How I Said No to the Automatic Social Security Number


This is the story of how I successfully refused to accept a Social Security Number for my child.

I simply said 'no.'

Really. That's how easy it was. I just said no, again, and again.

On the Texas Application for Birth Certificate, which I was unable to get a copy of for this article, there is a check box down at the bottom of the page. It says, and I'm paraphrasing, 'Check here to have your child assigned a Social Security Number.'

A day or two after my daughter was born, a girl walked into our recovery room with a folder of papers and brochures. There were all kinds of release forms and medical advice and, of course, the birth certificate application. I had a pretty good idea which forms were required for our insurance. We filled those out, leaving off everything but the barest minimum required information. Then we got to the birth certificate, with the incongruous SSN checkbox stuck into a corner at the bottom of the second page. I left it blank, of course. I suspected what was going to happen, and when the hospital admin returned the forms to us to put our final signatures on, someone had very considerately checked the box for us.

My wife pointed out that we deliberately left the checkbox blank and that we did not want our child assigned a Social Security Number. The hospital admin blinked. That funny look came across her eyes. You know the one; that purple confusion that occurs when someone who is accustomed to people doing what she says suddenly slams into a brick wall of opposition? That was she.

'I ' I don't know how to do that,' she stammered.

Of course she knew how to do it. When you get to that matching field on the computer screen, you leave it blank! She just never had an opportunity to try. Her lucky day to learn something new!

I shrugged. 'Not my problem,' my shrug implied. She gathered up the papers, frustrated and annoyed, and left. We had obviously tossed a minor foible her way. Damn new parents. Always wanting everything just the way they want it.

I turned around to see my mother-in-law, who is the quintessential 'Patriotic American'', trying to burn holes through me with her eyes. She had overheard the quibble about the Social Security Number and her patriotic duty was flying full mast (this was not too long after the September 11 massacre). Her cultural upbringing prevented her from actually voicing the question, so I just answered without waiting for her to speak.

'It's her choice,' I said, turning my head to my newborn.

'Social Security is voluntary. It's a contract. She's not old enough to understand it or make an informed decision. So, we believe it's a decision that should be left to her. She can always sign up when she's older, and knows what she's getting into.'

'But what if you die or get sick? Who will take care of her?' my mother-in-law demanded.

'I opened a half million dollar policy at work this week,' I countered. 'If I die, she gets a half-million bucks. That's a lot more than Social Security will ever pay her. Ever. I'll also put her on my health insurance. She's covered. I don't need Social Security to take care of her. We'll decide soon on setting up guardianship in the event we both die. And besides, there's always you.'

My wife voiced her support.

'Mom, it's our decision to make. Social Security is just bad. There won't be any money left when I retire, much less her, so we don't see the value in it. It's something we've discussed and agreed on and it's our decision to make, okay?'

My mother-in-law quietly accepted our decision. Or at least tolerated it. Or at least realized it was futile to argue any further.

A while later the room phone rang and I answered it.

'Mr. Allen? I understand you refused the Social Security Number for your child?'

'That's right.'

It was an older woman, obviously a supervisor of some kind. The razor in her voice was barely concealed.

'You do realize that without a Social Security Number she can't go to school or get a driver's license?' she menaced.

'Well,' I said as friendly as possible, 'it'll be a few years before she goes to school and even longer before she needs to drive. And I can always get her one later, right?' I knew I could, but I wanted to play the 'innocent' as much as possible. This lady was too close to government institutions for me to really want to piss her off.

She conceded that yes, my daughter could always get one later and abruptly hung up.

My mother-in-law had taken to staring out the window without blinking. Chinese for disapproval, I suppose.

A few minutes later the same hospital admin returned with our paperwork. The checkbox was blanked with whiteout, and a handwritten note authorized the correction. I signed my paternity (but left off my own SSN) and my wife finalized.

We weren't out of the woods yet. People in government are so conditioned to habit that I knew there was a strong possibility that someone would key in the SSN application in spite of the very explicit note. If we received a Social Security Card in her name in spite of our wishes, it would be almost impossible to have it rescinded. It requires essentially suing the hospital administration for misrepresentation and forgery, and once that victory is achieved, the results ram-rodded through the SSA. Good luck. The only other option I know of is to burn the card immediately and assume it never existed, something that may not be a bad idea for most adults as well.

It takes two to three weeks for a new Social Security card to be mailed to an applicant. My daughter has recently had her first birthday party and we have not received any contact from the SSA.

It was easy, far easier than I expected. Confidence defeats the habitual bully. But there were other ramifications beyond snotty hospital administrators. The health insurance was a bigger worry of mine than the hospital papers or the birth certificate. For the birth, I printed out and packed our state laws regarding the form of the birth certificate. They are very specific about which sections are required. Interestingly enough, the section dealing with the parents' Social Security Numbers and application for a child's Social Security Number are explicitly deemed 'not a part of the legal birth certificate.'1 I knew that was in the bag (and highlighted for easy pointing out to administrative automatons). But the health insurance was a big worry. I found nothing preventing a health insurer from refusing coverage to a dependent without a Social Security Number. In the end, I applied for the change of benefits and left my child's SSN field blank. In the course of conversations with agents to set up her benefits, only one even mentioned that she had no SSN. I simply said my daughter didn't have one yet. That seemed fine and I have so far had no issues or difficulties with either the insurance, doctors, or licensed child-care. Let me repeat that to make sure it sinks in. I have heath insurance, a pediatrician, and licensed child-care without my child needing an SSN. Interestingly enough, since then I have received computer generated documents on my daughter with the SSN filled in as 000-00-0001.

Since then, various family members have circulated our SSN choice through the grapevine, and I occasionally get messages from people asking how it is legal, or being angry with me for 'stealing' from America (as if American has more claim over my child than I do). The SSN conditioning is so deep even people who are old enough that one would think they remember not having an SSN believe that it is a requirement of citizenship in the United States from birth. As with many things in the freedom movement, being an example prompts more questions and interest than debating about it ever could. I've been able to educate dozens of people on the fact that a Social Security Number is not required for natural born citizens simply because I wouldn't accept one for my own child. This in itself is a great victory and a building block to spreading the freedom meme.

But I have had to be very careful about my reasoning. Obviously many people I talk to are shocked that my daughter does not have an SSN. Inevitably the conversation comes around to taxes. 'But how do you claim her as a dependant on your taxes?' they ask.

'I don't.'

And then the saddest part of the Social Security scheme rears its ugly head.

'But doesn't that cost you more money?'

Yes. Yes, it does. Not claiming a dependent on your taxes is your right. You always have the 'right' to pay more taxes. You always have the right to refuse a deduction. At our income, I figure not claiming my daughter costs me between $300 and $400 every year in tax deductions that I don't get back.

Most people reply with, 'Is that all?' I shrug and say, yeah, that's all. Three or four hundred dollars a year and my daughter is free from Social Security for as long as she wants to be.

And a few say, 'But that's a lot of money!'

And this is when I have to bite my tongue and refrain from replying. My child is worth more to me than a couple of hundred bucks a year. The condemnation in that statement is best left implied, rather than openly spoken. It's a conclusion that needs to be reached gently by the listener, rather than slapped in the face like a leather glove. But without exception, no one who has pursued that line of questioning with me has ever broached the subject again.

So that's it. My daughter is not a number. It will be her choice to enter the system if she wants. If she chooses, she can be self-employed and never pay income tax. She can keep the fruits of her labors for herself, or she can sign up for the social trough when and if she thinks it is appropriate. She will be educated on what it entails and how it works. She may have to learn to drive without a driver's license. She may have to learn to save for health expenses. She may have a more difficult life than many people, but she will have an opportunity of freedom that most people in America never receive. I can't make her take it. I can't make her embrace the difficult life of freedom in America . But I can give her the chance.

1 Texas Statutes: Health and Safety Code: Chapter 192.002 ' Form of Birth Certificate; Section (c): 'The form must include a space for recording the Social Security Numbers of the mother and father and the signatures of the biological mother and biological father. These Social Security Numbers and signatures are not a part of the legal birth certificate . . . .'

Your rating: None Average: 10 (2 votes)
Scarmig's picture
Columns on STR: 7

Scarmig has been questioning the role and necessity of politicians since 1999.  Still questioning them.


PeacefulKancer's picture

I came across this and and am very interested. Interested enough that I signed up just so I could comment. I hope that I don't resurrect a thread that shouldn't be dug up.

First off, any updates?

Secondly, I did a little searching around myself and found that some of the things we "need" SSNs for, we actually don't. It just happens that most places assume you have a SSN and use that.

Lawfully admitted noncitizens can get many benefits and services without a Social Security number. You do not need a number to get a driver’s license, register for school, obtain private health insurance, or to apply for school lunch programs or subsidized housing.

Some organizations use Social Security numbers to identify you in their records. Most, however, will identify you by some other means if you request it.

We cannot assign you a Social Security number solely so you can get a driver’s license or a service that requires a credit check.

Although many companies, such as banks and credit companies, may ask for your Social Security number, you are generally not required to provide one if you don’t have one.

Hmf. Interesting. There has been plenty of talk about what we are and are not. As my research shows (and certain government documents admit/contribute to this fact) we more than likely are nonresident aliens, not US Citizens. Look at Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway in 1916. Brushaber was a Citizen of New York State and a resident of the Borough of Brooklyn. Then if you look at Treasury Decision 2313 it says that Brushaber was a "nonresident alien" (for the purposes of taxation). Hmmm... Check it out.

mike's picture

How does the government keep track of someone w/o a SSN for tax purposes?

I was born in the US, and have a valid US passport, but have lived my entire life in Canada and never got a SSN.

I'm supposed to file taxes every year for the rest of my life! But I don't know if i'm even on record, so i don't want to start unnecessarily.. Any ideas?

selmermarkVI's picture

Wow! Kindred spirits after my own heart...

For Mike the Canadian, I would suggest that you are doing fine as a Canadian, you obviously do not intend to illegally tap any "services" reserved for SS card carrying US Citizens, so I say live and let live!

For Scarmig, I ask: How many of us are there who have done this in our families? Two? (You and me?) My son was native born right here in Texas in 1992, I never got him the number either, for "freedom" purposes, and wrote argumentative letters to IRS, with our pediatrician's notarized statement that our son was truly a male homo sapiens, entirely dependent upon his mother and me, and that we were claiming him as a dependent without obtaining for him any SS#. We actually did that for about 4 years, let them recompute our tax with penalty and interest, and then we would pay the penalty. I was truly stubborn. Since that time, we had not even bothered to claim him, we just paid the extra taxes without a "fight".
Our accomplishments to date:
-Enrollment in public school without an SS#.
-Texas Driver's License without an SS# (the form was DL-13, I believe.)
-Life Insurance Policy without an SS#.
-Enrollment in out of state mechanic trade school without an SS#.

But, by golly, now they may have him. He has been trying to figure a way to open a checking account with a SS#, and we are at a brick wall.
He is 17, and to date, has never encountered any native born American citizen without an SS#. He thought he might be the only one, I told him there are probably a few hundred thousand around the country, but for religious reasons. His lack of number is due to "freedom loving" reasons.

Anybody got any ideas for my son on how to get a bank checking account without an SS#?

1 more damn screen name to remeber's picture

Along with some other very interesting tidbits and case law, the following was found at this web page :

Wells Fargo Bank

A friend was just in Wells Fargo Bank in Renton , Washington.  He went in to cash a check.  The lady helping him asked if he had an account.  He explained that he did not because he had no SSN.  She asked him if he would be interested in opening an account if she could do that for him without an SSN.  He said, "Yes," and he opened an account with no hassles whatsoever.

The Wells Fargo employee who helped him was Angie Saladis, Asst. Vice-President.  The Wells Fargo bank branch is in the Safeway Market, 17230 - 140th SE, Renton , Washington 98058. 
Phone number is (425) 204-7995; FAX (425) 204-8332.

Apparently, Wells Fargo Bank has branches in 26 western states.  One would assume that this policy is uniform among those branches, and anyone encountering any difficulty opening an account without an SSN can have their local branch contact the above branch to confirm the Renton branch experience

1 more damn screen name to remeber's picture

some things I dint think about in my first post 1) is that if the wells fargo in your area still refuses to open acct w/o ssn or 2) there is no wells fargo in your area.

in both instances if I were you I would contact the listed individual to verify before going in to open the acct. Ask if it is true and if so why they happen to offer accts that way. Also ask what is their basis for doing that (ie. is it against fed law forbiding them to require it). that might give you some ammo to go into another bank. Also try to get it in writing

Suverans2's picture

Are you aware that the first Social Security Numbers (they weren't called that then, but were 9 digit identification numbers) were issued in the 1870's -- to black slaves registering as citizens of the United States? ~ David Gould

traysea413's picture

I am diligently searching for information that will help assist me in refusing the birth certificate/and or the social security number for the new baby I am having in January. I have read some information online that suggests asking for a Certificate of Live Birth is better than an actual Birth Certificate. Can anyone tell me what the benefit of doing this is? Also, any ideas on where I can find Virginia Law that addresses the issue of refusing the social security number? I want my baby to be free. Any help is much appreciated

Suverans2's picture

Data Required on Vital Statistics Certificates
12VAC5-550-100. Birth certificate items.
A. Certificate of Live Birth, Commonwealth of Virginia, for registrations at time of birth, shall contain the following items:

...and an optional item for the parent to request the State Registrar to report the birth to the Social Security Administration for account number issuance.

Suverans2's picture

Maxims of the law are holden for law, and all other cases that may be applied to them shall be taken for granted. 1 Inst. 11. 67; 4 Rep. See 1 Com. c. 68; Plowd. 27, b. ~ John Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary

This Maxim of Law, one of the legal axioms which "shall be taken for granted" by the STATE's so-called JUDGES, is something that may be of greater concern.

Partus sequitur ventrem. The offspring follow the condition of the mother. This is the law in the case of slaves and animals; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 167, 502; but with regard to freemen, children follow the condition of the father.

Regardless of the dubious origins of this maxim, are 14th Amendment citizens considered voluntary slaves by the aforementioned so-called JUDGES, as I and others have come to believe they are? If so, then the offspring will follow the condition of the mother, just as in all other cattle (animate chattel property).

Now, according to Noah Webster (c.1828) there are two entirely different kinds of freemen, 1. One who enjoys liberty, or who is not subject to the will of another; one not a slave or vassal and, 2. One who enjoys or is entitled to a franchise or peculiar privilege; as the freemen of a city or state.

For what should be obvious reasons, most will readily perceive that it is definition number one that applies to the above Maxim of Law. With franchises and peculiar privileges come certain "disadvantages".

Que sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus. He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1433. ~ Maxim of Law taken from John Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary

One of these "disadvantages" may be that you don't own your offspring, the STATE does. This would explain why the STATE can "legally" come in and take the offspring whenever it chooses, basically. Any pretexts its AGENTS may choose to make manifest for this taking are merely to keep the rest of the herd from stampeding.

hofo's picture

Scarmig, I'm curious about this part, "If she chooses, she can be self-employed and never pay income tax.". What's your foundation for this statement? I'm unaware of any dependency between paying income tax and a SSN. Sure the tax forms have fields for it, but where do you see anything that says that if you don't have a SSN you are exempt from income tax?

coreystreet's picture

i'm missing what the benefits of refusing a social security number would be...

Suverans2's picture

In the United States it is one of the five "Taxpayer Identification Numbers" (, it is a chattel number, the number of a "bondsman".

BONDS'MAN, n. [bond and man.] A slave. 1. A surety; one who is bound, or who gives security, for another. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

coreystreet's picture

so, to avoid paying taxes?

you are owned by your country, which you are a part of. you can't be a slave to yourself. the only way you have a right to abstain from taxpaying is if you SOMEHOW avoid utilizing any of the services that our country provides.

if you are just protesting where our tax dollars are being spent then i suppose that is a different situation.

Suverans2's picture

"so, to avoid paying taxes?"


"you are owned by your country..."

No, YOU are owned by your "country", i.e. the government, because YOU have apparently "submitted yourself to the dominion of the government", that is to say, YOU are evidently a "citizen", i.e. "subject"[1], which makes YOU one of their voluntary servants; I choose not to be owned by anyone other than myself.

"you can't be a slave to yourself."

That is correct, coreystreet, "you can't be a slave to yourself."

"the only way you have a right to abstain from taxpaying is if you SOMEHOW avoid utilizing any of the services that our country provides."

Fascinating! "Services", what an interesting choice of words. Do you work for the government, corystreet, I mean, in addition to being one of its "subjects".

The legal definition of services is, "Things purchased by consumers that do not have physical characteristics (e.g., services of doctors, lawyers, dentists, repair personnel)."[2]

That aside, your statement leads me to think that you believe that YOUR government is your "provider". Which of those "services" do you think YOUR "government", an artificial entity, "provides" for you?

The only "service" that a de jure (rightful) government can lawfully provide is "protection" of its members individual natural rights, their right to life, liberty and justly acquired property. On a scale of 1 to 10 how would you say YOUR government is doing protecting those rights for you, coreystreet?

And, just so you know, the only benefits and privileges one must "SOMEHOW avoid" are "member-only" benefits/privileges, and that is easier than you may have imagined, coreystreet. An individual is not "entitled" to any of these "member-only" benefits/privileges without the master's chattel number, just like the rancher may choose not to feed cattle that don't belong to him, that don't have his number in their ear, the state isn't required to "feed" persons that don't belong to it.

"if you are just protesting where our tax dollars are being spent then i suppose that is a different situation."

You "suppose that is a different situation"? Please, do explain what you mean by that, different from what, coreystreet?

One last question for you, "do you believe that every man has the natural right of voluntary association?"

“How does it become a man to behave towards the American government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it." ~ Henry David Thoreau

[1] Subject. ...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1425
[2] Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1369

Renee's picture

Yes, my 4 children also do not have SSNs. One currently drives (Nevada does not require SSNs for your license) and all of them are attending a local community college or state university.

But now I have a real problem.....

The Federal Government has a new regulation that require employers to have on record SSNs for everyone enrolled in a group health care plan - including dependents. The note states that 'This is part of the government's effort to determine the Medicare status of all plan participants." This act is the Medicare/Medicaid Coverage Act Extension of 2007 - or something to that affect. Get this - there are 3 exceptions to this regulation - if your dependent is not a US citizen, if your dependent is still in the adoption process, and I don't remember the third. My dependent could have coverage w/o an SSN IF they are not a US citizen!!!! Unbelievable!

Now - I can go into the Medicare system and ascertain the Medicare status of my dependents - and the system states that they are not eligible for Medicare coverage - but this is not adequate information for my company. If they do not have SSNs in the system by 12/31, they will be dropped.

What can I do? Are there other insurance companies that will cover them w/o SSNs?

Suverans2's picture

"Are there other insurance companies that will cover them w/o SSNs?"

Here's the short answer. In my opinion, no, not if the "Federal Government has a new regulation that require employers to have on record SSNs for everyone enrolled in a group health care plan - including dependents".

As I read your question again, I'm wondering if you were referring to getting insurance on your own, apart from your employer. Unfortunately, the answer will still be "no", in my opinion. If you would like to know why, let me know, but be forewarned you aren't going to like the answer.

But, maybe someone else here will have a happier answer for you.

Suverans2's picture

To the best of my knowledge all insurance companies are corporations, and all corporations are “created by or under the authority of a state”.

Corporation. An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 340

It is the nature of law, that what one creates, one controls. This natural law is the force that binds a creature to its creator. The state creates these corporate/legal entities and they are, therefore, subject to “state laws”, also called "civil law"[1].

Civil law applies only to state creations, and these are called “persons”, in general, and “artificial persons”, in particular.

Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis. Man (homo) is a term of nature; person (persona) of civil law. ~ Calvin (from Black’s Law Dictionary, Second Edition (1910), page 577

Insurance “corporations” are “artificial persons”, hence they can only have communion, i.e. partnership, that is, (literally) participation, or (social) intercourse, or (pecuniary) benefaction[2], with other “artificial persons”. To clarify this, in order for a human being to get benefits from an “artificial person”, in this case an insurance “corporation”, that human being must stand surety for an “artificial person” created by, you guessed it, the state. This is why the government can require the “corporation” you work for to require numbers on its “employees” (artificial persons), and their, what is it you called your children (human beings), Renee, ah, yes, your “dependents” (artificial persons).

Artificial persons. Persons created and devised by *human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 113

*Notice that these “artificial persons” are created and devised by HUMAN LAWS. Question, what other kind of laws are there? For the answer to that question see the legal definition for "civil law" in the endnotes. ;-)

Anyway, the state numbers all of it's “chattel”, i.e. all of the “artificial persons” it creates, and therefore has dominion over, just as the agents of the state recommend that you put your number on all of your “chattel”.

Quick definitions from Macmillan (chattel) noun ▸ something that you own

chattel early 13c., chatel "property, goods," from O.Fr. chatel "chattels, goods, wealth, possessions, property; profit; cattle," from L.L. capitale "property" (see cattle, which is the O.N.Fr. form of the same word). Etymology Online

CATTLE, n. 1. general, serving for tillage, or other labor... Hence it would appear that the word properly signifies possessions, goods. ...3. In reproach, human beings are called cattle.* ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

*Now, we can better understand why citizens of states are, in reproach, called “sheeple”.

The state is not required to provide anything for any human being it doesn't have "dominion"[3] over. So, how did the government gain "dominion" over so many human beings? Read it for yourself.

Citizen. ..."Citizens" are members of a political community who...have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of the government..." ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 244 [Emphasis added]

They "have...submitted themselves to the dominion of the government..."

Hopefully, now you can understand the state requirement for a social security number, your “badge of servitude”, in order to receive benefits and privileges (entitlements) from the corporations it has created.

[1] Civil law. That body of law which every particular nation, commonwealth, or city has established peculiarly for itself; more properly called "municipal" law, to distinguish it from the "law of nature". ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 246
[2] Dr. James Strong's Greek Dictionary
[3] Dominion. Generally accepted definition of "dominion" is perfect control in right of ownership. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 486 [Emphasis added]

"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the greatest liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth." ~ H.L. Mencken

Suverans2's picture

Where are all the "happy answers"?

Zeitgeist's picture

There are no happy comments since no one can effectively argue the facts. If you can, I’d love to hear from you. Here are a few that come to mind that seem to be undisputable:

1. Social Security is a farce. There is absolutely no value to any human, citizen or not. Social services are inept at best. If anyone can debate this fact, chances are… you’re ill-informed.

2. Federal Income Tax Law (of 1913) was never ratified and therefore is null and void. This law was built to simply pay back the interest on money printed by the Federal Reserve (central banking system) loaned to the US Government and subsequently to national banks (and then to you), see #3. Not one dime of the money paid in interest is invested into anything that “citizens” would consider valuable (infrastructure, education, civil services, etc.). You work 3 months out of the year (25% minimum tax bracket) for nothing (doesn’t that sound like slavery?).

3. The Federal Reserve banking system (also created in 1913 on Dec. 23rd when most of the Senate members were absent on vacation) is a perpetual system of debt (pyramid scheme?). Money = Debt. Where’s Abraham Lincoln when we need him? To get a dollar, there is a cost associated with it (interest). How can you make a dollar to pay back a dollar with interest? You can’t… hence inflation and the perpetual nature of rising national debt that will never go away.

The banks are required to “secure” loans with at least 10% of actual equity (cash), which means if they borrow $10 million from the government, they can loan out $9 million and then loan out $8.1 million and so forth up to 9 times. This creates and actually encourages further debt for the US economy which cannot and will not be sustained for much longer (unless we can figure out a way to create more wars which “stimulates” the economy). Oh wait, I guess we have done that with the fight on supposed “terrorism”. The monetary system does not work and never will, this is why the last time America instituted a central banking system, it lasted only 10 years.

In 1881, Garfield said, “Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce…and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.” He was dead two weeks later with a bullet to the head… coincidence? Who knows?

4. “Terrorism”


1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

For “political purposes”… very interesting indeed. “Threats”… hmm. Example: If you don’t pay taxes and conform to the illegal laws that are set forth, you will be jailed. Who are the real terrorists?

5. Education statistics have fallen steadily for over 30 years in the US. Why is this? At one time, the US ranked in the top 5 of the world’s supposed super-economies in math and physics. Fast-forward and we are nearly dead last. Why? Because ignorance is bliss and an informed America is one which would challenge the status quo. Critical thinking is not allowed! Matter of fact, it could land you in jail.

When are people going to realize that freedom is actually not free at all? We all live in the biggest fascist environment that has ever been created… all the while, pulling wool over the eyes of nearly every American citizen. Creating mass media and a materialistic environment to keep your mind off of what is really important. Very impressive indeed…what an accomplishment!

I could go on and on. The funny part is… I’m considered a “conspiracy theorist”, now that’s funny. By the way... I have a baby which is going to be born in about 2 months... and he will not be issued a SS#. I'll let him decide if he would like to be a part of the fascist movement.

Suverans2's picture

G'day Zeitgeist,

Congratulations on your baby who, (not "which"[1]), is going to be born in about 2 months. Just out of curiousity, what will your answer be when your child is old enough to ask you, "Daddy, do you use a government chattel number (a Tax Payer Identification Number)?" And, if your answer is, "Yes", I'm dying to hear your answer to, "Why Daddy?"

So, since you seem to be saying, in your above comment, that you alone "can effectively argue the facts", do you have an "happier answer" than the one I gave to Renee[2], who asked, "Are there other [health] insurance companies that will cover them [my 4 children] w/o SSNs?"

[1] "Which" does not, in modern usage, represent a living human being, which "a baby" presumably is.
[2] "Here's the short answer. In my opinion, no... But, maybe someone else here will have a happier answer for you."

Suverans2's picture

Along this general line, there are some noteworthy particulars, (IMO), within Noah's (c.1828) definition for the word "fetus".

FE'TUS, n. plu. fetuses. [L. faetus.] The young of viviparous animals in the womb, and of oviparous animals in the egg, after it is perfectly formed; before which time it is called embryo. A young animal then is called a fetus from the time its parts are distinctly formed, till its birth. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

Shouston's picture

a few years back -- health insurance companies were required to stop using your ss number to identify you. this was -- supposedly -- so that you would not become victim to fraud and identity theft.

another thing this did was take out the automatic "i've got your ss number" from the hospitals and doctors. with your ss number, they could turn over to the credit bureau if you didn't pay your bill. that is why they still have a slot for you to put it on the paperwork. i leave it blank - and, yes, i have been asked by more than one receptionist to please put it. i simply say i do not give out my ss number.

i had one doctor that had a very large, bold sign up that said if you do not put your ss number on the paperwork, she will not treat you! if i had not been in such poor health, i might have turned her in for that! it was obnoxious -- and she has a radio show in our very large city!

i made a very big mistake one time. going through a very rough divorce, one of my x's [let's just call them] girlfriends . . . (ugh) called child protective services on me -- just to further rattle me (did i mention, she used to be my best friend?). anyway -- i cooperated, let them in my home, allowed them to speak to my daughter (big mistake, she looked at me like who are these nuts when they asked some of the dumbest questions). she asked for my ss number and that of my daughter and i -- already shaken -- gave it to her. now, i guess i will have a 'report' -- even though found innocent in cps. i should have NEVER given them that number (or even let them in my house -- they didn't have a search warrant). anyway, i am very, very particular about who i give my number to.

banks need it for the same reason. they run a credit check and/or run you through a system that shows whether you have written bad checks, etc. i have given mine to the bank - but now, i think i should not have even done that!

about the baby and the ss -- i fell for it as well. in addition to that, i was told that i could not leave without giving my baby a name. huh? i can't leave? some of this is just bs that you don't realize where you stand until you have aged, been around the block, or -- not that we have internet access -- check out on your blackberry.

most of forget that we are usually dealing with a minimum wager that is telling us (some of us wtih advanced degrees) what we have to do.

at my school district, unless you check otherwise, you give them the right to obtain and study your child's MEDICAL RECORDS!!! i have brought this up to many parents and they don't even recall seeing on the registration papers. when i bring it to their attention or show them, they are dumbfounded! there is no way on earth i would release my child's medical records to the school!!

both my children did some commercial and television work and i had to get them a state license to work as a minor and a ss card . . . or did it? now, i wonder. but, of course, both mine have cards . . . and names (one, i had to change later because she was not the sex we were sure of and had no name . . .).

with everything becoming so computerized and public, i don't think you can keep your private information private enough. i am not going to hand out my ss number so that the doctor has it to ruin my credit should i become disabled or the like.

i wonder -- can companies, such as cell phones, etc. force you to give them your ss number? i know they want to run a credit check, and they should be able to do that with your name and address . . . right? is there a law anywhere stating they can deny service if you don't give them your ss number? if you have bad credit, they hit you with a huge deposit, i guess that is what they would do.

however, good for you for standing your ground. i hope i have given some of you something to think about as well. you don't need extra grief -- and as you can see by my post, it's not always about money or debt!

good luck!

LibertySoldier's picture

The doctors don't need your SS# to report your bills to the bureaus. They don't even need it to run your credit. Credit reports can be run without a SS# (your driver's license gives someone ALL the information they need). And the bureaus routinely sell your information to thousands of marketers, and a "soft pull" can be made on your bureau without you ever knowing about it! Your driver's license is probably more valuable to keep secret than your credit card!

Very interesting article and comments, we are about to have our second child and I'm thinking of doing the same thing.

Suverans2's picture

G'day LibertySoldier,

    Credit reports can be run without a SS# (your driver's license gives someone ALL the information they need). ~ LivertySoldier

According to Consumer Reports: "The credit report access keys on the license are your name, address, and date of birth..."

And, according to Jeanne Sahadi, CNN/Money Staff Writer, "A merchant can pull your credit report with just your name and address, she said. To insure they pull up the right report, give your full name with middle initial, your current address as well as any other addresses you may have had in the past five years."

Suverans2's picture

Correction, in order bypass spam filter.

And, according to Diane Terry, the director of the fraud victims assistance department at TransUnion, one of the three major credit bureaus, "A merchant can pull your credit report with just your name and address, she said. To insure they pull up the right report, give your full name with middle initial, your current address as well as any other addresses you may have had in the past five years."

Suverans2's picture

Has anyone else received a private message from a newbie [joined 6/9/11] called Jana?

befreetech's picture

Well done. Thanks for the great article.

I'd add:
1. It was preferable for us to have our child at home, thus avoiding any poisonous mercury laden, brain damaging, autism causing vaccinations and a myriad of other types of harm that can come to a child born in a hospital. We had a great midwife assist us with the baby's emergence. She has since left the united states for Jamaica because of the onerous "midwife license" requirements made it harder and harder for her to do it the way it should be done.

2. We set the date of our child's emergence to paper using our own "affidavit of embodiment" and recorded that in our county courthouse. In this way we avoided getting or having a conventional "birth certificate" which transfers the welfare of the child to the care of the state whereby you as parent are only the caretaker and the government / state decides what's best for your child's welfare, giving Child Protective Services - a division of Human Resources, the default authority to take your child from for any reason they may conjure, or no reason if they like.

3. We were able to get a passport for our child absent the Slave Surveillance Number and birth certificate by obtaining a "certificate of no found record". We got this by the normal application for a birth certificate from the state department and since it doesn't exist the "certificate of no found record" establishes proof that our child has no state issued birth certificate and therefore is not a ward of the state. In this way you can assert your right to travel for your "American National" (not citizen subject).

Thanks again!

Akkarin's picture

What is the difference between National and Citizen? I have been trying to figure this out without seeing any good definitions other than that Citizens are also nationals.
Also, what paperwork did you submit to prove your child was born in the US for a passport? I will be doing this for my child soon.

Suverans2's picture

G'day Akkarin,

According to Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), at page 1024, a "national" is...

    A person owing permanent allegiance to a state. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101

    The term "national" as used in the phrase "national of the United States" is broader than the term "citizen". Brassert v. Biddle, D.C.Conn., 59 F.Supp 457, 462.

Not much help at all, I'm afraid. If I find anything more definitive I'll pass it along.

Suverans2's picture
    Definition of NATIONAL
    1 : one that owes allegiance to or is under the protection of a nation without regard to the more formal status of citizen or subject ~ Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition

The word "or" makes this definition a little intriguing, to me.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language states that the following three words are synonyms for each other, so I am wary of all of them. "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you..."

    citizen, national, subject

    These nouns denote a person owing allegiance to a nation or state and entitled to its protection: an American citizen; a British national; a French subject.

As an individual secessionist, I consider myself an "American, since America was, (according to my Father and Mother et al, the land of my nativity, but I am not a U.S. citizen". Earthling has a nice ring to it.

Akkarin's picture

I am confused, does this mean you are subjected to the same laws as a citizen without the added benefits? How does one become a non-person, or is that just not getting a SSN?

Suverans2's picture

Re: question number one

I don't know. I, personally, do not answer to any of these: citizen, national, or subject.

Re: question number two

First, we must look at what a "person" is, in legalese.

A voluntary nonperson is someone who does not consent to be a member of the civil society[1], which means, he is not a "legal entity", which in turn, means, he does not have "all the [legal] rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes".

Nonpersons do, however, possess all their natural rights, so it is unlawful to violate their right to life, liberty and justly acquired property. The only duty this status imposes is to respect the natural rights of others.

SOCIETY ...3. By civil society is usually understood a state, (q. v.) a nation, (q. v.) or a body politic. (q. v.) Rutherf. Inst. c. 1 and 2. ~ Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary

Suverans2's picture

NATIONAL A person owing permanent allegiance to a state. 8 USC [Title 8 of the United States Code] ~ Lectric Law Library's Lexicon

Suverans2's picture

The answer to your second question seems to be here:

    3. We were able to get a passport for our child absent the Slave Surveillance Number and birth certificate by obtaining a "certificate of no found record". We got this by the normal application for a birth certificate from the state department and since it doesn't exist the "certificate of no found record" establishes proof that our child has no state issued birth certificate and therefore is not a ward of the state. In this way you can assert your right to travel for your "American National" (not citizen subject).

I say, "seems to be", only because, having never done it, I have no idea if that is correct or not.

Akkarin's picture

I did read that but he only mentioned the certificate of no record found. You need more documents then this. I was wondering about all the documents he might have submitted. Thank you for trying to answer for me.

Suverans2's picture

Comment deleted by author.

traysea413's picture

I do not have a social security number or a birth certificate for my son that was born in january 2010. we live in virginia and i have recieved the laws governing vital statistics. my question is this.... can medicaid deny benefits for him not having a social? also, is there any statutes or laws that can have a private health care deny him insurance. any help is much appreciated!! thank you

traysea413's picture

I do not have a social security number or a birth certificate for my son that was born in january 2010. we live in virginia and i have recieved the laws governing vital statistics. my question is this.... can medicaid deny benefits for him not having a social? also, is there any statutes or laws that can have a private health care deny him insurance. any help is much appreciated!! thank you

Suverans2's picture

"People served by Medicaid are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents..." ~ Wikipedia

Would you mind rewording this question, "are there any statutes or laws that can have a private health care deny him insurance"?

traysea413's picture

ok.. are there any statues or laws that can have a private health care deny him insurance? thank you for the correction.

Suverans2's picture

G'day traysea413,

No problem, regarding your son's nativity year mix-up.

What you are asking, if I understand you correctly, is, "Are there any statutes or laws that can FORCE a private health care provider to deny him insurance?" I should think that the answer is to that question would probably be no, but that is only a guess. That being said there may be some kind of "incentive(s)" for corporations, which are married to the STATE, to deal only with fellow members of their body politic.

Pretty much if your son remains completely un-numbered he is an nonperson.

non per-son (nan’ per’ sen) n. UNPERSON; specif. one who is officially ignored by the government ~ New World Dictionary of American English – Third College Edition

Suverans2's picture

Interesting, traysea413; you posted the following on July 12, 2010

"I am diligently searching for information that will help assist me in refusing the birth certificate/and or the social security number for the new baby I am having in January."

Now you are telling us that your son was born in "january 2010".

traysea413's picture

sorry. he was born january 2011.

Akkarin's picture

Where can I find proof that the following is true as it certainly isn't in Black's Law 5th edition:

" The fact that a certificate for a married couple is commercial paper that can be used to pledge the future expenditure of labor of the married couple against the State’s borrowed money was only half the equation. By entering into a State-sanctioned franchise (marriage) as a married couple, a couple forfeits their rights to a private, sovereign marriage and any ultimate control of their children or marriage-related property; as a result of the marriage license. Child Protective Services receives its full power and authority to seize children via the marriage license under the ancient legal doctrine of parens patriae."

According to Black’s Law, 5th edition:

I am really trying to figure out how the state gets parens patriae over our children. Yes I've heard that the marriage license/Birth Certificate are the sole things, but honestly I can not find any evidence to that fact.

Suverans2's picture

G'day Akkarin,

I'm not certain that that is true. And, I doubt seriously that anything I will tell you here could be considered "proof". It is only common sense, and not much more.

Who is the third party in a STATE sanctioned marriage? And, which of those three parties [persons] is the master? (Hint: The master is not required to seek permission [license] from the servant.) So right out of the chute a man who seeks permission [license] to marry is voluntarily admitting that he ALREADY IS a servant. And, who controls the servant's money, food, children, et cetera? The master, right?

Look at it this way. If man is not a member, i.e. a citizen/subject[1], of a body politic, his status is that of, "sovereign without subjects", and in this state [condition], who would be the "competent authority[2]" that he would be required to seek before betrothing and marrying a maiden? Probably the maiden's Father, right? Why because as long as the maiden is a member of her Father's "household" he is the responsible party.

Now, if she marries a man and they choose to remain members of her Father's household, who has the right to tell both of them what they can and cannot do...with their money, their food, their children, et cetera? If your Father, was anything like mine, he may have 'suggested' something to you along these lines; "As long as you are under my roof [protection], you will do as I say." That is just another way of saying, "As long as I am responsible for you, you will do as I say"; which, of course, (in my opinion), just makes [common] sense.

On the other hand, if this maiden should leave her Father's household, before marrying, she is no long a citizen/subject of his household; she then becomes a free being, because she is now responsible for her own welfare, and, accordingly, is no longer required to seek her Father's permission, or obey his 'household law' [private law], though she still may, if she respects his wisdom, (presuming he has some). Now, if she marries, with or without her Father's permission, her man becomes the husbandman[3] of their new household, presuming, of course, that this arrangement is agreed to by her. In some households the woman is the agreed-upon "master of the family" and in others they agree to a "joint-tenancy" of the "throne".

Simply substitute the word "government", or "state", if you prefer, in the appropriate places to better understand what is happening in your 'world' at this time.

[1] Look up the word "subject" in your copy of Black's Fifth, and I believe you will find this, "Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy [legal] rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws." [The word "legal" was added for clarification by me. The STATE does not issue natural rights; they are inherent.]'

[2] You will find these words under "License" in your copy of Black's Fifth.

[3] HUS'BANDMAN, n. ...1. The master of a family. ... ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

Akkarin's picture

Thanks again for the information Suverans2, you always have detailed explanations even I can understand coupled with great footnotes. I really appreciate you sharing your knowledge and research with me. I'll have to meditate on this more, but it definitely feels true and seems logical.

varrin's picture

I would be interested in hearing from those following this comment thread who have children without social security numbers who have been denied group health coverage and/or have had existing coverage canceled for your children due to not having a SSN. I am in this situation with two of our four kids now. I am exploring a legal challenge, but I suspect such a challenge will be cost prohibitive and wouldn't be taken up by an organization like ACLU, ACLJ, IJ, etc., because the class is too small. If I knew there were more people in this position, that might be helpful. Message me offline if you're interested in discussing it, comiserating, strategizing, etc...

braingamer47's picture

There are those of us who have lived their lives, thus far, without social security numbers (SSN). It hasn't always been easy, you get a lot of funny looks, get turned down for jobs, and credit union accounts (even when you meet the charter requirements, and it's a benefit listed with the job). In any case, it would be nice to know more folk who have gone through similar issues.

Glock27's picture

People are not numbers and I believe Social Security Numbers need to be banned because we are not numbers. I know in several cases when going for a service my SSN was requested and I refused to give it. Hmmm. I got refused the service.