Call for Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie References

lma writes "Lyle Zapato, best-selling author (well, maybe just author) of Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie: Practical Mind Control Protection for Paranoids , and developer of MindGuard, personal anti-psychotronic software for Amiga and Linux, is trying to find as many references to AFDBs or similar devices prior to 1991 as possible. Please help this important part of our cultural heritage from being lost, and email him with any references you can find." Well, there was my Uncle Milt..I mean...well, nevermind.

Comments

Social Engineering in action

[RgnadKzin]

You may not be aware of 42 USC 405(c)(2)(B)(i):

It is the law which shows who has to get a social security number [my notes added].

--cite--
(B) (i) In carrying out the Commissioner's duties under subparagraph (A) and subparagraph (F), the Commissioner of Social Security shall take affirmative measures to assure that social security account numbers will, to the maximum extent practicable [This is the key here - "maximum extent practicable" still does not mean "required"], be assigned to all members of appropriate groups or categories of individuals by assigning such numbers (or ascertaining that such numbers have already been assigned):

(I) to aliens at the time of their lawful admission to the United States either for permanent residence or under other authority of law permitting them to engage in employment in the United States and to other aliens at such time as their status is so changed as to make it lawful for them to engage in such employment; [We see here that citizens are not required to get the number for "employment", only aliens. Also, since this is the Social Security Act, the term "employment" is a defined term in the law, and does not have the same meaning as the same term that you and I might want to convey during normal speech.]

(II) to any individual who is an applicant for or recipient of benefits under any program financed in whole or in part from Federal funds including any child on whose behalf such benefits are claimed by another person; and [We see here that someone is getting some benefits. It could be a citizen, it could be an alien, it doesn't matter. Read Ashwander v. TVA and Bowen v. Roy and you will see that someone who receives benefits cannot complain about paying for them.]

(III) to any other individual when it appears that he could have been but was not assigned an account number under the provisions of sub clauses (I) or (II) but only after such investigation as is necessary to establish to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Social Security, the identity of such individual, the fact that an account number has not already been assigned to such individual, and the fact that such individual is a citizen or a noncitizen who is not, because of his alien status, prohibited from engaging in employment; [All this does is make the Secretary responsible to find everyone in class I and II above.] and, in carrying out such duties, the Commissioner of Social Security is authorized to take affirmative measures [Notice that it is no longer "maximum extent practicable". Does that mean less than "not required"?] to assure the issuance of social security numbers:

(IV) to or on behalf of children who are below school age at the request of their parents or guardians [This is how most folks got enumerated. Tell your parents, "Shame on you!" from me.]; and

(V) to children of school age at the time of their first enrollment in school. [Which is an important consideration, as many state schools are receiving federal funds and so need to get this number in order to collect. However, schools within the states of the Union are not technically not eligible for these funds.]
--end--

So can it be more clear from this that citizens are not required to get an SSN? It is required of aliens in order to work in the U.S., and of anyone else only in order to participate in a voluntary benefits program.

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD v. ALTON R. CO., 295 U.S. 330 (1935)

"In final analysis, the petitioners' sole reliance is the thesis that efficiency depends upon morale, and morale in turn upon assurance of security for the worker's old age. Thus pensions are sought to be related to efficiency of transportation, and brought within the commerce power. In supporting the act the petitioners constantly recur to such phrases as 'old age security,' 'assurance of old age security,' 'improvement of employee morale and efficiency through providing definite assurance of old age security,' 'assurance of old age support,' 'mind at ease,' and 'fear of old age dependency.' These expressions are frequently connected with assertions that the removal of the fear of old age dependency will tend to create a better morale throughout the ranks of employees. The theory is that one who has an assurance against future dependency will do his work more cheerfully, and therefore more efficiently. The question at once presents itself whether the fostering of a contented mind on the part of an employee by legislation of this type is in any just sense a regulation of interstate transportation. If that question be answered in the affirmative, obviously there is no limit to the field of so-called regulation. The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? Is it not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. The answer of the petitioners is that not all such means of promoting contentment have such a close relation to interstate commerce as pensions. This is in truth no answer, for we must deal with the principle involved and not the means adopted. If contentment of the employee were an object for the attainment of which the regulatory power could be exerted, the courts could not question the wisdom of methods adopted for its advancement."