Minimum Wage Cases
Chapter 9: The “Court Packing Bill” of 1937
Chapter 10: The National Labor Relations Act Cases
Chapter 11: The “Great Secret”
Chapter 12: Conclusion
Investigative Reports
Report 1: My Day at the Social Security Field Office
Report 2: Confession of a Washington State Supreme Court Judge
Exhibits
Exhibit A: Evolution of the SS-5 Form
Exhibit B: EIN v. FEIN
Exhibit C: Federal Employment Forms
Exhibit D: Federal Database Search
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
Excerpts from Investigative Reports in Dulocracy in America
The following reports are true.
The following reports lend evidence to the fact that critical changes have taken place in our government since Roosevelt’s the New Deal in the 1930’s.
Report 1:
My day at the Social Security Office
While researching this book, I happened upon an individual who related the following story of his experience while visiting a Social Security Field Office in 1970.
When I was a teenager I perceived that social security was a scheme developed to promote socialistic ideals and as such, was in direct opposition to the established principles of Christian morality and Law upon which the existence of the free institutions of our American constitutional Republic depend. It puzzled me that apparently no American could work without completing certain government regulatory forms that on there face evidenced compliance to numerous federal regulations. I had been taught by my parents and teachers that the liberty to labor for one’s support and living was an inherent obligation founded in the commandments of God and that there could be no logical reason to subjugate the exercise of one’s right to the liberty of the free marketplace unless one desired to participate in programs founded in socialist principles. How it was that virtually every employer could demand that a man or woman, born in the United States of America, submit to alienating practices in order to work for them appeared to me a great mystery. After all, Americans were born free and did not have to seek permission to exercise the liberty to occupy fields of common right, nor could they be legally penalized for refusing to alienate their inherent liberties. With this general background in view, the reader may find the following recital understandable, and perhaps even reasonable.
In the later years of my minority, it became apparent that I would have to approach the Social Security Administration concerning questions I had relative to obtaining a Social Security Number. I had deferred this as long as I could without placing myself into a position which I felt would lead to possible difficulties. I had read the materials furnished in high school, through the courtesy of the federal government concerning income tax filing and the various penalties that could befall one for not properly dealing with various tax obligations. In general, the material was confusing and contradictory.
However, there was always the clear flavor of threat running throughout it. And again, it appeared that you had to get a Social Security Number to fulfill the obligations the literature focused on. Accordingly, in the spring of 1970, I went to a field office of the Social Security Administration. Upon entry I presented myself to an officer of the agency. She kindly asked if I was there to apply for a Social Security Number. I replied with a mild look of disgust on my face that I supposed that was right. In seeing my response, the field officer replied that it didn’t appear to her that I was very excited about the prospect. I then took the opportunity to express to her my feelings on the matter, telling her frankly that I resented the fact that apparently the whole world was intent on my procuring a number and I wondered why it was that such an undertaking was necessary. I stated that I understood applying for a Social Security Number was to be voluntary but that this idea was apparently a joke of some kind and could not understand how application could be mandatory. She asked if I desire to have social welfare benefits. This question went against the grain and I emphatically told her that promoting or receiving government welfare benefits was contrary to my personal religious beliefs and that I absolutely had no interest obtaining, or in doing anything that would render me eligible to obtain any such benefits. I stated that “Government benefits were exactly what I do not want.” Looking at me she asked if I was sure about that. She then asked if I didn’t think I might want such security in the future, to which I replied that I was willing to take responsibility for myself and that I believed that I should place my faith in God and not government welfare.
She stated that my position could be a problem because “welfare was what the whole program was about nowadays.” I said that such an idea seemed clear enough but that I still could not understand why a Social Security Number was demanded by so many different people and agencies. She then asked straightway if I were a “U.S. citizen.” By this time I was feeling a little bolder but at the same time uncertain. In other words, I was beginning to “smell a rat.” I replied that I was born in the United States. However, she quickly stated that that is not what she was asking. I was now confused and I told her that my understanding of law was that being born in one of the states made me a citizen of the United States.
Excerpt from Dulocracy in America: The Commerce “Claws.”
Report 2:
Confession of a Washington State Supreme Court Judge
In 1998, I spoke with a healthcare professional who related the following story of a judge he happened to meet one day in Seattle, Washington.
In May 1984, a Washington State Supreme Court Justice, who was in the last stages of a terminal condition, decided to visit a doctor whose sign he had noticed while passing in his car. The doctor’s sign was strange to the judge because it displayed a title that was unfamiliar to him. The doctor was a naturopathic physician. The judge’s curiosity was peaked, so he decided to inquire into the nature of the practice in which the doctor engaged. After a few minutes of discussion with the doctor, who had started his practice just a few months before, it became evident that there was nothing of value that the doctor could do for the judge. The young doctor felt badly and apologized for having to disappoint the sick man who had expressed an interest in his methods and philosophy. To the surprise of the doctor, the judge remarked, “Don’t apologize! You have done more for me than you will ever know. You have told me the truth even though the thought may have entered your mind to take advantage of me because of my desperate condition.”
The judge went on further, “I perceive you are a seeker of truth.” He then inquired, “Have you ever heard of Diogenes?” Diogenes was the ancient Greek philosopher/teacher. Towards the end of his life, he went about naked, sitting in a tub as it was carried about at night by his students, from town to town. As the sage was thus conveyed, he held forth a lantern. When questioned by a curious bystander as to the purpose of this gesture, Diogenes replied, “I am looking for an honest man.” The judge seemed happy that the doctor knew the story of Diogenes.
The judge said, “You told me the truth in a straightforward manner, and you never have to contradict yourself or prevaricate when you follow that course. I have finally met an honest man!” Then the judge made a curious statement. He said, “You have done something for me; now I would like to return the favor.” He immediately inquired as to why the doctor had obtained various licenses, particularly, a driver’s license. The doctor, somewhat perplexed by this, advanced the best answer he could muster, saying, “Because I want to be a law abiding citizen.”
The judge responded in a manner that shocked the young doctor by retorting, “You have founded your response to my inquiry upon two equally irrelevant points. It does not have anything to do with the law, and I really doubt that your citizenship has anything to do with it either. Don’t you have the Right to travel as you please, and where you please, for your own private purposes and pleasure?” The doctor thought for a moment and agreed.
Another question came quickly, “Well, why then do you have a driver’s license?” The judge went on to explain that a license to drive was required only if one desired to engage in some sort of privileged, quasi-commercial activity which required the use of the public roads and highways. He said that not only would the commercial driver then need a license, but the vehicle would also need to be registered with the State, since he would be operating a vehicle for commercial purposes.
The judge went on to explain that the legal reasoning behind the policy of requiring everybody to obtain a driver’s license operating a car on the road was an attempt to obtain some degree of accountability, and to insure that incompetent people did not go out on the roads and cause accidents. He indicated that the State has a legitimate need to provide for the safety and welfare of the people within its boundaries. However, state governments faced a peculiar problem, because the state constitutions never evidenced a power granted to the state, by the People, to allow that government to directly control the peoples’ private lives. The Judge stated, “The government was established to protect the people in the enjoyment of their Rights, not to compete with them in the marketplace.” However, to overcome this obstacle, our “public servants” devised methods by which they could induce the people into approaching them, voluntarily, seeking a privilege – a privilege which belonged within the legitimate realm of the government’s absolute jurisdiction.
Excerpt from Dulocracy in America: The Commerce “Claws.”
Excerpt from Dulocracy in America: The Commerce “Claws” and Welfare Enumeration
WELFARE ENUMERATION
AND
SURETYSHIP UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
During the so-called “Great Depression” the Federal government acquired massive debt in order to finance Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation. By 1938, the national debt had grown to such proportions that the entire nation was bankrupt, which was noticed by the United States Supreme Court in the Erie v. Tompkins case of that year. From that year, all of the Legislative bodies of the Federal government passed Public Policy statutes in the interest of the nation’s creditors. In order to continue financing the expenditures of the Federal government, capital needed to be increased. Federal Reserve Notes which became “legal tender” under the Thomas Amendment (H. J. Res. 192, Public Resolution No. 73-10) passed by Congress in 1933, were made the medium of exchange for this capital. Previously, these notes were redeemable in gold on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States at Washington in the District of Columbia, or in gold or “lawful money” at any reserve bank, which then could be used as capital and devoted to production. However, in order to have capital there must first be property. Property may be pledged and also the rights thereto, and converted into capital by the pledgee.
From 1936 to 1939, social security numbers were used mostly by individuals who were effectively connected with a trade or business in interstate commerce, or whose commercial activities affected commerce and by those receiving unemployment compensation. To refinance the debt annually and avoid default, Congress in 1939, rewrote social security legislation, repealed Titles VIII and IX of the Social Security Act, and allowed for the issuance of another class of Social Security numbers which would be issued to individuals pledging their future performance as SURETY against the national debt in exchange for the promise of cradle to grave protection. This pledge as surety in exchange for cradle to grave protection is called “Welfare Enumeration.” The condition of such promise of protection throughout life provided no vested rights in the pledgor and the terms of the agreement was left solely to the discretion of the body of policy makers (Congress) operating as agents of the trustee in bankruptcy representing the interest and rights of the creditor(s).
Property rights relating to future performance (labor) and contract are protected absolutely as they relate to the personality of an American citizen. Execution of those rights may produce a translation of property but not necessarily a corpus of capital dedicated to the purpose of income production. A self declaration of bankruptcy by pledging one’s property as surety against the national debt in essence converts one to a perpetual bankrupt and one’s property so pledged to a bankrupt corporation (United States), a capital asset to be utilized by said corporation for the purposes of capitalization and revenue production earmarked as interest payable in discharge of the national (public) debt.
Until 1973, a person could walk into their nearest Social Security Field Office to apply for and be issued a “non-welfare enumerated” number. These numbers were assigned to individuals wishing to be covered under the original provisions of the Social Security Act, without the pledge of surety. In 1973, public policy was changed and all social security numbers are now issued from the Social Security Administration’s Central Office in Baltimore, Maryland. Today most applications for social security numbers received at the central office are processed as requests for welfare enumeration. The management and control of this national welfare policy was delegated by the Congress to the President. The President maintains control of this power under the “International Economic Emergency Policy.” (50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.)
The several States were seduced into the new policy in 1939, with Roosevelt’s promise of federal grants-in-aid. Federal Revenue Sharing (31 U.S.C. §§6700 et seq.) is the modern version of the grants-in-aid program. In return for these grants the states would agree to uphold and maintain the pledge of life, labor and property of their respective citizenry as surety for the debt obligations of the Federal government. The politicians of these respective states gladly complied, because they viewed this as an opportunity to increase their own political power, letting the next generation of office holders worry over the long term consequences of their acts.
Excerpt from Dulocracy in America: The Commerce “Claws” and Welfare Enumeration
Obliging Youth
ATLANTA. —“Let me see your social security number please,” said pretty receptionist Flora Bledsoe to a young man applying at the state employment office. The applicant unbuttoned his shirt, started pulling it off. “Say,” cried Miss Bledsoe, in a bit of a fluster, “what are you doing?” “My social security number,” the youth replied, “is tattooed on my back.”
San Pedro News Pilot, Volume 12, Number 152, 31 August 1939
Security Number Tattooed on Chest
LA PORTE, Ind.—The pretty girl clerk in the state employment office insisted that the young man applicant for a job show his social security number. . , “O. K.,” he said finally. “You asked for it—here it is.” He peeled off his jacket, undid his shirt and revealed the number tattooed on his chest.
San Pedro News Pilot, Volume 10, Number 311, 3 March 1938
Government Problem
NORWALK, Conn.—Charles Wilson figured it was going to be easy to remember his social security number. It was tattooed on his shoulder. He doesn’t think much of the idea now. Uncle Sam assigned him a new number.
San Pedro News Pilot, Volume 10, Number 155, 2 September 1937
What are you waiting for?
Click below to get your FREE copy of the second edition of Dulocracy in America: The Commerce “Claws”
If you would like to discuss how you can help get the word out about Dulocracy in America, please contact us with the subject “I would like to help.
Donate to Continue the Research
Your support enables us to continue our research into the connection between the commerce clause and its relationship to social security legislation and “Welfare Enumeration.” Your donation will also go towards future publication costs.
We currently support credit card donations. Note: Your donation is NOT tax deductible.