new book recommended to me

When I Was a Kid, This Was a Free Country

by G. Gordon Liddy

I’ve not read it yet, but it looks like a reasonable premise, eh ?

get ready to be microchipped, Americans!

http://goldfuture.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/both-house-and-senate-health-bills-require-the-micro-chipping-of-americans-31810/

Let’s all bend over, and take it like a hamster !

BOTH HOUSE AND SENATE HEALTH BILLS REQUIRE THE MICRO CHIPPING OF AMERICANS – 3/18/10

Required RFID implanted chip

Sec. 2521, Pg. 1000 – The government will establish a National Medical Device Registry. What does a National Medical Device Registry mean?

National Medical Device Registry from H.R. 3200 [Healthcare Bill], pages 1001-1008:

(g)(1) The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that— ‘‘(A) is or has been used in or on a patient; ‘‘(B)and is— ‘‘(i) a class III device; or ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable, life-supporting, or life-sustaining.”

Then on page 1004 it describes what the term “data” means in paragraph 1,

section B:
‘‘(B) In this paragraph, the term ‘data’ refers to information respecting a device described in paragraph (1), including claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary”

What exactly is a class II device that is implantable? Approved by the FDA, a class II implantable device is an “implantable radio frequency transponder system for patient identification and health information.” The purpose of a class II device is to collect data in medical patients such as “claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary.”

See it for yourself: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm072191.pdf

This new law – when fully implemented – provides the framework for making the United States the first nation in the world to require each and every one of its citizens to have implanted in them a radio-frequency identification (RFID) microchip for the purpose of controlling who is, or isn’t, allowed medical care in their country.

Don’t believe it? Look it up yourself. Healthcare Bill H.R. 3200: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf

Pages 1001-1008 “National Medical Device Registry” section.
Page 1006 “to be enacted within 36 months upon passage”
Page 503 “… medical device surveillance”

Why would the government use the word “surveillance” when referring to citizens? The definition of “surveillance” is the monitoring of the behavior, activities, or other changing information, usually of people and often in a secret manner. The root of the word [French] means to “watch over.”

In theory, the intent to streamline healthcare and to eliminate fraud via “health chips” seems right. But, to have the world’s lone superpower (America, for now) mandate (page 1006) a device to be IMPLANTED is scary!

Microchiping included in Healthcare Bill? http://www.dailypaul.com/node/105079

Coverage under Obamacare will require an implantable microchip?
http://current.com/items/90842279_coverage-under-obamacare-will-require-an-implantable-microchip.htm

(via http://goldfuture.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/both-house-and-senate-health-bills-require-the-micro-chipping-of-americans-31810/ )

State Socialism must not tolerate any possible resistance

Considering the U.S. was (I believe) the sole dissenter before, this probably amounts to capitulation.

“Here we go again!”

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015/

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

Arshad Mohammed WASHINGTON
Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:56pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush’s administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, “operates under the rules of consensus decision-making.”

“Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly,” Clinton said in a written statement.

While praising the Obama administration’s decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.

“The shift in position by the world’s biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers,” Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.

However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus “could fatally weaken a final deal.”

“Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause,” said Oxfam International’s policy adviser Debbie Hillier.

The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.

Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.

Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.

The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.

Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.

The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of “dictators and terrorists” to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.

The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.

A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.

(Editing by Eric Beech)