PDA

View Full Version : Newborn DNA will be Government Property




Mach
04-24-2008, 02:59 PM
They just don't stop..... for our safety of course....... how can people be so dumb (comfortable)? Their goal is to file everyone's DNA on the whole planet, as the older generations disappear the newer generations will succumb to these helpful ways of living. Control of money is very powerful, but, they're taking it to new levels, money was just a start.
---------

Who Cares About Your DNA?

When the elite want something, they are not above cheating their way to it. We see this example easily with mainstream media’s blackout of Ron Paul and Mike Gravel as presidential candidates, despite the candidates’ novel ideas. Candidates not elite-anointed are dismissed as crackpots and ignored by the Los Angeles Times and other mainstream propaganda outlets because they do not further the elite’s plans, which include tracking and surveillance that closely emulate plans laid out by Aldous Huxley and George Orwell.

One sneaky way that the elite obtain their goals is to use a voice vote, which is what recently happened with H.R. 3825, a giant step toward the Brave New World that Huxley described. H.R. 3825 and S. 1858, soon to be rubber-stamped by King Jorge unless there is a massive protest along with a miracle, gives the federal government authority over every newborn’s DNA, without parental consent. Not only the average Oprah and Dr. Phil watcher, but many alert citizens are also unaware of this horrid legislation, which will make any newborn’s DNA government property. This massive intrusion into privacy and family will be funded by yet another massive federally-funded program, paid for by the money that the government forces from you.

I find it especially interesting, when considered along with this recent Orwellianly-named "Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act" that in the government’s latest attempt to separate families en masse, government social wreckers are forcing over 400 children to have their DNA tested:

More than 400 children taken from a polygamous sect's ranch will undergo DNA testing this week, an attempt to determine who their parents are and if any sexual abuse took place.

Officials plan to begin taking DNA samples Monday at the coliseum in San Angelo where the children are being housed, but may need three or four days to complete the job.

The fact that this horrid invasion of privacy is being done, even to children who are still breastfeeding, without parental consent and without an established accuser or proof of any abuse, tells me that there are far too many people hooked on mainstream media. Otherwise, there would be blood in the Texas streets. Just 100 years ago, an alert citizenry would have protested the taking of these children and their DNA by showing some social wreckers what the end of a gun barrel looks like.

In post-Constitutional America, however, where habeas corpus, that long-standing idea that we’ve had around for a few centuries, has gone the way of the dinosaur, people are okay with taking children from mothers and forcing these children, many of whom are not even old enough to say no, to give the government their DNA.

"A Critical Analysis of the Implications for Genetic Privacy and Consent Rights in Congress’ Proposed ‘Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007’" states how the government plans to treat the DNA of every newborn, even those whose parents are completely aligned with the mainstream:

* Establish a national list of genetic conditions for which newborns and children are to be tested.
* Establish protocols for the linking and sharing of genetic test results nationwide.
* Build surveillance systems for tracking the health status and health outcomes of individuals diagnosed at birth with a genetic defect or trait.
* Use the newborn screening program as an opportunity for government agencies to identify, list, and study "secondary conditions" of individuals and their families.
* Subject citizens to genetic research without their knowledge or consent.

Since my firstborn’s birth over seven years ago, I have read a lot about our government’s roots of freedom and a truly free market and I have acquired great disdain for our current government and mainstream media; I wish that were not the case. However, a country focused on the false choices of Hillary, Obama, and John, as if there’s a dash of difference among the three, does not protest a bill that claims to save lives of newborns. Nor do these people care much about taking DNA from innocent children who’ve been separated from their parents, with no accuser identified and no solid evidence of abuse. I realize that I’ve mentioned the last part of that sentence previously, but it’s important enough to state twice: The Constitution states that we have the right to face our accuser, an impossible thing to do when there is not one.

That’s the way that things work, however, in post-Constitutional America, where a King that seems to be elected by the people rules through Executive Orders and the elite have their way, whether rushing legislation through, as with the Patriot Act, or taking an underhanded voice vote, in which legislators are not forced to take responsibility for their vote.

Unfortunately, most people are too concerned with the junk food that mainstream media are feeding us to worry much about the database that the government is building, using their descendants’ blood. The United States’ forefathers expected us to be an intelligent, literate folk. But the literacy rate was much higher two hundred years ago than it is now, proving what a wonderful job that the government schools have done. People don’t much read anymore and they certainly don’t care. In the near future, the elite will pass legislation that requires microchipping of every newborn and Oprah will say how wonderful it is and there will be some kind of "saving lives" rhetoric added to the bill and people will think that microchipping is fabulous.

Despite the massive power that the elite pretend to have, in reality, we have only ourselves to blame.

April 24, 2008

by Tricia Shore (trishcomicmom@earthlink.net)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/shore/shore15.html
.
.
.

..PAUL4PRES..
04-24-2008, 03:08 PM
Ive decided, Im not having any children until things improve.

Truth Warrior
04-24-2008, 03:13 PM
Good one!

Thanks!

Kalifornia
04-24-2008, 03:17 PM
Ive decided, Im not having any children until things improve.

Actually, I had a procedure to prevent that just for that very reason.

DealzOnWheelz
04-24-2008, 05:19 PM
I won't have children because it wil hamper my fighting ability for the movement of freedom

I fight for all of the children around us

nate895
04-24-2008, 05:31 PM
Please, have children. The liberals and elites aren't breeding. If we had 3-4 kids, we'd outnumber them in no time.

Truth Warrior
04-24-2008, 05:36 PM
Please, have children. The liberals and elites aren't breeding. If we had 3-4 kids, we'd outnumber them in no time.

I think we already have. Ahh, the unintended consequences of Roe v. Wade, ya gotta love that part of it. :)

maggiebott
04-24-2008, 05:36 PM
Just have homebirths like I did to prevent needless intervention of a perfectly normal body function.;)

LEK
04-24-2008, 07:53 PM
WHEN JOHNNY TAKE's THE TEST

http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/OtherPDFs/When%20Johnny%20Takes%20The%20Test_Fields_Leslie_H oge__2005_10pg_Edu.pdf

orafi
04-24-2008, 09:22 PM
Ive decided, Im not having any children until things improve.

Im going to have kids that don't have dna.

RSLudlum
04-24-2008, 09:36 PM
Damn and to think I got angry when my daughter said they might be doing a fingerprinting program to help against lost and kidnapped children in her school. I told her not to participate and if we wanted to record her fingerprints we'd do it at home and secure the prints ourselves! This crap is getting way out of hand!!

GunnyFreedom
04-24-2008, 11:29 PM
This is so sick that I cannot properly put it into words. first they registered our guns, now they want to register our kids.

hypnagogue
04-25-2008, 03:34 AM
I really wish people would read the bills before losing their minds. HR 3825 mandates nothing. If you don't want your child screened, then don't. All the bill does is provide grants for institutions wishing to offer genetic screening for newborns, creates a committee for making decisions about those grants, and an information clearinghouse for providing information about infant screening to the public.

Take a look for yourselves. HR 3825 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110I29Rou::)

It's a lame bill with the federal government spending money on things totally outside it's intended scope, but it is not even close to being a reason not to have children. Get a grip people.

freelance
04-25-2008, 05:30 AM
I really wish people would read the bills before losing their minds. HR 3825 mandates nothing. If you don't want your child screened, then don't. All the bill does is provide grants for institutions wishing to offer genetic screening for newborns, creates a committee for making decisions about those grants, and an information clearinghouse for providing information about infant screening to the public.

Take a look for yourselves. HR 3825 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110I29Rou::)

It's a lame bill with the federal government spending money on things totally outside it's intended scope, but it is not even close to being a reason not to have children. Get a grip people.

Take a look at some of the hospital admission forms. They WILL have their way with you. Try to cross out sections, and you won't be admitted.

constituent
04-25-2008, 05:50 AM
Take a look at some of the hospital admission forms. They WILL have their way with you. Try to cross out sections, and you won't be admitted.

ahhh yes, the "free market."


"if you don't like it, leave."

Cinderella
04-25-2008, 07:39 AM
well i kno when i had my daughter they wanted me to save the umbilical cord in there data base, the cord only contains her genetic blueprint!!! i said no thanks and they told me it would be good to save the cord because if anything happened wed have the cord to possibly do stem cell etc etc.....i said no thanks...if something happens then it was in Gods plan and i wont interfere

i hope the cord was fed to the cat......

Bruno
04-25-2008, 08:17 AM
Damn and to think I got angry when my daughter said they might be doing a fingerprinting program to help against lost and kidnapped children in her school. I told her not to participate and if we wanted to record her fingerprints we'd do it at home and secure the prints ourselves! This crap is getting way out of hand!!


Since when does a fingerprint help find a lost child? I have never heard of such a thing.

Fingerprints are taken at the scene of a crime to identify the culprit. They are not used to identify a victim.

Cop: "Hey, we've got the missing kid's fingerprint here on file! Now all we have to do is fingerprint every inch of the country to see where she is at." It just doesn't make any sense at all. If, heaven forbid, my child is abducted, I will hand the police his most recent school picture. A fingerprint of him is going to do no good at all.

GunnyFreedom
04-25-2008, 08:52 AM
Since when does a fingerprint help find a lost child? I have never heard of such a thing.

Fingerprints are taken at the scene of a crime to identify the culprit. They are not used to identify a victim.

Cop: "Hey, we've got the missing kid's fingerprint here on file! Now all we have to do is fingerprint every inch of the country to see where she is at." It just doesn't make any sense at all. If, heaven forbid, my child is abducted, I will hand the police his most recent school picture. A fingerprint of him is going to do no good at all.

Actually, I can think of two ways just off the top of my head where a fingerprint might help find an abducted child.

1) During the course of an investigation, police turn up three suspects for the abduction. One of them is still around, and two of them are out of town. The one who is still in town voluntarily permits a search, and no fingerprints are turned up for the child. Warrants are issued for the other two and the child's prints are found in Bob Smith's house. Now Bob Smith's accounts and credit cards are being watched. Transactions pop up two states over and the police are dispatched.

2) The investigation for another kidnapping grows cold. The child's fingerprints are put on file in the nationwide database. The police are processing a completely unrelated crime scene in Idaho, when the child's prints flag a match on the database. Suddenly the cold case becomes hot again.

Now, mind you, I'm not saying it's a good idea to log all kids' fingerprints in some kind of database. However, it really is not a bad idea for parents to hold onto their own children's fingerprint cards for if/when the time comes that they are needed. The concept of the Gov doing this is abhorrent and atrocious. But that does not change the fact that yes, indeed, fingerprints can in fact help to locate a missing/abducted child. I do, however, completely agree with RSLudlum -- that card should be in the PARENT'S possession until it may be needed. NOT the police, school, or gov. Not ever!

Bruno
04-25-2008, 09:04 AM
Actually, I can think of two ways just off the top of my head where a fingerprint might help find an abducted child.

1) During the course of an investigation, police turn up three suspects for the abduction. One of them is still around, and two of them are out of town. The one who is still in town voluntarily permits a search, and no fingerprints are turned up for the child. Warrants are issued for the other two and the child's prints are found in Bob Smith's house. Now Bob Smith's accounts and credit cards are being watched. Transactions pop up two states over and the police are dispatched.

2) The investigation for another kidnapping grows cold. The child's fingerprints are put on file in the nationwide database. The police are processing a completely unrelated crime scene in Idaho, when the child's prints flag a match on the database. Suddenly the cold case becomes hot again.

Now, mind you, I'm not saying it's a good idea to log all kids' fingerprints in some kind of database. However, it really is not a bad idea for parents to hold onto their own children's fingerprint cards for if/when the time comes that they are needed. The concept of the Gov doing this is abhorrent and atrocious. But that does not change the fact that yes, indeed, fingerprints can in fact help to locate a missing/abducted child. I do, however, completely agree with RSLudlum -- that card should be in the PARENT'S possession until it may be needed. NOT the police, school, or gov. Not ever!

I accept your two theories on situations in which a fingerprint could be useful, and agree that the fingerprint file should be in the parent's possession. :)

It would be interesting to see, though, any actual studies/stats that would support that fingerprints have/could have helped find a lost child or convict a kidnapper using them.

Truth Warrior
04-25-2008, 09:08 AM
Actually, I can think of two ways just off the top of my head where a fingerprint might help find an abducted child.

1) During the course of an investigation, police turn up three suspects for the abduction. One of them is still around, and two of them are out of town. The one who is still in town voluntarily permits a search, and no fingerprints are turned up for the child. Warrants are issued for the other two and the child's prints are found in Bob Smith's house. Now Bob Smith's accounts and credit cards are being watched. Transactions pop up two states over and the police are dispatched.

2) The investigation for another kidnapping grows cold. The child's fingerprints are put on file in the nationwide database. The police are processing a completely unrelated crime scene in Idaho, when the child's prints flag a match on the database. Suddenly the cold case becomes hot again.

Now, mind you, I'm not saying it's a good idea to log all kids' fingerprints in some kind of database. However, it really is not a bad idea for parents to hold onto their own children's fingerprint cards for if/when the time comes that they are needed. The concept of the Gov doing this is abhorrent and atrocious. But that does not change the fact that yes, indeed, fingerprints can in fact help to locate a missing/abducted child. I do, however, completely agree with RSLudlum -- that card should be in the PARENT'S possession until it may be needed. NOT the police, school, or gov. Not ever!

BTW, so can a government embedded government microchip. Doesn't make it a good or Constitutional idea though. PASS!

GunnyFreedom
04-25-2008, 09:09 AM
I accept your two theories on situations in which a fingerprint could be useful, and agree that the fingerprint file should be in the parent's possession. :)

It would be interesting to see, though, any actual studies/stats that would support that fingerprints have/could have helped find a lost child or convict a kidnapper using them.

Now that I don't know. :)

GunnyFreedom
04-25-2008, 09:10 AM
BTW, so can a government embedded government microchip. Doesn't make it a good or Constitutional idea though. PASS!

You know you want the chip. You know you want the chip. It's all you can think about, day and night. deep in your soul, you dream about the day you can get lo-jacked and never be lost again. baaa baaa baaa

c'mon, you know you want it. You can admit it. I won't tell anybody. :p

Truth Warrior
04-25-2008, 09:14 AM
You know you want the chip. You know you want the chip. It's all you can think about, day and night. deep in your soul, you dream about the day you can get lo-jacked and never be lost again. baaa baaa baaa

c'mon, you know you want it. You can admit it. I won't tell anybody. :p
The preceding message brought to you courtesy of TPTB. :D

Thanks! :)