Saturday, February 6, 2010

On the Subconscious

by FranG


Many people think many things when they encounter the word ‘subconscious.’ Some conjure thoughts and images of mysterious supernatural forces while others dismiss it as psychological and medical quackery. But while each at an extreme, both observations connote the idea that the subconscious is separate and apart from what can be deemed the conscious, which is unequivocally acknowledged by both as the world of reality. Merriam-Websters dictionary defines both conscious and subconscious as such:

Conscious (adj.) –

Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin conscius, from com- + scire to know
Date: 1592

1 : perceiving, apprehending, or noticing with a degree of controlled thought or observation (was conscious that someone was watching)
2 archaic : sharing another's knowledge or awareness of an inward state or outward fact
3 : personally felt (conscious guilt)
4 : capable of or marked by thought, will, design, or perception
5 : self-conscious
6 : having mental faculties undulled by sleep, faintness, or stupor : awake (was conscious during the surgery)
7 : done or acting with critical awareness (a conscious effort to do better)
8 a : likely to notice, consider, or appraise (a bargain-conscious shopper) b : being concerned or interested (weight-conscious models) c : marked by strong feelings or notions (a race-conscious society)

Subconscious (adj.) –

Function: adjective
Date: circa 1834

: existing in the mind but not immediately available to consciousness (a subconscious motive)

As the conscious is deemed to be the world of reality, much more effort is given in the way of defining exactly what it is whereas the definition for ‘subconscious’ is short and concise, while even referencing ‘conscious’ for its contrasting against it. Also implicit in the definitions is the fact that the notion of the subconscious is a fairly new concept in comparison to the conscious. Though conventionally deemed as ancillary in everyday society, in this treatise I will attempt to show that it is actually by far the more important of the two, and that it is instead the conscious which is ancillary to the subconscious.

Innate Abilities of the subconscious

The human body is a remarkable piece of work, and can be argued as the most complex of organic structures in all of existence. A living body is contingent upon many vital processes for its operation, and though some of these may be consciously observed, many are not. For example, the Nervous System of the human body is responsible for submitting and receiving electrochemical information between the brain and the various nerves cells throughout the body. Another vital system of the body is the Circulatory System, which through a continuously beating heart, channels blood through the lungs and the various blood vessels that extend throughout every inch of the body. The Digestive System is responsible for the digestion of the food we eat via its production of saliva in the mouth upon anticipation and receipt of food, its subsequent acidifying of the stomach, and ultimately catalyzes the various machinations of the intestines before the food is finally disposed of as waste.

From a conscious aspect, the functions of the body are made known to the individual via sensory perception. The nerves throughout the body, for instance, can detect changes in temperature that the conscious mind perceives as a sensation of either increasing or decreasing heat. Or as is the case with saliva in the mouth, increased salivation will occur upon the mouth’s receiving of victuals, but this will likely not occur upon the entry of a foreign object, such as a piece of paper or metal, inserted in the mouth not meat which is not fit for digestion.

Consciously, it appears that we know these things because we are able to sense them. But this begs the question of how exactly does one know how to sense. For instance, how exactly does a newly born infant know how to suck a pap and swallow milk? No one has shown the infant anything, and what experiences has it drawn from to develop the ability to know? A more concessionary example may be the case of an adult, who from a distance may see a tree with his eyes: how exactly does the individual know how to see the tree? Can his eyes consciously perceive that the tree is in reality a skyscraper? He may wish that it were so, but his eyes will sense and detect a tree as long as the individual does not consciously close his eyelids. It should be apparent that though the individual can consciously see the tree, the actual ability to see the tree is in fact a function of the subconscious. For if this ability was a conscious function, he would be able to regulate its power, or functioning capability, by turning it on or off at will. Though the individual can avoid the tree as undesirable to look at, this will never substitute for his eyes detection of such as long as they are directly exposed to the stimuli projected from the tree.

And so we see that this innate knowledge of knowing anything extends from the subconscious, for if not that, then what? The heart of a man beats all the days of his existence, but who or what is responsible for the continual occurrence of this phenomenon? It isn’t the conscious which is responsible for this, for one doesn’t actively think or feel for his heart to beat every waking second of the day; but yet and still the heart keeps going. And if it is the subconscious that rests at the heart of all things conscious, then it must be that the subconscious is the more dominant of the two. The subconscious may render the heart no longer fit to beat and cause to cease its doing so, in turn eliminating the conscious of an individual. But the conscious cannot perform the inverse to the subconscious in a power struggle. For example, if the individual decides that he will hold his breath to restrict oxygen to the heart, this oxygen will be restricted only for a short time, after upon which the more dominant subconscious will step in to override this conscious act by rendering the conscious as unconscious, upon which breathing will again resume in the new state of unconsciousness induced by the conscious will of the individual. If, in a fit of madness an individual decides to shoot himself in the heart, this may very well stop it, but often it does not, but if so, usually the stoppage occurs at some point in the future while the individual is unconscious; which again means that it is the subconscious which has the last and overriding say.

Conscious thoughts

The thoughts of the individual represent the conscious mind, as these are a function of the active process of thinking that is done by him. In the sense that thoughts may exist outside of reality, as perceived by the conscious mind, an individual is free to think about whatever his mind fancies. He can envision himself as being or doing whatever he desires. This is also the case for objects in reality perceived by him; i.e., in his mind he may cause objects to exhibit properties in accordance to whatever it is his mind fancies. An individual can switch between differing sets of thoughts at his conscious will, and thus it appears that the thought process is very much in the control of the conscious mind. But thoughts necessarily follow from the individual’s perception of reality, and because, as stated above, perception is fueled and influenced by the subconscious, then the thoughts of an individual cannot exist outside of the subconscious. When a man thinks, he is doing either one of two things: 1) recollecting on events that he has perceived in the past, or 2) projecting for events that he will eventually perceive. In other words, the thoughts of an individual are concerned with either the past or the future, but never the present, for the present is where the individual actually resides, and where he actually resides he can only perceive because he is constantly receiving input from his environment which needs to be consciously processed in real time.

The individual’s concept of time may be referred to as ‘temporal perception.’ One does not experience time in the same manner that one experiences night and day, the changes in the seasons, or the growth and decay of organic life, including people on this planet. The concept of time serves as an overlay type of perception, one in which a person cannot sense directly, but yet in still he knows that it serves as the driver for all things existing in reality, as determined by perception. In this sense, the concept of time serves as a mental construct of the conscious mind in an attempt to explain what it cannot perceive; to wit, the phenomenon of both animate and inanimate objects constantly changing form in one way or another. Because an individual can only be consciously aware of what an object was, or will be, because as we have said he perceives in the present, it follows thus that the present in a temporal sense, exists only as an instant immeasurable to the conscious mind.

Because the thoughts of an individual exist in the present; i.e., the here and now or the current moment in time, said thoughts exist outside the realm of time as perceived by the conscious mind. And because the individual perceives in the present, his thoughts and perceptions can never exist simultaneously. Furthermore, because his thoughts exist in the present, then like his perception, the very substance of a thought is too a creature of the subconscious. A thought itself is of the subconscious, as well as the very perceptions consciously analyzed which exist within the thought.

The subconscious as a store of knowledge

Though knowledge is obtain by the conscious mind by way of its perception, this knowledge or information is ultimately stored into the subconscious, with the conscious mind having no awareness that this is being done by the subconscious. The conscious mind serves as a conduit for the subconscious to obtain information from the environment. One may posit that it is however the conscious mind which actively chooses the information, thus dictating ultimately what is to be stored. But this would be incorrect, for all future perceiving to be done by the conscious mind directly stems from its processing of past and current perceptions; the past perceptions existing in the form of ‘thought’ as we have stated earlier. And so in this regard, it is the subconscious which is ultimately responsible for the information it receives, by directing the conscious mind to where in reality it wants it to perceive via the form of conscious thought, which we have said is of the subconscious. It is the subconscious that has a vision of what it requires for sustenance, and uses the conscious as a tool in providing it. The knowledge obtained via perception extends to adventures experienced firsthand in nature, as well as adventures experienced secondhand via the erudition from books, plays, or neighborly gossip.

When the subconscious obtains information from the conscious mind, it is forever retained within the realms of itself. Knowledge is never lost, but rather amended as new information comes in; and this body of knowledge, in its totality is unavailable to the conscious. The subconscious, again by way of thought and perception, makes available to the conscious mind what it deems relevant at a particular moment of time, and in response to a particular form of stimuli. Certain situations trigger thoughts and insights in the individual, which are often unavailable to the conscious mind in other differing contexts. The frequency of knowledge obtained from within, or rather accessed by the conscious mind, is a function of what is deemed more useful by the subconscious. Knowledge essential for everyday survival will be readily accessed by the conscious with much more ease than that which is unessential and merely trivial in nature.

In addition to knowledge gained by the perception of the conscious mind, an innate store of knowledge is available to each individual upon the moment of his conception as a living soul. This is because he is endowed with the same vital substance which will blossom into the vital systems spoken above, which are regulated in full by the subconscious. And we have asked how it is possible for the newborn infant to know how to breath, suck and swallow upon the first instant of his cracking the womb. It is the subconscious which is responsible for providing the knowledge necessary for these things; with breathing being a less or non-existent conscious function than that of sucking and swallowing. And what adult can recall the knowledge to give a firsthand account of his nine-month experience in his mother’s womb, or even that very first day she held him and provided him with succor? The subconscious does not make this information available to the conscious mind, presumably because it deems this knowledge irrelevant or outside the scope of its mandate given to the conscious mind to obtain more relevant knowledge for it. But whatever the reason, the information resides in the subconscious, to be accessed at some moment in time, perhaps only when the conscious ceases to be.

The subconscious and dreams

The state of dreaming is a state of reduced consciousness. When an individual is induced by sleep, his conscious mind makes the transition from a state of active to passive perception. As such, the subconscious plays a more direct and dominant role in the function of an individual’s perception than is the case when the individual is awake, which may be the reason why vital processes operated by the subconscious come to a reduced state with sleep. While in a state of passive consciousness, the sleeping individual experiences reality in a totally different way than is the case when he is awake. As opposed to responding to primarily external stimuli, in the sleeping state he responds primarily to internal stimuli provided by the subconscious. This inverted perceptive experience is what we know as dreaming, where the individual journeys through the vast knowledge of the subconscious. In this passive state of consciousness, in which the individual is consciously unaware that he is dreaming, the line between reality and fantasy often becomes blurred. This is because previous consciously conceived thoughts and conceptions are more readily available from the subconscious while dreaming. Thus, if an individual was to actively envision a hybrid of an apple and orange while awake, he may very well encounter such a hybrid while in the dream state, and accordingly perceive it as reality. Or an individual may relive the past with a long since dead relative, fraternizing with him as if he were still alive in reality.

While sleeping, the individual still being responsive to external stimuli, but at a much reduced rate, can awaken from the dream state from such sensations as loud noises, such as the buzzing of an insect by the ear, or a loud alarm clock, or from sensations tactile in nature. Many times, however, these sensations are infused into the dream state and merge easily into that reality; i.e., the dream being currently experienced. The body awakens naturally when the subconscious has sufficiently rested its vital organs and processes. Just prior to awakening, the conscious mind is less passive than soon after the individual is induced by sleep, thus he becomes easily awakened by even the lightest of external stimuli, such as sunlight shining on his face. And when awake, the conscious mind is sometimes able to reflect on the experiences of the previous night while asleep, but only if this knowledge is made available to it, and brought to the surface of the conscious mind by the subconscious. Many times an individual cannot recall his dreams of the previous night, which can only mean that the subconscious deems them irrelevant at the present time. When dreams are in fact recollected, it must be because the subconscious is trying to direct the conscious, as is the case with the thought process, to some sort of stimuli which will serve to increase the knowledge bank of the subconscious.


As what is hopefully seen to be evident from this exposition, it has been determined that the conscious mind exists as a subset of the subconscious; and in all of its aspects, it works indirectly to support the total and complete will of the subconscious. Existing as a subset of the subconscious, the conscious can never ascertain nor comprehend the complete majesty of the subconscious. It is allowed to know certain things at distinct times, and when engaged in distinct circumstances, to pursue the end of adding to the glory of the subconscious via the acquisition of more knowledge which is used to amend that which is already existent within its realms. The conscious mind serves as a vitally important conduit of the subconscious, and is ultimately an extension of it.

Being a subset of the subconscious, the conscious is behooved to it for its own edification or destruction. The conscious mind is responsible for updating the subconscious, and information resulting from perceptions fed to it which are destructive in nature will only serve to weaken it, but vice versa for those that are constructive in nature. From the standpoint of the body’s vital systems and processes, proper nutritional inputs; i.e., clean air, water, and mineral rich foods will serve to make these run more efficiently. This in turn has a reinforcing effect, with the subconscious indirectly sending the conscious out to obtain more of these inputs for it. The same holds true for morality concerns, as certain behavior deemed undesirable should be kept from the subconscious so as to not pollute and corrupt it.

When the subconscious is thriving in a healthy state, so too will the body, and likewise the conscious mind, which will be the beneficiary of greater knowledge and understanding made available from the subconscious than otherwise would be the case. The conscious mind, being a servant of the subconscious, will act in a manner consistent with, and reflective of the pristine state of the subconscious. When the converse is true, and the active conscious mind is working contrary to the health of the subconscious (or paradoxically the subconscious working against the health of itself), it becomes increasingly duller as the subconscious it reflects is being made dull by it. This power of suggestion and the nature of the subconscious should be taken seriously by all, and especially of parents who are the stewards of their children’s impressionable young minds.

When the subconscious mind fails to obtain that which is vital for its functioning from the conscious, then it must draw from its reserves, which have been present since the conception of the individual as a living soul. From a strictly physical standpoint, when these reserves are completely exhausted, the body dies; that is, the vital processes controlled by the subconscious which serve to induce consciousness are no longer maintained by the subconscious. The mental reserves are never exhausted prior to physical death, and the conscious mind cannot know what happens when, if ever, the non-physical reserves of the subconscious are exhausted. At the moment of death, the conscious becomes totally consumed by the subconscious, becoming one with it. The individual no longer consciously and actively perceives anything, and life as he knows it becomes an uninhibited experience; resembling the dream state but with greater intensity it must be assumed. And again, the conscious mind cannot know what secret knowledge will be revealed to it upon the fulfillment of its subsumption into the subconscious.

Disclaimer and copyright: FranG may be deemed as paranoid and schizophrenic, thus reader discretion is advised.

Common law copyright, for non-commercial usage only

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Born Into Slavery 4 of 4

Continued from Part 3


The State of Illinois’ major public aid programs are financed with federal funds. However, though grossly inferior, the State oversees a self-funded general assistance program, which is administered and funded at the local level. Though this program is under the complete jurisdiction of the State, as it does with its other programs, this too is chosen to run in conjunction and as a supplement to its federally-funded programs. The federally-funded counterparts to the State’s general assistance program are much better funded, in lieu of the dollars received from federal direct income taxation on states’ citizens, and the State of Illinois makes it a prerequisite to offer general assistance only to its citizens that do not qualify for federal assistance.

“A person otherwise eligible for aid under the federally funded programs to aid refugees or Articles III, IV or V who fails or refuses to comply with provisions of this Code or other laws, or rules and regulations of the Illinois Department, which would qualify him for aid under those programs or Articles, shall not receive General Assistance under this Article nor shall any of his dependents whose eligibility is contingent upon such compliance receive General Assistance.” (305 ILCS 5/6‑1.3)

Of course if one does not have a SSN, then he cannot receive federally-funded aid. But the SSA is in the practice of issuing SSN’s to whomever wants them, and thus the State of Illinois would consider this eligibility; and lack of a SSN will be no excuse for not qualifying to receive its federal-funded assistance. Another hurdle is that the individual must actively seek employment, which he is prohibited from having without a SSN. For mere survival purposes, especially if one has children, the compulsion, or if not this, the extreme pressure to acquire the federal SSN while living in State society will be impossible to bear.

“A person who is able to engage in employment, … who is unemployed or employed for less than the full working time for the occupation in which he is engaged, must register for and accept bona fide offers of employment, as provided in Section 11‑20. The local governmental unit shall determine, pursuant to rules and regulations, sanctions for persons failing to comply with requirements under this Section. In addition to any sanctions provided for in Section 11‑20, sanctions may include the loss of eligibility to receive aid under this Article for up to 90 days.” (305 ILCS 5/6‑1.4)


The care and supervision over one’s own child, and the molding of him into a responsible adult first, and citizen second, is the most fundamental of all rights a parent can have. Absent bona fide abuse to the child, the parents rule over the child should be nearly unabated. But from the very birth of the child, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is more than aggressive in his determining who the parents of the newly born infant are. Thanks to the benevolence of the SSA in allowing state’s the free use of the SSN in their governmental administrative processes, the federal Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) watchful and hawkish eye over the “well-being” of the nation’s children, and the willful and wanton submission to federal jurisdiction by the Department of Public Health for the State of Illinois in exchange for federal monies (42 U.S.C. 651), the SSN’s of parents are required by law to appear on all birth certificates.

“…the social security numbers of the mother and father shall be collected at the time of the birth of the child. These numbers shall not be recorded on the certificate of live birth. The numbers may be used only for those purposes allowed by Federal law.” (410 ILCS 535/11)

The SSN collected at birth is not for the purpose of the birth certificate, but rather to place the parents into a database known as the ‘Federal Parent Locator Service,’ with the parents SSN’s serving as their unique individual identifiers, for the purposes of expedited child support enforcement services; i.e., the right to instruct parents in how to manage their children according to arbitrary standards; all under the guise of protecting the children. But as mentioned before, it is the jurisdictional sovereignty of the states that is coveted by the federal government.

“(1) The Secretary shall establish and conduct a Federal Parent Locator Service … which shall be used for the purposes specified in paragraphs (2) and (3). (2) For the purpose of establishing parentage or establishing, setting the amount of, modifying, or enforcing child support obligations, the Federal Parent Locator Service shall obtain and transmit to any authorized person specified in subsection (c) of this section— (A) information on, or facilitating the discovery of, the location of any individual— (i) who is under an obligation to pay child support; (ii) against whom such an obligation is sought; (iii) to whom such an obligation is owed; or (iv) who has or may have parental rights with respect to a child, including the individual’s social security number (or numbers), most recent address, and the name, address, and employer identification number of the individual’s employer; (B) information on the individual’s wages (or other income) from, and benefits of, employment (including rights to or enrollment in group health care coverage); and (C) information on the type, status, location, and amount of any assets of, or debts owed by or to, any such individual.” (42 U.S.C. 653 (a))

“The Illinois Department through its Child and Spouse Support Unit shall enter into agreements with the Secretary of Health and Human Services or his designee under which the services of the federal Parent Locator Service established by the Social Security Act are made available to this State and the Illinois Department for the purpose of locating an absent parent ...” (305 ILCS 5/10‑3.2)

This Federal Parent Locator Service is made possible via the help and cooperation of the Health Departments of various states. The Directory of “New Hires,” mentioned in the unemployment section above, is the brainchild of the HHS and its child support “suggested” legislation. The Federal Parent Locator Service serves as the liaison between the “New Hires” and the Child support cases database (or alimony via the SSN driven State marriage licenses database (750 ILCS 5/202)). By serving as the intermediary, the federal government is right at the center of all matters between state and citizen, and citizen and citizen, all under the semblance of helping the nation’s children.

“ … each State shall establish an automated directory (to be known as the “State Directory of New Hires”) which shall contain information supplied in accordance with subsection (b) of this section by employers on each newly hired employee. (1) In general an agency designated by the State shall, directly or by contract, conduct automated comparisons of the social security numbers reported by employers pursuant to subsection (b) of this section and the social security numbers appearing in the records of the State case registry for cases being enforced under the State plan. (2) Notice of match When an information comparison conducted under paragraph (1) reveals a match with respect to the social security number of an individual required to provide support under a support order, the State Directory of New Hires shall provide the agency administering the State plan approved under this part of the appropriate State with the name, address, and social security number of the employee to whom the social security number is assigned, and the name and address of, and identifying number assigned under section 6109 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to, the employer.” (42 U.S. C. 653a)

“A State plan for child and spousal support must provide for the establishment and operation by the State agency … of a statewide automated data processing and information retrieval system meeting the requirements of section 654a of this title designed effectively and efficiently to assist management in the administration of the State plan, so as to control, account for, and monitor all the factors in the support enforcement collection and paternity determination process under such plan;” (42 U.S.C. 654 (16))

A couple may be tempted to not sign the birth certificate under the condition of divulging their SSN’s and forfeiting their child’s right to privacy. Of course the mother has little choice but to disclose this information, or be faced with the prospect of having her child taken from her by the hospital medical staff, or other “person” who finds a child of “unknown parentage.”

“Whoever assumes the custody of a living infant of unknown parentage shall report on a form and in the manner prescribed by the State Registrar of Vital Records, within 3 days, to the local registrar of the district in which the child was found, the following information: (a) The date and place of finding; (b) Sex, color or race, and approximate age of child; (c) Name and address of the persons or institution with whom the child has been placed for care; (d) Name given to the child by the custodian; and (e) Other data required by the State Registrar of Vital Records. (2) The place where the child was found shall be entered as the place of birth, and the date of birth shall be determined by approximation. (3) A report filed under this Section shall constitute the certificate of birth for the infant. (4) If the child is identified and a certificate of birth is found or obtained, any report filed under this Section shall be sealed and filed and may be opened only by order of a court of competent jurisdiction or as provided by regulation.” (410 ILCS 535/13)

The mother has little choice but to submit, but the father has options if he and his wife were smart enough not to seek a State marriage license to validate their union. The SSNs of the matrimonial couple are required on the marriage application, and if the couple has rejected such marriage license, then the father’s name will not appear on the birth certificate unless he signs an acknowledgment of paternity or parentage form, which also requires the disclosure of his SSN.

“The Director of Public Health shall prescribe the form for an application for a marriage license, which shall include the following information: (1) name, sex, occupation, address, social security number, date and place of birth of each party to the proposed marriage;” (750 ILCS 5/202)

“Unless otherwise provided in this Act, if the mother was not married to the father of the child at either the time of conception or the time of birth, the name of the father shall be entered on the child's birth certificate only if the mother and the person to be named as the father have signed an acknowledgment of parentage form … “ (410 ILCS 535/12)

Such a household with only one recognized parent for a child is against stated national and state policy. But in reality, this means that it is against public policy for individuals to not use their SSN’s, and the child(ren) of a couple is the strongest tool of coercion available to the State to force a couple into submission.

“The purpose of this part is to increase the flexibility of States in operating a program designed to— (1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; (2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.” (42 U.S.C. 601 (a))

A recalcitrant father, who otherwise refuses to sign a birth certificate or an acknowledgement of paternity form for his child, will have no legal rights with regard to the child. Thus, if anything should happen to the child’s mother, legally his status will not be recognized. He must then either submit to acquiring, or using his SSN as a prerequisite to employment via an employer, or for licensure requirements of a regulatory agency if self-employed. He can then support his family by being the “unofficially” head. This seems to be the best plan, but if he remains dogged in his refusal to get the federal SSN, the mother of the child will be forced to receive federally-funded state public assistance. If the father is suspected of being the father, by virtue of his association with the child and mother, he can be labeled as a putative father, and forced into paternity establishment proceedings. Any person with any association with the child can initiate a suit, including social workers, doctors, caregivers, educators, etc.

“Each family receiving aid shall be interviewed in person or communicated with in investigations of applications for aid and at least once in each subsequent 12 month period to ascertain continuing need for such aid and to provide the child and his parents or relatives with such service and guidance as will strengthen family life and aid them in utilizing to the maximum their capacities for self‑care, self‑support, and responsible citizenship.” (305 ILCS 5/4‑7)

“An action to determine the existence of the father and child relationship … may be brought by the child; the mother; a pregnant woman; any person or public agency who has custody of, or is providing or has provided financial support to, the child; the Department of Healthcare and Family Services if it is providing or has provided financial support to the child or if it is assisting with child support collection services…” (750 ILCS 45/7)

“Upon request by a public office, employers, labor unions, and telephone companies shall provide location information concerning putative fathers and noncustodial parents for the purpose of establishing a child's paternity or establishing, enforcing, or modifying a child support obligation.” (750 ILCS 45/14.5)

“The Illinois Department shall notify the Department of Public Health of a final determination of parentage and a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity made under the rules authorized by Section 10‑17.7, and the Department of Public Health shall issue a new certificate of birth pursuant to Section 17 of the Vital Records Act.” (305 ILCS 5/10‑17.8)

Without the SSN, a family will otherwise find itself in an epic struggle with the State directly, with the federal government pulling the strings from behind the scenes. With use of the SSN on a child’s birth certificate, the HHS Secretary is the de facto grandfather of the child, because he is the de facto father of the parents whom have SSN’s. Because without it, it is next to impossible to survive without government aid, and one must “voluntarily” obtain a federal SSN for State aid. Irrespective of the father, the mother receiving benefits would be forced from being a full-time mother, and to undergo vocational programs approved by the State, or risk losing financial assistance. The father will be forced to work under the pain of jail time for contumacy.

“… the Illinois Department as a condition of eligibility for public aid, may, as provided by rule, require all recipients to participate in an education, training, and employment program, which shall include accepting suitable employment and refraining from terminating employment or reducing earnings without good cause.” (305 ILCS 5/9A‑4)

“Whenever it is determined in a proceeding to establish or enforce a child support or maintenance obligation that the person owing a duty of support is unemployed, the court may order the person to seek employment and report periodically to the court with a diary, listing or other memorandum of his or her efforts in accordance with such order.” (750 ILCS 5/505.1)


Low-income parents with a child, who are somehow surviving without SSN’s, will have to enroll the child into a public school when he comes of age. This because it is compulsory, but more importantly, private schooling costs money, and this option will likely be unavailable to them.

Whoever has custody or control of any child between the ages of 7 and 17 years (unless the child has already graduated from high school) shall cause such child to attend some public school in the district wherein the child resides the entire time it is in session during the regular school term, except as provided in Section 10‑19.1, and during a required summer school program established under Section 10‑22.33B; provided, that the following children shall not be required to attend the public schools: 1. Any child attending a private or a parochial school where children are taught the branches of education taught to children of corresponding age and grade in the public schools, and where the instruction of the child in the branches of education is in the English language;” (105 ILCS 5/26‑1)

In Illinois, private schools must register with the State Board of Education for certification, and every teacher at the school must submit their SSN’s for purposes of background checks. With homeschooling, though the Illinois School Code is silent on the point, courts have upheld that homeschooling is considered a “form of private education.” But the burden of proof will be on the parents to prove that their children are homogeneous along with their peers in public schools. Consequently, the State has laws befitting the busybody, and they will have no quarrels with reporting the neighbor’s children as truant, given that their children are enrolled in public school, without seeking to understand fully their neighbor’s situation. Any “person” can file a complaint, upon which the local school board must investigate.

“The truant officer of the school district, whenever notified by the Superintendent, teacher, or other person of violations of this Article, or the county truant officer, when notified by the County Superintendent, shall investigate all cases of truancy or non‑attendance at school in their respective jurisdictions, and if the children complained of are not exempt under the provisions of this Article, the truant officer shall proceed as is provided in this Article.” (105 ILCS 5/26‑5)

Every employee of a public and non-public school has a SSN, because as a condition of employment, they must submit to criminal background checks which request such information. What will the Board of Education think of parents so unorthodox as to not have a SSN, like everyone else, while judging their plight? And likewise, what will a truant officer think of a family so weird as to not have SSNs, and with the audacity to not send their child(ren) to public or a recognized private school like everyone else? All of this seems to work against the family trying to disassociate itself from the federal SSN. A petition filed against the parents would certainly lead to them obtaining a SSN, lest they face dire consequences, such as a jail time, but more importantly the threat of losing their child(ren) to the allegation of bad parenting and “child neglect.”

“The petition for court action shall include the name of the truant minor, the names and addresses of persons having custody or control of the student, the dates of the truant behavior, the dates and nature of contacts or conferences with the student and the persons having custody or control of the student, and the nature of the supportive services, alternative programs and other school resources the school district provided to that child in an effort to correct that child's truant behavior.” (105 ILCS 5/26‑8a)


What does a parent’s SSN have to do with giving one of the nation’s children a free or reduced school lunch; other than to tap into unutilized resources in the way of increased memberships and contributions to the Social Security program? FICA taxes are an equal percentage-based tax on wages up to a certain capped amount of income. As such, it is a regressive tax (contribution) which disproportionately affects the poor rather than the rich. Taxing the poor for benefits is to not give them any benefits at all, but rather to charge them for it; and often this charge proves to be well above the value of the product and services they receive, do to government mismanagement. But nevertheless, parents with a child enrolled in a public school ran at the State level provides assistance for its citizens by means of selling them out to the federal government for grant monies from the National School Lunch Program. Such a program seems trivial enough for a State to operate independent of federal assistance, especially given the fact that they have decreed State education as mandatory.

“The Secretary shall require as a condition of eligibility for receipt of free or reduced price lunches that the member of the household who executes the application furnish the social security account number of the parent or guardian who is the primary wage earner responsible for the care of the child for whom the application is made, or that of another appropriate adult member of the child’s household, as determined by the Secretary. The Secretary shall require that social security account numbers of all adult members of the household be provided if verification of the data contained in the application is sought under subsection (b)(3)(G) of this section.” (42 U.S.C. 1758 (d)(1))

“A school board shall, whenever requested by the Department of Healthcare and Family Services (formerly Department of Public Aid), agree in writing with the Department of Healthcare and Family Services (as the State agency that administers the State Medical Assistance Program as provided in Title XIX of the federal Social Security Act and the State Children's Health Insurance Program as provided in Title XXI of the federal Social Security Act) to share with the Department of Healthcare and Family Services information on applicants for free or reduced‑price lunches ... This sharing of information shall be for the sole purpose of helping the Department of Healthcare and Family Services identify and enroll children in the State Medical Assistance Program or the State Children's Health Insurance Program or both as allowed under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1758(b)(2)(C)(iii)(IV) and under the restrictions set forth in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1758(b)(2)(C)(vi) and (vii).” (105 ILCS 5/10‑28)


And with such aggression concerning the welfare of the children by the benevolent State, how can a parent do anything but cooperate, lest they be accused of child neglect. As is with reporting child truants, busybodies have an outlet to report their neighbors for “child abuse” or “child neglect” based on baseless hunches and fancies. A child whose parents have no SSN cannot receive State medical benefit, and immunization shots not received by a child is grounds for expulsion from school, and the parents guilty of child truancy.

“If a child does not comply … with the requirements of this subsection, then the local school authority shall exclude that child from school until such time as the child presents proof of having had the health examination as required and presents proof of having received those required immunizations which are medically possible to receive immediately. During a child's exclusion from school for noncompliance with this subsection, the child's parents or legal guardian shall be considered in violation of Section 26‑1 and subject to any penalty imposed by Section 26‑10. (105 ILCS 5/27‑8.1)

Also, refusal to get a SSN and allow one’s child to be enrolled by some prude into the free school lunch program can be viewed by the busybodies at the school as neglect. A father without a SSN, and as a result is not working, is contrary to the “best interest of the child;” as would be noted by a public assistance case worker making periodic home inspections. A mother receiving inadequate state assistance because she chooses not to enroll in federally-funded programs that require a SSN would be considered so also. The family that homeschools may too be in great danger of statutory determined neglect of their child’s mental needs because the child is not socializing with his peers in the public school. And the parent who refuses his child the immunizations may seem a public health hazard to the administering physician. And so on and so forth.

“The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services shall, upon receiving reports made under this Act, protect the health, safety, and best interests of the child in all situations in which the child is vulnerable to child abuse or neglect, offer protective services in order to prevent any further harm to the child and to other children in the same environment or family, stabilize the home environment, and preserve family life whenever possible.” (325 ILCS 5/2)

"Neglected child" means any child who is not receiving the proper or necessary nourishment or medically indicated treatment including food or care not provided solely on the basis of the present or anticipated mental or physical impairment , oas determined by a physician acting alone or in consultation with other physicians or otherwise is not receiving the proper or necessary support or medical or other remedial care recognized under State law as necessary for a child's well‑being, or other care necessary for his or her well‑being, including adequate food, clothing and shelter;” (325 ILCS 5/3)


The Social Security program of the United States federal government, with the conspicuous assistance of the fifty states, has become the de facto national ID card. The states have surrendered valuable sovereignty to the federal government, by having its own state identification card or driver’s license serve as a rider to the application for the federal SSN. The federal government can never service the needs of a state’s citizens better than the state can, and for it to try is an unconstitutional usurpation of the states’ sovereignty. But the federal government, via economies of scale from its central management role, can increase the commerce within and between the states; and this has been accomplished via the SSN, which serves as a mere capital asset tag for what the American citizen has allowed himself to be reduced to; for the SSN is not only used for identification purposes, but to overtly influence state’s legislation while funding it via mandated grants with tax dollars obtained from its citizens via an unconstitutional direct income tax which requires a SSN for its implementation.

The SSA, the genesis of the SSN program, by simply administering the contribution collections and benefits distributions to SSN account holders, is responsible for a whopping 18% of the federal government’s budget. HHS, with its meddling within the family affairs of private American citizens residing in the states, is effectively the moral arm of Social Security, and serves as judge and jury over how their lives are ran. The HHS accounts for 20% of the federal government’s budget. Finally, the IRS, as proxy for the U.S. Treasury, through unconstitutional “direct” taxes on incomes, serves as the business arm of Social Security, and dictates what kind of living American’s can make via its meddling in the unemployment insurance programs of the states, and affectively defrauding employers into enrolling themselves, and their employees into the federal income tax program, which accounts for an overwhelming 89% of the entire revenues of the federal government. And seven times more of these direct income taxes come from individuals over the amounts received from artificially-bodied corporations. The three of these entities, the SSA, HHS, and the IRS, along with their state counterparts and accomplices, work in tandem as a cohesive unit of enslavement, and the SSN is the viscus to each of their individual and collective operations.

The Commissioners of the SSA and IRS, as well as the Secretaries for HHS and the U.S. Treasury, are not friends of the American people. Rather than the faithful execution of their office, they serve to perpetuate a fraud that has been in existence for far too long, and has had a profound effect on the citizens of this nation. The SSN program has in effect, reduced the fifty states from the status of a U.S. constitutionally protected component of the federal United States, to a territorial colony of the national United States subject to its exclusive jurisdiction. The SSN’s are administered to children as a part of the birth process, a feat not even a state’s identification card has purported to accomplish. All aspects of civil society require the SSN to be used as the lubricant required for its functioning, and the glue for its remaining intact. Those without a federal SSN are effectively banished from state society, and parents without a SSN for themselves or their children are at extreme risk of having their children stolen from them under the guise of protecting the children from abuse or neglect. As wards of the state, the children will eventually be given SSN’s, as they will be needed for their functioning within the State, and the SSA will be more than happy to supply new SSN’s for these untapped sources of investment, assuring itself of continual future unconstitutional direct income tax revenue streams from the citizens of the nation.

Thanks for listening.

Disclaimer: FranG is a bona fide paranoid schizophrenic, and strict reliance upon his words may cause mental, and even physical injury. Reader discretion is strongly advised.

Common law copyright; for non-commercial use only.

Born Into Slavery 3 of 4

Continued from Part 2


We, the People of the State of Illinois…” (Ill. Const. Preamble)

"Person" or "persons" as well as all words referring to or importing persons, may extend and be applied to bodies politic and corporate as well as individuals.” (5 ILCS 70/1.05)

"State," when applied to different parts of the United States, may be construed to include the District of Columbia and the several territories, and the words "United States" may be construed to include the said district and territories.” (5 ILCS 70/1.14)

The above definitions are the default definitions for “person” and “state” for all statutory language appearing in the Illinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS). This means that unless otherwise defined in the statute, a “person” “may” be a corporation, and a “state” “may be” the District of Columbia. And so it seems that by default, Illinois prefers to regard itself as having territorial status only, where subjugating itself to federal jurisdiction would now be the norm, as opposed to the exception.

“The Congress shall have power: To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;” (U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17)

“All that part of the territory of the United States included within the present limits of the District of Columbia shall be the permanent seat of government of the United States.” (4 U.S.C. 71)


“No person, except those expressly exempted by Section 6‑102, shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this State unless such person has a valid license or permit,” (625 ILCS 5/6‑101)

Definition of “State” as pertaining to the Illinois Vehicle Code:

“A state, territory or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or a province of the Dominion of Canada.” (625 ILCS 5/1‑195)

Do U.S. citizens have a right to travel? Well, Illinois, like other states, regulates this “right” as a privilege, and one must obtain a license to drive via the Secretary of State if he wishes to drive hassle-free on the roadways within the State’s borders. This regulation of the individual is plenty, but by requiring applicants for a driver’s license to divulge their SSN’s, the State coercively opens the door for federal jurisdiction over the applicant by way of linking the SSN to the State’s driver’s license. The individual’s state driver’s license, an instrument which should be privity to the state and the individual, now becomes evidence in any potential SSA hearings, for whatever cause, related to the said SSN tied to the individual and the driver’s license; and the SSA has the right to the private information it contains.

Every application shall state the legal name, social security number, zip code, date of birth, sex, and residence address of the applicant; briefly describe the applicant; state whether the applicant has theretofore been licensed as a driver, and, if so, when and by what state or country, and whether any such license has ever been cancelled, suspended, revoked or refused, and, if so, the date and reason for such cancellation, suspension, revocation or refusal; shall include an affirmation by the applicant that all information set forth is true and correct; and shall bear the applicant's signature. The application form may also require the statement of such additional relevant information as the Secretary of State shall deem necessary to determine the applicant's competency and eligibility.” (625 ILCS 5/6‑106)

“For the purpose of any hearing, investigation, or other proceeding authorized or directed under this subchapter, or relative to any other matter within the Commissioner’s jurisdiction hereunder, the Commissioner of Social Security shall have power to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of any evidence that relates to any matter under investigation or in question before the Commissioner of Social Security.” (42 U.S.C. 405 (d))

Notice how the SSN is second only to the legal name of the applicant in information priority. Also, as can be seen, the driver’s license application is the source of a wealth of information, all made available to the SSA for the mere act of the State unwarrantably requiring disclosure of the SSN. It should be noted here, that the process for obtaining a State identification card is the same as for a driver’s license. But all is not bad, supposedly, as the State allows for an exemption from the driver’s license application the SSN, if an individual does not have an SSN for “bona fide” religious reasons. Of course these religious reasons, which by the nature are private matters, are to be judged upon by the Secretary as legitimate or not, and the Illinois legislature still feels inclined to use a federal number on their form, rather it be a SSN or otherwise.

“The Secretary of State may in his discretion substitute a federal tax number in lieu of a social security number, or he may instead assign an additional distinctive number in lieu thereof, where an applicant is prohibited by bona fide religious convictions from applying or is exempt from applying for a social security number. The Secretary of State shall, however, determine which religious orders or sects have such bona fide religious convictions.” (625 ILCS 5/6‑106)

Though religion is a belief system practiced by an individual, it is his private business, and no concern of the State’s unless state laws are being broken via the practice of it. And of course the burden of proof of any ill will must be for the State to prove. But this is not the case, and the Sate only recognizes openly professed religious sects in the form of state incorporation. Unincorporated religious sects will not receive the blessing of the Secretary of State as “bona fide,” and thus the SSN requirement for receipt of a driver’s license will not be waived.

“Any church, congregation or society formed for the purposes of religious worship, may become incorporated … and may adopt a corporate name; and upon the filing of the affidavit, as hereinafter provided, it shall be and remain a body politic and corporate, by the name so adopted.” (805 ILCS 110/35)


Within the State of Illinois, all conceivable professions are regulated and require a license for their hassle free undertaking. Illinois has one hundred and five legislative acts, in the ‘Professions and Occupations’ Chapter of the ILCS, which either explicit require applicants to have a SSN, or implicitly require it by requiring applicants for licensure to complete application forms which request a SSN along with other personal information of the applicant. Accountants, Real Estate Agents, Doctors, Dentists, Pharmacists, Nurses, Hair Stylists, Cosmetologists, Dieticians, Veterinarians, Geologists, Engineers, Electricians, and et cetera ad nauseam, all qualify as regulated professions by The State of Illinois; who will not allow its citizens to live, unless they pledge allegiance to the federal government in the form of acquiring a SSN, an act which is not mandatory by the federal government, but of course encouraged and shamefully obliged by the State of Illinois, and many of its sister states.

A vital profession, of which the Illinois General Assembly does not have jurisdiction over, is the legal profession. Attorneys, though they execute the laws of the state in a courtroom setting, and should properly fall under the jurisdiction of the executive branch of government, in Illinois they are regulated by the judiciary (with the sole exception of the Attorney General, who falls under the executive branch of government). If one wanted to strive and become an attorney, and change some of the State’s legislation to exclude odious references to SSN requirements for professional license requirements, he would need to acquire for himself a license to practice law in the State from the Illinois Supreme Court. But this is probably the most difficult license of all to obtain. To be an attorney, one has to substantial complete higher education, as a precedent to enrollment in a program of official legal studies, which costs the individual a considerable amount more of his already precious time.

“Every applicant seeking admission to the bar on examination shall meet the following educational requirements: Each applicant shall have graduated from a four-year high school or other preparatory school whose graduates are admitted on diploma to the freshman class of any college or university having admission requirements equivalent to those of the University of Illinois, or shall have become otherwise eligible for admission to such freshman class; and shall have satisfactorily completed at least 90 semester hours of acceptable college work, while in actual attendance at one or more colleges or universities approved by the Board of Admissions to the Bar….. After the completion of both the preliminary and college work above set forth in paragraph (a) of this rule, each applicant shall have pursued a course of law studies and fulfilled the requirements for and received a first degree in law from a law school approved by the American Bar Association.” (Ill. S. Ct. Rule 703)

Of course these law schools and higher education courses are not free, and without access to employment opportunities, one without a SSN cannot afford to attend the universities. The State of Illinois has higher education assistance programs in the form of grants and loans, but these are pale in comparison to the size and scope of the federal equivalent; mostly because a large amount of the tax base leaves the State and enters the coffers of the federal government via an income tax, as previously mentioned. Illinois’ most significant higher education assistance program is its Monetary Award Program (MAP), a need-based grant award for scholastically advanced students seeking higher education opportunities. But to obtain this state-based award, one still needs a SSN; for to be eligible, the Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC) needs to verify that family income is consistent with eligibility requirements. The vehicle chosen for this verification is none other than a federal form, which of course requires the SSN for its operability.

“In order to receive any grant, loan, or work assistance under this subchapter and part C of subchapter I of chapter 34 of title 42, a student must … file with the Secretary, as part of the original financial aid application process, a certification, which need not be notarized, but which shall include … such student’s social security number,” (20 U.S.C. 1091 (a)(4)(B))

“…an applicant is eligible for a Monetary Award Program Plus grant under this Section if the Commission finds that the applicant meets all of the following qualifications: … He or she is from a family that had an adjusted gross income, listed on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, … “ (110 ILCS 947/39)

In fact, all of Illinois financial loans and awards work to supplement those offered by the federal government, and thus there is no independence, and no immunization from the SSN.

“To further the purposes of this Act, the Commission is authorized to originate loans for educational purposes, to students enrolled at higher education institutions. The Commission may establish borrower eligibility requirements for Commission originated loans.” (110 ILCS 947/100)

Here’s how it is so bluntly explained to student applicants for financial assistance:

“The first step in applying for both federal and state need-based assistance is the completion of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA).” (‘Financial Aid Process,’ ISAC)

Even if one somehow manages to circumvent the above obstacles, and manage to meet the educational requirements listed above, as pertaining to the license to practice law, the Illinois Supreme Court Rules go on to state that in addition to the requirements outlined above, applicants for law degrees must then pass the Illinois Bar exam. One potentially being the smartest jurist in the State is of no consequence: if the educational requirements are not met, he will not be able to sit for this exam, and can only practice law under the pain of arrest. It is lawyers across the country, and in this State of Illinois that are writing state sovereignty stripping, and federal government acquisition laws. It certainly appears that the education received by practicing attorneys in this State of Illinois is one which serves interests contrary to the well-being of the State.

Former Illinois Supreme Court Justice James Heiple, in his dissenting opinion of the adopted rule listed above, assessed the situation as follows:

“The American Bar Association is a voluntary association of dues paying lawyers (currently $225 per annum) that exists for the benefit of its members. No lawyer is required to belong. Most do not. It clothes its parochial existence with an overlay of public activities and pronouncements designed to convince the general public that it is interested in the general welfare. That its primary focus is the benefit of its members, however, is beyond question. That the American Bar Association is a trade association warrants neither commendation nor condemnation. As a trade association engaging in improving the status of lawyers and lobbying Congress and the State legislatures, it is on a par with any other trade association. It is decidedly not, however, an arm of the State of Illinois nor of this court.” (Ill. S. Ct. Rule 703, Justice Heiple, dissenting)

With both the courts and legislative acting contrary to the best interest of the State, what recourse or outlet is available to a dissenting citizen? On an aside, Justice Heiple was later impeached for judicial misconduct.


The State of Illinois, in its benevolence, and “Parens Patriae” type affection for its people, has decreed that any of its able-bodied citizens who are willing to work will be able to do just that. So much so, that it has declared unemployment as a public health hazard, and as such, has implemented a perpetual statewide compulsory unemployment insurance program designed to smooth out the unemployment spikes which normally occur in the business cycle. Below is how the State of Illinois so egregiously stated its public policy regarding the matter:

“As a guide to the interpretation and application of this Act the public policy of the State is declared as follows: Economic insecurity due to involuntary unemployment has become a serious menace to the health, safety, morals and welfare of the people of the State of Illinois. Involuntary unemployment is, therefore, a subject of general interest and concern which requires appropriate action by the legislature to prevent its spread and to lighten its burden which now so often falls with crushing force upon the unemployed worker and his family. Poverty, distress and suffering have prevailed throughout the State because funds have not been accumulated in times of plentiful opportunities for employment for the support of unemployed workers and their families during periods of unemployment, and the taxpayers have been unfairly burdened with the cost of supporting able‑bodied workers who are unable to secure employment. Farmers and rural communities particularly are unjustly burdened with increased taxation for the support of industrial workers at the very time when agricultural incomes are reduced by lack of purchasing power in the urban markets. It is the considered judgment of the General Assembly that in order to lessen the menace to the health, safety and morals of the people of Illinois, and to encourage stabilization of employment, compulsory unemployment insurance upon a statewide scale providing for the setting aside of reserves during periods of employment to be used to pay benefits during periods of unemployment, is necessary.” (820 ILCS 405/100)

In general, the program requires employers doing business within the State to pay 2.7% of the total “wages” paid to its “employees,” upon which funds are available to unemployed individuals who file “claims” against said funds. Of course compulsory anything is a bad idea, but this is exacerbated when the State sells its sovereignty, by placing its citizens in the dragnet of the federal government because it is unable to fund a program it deems is necessary for the very health and survival of the State. As seemingly the case always is, the federal government is more than willing to provide funds, of which the lion’s share are acquired from state’s citizens in the way of federal income taxes, but with strings in the form of mandates attached. These mandates have the direct function of influencing legislation at the state level, while also obtaining private information on the citizens by way of the SSN’s usage.

The federal unemployment insurance program is ancillary to Social Security, and it makes use of the SSN for its administration.

“The Secretary of Labor shall from time to time certify to the Secretary of the Treasury for payment to each State which has an unemployment compensation law approved by the Secretary of Labor under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, such amounts as the Secretary of Labor determines to be necessary for the proper and efficient administration of such law…” (42 U.S.C. 502 (a))

“The State agency charged with the administration of the State law … shall disclose, upon request and on a reimbursable basis, to officers and employees of the Department of Agriculture and to officers or employees of any State food stamp agency any of the following information contained in the records of such State agency— (i) wage information, (ii) whether an individual is receiving, has received, or has made application for, unemployment compensation, and the amount of any such compensation being received (or to be received) by such individual,” (42 U.S.C. 503 (d))

And of course, by wage information it is meant:

“the term “wage information” means information regarding wages paid to an individual, the social security account number of such individual, and the name, address, State, and the Federal employer identification number of the employer paying such wages to such individual; and the term “claim information” means information regarding whether an individual is receiving, has received, or has made application for, unemployment compensation, the amount of any such compensation being received (or to be received by such individual), and the individual’s current (or most recent) home address.” (42 U.S.C. 503 (h)(3))

Upon the bidding of the federal government, the State of Illinois promptly enacted the appropriate legislation in support of these mandates in exchange for the federal unemployment insurance grant monies.

In the administration of this Act, the Director shall cooperate, to the fullest extent consistent with the provisions of this Act, with the United States Secretary of Labor, or other appropriate Federal agency, with respect to the provisions of the Federal Social Security Act that relate to unemployment compensation, the Wagner‑Peyser Act, the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, and the Federal‑State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970;” (820 ILCS 405/1706)

“Each employing unit shall keep such true and accurate records with respect to services performed for it as may be required by the rules and regulations of the Director promulgated pursuant to the provisions of this Act. Such records together with such other books and documents as may be necessary to verify the entries in such records shall be open to inspection by the Director or his authorized representative at any reasonable time and as often as may be necessary.” (820 ILCS 405/1800)


But the employers (“employing units”) of the State of Illinois are not really “employers” as defined by the legislation, and this is because they do not have any “employees” as defined by the legislation. In fact, only the rarest of individuals fit the aforementioned definitions. So though the State of Illinois has implemented a compulsory unemployment insurance program, for all intents and purposes it is a voluntary program. But through the ignorance of common law employers and their employees, as well as federal and state government trickery, the lion’s share of the workforce for the State of Illinois is enrolled into this federally run program.

Very ingeniously, the laws have a provision for which employers otherwise not covered can voluntarily enroll in the unemployment insurance program. “You should never trouble trouble, until trouble troubles you” is an old saying, and ignorantly volunteering to engage in acts detrimental to one’s own best self-interest is one sure way to trouble trouble.

“An employing unit not otherwise subject to this Act, which files with the Director its written election to become an employer for not less than two calendar years, shall, with the written approval of the election by the Director, become an employer to the same extent as all other employers, as of the date stated in the approval, and shall cease to be subject to this Act as of January 1 of any calendar year subsequent to such two calendar years, only if prior to February 1 of that year it has filed with the Director a written notice to that effect. The Director shall approve any election so filed if he finds that the employment record of the applicant has not been or is not likely to be such as will unduly threaten the full payment of benefits when due under this Act.” (820 ILCS 405/302)

The above is how employers enroll themselves in this draconian program, and they enroll newly hired employees into it as well by making them sign the infamous IRS Form W-4 entitled ‘Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate.’ Of course this form requires the SSN of the “employee,” and is used to enroll the employee into the State’s unemployment insurance program, and for the accounting in the State and federal government’s “wage information” sharing racket centered on said program (Note that IRS Form W-2 is used to actually track the “wages” paid, and the SSA, IRS, and State and local taxing authorities is privy to this form detailing private information of the employer and employee.) The completed form is surrendered to the Director for the Illinois Department of Employment Security, who in turn submits the well received “employee” information to the Secretary for the U.S. Department of Labor (who of course shares the information with other federal and usurped underlying state agencies, including the IRS as proxy for the U.S. Treasury Department).

“…each employer in Illinois … shall file with the Department a report in accordance with rules adopted by the Department … providing the following information concerning each newly hired employee: the employee's name, address, and social security number, and the employer's name, address, Federal Employer Identification Number assigned under Section 6109 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and such other information as may be required by federal law or regulation…” (820 ILCS 405/1801.1)

“Each report required under this subsection shall be made on an Internal Revenue Service Form W‑4 or, at the option of the employer, an equivalent form, and may be transmitted by first class mail, by telefax, magnetically, or electronically.” (supra)

But as is commonplace, statutory language is often different than that of the common vernacular of the land.

As used in this Section, "newly hired employee" means an individual who is an employee within the meaning of Chapter 24 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,”

“…for the purposes of this Section only, the term "employer" has the meaning given by Section 3401(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986…” (supra)

Here, a shrewd examining will notice that the State of Illinois defers defining the terms in its own legislation to the federal government for its interpretation of them. And the federal government has interpreted the deferred as follows:

“For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.” (26 U.S.C. 3401 (c))

“For purposes of this chapter, the term “employer” means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person…” (26 U.S.C. 3401 (d))

The above definitions unravel even further, but enough is shown sufficiently here to conclude that most salaried common law employees are not public officials, or officers of corporations. And if they are not employees, then they can have no employers, as defined in the IRC, and consequentially the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act. As was determined earlier, most employers operating hassle free in the State of Illinois are enjoying such privilege because they own, and have shared their SSN with state authorities. These employers, however, falsely believe that their employees must share their SSN information as well via IRS Form W-4. If an individual without a SSN were to seek employment with such employers, he’d likely be turned away unnecessarily.

Continue to Part 4

Born Into Slavery 2 of 4

Continued from Part 1


For the states to willingly subject themselves to legislation that would otherwise be unconstitutional, is indeed just that without the U.S. Constitution being amended to allow for such jurisdictional changes. The United States is a collective of fifty states, and for one state to relinquish power to the federal government without the express consent of the other forty-nine states, is to create a situation in which the federal government becomes more powerful, both economically and political. The economic power comes from any associated receipts transferred to it, and the political power arises from the federal government increasing its ranks through what is effectively the poaching of state citizens. If unchecked, a situation can arise in which a minority of states, who remain unyielding in their delegating of unexpressed sovereignty to the federal government via voluntary submission to unconstitutional laws, find themselves behooved to a bandwagon effect which manifests itself in economical and political upheaval within their borders. States that accept free federal benefits in exchange for sovereignty are more economically and politically competitive states, and thus the bandwagon effect makes them more appealing to citizens in other states who deny such federal benefits.

As far as the financing of Social Security is concerned, the money comes from none other than taxing directly every citizen in the country. As was stated above with regard to payroll taxes:

“In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121 (b))…” (26 U.S.C. 3101)

So says the laws of the United States, but the U.S. Constitution says the following with regard to direct taxes:

“No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” (U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 4)

In other words, the Constitution prohibits the taxation of individuals directly, unless said taxes are born equally by the states, or citizen population as a whole; with each person paying his representative share of the levied tax. An equal tax is a tax which makes no discriminations whatsoever, and is based solely on an individual’s usage of the taxed activity. But a direct tax, such as a real or personal property tax, is an inescapable tax for doing nothing, and thus the Constitution says of this tax that it should be levied by population count. With this approach, one citizen’s share will be exactly equal to his neighbors; all other discriminations notwithstanding.

As for usage based taxes, the U.S. Constitution states:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” (U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1)

This clause in the Constitution simply states the obvious: that Congress may impose any necessary taxes in order to finance the responsibilities required of the federal government. This clause deals with usage; i.e., activities that are regulated by the United States, and contradistinctive from the direct taxes mentioned above. The most clear cut example of this is a tax on imports, where only the importing states are subject to the tax because they are solely responsible for utilizing the service of the federal government with regards to receiving their imports. States not importing have nothing to do with the cost of regulating imports; i.e., not using the service, and thus, appropriately, have no tax liability.

So the Constitution makes a clear distinction between direct and indirect taxes: the former an individual cannot escape, the latter he can avoid by selectively changing his behavioral habits in response to the taxed activity. As a quick aside, many people mistakenly believe that the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the right to impose a direct tax, in the form of taxation on personal income, on the American citizen without the apportionment requirement outlined in Article I. The Sixteenth Amendment states:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” (U.S. Const. Am. XVI)

Similar to the numerous examples we find in the U.S. Code, here we see the use of equivocal language in the actual Constitution itself. Clearly, it would make more sense for the text of this amendment to use the word “direct” in front of taxes, since the taxation debate is, and has always been “direct” versus “indirect” taxes. The Congress would have you believe that this amendment gives the federal government jurisdiction to tax the direct incomes of Americans, but not the direct real property of Americans, because the amendment only specifies that incomes would no longer be subject to the apportionment requirement. But incomes are received by federal agencies and employees, and because the federal government regulates its agencies and employees, it has the legal and constitutional right to tax the incomes, of which its agencies generate, or that which it pays its employees, in whatever manner the federal government deems appropriate. To further belabor the point, consider the words of the U.S. Supreme Court shortly thereafter the amendment’s ratification:

“…the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed [240 U.S. 103, 113] in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived…” (Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112, (1916))

The Supreme Court here views the income tax as an excise tax, and thus it falls under the jurisdiction of an indirect tax, and not a direct tax. Thus, the wording of the Sixteenth Amendment, in all its perplexity, is no more than a clarification amendment of that which already existed in the Constitution before it.


Most financial assistance programs of the states for its destitute citizens are federally funded via federal grants.

"The sums made available under this section shall be used for making payments to States which have submitted, and had approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (hereinafter referred to as the “Secretary”), State plans for old-age assistance." (42 U.S.C. 301)

“Each eligible State shall be entitled to receive from the Secretary … a grant in an amount equal to the State family assistance grant.” (42 U.S.C. 603 (a)(1)(A))

This fawned gesture of goodwill of the federal government is financed with income tax dollars poached from the coffers of the American citizenry, under the assumed authority of the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Just as with the payroll taxes which are used for Social Security, the income taxes can only be imposed on individuals if they have a SSN.

“The social security account number issued to an individual for purposes of section 205(c)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act shall, except as shall otherwise be specified under regulations of the Secretary, be used as the identifying number for such individual for purposes of this title.” (26 U.S.C. 6109 (d))

The dollars from the income taxes are used to fund ambitious federal endeavors, both domestically and abroad. The moneys extracted from the citizens of a state via income taxes are returned to the states via grants with attached mandates. If a participating state fails to comply with a mandate, its grant funding from the federal government may be in jeopardy. What the citizens see as the legislation of their respective states, is really none other than federal mandates being expressed via state legislation. Through this insidious and surreptitious scheme, the states have been reduced to mere territorial status, with the federal government governing the internal affairs that take place within a state’s territorial borders. Citizens, with their SSN’s, have become a worthwhile investment, and very valuable commodities to the federal government, with the aiding and abetting of their respective states who have exchanged sovereignty for mandates.

“In order to furnish suitable notes for circulation as Federal reserve notes, the Secretary of the Treasury shall cause plates and dies to be engraved in the best manner to guard against counterfeits and fraudulent alterations…” (12 U.S.C. 418)

“The Commissioner of Social Security shall issue a social security card to each individual at the time of the issuance of a social security account number to such individual. The social security card shall be made of banknote paper, and (to the maximum extent practicable) shall be a card which cannot be counterfeited.” (42 U.S.C. 405 (c)(2)(G))

“A person who is assigned a social security number will receive a social security number card from SSA within a reasonable time after the number has been assigned….Social security number cards are the property of SSA and must be returned upon request.” (20 C.F.R. 422.103 (d))

As should be clearly evident, not just the SSN, but the social security card has value, and neither is the property of the assignee.


Children are minors, and as such cannot be compelled to receive an SSN. However, the federal government is more than willing to liberally grant SSN’s to whoever’s requesting. In the case of minor children, their parent or guardian would have to make such a request on their behalf; and the SSA is more than willing to work with parents in fulfilling such requests.

“…the Commissioner of Social Security is authorized to take affirmative measures to assure the issuance of social security numbers: to or on behalf of children who are below school age at the request of their parents or guardians;” (42 U.S.C. 405 (c)(2)(B)(i)(4))

“SSA may enter into an agreement with officials of a State, including, for this purpose, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and New York City, to establish, as part of the official birth registration process, a procedure to assist SSA in assigning social security numbers to newborn children. Where an agreement is in effect, a parent, as part of the official birth registration process, need not complete a form SS-5 and may request that SSA assign a social security number to the newborn child.” (20 C.F.R. 422.103 (b)(2))

Although their children do not need it, parents undergo the process of applying for a SSN for their newborn infants; a process made extremely easy and efficient by the SSA and their respective state’s public health department. Given the jurisdiction implications mentioned above, the last thing a parent should want to do is subject their child to yet another juristic body which extends beyond that of their respective state; unless of course it is deemed by them to be beneficial or absolutely necessary. But as it stands now, parents freely exchange vital information about themselves and/or their children in exchange for an SSN which neither they, nor their children can claim ownership.

“Where a parent has requested a social security number for a newborn child as part of an official birth registration process described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the State vital statistics office will electronically transmit the request to SSA's central office in Baltimore, MD, along with the child's name, date and place of birth, sex, mother's maiden name, father's name (if shown on the birth registration), address of the mother, and birth certificate number. This birth registration information received by SSA from the State vital statistics office will be used to establish the age, identity, and U.S. citizenship of the newborn child. Using this information, SSA will assign a number to the child and send the social security number card to the child at the mother's address.” (20 C.F.R. 422.103 (c)(2))


By virtue of enrollment in the federal Social Security plan, i.e., possession of a SSN card, one will have to submit to administrative jurisdiction in regards to any judicial matters. For internal matters pertaining to Social Security, the U.S. district courts serve in an appellate capacity only. It examines appeals to it for procedural errors only, and leaves untouched the juristic matters adjudicated on by the SSA in regards to any claims that a citizen may have against it.
“…The court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing. The findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive,… “ (42 U.S.C. 405 (g))

So if one was to decide that he no longer needs his SSN, he must make an appeal to the SSA to release him from the program. He must ask their permission to relinquish possession of the SSN and card that he does not own, and return it to the rightful ownership of the SSA. The procedure of the SSA to withdraw an application submitted to it is to complete and submit their form SSA-521, entitled ‘Request for Withdrawal of Application.’ The formal request statement that must be consented to on form SSA-521 is as follows:

“I understand that… if a determination of my entitlement has been made, there must be repayment of all benefits paid on the application I want withdrawn, and all other persons whose benefits would be affected must consent to this withdrawal.” (SSA form ‘SSA-521’)

As can be seen, despite the fact that payroll taxes may have been deducted from one’s wages, he must return the full value of every benefit received which has been paid out in lieu of his SSN. The statement mentions nothing of returning the associated payroll taxes to the individual, or crediting them against the totality of prior benefits received required to be recompensed in full; and in addition, only with the consent of third parties who somehow benefit from your SSN. These would primarily be one’s debtors who use his SSN for business identity purposes, but may also include parties to court injunctions who receive annuities; i.e., alimony or child support payments, or other entanglements with state and local government agencies, and even business alliances, such as partnerships and corporations to which one may belong.

The language on the SSA-521 states that all of these interested parties must consent to the retirement of one’s SSN. Imagine a bank’s desire to take on more risk in regards to an outstanding mortgage to an individual who will be that much harder to track in the event of default, or an estranged spouse being okay with the risk to his alimony or child support payments, or the owners of a partnership being forced to dissolve because one of the owners does not have a SSN, and thus the State will not allow him to engage in proprietary endeavors without the threat of jail? These so-called interested parties will likely look after their own interests, as well as sister agencies of the SSA which use the SSN to administer their programs; such as the federal departments, and their state counterparts, of the U.S. Treasury, Labor, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, etc. whose reasons for objection may have purely political connotations. But in the unlikely event one somehow manages to win consent from all relevant parties, and pay off all of the so-called benefits ever received as a result of his being enrolled in Social Security, the SSA is still in the sole position as final arbiter, and will either grant or deny the request upon whatever political realities are currently afloat within the agency.

In relinquishing the SSN, the required form to retract is the SS-5, which is the application for obtaining a SSN. But herein lies a huge problem for most Americans: the SS-5 form likely does not exist. This is because most Americans have obtained their SSN’s via the official birth process of their state, a stratagem devised by the SSA and the respective states, and pounced upon by unsuspecting parents of the full scope of what the SSN entails. As stated previously:

“Where an agreement is in effect, a parent, as part of the official birth registration process, need not complete a form SS-5 and may request that SSA assign a social security number to the newborn child.” (20 C.F.R. 422.103 (b)(2))

So as can be seen, herein lies the conundrum: how can an SS-521 application for withdrawal, of an SS-5 application requesting an SSN, be complete if there is no relevant SS-5 form in existence? And so predictably, a request such as this will be denied by the SSA for lack of evidence, and upheld by the U.S. district courts on appeal for procedural integrity. The only recourse available to one in such a situation is to sue: 1) the health department of his birth state, 2) the state of his birth, and/or 3) the SSA. But most importantly, and also most unfortunately, he would have to sue his own parents for recourse; i.e., breach of trust in placing the interest of the SSA above his, their child, in obtaining the appropriate evidence for the circumstances and events surrounding his birth and obtaining of his SSN.

Continue to Part 3