I concur, the ssn is the visioned "mark of the beast" by John of Revelations. The rfid chip is the extrapolated morphing of the ssn into the of 21st century technology.

Since a child i have always felt an eerie ominous cloud hanging around the ssn whenever I posed questions about its use to those adults that insisted that it was a requirement to have in one's possession in order to obtain work and receive other benefits of this society. For the longest time I was curious about how its use came about. While researching the income tax back in the early 90s, I came across how this voluntary use of the ssn transitioned into being the so-called "mandatory requirement". I have posted this before to Ohfor07, but I will post this again (below) for those that may not be aware of how this occurred.

Years ago, more than 30 years, I decided to live my life without it, as much as I possibly could, anyways. Little did I know at the time how this would cause me to alter my life in ways that would be different than others around me. It certainly has made life much more difficult to live in general terms as items cost more (i.e. unable to become a member of my local health food store for the discount they provide their members), getting simple things done (like getting a telephone installed) became extremely complex, making it costlier to live my life, having lost jobs and income making this a personal policy for myself. But it is something that I see that may benefit me in the near future as tougher times will be upon us all... When each of us will have to make that hard decision - whether to take a chip in the arm or have you and/or your family go thirsty and hungry without it...

But the most significant thing that was realized over the course of time is my trust in existence has grown. I have found how existence has supported me in making this move in a countless number of ways. There have been times that doors have opened up for me to be allowed to have and do things despite the stringent requirement for an ssn. For example, I have stumbled across insurance agents that overlooked the fact that I did not place a unique identifier in the appropriate field on the form they had me sign. I found a bank V.P. that said I could open up an bank account without an ssn - saying "if you do, you may be subject to backup withholding..." When one comes to understand what that actually means, then, one finds that it does not apply to me!
It caused me to make a turn as to how to approach the job market. In seeking independent contractor assigned work, I came to learn how to write a letter to those employers that thought that a ssn was a mandatory requirement. Sometimes these letters worked, other times not. Whether this life style will pass the real test that is coming is yet to be seen. I sense that that is the time when a "black market" barter system will be on the rise.

Cheers
turiya -*-

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It all got terribly confusing back when FDR made efforts to transplant socialist ideas of england, erecting the social security administration. From otto skinner's book, he has a very interesting chapter as he explains that it was the very first Commissioner of that entity, Arthur J. Altmeyer, that could be very well responsible for all the confusion surrounding the susposed requirements for everyone to be tagged with a social security number (mark of the beast, imo). He was appointed by FDR to be the first administrator.

Altmeyer had to be subpoenaed in order to force him to appear in a 1953 analysis by the Subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, as he was a reluctant witness. And, as any good democrat would have it, he blamed it all on the Republicans. (The Biggest Tax Loophole of All, Chapter 4 Social Security, page 114) For your enjoyment, an excerpt from that chapter is as follows:

"During the questioning, Mr. Altmeyer proceeded to make a voluntary statement to describe how the industrial division of the Nation Republican Campaign Committee fraudulently used the name of the Social Security Board to advise working Americans that the "law" required social security taxes to be deducted. The Committee had distributed notices, including notices which were inserted into the workers pay envelopes. The notices read as follows:

Notice, deductions from pay starting January 1.

"Beginning January 1, 1937, your employer will be compelled by law to deduct a certain amount from your wages every payday. This is in compliance with the terms of the Social Security Act signed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, August 14, 1935. The deduction begins with 1 percent and increases until it reaches 3 percent. To the amount taken from your wages, your employer is required to pay in addition either an equal or double amount. The combined taxes may total 9 percent of the whole payroll. This is not a voluntary plan. Your employer must make this deduction. Regulations are published by— Social Security Board, Washington, D.C."

Mr. Altmeyer goes on to state that they were deluged by inquiries from all over the United States, and were forced to issue the following statement:

"Fraudulent use of the name of the Social Security Board in the form of a signature to posters dealing with the Social Security Act was brought to the attention of the Board here today by employers in California, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and other sections of the country. The Board made public photostatic copies of such posters forecasting pay deductions and concluding with the words "Regulations are published by the Social Security Board, Washington, D.C.," the name and address of the Board placed so as to appear to be a signature to an official notice."

Mr. Altmeyer then states that at the same time, the Board issued the following statement:

"No regulations dealing with wage deductions have been published by the Social Security Board nor instructions to employers to post such notices have been issued by the Social Security Board. Any effort to have the name of the Board appear as a signature to such notices is misrepresentation and fraud. The Social Security Board cannot ignore this unauthorized and misleading use of its name on posters, which is impeding the orderly process of administering the Social Security Act. The Board feels it is duty to bring these posters to the attention of the Department of Justice for investigation as to authorship and responsibility for circulation."

Since this was a voluntary statement from the reluctant witness, it may be that Mr. Altmeyer was attempting to shift blame and attention to someone else. The report shows that Mr. Altmeyer knew that the notice was not technically correct regarding the law. Section 801 of Title VIII of the Social Security Act speaks in terms of a tax upon the income of every individual equal to (measured by) a percentage of the wages paid. Mr. Altmeyer undoubtedly knew that the United States Supreme Court had already ruled that taxation on income was in its nature an excise.* No place in the Social Security Act does it describe any revenue taxable activity.

Furthermore, we already know that income is property and there can be no unapportioned federal tax on property (something discussed previously in this book). Therefore, income cannot be the subject of this tax. So not only were Americans falsely led to believe that it was an insurance contract for old age, they were also falsely led to believe that the law required the withholding for a savings program; when in fact, it was for a tax which they did not understand. We already know that there is no absolute requirement to furnish a social security number. But when these numbers are furnished, they become prima facie evidence of being a "taxpayer" subject to a revenue tax.

The report is full of letters and statements by individuals from all across the land stating how and why the Social Security Act was a total fraud on the American people. For the most part, these comments apparently fell on deaf ears.

The average working American was in no position to complain. In 1937 it was difficult to find a job. The worker did not dare complain about a mere 1 percent deducted from his pay. He was lucky to have a job. The nation had been thrown into a depression. A depression is the last stages of a period of extreme deflation. Deflation is the deflating of the money supply. America still had all the farms, factories, railroads, and people to do the work it had before the depression. However, through a manipulation of the money supply, the money powers engineered the depression. In the 1920’s, money was created on paper out of nothing. This money was loaned in the form of on-call notes for people to buy stock in the stock market. The more money that was loaned, the more people were able to pay for the stock, forcing the price of the stock higher and higher. People thought they were getting rich in the stock market. More and more people joined in. It has been reported that even shoe-shine boys were buying stock.

When stock prices were very high, people in the know unloaded their stock. Then they called in the on-call notes. People had to sell their stock in order to pay the notes. There were more sellers than buyers and the stock market fell, financially destroying many people and placing the nation onto financial chaos. People said that money was in short supply. They were technically correct since the money that had been created out of nothing was no longer in circulation in the form of on-call notes. While this is admittedly an oversimplified explanation, given the essential facts, even a reasonably intelligent sixth grader could anticipate the outcome of such a scheme. How better to get financial control over a percentage of the production of the American worker than to place him in a position that would cause him to be willing to accept promises of ‘security" in any form? There are plenty of books written on this subject which document the manipulation of money supply by the money powers., or robber barons if you prefer, had the American people primed so that they would "volunteer" into a "social security" scheme which would gradually deprive them more and more of their earnings.

The planners of the social security scheme knew that Congress had no power to force people into a contract. They knew that Congress had no power to take from one group of people (a younger generation) and give to another group of people (an older generation) through a forced plan of directly transferring funds from one group to another group. It had to be done under the guise of taxation. Furthermore, the people would have to "voluntarily" provide evidence of being subject to a tax. Hence, the people were led to believe that the "law" required them to get a number. Had the people not been led to believe that they were "investing" into their future security, there would certainly have been more objections to the taking of even 1 percent of their wages during the depression. The scheme could not have be successfully put into place without the American people being falsely led to believe that it involved an insurance contract.

The writers of the Social ‘security Act made certain that the taxes collected under the act were not earmarked for any specific purpose to prevent the Act from being unconstitutional. The writers of the Social Security Act also made certain that the taxes collected under the Social Security Act would be collected as indirect taxes (not insurance premium payments), and that they were paid directly into the federal Treasury and not into any special fund for the use and benefit of any particular individual or group. Remember, Congress has power to collect taxes to pay the debts, and for the common defense and general welfare only; but has no power to transfer funds from one group to another group.

By keeping the taxes separated from the "general" welfare benefits, the "taxpayer" would be in no position to object to where the money was to be spent. Without going into specific citations, case law on the subject shows that the "taxpayer" cannot refuse to pay the taxes he owes just because he objects to how Congress is spending the money; whether it is for the abortion of unborn babies, or for wars in a foreign land, or for any other purpose. Americans had been truly misled, and unfortunately, they are still being misled."

The Biggest Tax Loophole of All, Chapter 4 Social Security, page 114-118

Sent this information to FRONTLINE a couple years back... they replied saying in so many words that they did not have an interest. So, you do what you can... seeing the writing on the wall... one knows the house of cards has to fall...  knowing that the next phoenix will rise some time after that... whenever... and for this I can say, "whatever..."

turiya -*-