Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:07.000]  Welcome to the show. Social Security is considered by the vast majority of Americans to be the best government program ever enacted.
[00:07.000 --> 00:15.000]  As Americans grow older, most can't wait to hit the age when they can start drawing Social Security, which they view as getting back what they put in.
[00:15.000 --> 00:22.000]  Many Americans consider having a Social Security number as the quintessential proof of being an American.
[00:22.000 --> 00:36.000]  But what if I was to tell you, no, not tell you, show you in the law that none of that is true, that a massive con job has been perpetrated on you and the entire country?
[00:36.000 --> 00:43.000]  Would you appreciate me for telling you the truth or vilify me for telling you something you never wanted to know?
[00:43.000 --> 00:45.000]  We're about to find out.
[00:52.000 --> 00:53.000]  With Dave Champion.
[01:01.000 --> 01:09.000]  Let's start with this. I dislike sounding dramatic, but there is something truly nefarious taking place in the Social Security Act.
[01:09.000 --> 01:14.000]  If you doubt that, give me another 10 minutes and you'll know it's true.
[01:14.000 --> 01:25.000]  One common thread in all my work is that I encourage people to not believe me, but to do their own research, which will in turn show them that what I present is 100% factual.
[01:25.000 --> 01:40.000]  Today, as I move through the legal landscape on this issue, I'm going to put the law on the screen so you can see with your own two eyes and therefore have absolute confidence that what I'm sharing with you is in fact what the law really says.
[01:40.000 --> 01:53.000]  That's particularly important for this presentation because I imagine, absent seeing the law for yourself, you'd think I'm full of crap because what you're going to see today will eviscerate narratives you've likely believed your entire life.
[01:53.000 --> 02:09.000]  Much of what I'm about to share with you I've known for decades because it appears in my book, Income Tax Shattering the Mist, which is the bestselling book in America that does on a grand scale concerning the income tax, what I'm about to reveal to you today concerning Social Security.
[02:09.000 --> 02:20.000]  When I was researching federal tax laws starting back in the early 90s, I read the version of Social Security law that appears in Chapter 21 of the tax code.
[02:20.000 --> 02:26.000]  What one finds there destroys the narrative that the vast majority of Americans believe about Social Security.
[02:26.000 --> 02:34.000]  That said, just recently I read the original Social Security Act as written and enacted in 1935.
[02:35.000 --> 02:42.000]  I'm going to show you what the Act says, but first I want to share an experience with you which requires a bit of knowledge on your part.
[02:42.000 --> 02:47.000]  What appears in the United States Code is not law.
[02:47.000 --> 02:52.000]  The actual law are the statutes at large voted upon by Congress.
[02:52.000 --> 03:05.000]  After a bill is passed by Congress and signed by the President, government attorneys at the National Archives and Records Administration, known as NARA, take a portion of the statute at large and assign it a place in the code.
[03:05.000 --> 03:11.000]  Then they take another part of the statute at large and assign it to another place in the code and so on.
[03:11.000 --> 03:19.000]  Illustratively, one part of a statute at large may appear in Title 20 of the code, another part in Title 42 and yet another part in Title 26.
[03:19.000 --> 03:26.000]  Further, within each of those titles, parts of the original statute may appear in different subtitles and even different chapters.
[03:26.000 --> 03:31.000]  In short, when you're reading something in the United States Code, you're not seeing the complete scope of the law.
[03:31.000 --> 03:38.000]  You're not seeing the law in the order it was originally laid out, read by the Congress persons and senators, and voted on.
[03:38.000 --> 03:46.000]  Accordingly, when I read an original statute at large, I put out of my mind the codified version I've seen in the United States Code.
[03:47.000 --> 03:55.000]  Alright, so with that under our belts, what was the experience I had when reading the original statute at large that is the Social Security Act?
[03:55.000 --> 04:08.000]  As I was reading through it, the thought repeatedly came into my mind that nowhere in the U.S. Constitution has Congress granted the authority to do any of the things that are in the Social Security Act.
[04:08.000 --> 04:11.000]  And to be clear, we're not talking about a matter of interpretation.
[04:11.000 --> 04:17.000]  What appears in the Social Security Act is so far outside constitutional bounds that no interpretation is necessary.
[04:17.000 --> 04:28.000]  When I say that, some of you may be scoffing because you're thinking that if the act was as far out of constitutional bounds as I'm saying, how could it possibly still be in effect almost 90 years later?
[04:28.000 --> 04:32.000]  That kind of skepticism is healthy and shows your thinking, and I appreciate that.
[04:32.000 --> 04:39.000]  As we proceed, it's going to become crystal clear how and why the act is still in effect today.
[04:39.000 --> 04:43.000]  And you're not going to like what you see.
[04:43.000 --> 04:49.000]  What you're seeing on your screen is the original 1935 Social Security Act as passed by Congress.
[04:49.000 --> 04:58.000]  You'll notice the 1935 date in the upper right-hand corner and the first part of the bill, which is grants to states for old age assistance.
[04:58.000 --> 05:02.000]  You may notice what you're seeing is not titled the Social Security Act.
[05:02.000 --> 05:06.000]  So perhaps you doubt I'm really showing you the Social Security Act.
[05:06.000 --> 05:16.000]  To address that, let me take you to page 648 of the statute where you can see it says this act may be cited as the Social Security Act.
[05:16.000 --> 05:22.000]  So while the legislation doesn't lead with the name Social Security Act, it is the Social Security Act.
[05:23.000 --> 05:28.000]  The act is long, tedious, and repetitive in many parts, so I'm not going to take you through the whole thing.
[05:28.000 --> 05:33.000]  Instead, I'm going to put a link to the act in the notes so you can read it at your leisure.
[05:33.000 --> 05:41.000]  Every program established by the Social Security Act is established within the states and is operated by the states.
[05:41.000 --> 05:48.000]  All the federal government does in each section of the act is give money to the states for programs Congress wants the states to administer.
[05:48.000 --> 05:57.000]  A partial list of those programs includes payment to the elderly, financial assistance to unemployed, child welfare payments, assistance to the blind, and so on.
[05:57.000 --> 05:59.000]  You get the gist.
[05:59.000 --> 06:09.000]  I bet that when I mentioned the act funds programs to be administered by the states, you automatically assumed it meant the states of the union.
[06:09.000 --> 06:13.000]  That assumption is dead wrong.
[06:13.000 --> 06:21.000]  Before I show you the indisputable fact that the Social Security Act did not, and does not to this very day, have any authority in the states of the union,
[06:21.000 --> 06:34.000]  I want to encourage you to stay with me as I work through the facts and the law because there are unrecognized threats to your liberty when you involve yourself in a federal program that is legally inapplicable to citizens of the states of the union.
[06:34.000 --> 06:47.000]  I get that this may sound fantastical to some of you, but if you stick with me by the end, you'll say, I thought champion was full of crap, but it turns out he's right.
[06:47.000 --> 06:54.000]  In order for you to have a clear understanding that state as used in the Social Security Act does not embrace the states of the union,
[06:54.000 --> 07:01.000]  we have to begin by taking a quick look at the meaning of the term includes as used in the definitions in the act.
[07:01.000 --> 07:07.000]  We have to look at includes because it is pivotal to understanding the acts definitions of state and United States.
[07:07.000 --> 07:11.000]  I've discussed the meaning of includes in the tax code many times before.
[07:11.000 --> 07:26.000]  You may find it interesting that the definition of includes in the 1935 Social Security Act is the exact same definition word for word as used in the Underwood Simon's Tariff Act of 1913, which enacted what today we call income tax.
[07:26.000 --> 07:32.000]  On the screen you can see includes in the definition section of the Social Security Act.
[07:32.000 --> 07:41.000]  I'm going to zoom in on just the definition itself so you can see a side by side view of the 1935 definition and the definition from the tax code.
[07:41.000 --> 07:44.000]  They both read as follows.
[07:44.000 --> 07:54.000]  The terms includes and including when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term define.
[07:54.000 --> 07:57.000]  That's kind of a brain teaser, isn't it?
[07:57.000 --> 08:02.000]  Here's the same definition, also from tax law, phrased in a more modern manner.
[08:02.000 --> 08:14.000]  This can be found at 27 CFR 72.11 and reads includes and including do not exclude things not enumerated, which are in the same general class.
[08:14.000 --> 08:16.000]  That's much more clear.
[08:16.000 --> 08:18.000]  So how do you determine the class?
[08:18.000 --> 08:25.000]  Simple. You find the narrowest reasonable category created by the items enumerated after the word includes.
[08:25.000 --> 08:31.000]  I'm going to give you an illustrative example, so pay attention to the enumerated items after the word includes.
[08:31.000 --> 08:36.000]  Here's the definition in my illustrative statute as used in this subtitle.
[08:36.000 --> 08:42.000]  The term food includes apples, strawberries, plums and peaches.
[08:42.000 --> 08:45.000]  What is the class established by the enumerated items?
[08:45.000 --> 08:52.000]  It's fruit, of course, since non enumerated items that fit the class are to be considered a part of the definition.
[08:52.000 --> 08:56.000]  Would grapes, oranges and cherries be part of the definition?
[08:56.000 --> 09:03.000]  Absolutely. Would items such as pasta, steak or broccoli be food as defined by the subtitle?
[09:03.000 --> 09:08.000]  They would not because they are not within the class established by the enumerated items.
[09:08.000 --> 09:15.000]  Now that you understand how includes operates, let's look at the definition of state in the Social Security Act, which reads
[09:15.000 --> 09:25.000]  the term state, except when used in section 531, includes Alaska, Hawaii and the District of Columbia.
[09:25.000 --> 09:29.000]  Keep in mind that in 1935, Alaska and Hawaii were not states of the Union.
[09:29.000 --> 09:35.000]  In 1935, Alaska was a possession having been purchased by Congress from Russia in 1867
[09:35.000 --> 09:40.000]  and Hawaii was a territory having been annexed by Congress in 1893.
[09:40.000 --> 09:45.000]  So what class do the enumerated items create? Let's examine them.
[09:45.000 --> 09:51.000]  Washington, D.C. is designated in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution
[09:51.000 --> 09:56.000]  as the seat of the federal government and is not a state of the Union.
[09:56.000 --> 10:01.000]  Alaska was at the time the definition was written, a federal possession, not a state of the Union.
[10:01.000 --> 10:04.000]  And Hawaii was a federal territory, not a state of the Union.
[10:04.000 --> 10:09.000]  It should be obvious the class established by the enumerated items are places over which Congress has
[10:09.000 --> 10:15.000]  exclusive legislative jurisdiction, which is not the states of the Union.
[10:15.000 --> 10:22.000]  But let's go a step further. How did the definition of state change when Hawaii and Alaska became states of the Union?
[10:22.000 --> 10:27.000]  The Alaska Omnibus Act was enacted shortly after Alaska became a state of the Union
[10:27.000 --> 10:32.000]  to change a considerable amount of statutory language that needed correcting once Alaska became a state.
[10:32.000 --> 10:38.000]  To understand what you're about to see, we need to know that the definition of state in the Social Security Act
[10:38.000 --> 10:46.000]  was codified to Title 26, Section 3121E1. Remember that number, 3121E1.
[10:46.000 --> 10:51.000]  We're going to come back to that shortly. Here's what the Alaska Omnibus Act says.
[10:51.000 --> 11:04.000]  Section 3121E1, 3306J, 4221D4, and 4233B of such code, each relating to a special definition of state,
[11:04.000 --> 11:12.000]  are amended by striking out Alaska. That was the Alaska Omnibus Act. Now let's look at the Hawaii Omnibus Act.
[11:12.000 --> 11:18.000]  The Hawaii Omnibus Act went enacted shortly after Hawaii became a state and changed the statutory language
[11:18.000 --> 11:21.000]  that needed correcting once Hawaii became a state of the Union.
[11:21.000 --> 11:28.000]  As you can see in this screenshot, the language is nearly identical to the Alaska Omnibus Act and reads,
[11:28.000 --> 11:36.000]  Section 3121E1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, relating to a special definition of state,
[11:36.000 --> 11:39.000]  is amended by striking out Hawaii.
[11:39.000 --> 11:44.000]  The point in sharing those pieces of legislation is that Congress removed Alaska and Hawaii
[11:44.000 --> 11:49.000]  from the Social Security Act's definition of state once they became states of the Union,
[11:49.000 --> 11:53.000]  thus clearly confirming the definition excludes states of the Union.
[11:53.000 --> 11:58.000]  I'm sure you noted that 3121E1 is mentioned in both Acts.
[11:58.000 --> 12:06.000]  Here's a screenshot of 3121E1 as it appears in the code in 2024.
[12:06.000 --> 12:07.000]  It reads,
[12:07.000 --> 12:14.000]  The term state includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
[12:14.000 --> 12:17.000]  the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
[12:17.000 --> 12:20.000]  Well, obviously the definition has been amended over the years.
[12:20.000 --> 12:29.000]  The class established by the enumerated items remains places over which Congress exercises exclusive legislative jurisdiction.
[12:29.000 --> 12:35.000]  In other words, in 2024, the definition of state still does not embrace the states of the Union.
[12:35.000 --> 12:42.000]  Now, let me show you that Congress knows exactly how to define state when it wants the definition to include the states of the Union.
[12:42.000 --> 12:47.000]  Here's a screenshot from an Act of Congress passed several years after the Social Security Act.
[12:47.000 --> 12:48.000]  It reads,
[12:48.000 --> 12:56.000]  The definition of the term state in Title 23, United States Code, Section 101A, is amended to read as follows.
[12:56.000 --> 13:02.000]  The term state means any one of the 50 states, the District of Columbia or Puerto Rico.
[13:03.000 --> 13:10.000]  I'm guessing there are some hardheads out there who still don't want to believe their eyes, so their excuse is perhaps to say,
[13:10.000 --> 13:13.000]  Those are old laws. It's different now.
[13:13.000 --> 13:24.000]  Really? How about Section 6103B5A of Title 26, which is in the code today as I sit here speaking with you, and it reads,
[13:24.000 --> 13:35.000]  The term state means any of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
[13:35.000 --> 13:42.000]  As you can see, Congress knows exactly how to include the 50 states when it intends to do so.
[13:42.000 --> 13:48.000]  You may have noticed those definitions do not use includes. They use means.
[13:48.000 --> 13:53.000]  When a definition uses means, that definition is strictly limited to the enumerated items.
[13:53.000 --> 14:05.000]  I'm sure by now you're convinced I'm telling you the truth, so before I reveal more elements of this scam, please take a moment to subscribe to the channel and hit the like button so the algorithms will show this truth to more people.
[14:05.000 --> 14:17.000]  Also, if you'd like to learn the truth about income tax in the same law-centered manner, go to DrReality.News and pick up a copy of Income Tax Shattering the Mist.
[14:17.000 --> 14:24.000]  You will love it and it will be one of the most fascinating books you have ever read. My word to you on that.
[14:24.000 --> 14:35.000]  Earlier I said the Social Security Act is nefarious. I use that word because there are unrecognized thrusts to your personal liberty baked into the act.
[14:35.000 --> 14:42.000]  So let's get into that. You likely believe that under the U.S. Constitution there is just one class of citizen.
[14:42.000 --> 14:47.000]  In other words, you believe we are all the same with the same rights.
[14:47.000 --> 14:54.000]  Nothing could be further from the truth. And again, I imagine some people are now thinking this champion guy is a fruit loop.
[14:54.000 --> 15:03.000]  All right, fair enough. Keep watching and you will end up saying, holy cow, Dave was right. How come this isn't taught in every school in America?
[15:04.000 --> 15:12.000]  In the U.S. Supreme Court case Downs v. Bidwell, the court held that there are three different meanings to the phrase United States.
[15:12.000 --> 15:17.000]  Those meanings are number one, a sovereign nation in the international community of nations.
[15:17.000 --> 15:22.000]  Number two, the federal government of the states of the union constrained by the Constitution.
[15:22.000 --> 15:28.000]  Number three, the government that owns the possessions and territories and for which the Constitution is largely irrelevant.
[15:28.000 --> 15:37.000]  Because you likely aren't aware there are different types of citizenships, let's define and compare the different types of citizenship within the United States.
[15:37.000 --> 15:43.000]  An American born in any of the 50 states obtained citizenship at the moment of his or her birth.
[15:43.000 --> 15:52.000]  That citizen has unalienable rights, which are not granted by the government.
[15:53.000 --> 16:00.000]  Constitutionally speaking, that person's citizenship is not U.S. citizenship, as virtually everyone thinks of it.
[16:00.000 --> 16:13.000]  According to a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1857, the phrase we the people of the United States, as used in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, is shorthand for the citizens of the states of the union.
[16:13.000 --> 16:20.000]  The court went on to explain there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States.
[16:20.000 --> 16:23.000]  There are only citizens of the states.
[16:23.000 --> 16:33.000]  The court explained that any benefits a citizen enjoys from the federal Constitution are due to his or her status as a citizen of a state of the union.
[16:33.000 --> 16:43.000]  The court was crystal clear that in terms of the Constitution, there is only one type of citizenship in America, and that is state citizenship.
[16:43.000 --> 16:52.000]  Then, in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, which created a different class of citizenship for the recently freed black slaves,
[16:52.000 --> 16:59.000]  and gave Congress the constitutional authority to grant the freed black slaves privileges that would approximate having rights.
[16:59.000 --> 17:04.000]  Yet again, at this point, I'm sure some folks are thinking I'm a crackpot.
[17:04.000 --> 17:11.000]  But is that true, or is it just that this is the first time you've been exposed to today's information?
[17:11.000 --> 17:18.000]  So your knee-jerk reaction is that if what I'm telling you is true, somebody would have told you about it.
[17:18.000 --> 17:24.000]  Newsflash! Someone is telling you about it right now, so pay attention.
[17:24.000 --> 17:28.000]  Let's have a look at 42 U.S.C. 1981.
[17:28.000 --> 17:38.000]  As you see here in the historical notes for this section, it was passed in 1870, two years after the Fourteenth Amendment became part of the Constitution.
[17:38.000 --> 17:44.000]  You should also note that it was formerly codified to Title VIII, which deals with aliens.
[17:44.000 --> 17:50.000]  Why was it formerly in Title VIII? Because the freed slaves had no state citizenship.
[17:50.000 --> 17:54.000]  Thus, under Fetella's Law of Nations, they were aliens.
[17:54.000 --> 17:59.000]  Despite the Fourteenth Amendment granting an alternative second class of citizenship,
[17:59.000 --> 18:09.000]  their original post-war status was that they were aliens in the land of their birth because the constitutions of the state in which they were born did not permit slaves to be citizens.
[18:09.000 --> 18:13.000]  So what does section 1981 say?
[18:13.000 --> 18:20.000]  What it says is pretty out there by today's standards, so pay careful attention.
[18:24.000 --> 18:45.000]  In short, it says all persons will have the same rights as white citizens.
[18:45.000 --> 18:51.000]  In other words, the statute draws a distinction between persons and white citizens.
[18:51.000 --> 18:55.000]  That distinction comes directly from section one of the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads,
[18:55.000 --> 19:04.000]  All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.
[19:04.000 --> 19:11.000]  Since the Fourteenth Amendment was written to apply exclusively to the freed black slaves and their posterity, so says the Supreme Court,
[19:11.000 --> 19:17.000]  those persons to whom it refers are only the freed black slaves and their posterity.
[19:17.000 --> 19:25.000]  Since section 1981 is authorized solely by the Fourteenth Amendment, the same meaning of person is operative in section 1981.
[19:25.000 --> 19:30.000]  I want to point out that section 1981 is a current federal law.
[19:30.000 --> 19:37.000]  I also want to point out that while state citizens have unalienable rights that are so numerous as to be difficult to enumerate,
[19:37.000 --> 19:45.000]  section 1981 grants the newly minted citizens of the United States six rights.
[19:45.000 --> 19:52.000]  Six. I also want to point out that those six rights, actually privileges, are granted by statute.
[19:52.000 --> 20:03.000]  If Congress repealed that statute tomorrow, those citizens of the United States would no longer have those six privileges, euphemistically called rights.
[20:03.000 --> 20:08.000]  By contrast, no one can take away a state citizen's unalienable rights.
[20:08.000 --> 20:13.000]  At this point, we've discussed state citizens and Fourteenth Amendment citizens.
[20:13.000 --> 20:19.000]  Fourteenth Amendment citizens are referred to in law as citizens of the United States,
[20:19.000 --> 20:26.000]  because that's the appellation for the form of citizenship given to the freed black slaves in the Fourteenth Amendment.
[20:26.000 --> 20:33.000]  Now, let's discuss people in U.S. territories and possessions, which is relevant to the 1935 Social Security Act,
[20:33.000 --> 20:39.000]  because it only applies in D.C. the territories and possessions.
[20:39.000 --> 20:48.000]  I'm hoping you followed along well enough to understand that people in the territories and possessions are also not state citizens and do not have unalienable rights.
[20:48.000 --> 20:52.000]  I'm not going to go into depth here because I'm confident you're catching on.
[20:52.000 --> 20:58.000]  Instead, I'll simply say that if you go to Title 48 of the United States Code entitled Territories and Possessions,
[20:58.000 --> 21:09.000]  you'll discover that the title, quote, citizen of the United States, is bestowed on the people of the territories and possessions by statute, as are their rights.
[21:09.000 --> 21:12.000]  Let me summarize these differences and then we'll move on.
[21:12.000 --> 21:20.000]  Fourteenth Amendment citizens and citizens of U.S. territories and possessions, both referred to as citizens of the United States,
[21:20.000 --> 21:28.000]  can have their rights diminished or eradicated simply by Congress amending or repealing the statutes that created those rights.
[21:28.000 --> 21:34.000]  I should add that any rights given by a vote of elected officials are not rights.
[21:34.000 --> 21:39.000]  They're nothing more than government-granted privilege wearing the label of rights.
[21:39.000 --> 21:45.000]  Phrase another way, if your rights can be removed by the vote of politicians, they aren't rights at all.
[21:45.000 --> 21:53.000]  Conversely, there is no mechanism in U.S. law by which the government can diminish or eradicate the unalienable rights of citizens of the states of the Union.
[21:53.000 --> 21:58.000]  I hope you understand how stark the distinction is between the three different forms of citizenship.
[21:58.000 --> 22:03.000]  So why is that distinction important in the context of the Social Security Act?
[22:04.000 --> 22:12.000]  The Social Security Act placed the duty of assigning Social Security account numbers and collecting the tax on the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
[22:12.000 --> 22:19.000]  In pursuance of that, in Treasury Decision 4707, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue said this.
[22:20.000 --> 22:28.000]  Every individual who is an employee on November 24, 1936, shall file an application for an account on Form SS5.
[22:28.000 --> 22:36.000]  The Form SS5 was created in 1935 and is still the form used today to apply for a Social Security number.
[22:36.000 --> 22:39.000]  But here's the thing.
[22:39.000 --> 22:46.000]  The language of the Social Security Act limits its jurisdiction to Washington, D.C. and the territories and possessions.
[22:46.000 --> 22:57.000]  After the definition of state was amended a few times over nine decades, the Social Security Act's jurisdiction remains Washington, D.C. and the territories and possessions.
[22:57.000 --> 23:08.000]  In other words, Congress is limited applying for and receiving a Social Security number to the citizens and residents of Washington, D.C. and the territories and possessions.
[23:08.000 --> 23:17.000]  Unsurprisingly, these are people who don't have any real rights but have merely been given statutory privileges that masquerade as rights.
[23:17.000 --> 23:29.000]  So what form of citizenship do you imagine the U.S. government assigned to you when you applied to participate in a program statutorily limited to citizens of D.C., the territories and possessions?
[23:29.000 --> 23:39.000]  If you're thinking the federal government would consider you a citizen of a federal place who does not have unalienable rights, you're at the nail on the head.
[23:39.000 --> 23:44.000]  Understanding that, how many citizens of the states of the union have Social Security accounts?
[23:44.000 --> 23:53.000]  Well, that's impossible to know because everyone in the federal database of Social Security accounts is considered a citizen of D.C. or the territories and possessions.
[23:53.000 --> 24:06.000]  The way this particular legal presumption works is that a person who has a Social Security account but an address within a state of the union is considered merely a resident of that state, not a citizen of that state.
[24:06.000 --> 24:14.000]  No different than if a Norwegian citizen is residing in Florida or Colorado, he remains a citizen of Norway.
[24:15.000 --> 24:24.000]  Perhaps more importantly, under well-settled principles of law, a citizen of one jurisdiction is considered an alien in another jurisdiction.
[24:24.000 --> 24:35.000]  As an example, a citizen of Washington, D.C. is not a citizen of Arizona. A citizen of D.C. is, in law, when in Arizona, an alien.
[24:35.000 --> 24:43.000]  Are you aware that aliens within a state of the union are subject to regulatory controls that cannot be applied to the state's own citizens?
[24:43.000 --> 24:53.000]  The principle behind that legal reality is that aliens don't have the same rights as citizens, and because aliens are presumed not to have any allegiance to the state,
[24:53.000 --> 25:00.000]  it is reasonable for the legislature to ensure an alien does not engage in activities that could harm the state's citizens.
[25:00.000 --> 25:10.000]  The legislature protects its citizens by imposing regulations upon aliens who are engaged in occupations the legislature has decided are prone to unscrupulous conduct.
[25:10.000 --> 25:17.000]  That regulatory scheme is carried out via mandatory licensing requirements.
[25:17.000 --> 25:27.000]  Have you ever wondered why agencies and states of the union demand a social security number as a condition for processing an application for most occupational licenses?
[25:27.000 --> 25:36.000]  The answer is simple. A de jure citizen of the state doesn't need those licenses, but an alien residing in the states needs to have his actions regulated
[25:36.000 --> 25:41.000]  so he doesn't harm the state's citizens through unscrupulous business practices.
[25:41.000 --> 25:47.000]  State agencies will tell you that you can't have that license without providing a social security number.
[25:47.000 --> 25:58.000]  If the agency was being honest, it would say they don't have the authority to issue such a license unless you provide them with evidence you are an alien residing in the state.
[25:58.000 --> 26:02.000]  You provide that evidence by giving them a social security number.
[26:03.000 --> 26:08.000]  Now, let's shift gears and talk about the social security tax that's taken out of your pay.
[26:08.000 --> 26:18.000]  Several years after the Social Security Act was enacted, the taxing provisions from the act were placed in Title 26 of the United States Code, Subtitle C, Chapter 24.
[26:18.000 --> 26:28.000]  In one of the most blatant acts of fraud upon the public I've witnessed, instead of being forthright that Chapter 21 is merely the taxing provisions from the Social Security Act,
[26:28.000 --> 26:34.000]  Congress amended the chapter to say its name is the Federal Insurance Contributions Act.
[26:34.000 --> 26:45.000]  By calling it an act, Congress created the false impression that Chapter 21 is a stand-alone piece of congressional legislation separate from the Social Security Act.
[26:45.000 --> 26:52.000]  Do you remember we discussed that the meaning of state in the Social Security Act is only federal places?
[26:53.000 --> 26:59.000]  Now it's time for me to show you the act's reach is even more narrow than that.
[26:59.000 --> 27:09.000]  In the portion of the 1935 Social Security Act addressing taxes to fund the acts of various programs, there is a section discussing the tax on employers.
[27:09.000 --> 27:13.000]  It mentions an excise tax and reads as follows.
[27:13.000 --> 27:21.000]  In addition to other taxes, every employer shall pay an excise tax with respect to having individuals in his employee.
[27:21.000 --> 27:28.000]  In 2024, Chapter 21 reads the exact same way word for word.
[27:28.000 --> 27:36.000]  In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax with respect to having individuals in his employee.
[27:36.000 --> 27:39.000]  So what is an excise tax?
[27:39.000 --> 27:52.000]  An excise tax is a tax upon a person or entity engaged in an activity that is, for that person or entity, something for which they need government permission because for that person or entity the activity is not a right.
[27:52.000 --> 27:57.000]  The short version is it's a tax on something a person doesn't have a right to do.
[27:57.000 --> 28:04.000]  The Supreme Court has ruled that to contract for the labor of another is a right.
[28:04.000 --> 28:09.000]  In other words, to hire someone to work for you is a right, not a privilege.
[28:09.000 --> 28:20.000]  Accordingly, we know that the FICA tax imposed on employers has nothing to do with private sector businesses in the states of the union because for them, having workers is a right.
[28:20.000 --> 28:27.000]  So then, for whom is having workers a privilege and thus subject to an excise tax?
[28:27.000 --> 28:33.000]  In terms of FICA, that can be answered by looking at subchapter C entitled General Provisions.
[28:33.000 --> 28:39.000]  Subchapter C details who's to file returns for the tax collected and how it is to be done.
[28:39.000 --> 28:52.000]  As you can see from the section titles, filing returns and paying over the tax is designated as those in the federal service and returns of government employees of a state,
[28:52.000 --> 28:56.000]  which you now know means D.C. in the territories and possessions, not the states of the union.
[28:56.000 --> 29:07.000]  In the section about states, Congress says the returns and payment of the taxes are to be made by the head of the agency or instrumentality having control of FICA withholding.
[29:07.000 --> 29:13.000]  The part about Guam says returns are to be filed and tax paid by the governor of Guam or his designee.
[29:13.000 --> 29:20.000]  The part concerning American Samoa says returns are to be filed and the tax paid by the governor of American Samoa or his designee.
[29:20.000 --> 29:27.000]  The part about Washington D.C. says returns are to be filed and the tax paid by the mayor of D.C. or his designee.
[29:27.000 --> 29:40.000]  It should be noted that nowhere in chapter 21 is there any command or instruction for the governments of the states of the union to file a return or pay FICA tax, nor for any private sector business to do so.
[29:40.000 --> 29:43.000]  I wonder why that is.
[29:44.000 --> 29:57.000]  A rule that is as absolute as the sun rises in the east is every law imposing a tax includes a command for those who are made liable to collect it and pay it to the government.
[29:57.000 --> 30:06.000]  As I'm speaking with you today, the U.S. Constitution has been operative for 233 years, and in that time there has not been a single exception to that rule.
[30:06.000 --> 30:21.000]  There are no commands for the government of the states of the union to file and pay or private sector businesses because the FICA tax on employers has only been imposed on government agencies and instrumentalities of D.C. the territories and possessions.
[30:21.000 --> 30:34.000]  Because no one reads law, including attorneys, the overwhelming majority of FICA tax money is collected from those upon whom the tax has not been imposed.
[30:34.000 --> 30:37.000]  So where does all that stolen loot go?
[30:37.000 --> 30:46.000]  The prevailing narrative, which is completely false, is that it goes into a trust fund where it is held for you until you reach the age where you can receive payments.
[30:46.000 --> 30:55.000]  The second most common narrative, which is also false, is that FICA money goes into a trust fund, but Congress has taken the money out of the trust fund and replaced it with IOUs.
[30:55.000 --> 31:00.000]  So instead of containing your Social Security money, the trust fund just contains a bunch of IOUs.
[31:00.000 --> 31:13.000]  In 1937, just two years after the Social Security Act became law in a case entitled Charles C. Stewart Machine Company v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court, speaking of what today we call FICA taxes, said the following.
[31:13.000 --> 31:19.000]  The proceeds, when collected, go into the Treasury of the United States like internal revenue collections generally.
[31:19.000 --> 31:22.000]  They are not earmarked in any way.
[31:22.000 --> 31:32.000]  Perhaps the most revealing line in Stewart Machine is when the court referred to the tax imposed by the Social Security Act as merely an additional income tax.
[31:32.000 --> 31:38.000]  Then, when discussing Social Security funds paid out to recipients, the court said,
[31:52.000 --> 32:02.000]  Further, by declaring that the Social Security Act, with its taxing provisions by then called FICA, does not create a pension program or an insurance program,
[32:02.000 --> 32:10.000]  the court went on to explain that paying FICA tax does not create any contractual obligation between the United States government and the person paying the tax.
[32:10.000 --> 32:20.000]  The court elucidated that if Congress repealed the Social Security Act tomorrow, those who had paid into it would have no basis on which to make a legal claim against the government.
[32:20.000 --> 32:27.000]  The court also noted that Congress is free to spend the revenue brought in under FICA for anything.
[32:27.000 --> 32:31.000]  Going further down the rabbit hole, there is no Social Security Trust Fund.
[32:31.000 --> 32:40.000]  There is an account within the Treasury called Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, but it's not a trust fund.
[32:40.000 --> 32:47.000]  Imagine if you were to break down your monthly income and expenses into categories and you chose to call those categories accounts.
[32:47.000 --> 32:58.000]  You might have a category you call the rent or mortgage account, another category you call your food account, and a third you call the family vehicles account.
[32:58.000 --> 33:03.000]  You created those categories to give you a better mental picture of money coming in and going out.
[33:03.000 --> 33:09.000]  You gave those categories names that made sense to you for keeping your finances organized.
[33:09.000 --> 33:22.000]  So what would be the legal significance if, at some point, you renamed the family vehicles account the Family Vehicles Trust Fund?
[33:22.000 --> 33:26.000]  We're calling it a trust fund? Making a trust fund? No, of course not.
[33:26.000 --> 33:29.000]  Yet that is exactly what the Treasury Department has done.
[33:29.000 --> 33:38.000]  It's simply named one of its accounts Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, but it's just an ordinary Treasury Department account, not a trust fund.
[33:38.000 --> 33:40.000]  But as I always say, please don't believe me.
[33:40.000 --> 33:49.000]  If you go to Title 31 of the United States Code, Section 1321, you will find a complete list of all the trust funds maintained by the US Treasury Department.
[33:49.000 --> 33:58.000]  Notable by its absence is the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund or anything having to do with Social Security.
[33:58.000 --> 34:06.000]  The Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund doesn't appear in 1321 because it is not a trust fund.
[34:07.000 --> 34:17.000]  Calling an ordinary Treasury account a trust fund is just one part of the massive US government disinformation campaign associated with the Social Security Act.
[34:17.000 --> 34:23.000]  Because there is no trust fund from which to pay Social Security obligations, from where does the money come?
[34:23.000 --> 34:28.000]  Simple. Congress appropriates it each year as part of the annual budget process.
[34:28.000 --> 34:36.000]  The Department of Health and Human Services submits its budget request to Congress, which includes the amount it anticipates needing to pay Social Security benefits.
[34:36.000 --> 34:43.000]  Congress passes a budget which in turn funds the benefits program, just like welfare.
[34:43.000 --> 34:48.000]  In fact, the sorry truth of the matter is that despite what the American public has been propagandized to believe,
[34:48.000 --> 34:55.000]  who would probably prefer to believe Social Security is just welfare payments to old people?
[34:55.000 --> 35:03.000]  The only reason people believe otherwise is they have bought the government's Social Security propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
[35:03.000 --> 35:08.000]  I'm sure your head is spinning at this point, so I'll close by asking you to go to DrReality.News,
[35:08.000 --> 35:16.000]  DRReality.News, and purchase the four-pack containing Income Tax Shattering the Miss, Body Science,
[35:16.000 --> 35:23.000]  the Business Handbook for W-9 and 1099, and the Business Guide to Payroll Withholding.
[35:23.000 --> 35:27.000]  Why the four-pack? Income Tax Shattering the Miss should be self-explanatory.
[35:27.000 --> 35:34.000]  The Income Tax is just as much a scam as what you learned today, so Income Tax Shattering the Miss is your next lesson.
[35:34.000 --> 35:42.000]  The Business Handbook for forms W-9 and 1099 and the Business Guide to Payroll Withholding are short resources, each 13 pages,
[35:42.000 --> 35:49.000]  and give you a legal overview as to why no citizen of a State of the Union earning his or her own domestic source income
[35:49.000 --> 35:53.000]  is required to fill out a form W-9 or W-4.
[35:53.000 --> 36:00.000]  The handbooks were written to assist Americans who know the truth of the income tax to effectively communicate it to others in the business community.
[36:00.000 --> 36:06.000]  But they are also excellent resources for anyone who wants to see what the law really says about those subjects.
[36:06.000 --> 36:11.000]  As you might imagine, what the law really says is not what you've been led to believe.
[36:12.000 --> 36:20.000]  Body Science is my groundbreaking book on human physiology that is turning around America's health crisis one reader at a time.
[36:20.000 --> 36:26.000]  What you'll find in Body Science will shock you in the same fact-based way today's presentation shocked you.
[36:26.000 --> 36:32.000]  All anyone needs to do to become amazingly healthy is let go of the health and nutritional propaganda
[36:32.000 --> 36:38.000]  with which Americans have been inculcated for over 60 years and apply what you learn in Body Science.
[36:38.000 --> 36:46.000]  I practice what I preach. I haven't filed an income tax return or paid a penny in income tax in 31 years, including not a penny of FICA.
[36:46.000 --> 36:51.000]  I live every day of my life in accordance with what you learn in Body Science.
[36:51.000 --> 36:56.000]  I haven't been sick a day in the last seven years and at 65 I'm as healthy as a teenager.
[36:56.000 --> 37:02.000]  So go to DrReality.News and grab the four-pack.
[37:02.000 --> 37:03.000]  I'll put the link down in the notes.
[37:03.000 --> 37:12.000]  By purchasing the four-pack or any of my writings, you help me to continue to be here for you with these revealing and thought-provoking presentations.
[37:12.000 --> 37:13.000]  Thank you for your support.