Skip to main content

See also:

US government is tracking our children from birth

Do any of you old fogies out there remember when it was a rite of passage to go down to the Social Security office when you got your first job and get "signed up"?

Like everything else, the U.S. government has taken away the option—taken away those "rites" and replaced them with oppressive laws and regulations. We no longer choose; we obey.

In 1986, Ronald Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act, (1) requiring that every dependent over 5 years of age who is listed on a tax return, must have his or her own Social Security number. The tracking machine was set into motion.

A year later, the Social Security Administration (SCA) instituted an "enumeration-at-birth process" whereby parents could request a Social Security number for their child when he or she is born.

They just make it so gosh darn easy for us!

Of course, it's not "mandatory," but the SCA "cautions" parents of the inconveniences of not taking care of it right then and there.

You don’t have to apply for a Social Security number for your child at the hospital, but it’s generally easier if you do. If you wait and apply later at a Social Security office, you must provide proof of your child’s U.S. citizenship and age, such as a birth certificate, and wait for Social Security to verify the record with the office that issued it, which could take up to 12 weeks. Children age 12 or older must appear in person for a mandatory interview at a Social Security office in order to have a number assigned to them. (2)

A "mandatory interview" for a 12-year-old?


In the past six years, since Obama's enthronement, the stakes have risen to an all-time high. "Lists" are the least of U.S. citizens' worries now as technology embraces the new frontier of genetics.

As with everything else, government propaganda is marketing this nightmare as the best thing since sliced bread. Anne Wojcicki's "23 and Me" (3) (who is, by the way, attached at the hip with the Google/Microsoft machine) is thrilled with her new company that will map your DNA for a mere pittance.

What the gullible and naïve don't realize is that while they are providing these "services," databases of our genetic code are being assembled en masse. This is no longer about where you live, what you do for a living or even your political views.

It's about the powerful deciding who is genetically "worthy" of living and/or reproducing. Even worse, it may someday decide whether or not you are "allowed" to carry a handicapped child to term.

In 2012, 23andMe was the first in history to file an application with the FDA for "clearance."
The organization that pushes GMOs and vaccines that are laced with lethal toxins are in charge of approving genetic screening?


David Kaufman, director of research and statistics at the Genetics and Public Policy Center in Washington DC stated in a September 2012 press release: (4) that this was a great thing. "It demonstrates that both the FDA and industry want to go about this the right way."


Think this DNA mapping is "optional"?

Each year, four million newborns in this country undergo MANDATORY screening.

A November 2012 commentary (5) in the journal of Science Translational Medicine, "Preserving Newborn Blood Samples" argues the benefits derived from the legal retention of newborn blood samples. Most states have strict laws in this regard, dictating just how long a facility can keep a newborn's blood sample before it is destroyed.

The commentary states:

Largely absent from the debate, however, is discussion of these DBSs [dried blood samples] as a valuable public resource that could be used in biomedical research for the improvement of public health or of the detrimental effect that the destruction of these diverse sample sets may have on the advancement of biomedical science.

The question is not about how long they keep the sample, but rather, what they do with it before it is destroyed. Nowhere in legislation does it address this issue, including the maintenance of a database of the DNA of every newborn in the United States.

The above-cited commentary may have answered this question: "First, because many states retain DBSs for at least some period of time after newborn screening has been completed, over time DBSs collectively"—wait for it—"could be used to develop a population-wide genomic database."

Oh, yay.

In 2008, the American Medical Association passed Resolution 205 to "develop model legislation in support of the concept that the safest setting for labor, delivery, and the immediate post-partum period is in the hospital, or a birthing center within a hospital complex, that meets standards jointly outlined by the AAP and ACOG, or in a freestanding birthing center that meets the standards of the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care, The Joint Commission, or the American Association of Birth Centers.”

What the heck business is it of these overpaid, golf-playing, stuffed-shirted MEN where we women choose to give birth? When they find a way to actually experience labor and delivery, then they might be allowed to have an opinion.

Pardon my cynicism, but I smell an ulterior motive, here.

Either 1) they don't make enough money yet and resent missing out on the overcharged health insurance bills or 2) they are in cahoots with the government's fever to collect and store the entire country's DNA records.

Gregory Phillips, a spokesman for the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology said in a 2008 interview, (6) "We are against home births, period."

Really—"Greg"? How have women been having babies since the beginning of time? And how many incompetent obstetricians have been responsible for the crippling or death of infants through their poor judgment?

What's next, when and where we can shave our legs?