[Report Abuse]
[Login to Blog] TheSovereign's Blog
Say what you mean, or mean what you say!
Last comment by rozemist 4 years, 6 months ago.

Take Me To Post Comment Form

Its now time for another look at "Say what you mean, or mean what you say." For this excerpt, we will be looking at government's ability to invade your privacy and your person.

There has been fear mongering going on lately by the rapidly fading Conservative propaganda machine, in that they are promoting the idea that microchips will be implanted into the bodies of the citizens of this country through "Obamacare." Yes, "Obamacare" the law that regulates the Health Insurance industry, is now being used in the Conservative propaganda as a means to show that the Federal Government is covertly incorporating "Big Brother" technology into your body in order to follow your every move.

I have to believe that the part of this propaganda that is creating the fear is the "implanting of a chip" into one's body, along with the additional reasoning that it's intent is to track your every move. It is the thought of having to submit, by Government rule, to having an evasive device inserted into your body that really creates the fearful thoughts, because the reality of it is, every cell phone sold in this country by Federal law, must have a trackable GPS chip in it, so your where abouts can be tracked as it is now. This way the Federal Government does not need to grow in order to track someone, they just turn to the corporation that services your phone to provide the information. In our current "corporate friendly" Federal government, laws have been written in order to more easily share information between the government and the corporations with very little push back from the corporations. Its that give and take that make controlling the masses easier to do while extracting profits a little less abated by laws.

So, like I said, in my opinion, it is first and foremost, the thought of having to submit to the government and have a piece of technology inserted into one's body, so as to have your privacy and your person invaded, is what is generating the fear. To show an example that this fear is actually being generated, the following comes from a Town Hall meeting in Chariton, Iowa, being held by Iowa Senator, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). One of Mr. Grassley's constituents stood up and asked the Senator:

"CONSTITUENT: They’re saying that they’re going to start, in 2013, putting microchips in government workers and then any kid that enrolls in school, starting in pre-school, will have a microchip implanted in them so that they can track them. [...] Is that true?"

Now, Mr. Grassley's response was one that I would expect from a member of the wise, and deliberative branch of our government, which was:

"GRASSLEY: No. First of all, nothing can be done to your body without your permission. It’d be a violation of the constitutional right to privacy if that were to happen."

Now based on what Mr. Grassley stated, it appears to follow one of the general principles of the Liberties that is one of the driving factors in the formation of this nation. It is a general belief that we as Americans have the right to privacy from the Government intruding in our lives. We tend to believe that the "Bill of Rights" are our protections from the government dictating to us how we are to live our lives.

Here is where we get to the "say what you mean, or mean what you say" portion of this blog. Is Mr. Grassley presenting us a well thought out belief on his part as a Senator, and sworn protector of the Constitution, that the Constitution provides this protection from the government, so that "nothing can be done to your body without your permission"; and is he presenting the view point of the Conservative Party, of which he is a leader in Congress? From the laws that I see being passed in Conservatively ran states, Mr. Grassley is either out of step with his Party, or Conservatives in control of various state legislators and Governors are intentionally violating the Constitution of the United States as Mr. Grassley pointed out.

Here is what I am referring to, take the State of Indiana as an example. Indiana is one of twelve states that have already passed invasive "ultrasound requirement laws" that require an ultrasound device inserted into a woman's body prior to having an abortion. There are those legislators in these various states that have passed such laws who have reasoned that these laws "might change the woman's minds" as justification of governmental over reach. On what Constitutional ground does this reasoning exist? Especially since studies have shown that 90% of women who have decided that they require an abortion, feel very confident about their decision prior to seeing their physician. It appears that based on Mr. Grassley's statement, these 12 states are implementing unconstitutional laws that force something to "be done to your body without your permission."

Getting back to the State of Indiana. The state legislators in the Senate there have taken up in Senate Bill 371, the addition to the law requiring the invasive, as well as non-medically needed, plus, also brings additional cost procedure to those women seeking to utilize the "morning after pill" - "officially known as RU-486." So, contrary to the words that Mr. Grassley used to his constituent in order to subside her fear of governmental intrusion on our privacy, Conservative law makers are passing laws that do that very thing, that by government rule, they can demand that things "be done to your body without your permission."

So are these 12 States violating the Constitution as Mr. Grassley's reassuring statement implied to his constituent? Tea Party favorite, Thomas Jefferson, has been quoted as saying:

"If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour?"

Now keeping in mind what Jefferson is implying here in this quote, lets look at that statement that Mr. Grassely made again,

"No. First of all, nothing can be done to your body without your permission. It’d be a violation of the constitutional right to privacy if that were to happen."

Now, the Conservative Party, as well as the Democratic Party, have a large contingency of lawyers, and these lawyers help craft the political rhetoric that those in the parties use in order to present view points that are ambiguous, so as not to present what is actually taking place. Now, take the statement from Grassley, it appears to be a reassuring statement that "It’d be a violation of the constitutional right to privacy if that were to happen.", but it is what he said before this sentence that is where the lawyers stepped in, "First of all, nothing can be done to your body without your permission." Mr. Grassley is making it sound as if you have the power here because, as he states, "nothing can be done to your body without your permission" but the way these invasive "Ultrasound Prior to administering desired medical procedure Laws" get around the principle of "It’d be a violation of the constitutional right to privacy if that were to happen" is to require that the woman seeking the medical procedure first give her "permission" to have the invasive procedure prior, otherwise, by law, she is forbidden from being allowed the medical procedure. Its a caveat that is presented as an option. So, Mr. Grassley is looking to be a protector of your privacy rights, but is the reality that he is just "leading the flock to slaughter?"

Now, without sounding too dramatic with the statement "leading the flock to slaughter", let's take a look at how this can actually be true. It is a fact, that the constituent that was asking Sen. Grassley whether we should fear that the government will require that citizens will have to submit to have invasive technology inserted in their person was not speaking about abortion, but does that mean there can't be a law that says one must "first give permission" to having a chip implanted in their person prior to receiving a heart transplant? Since one would first have to give permission to receive the implant prior to receiving the heart transplant in order for the transplant to take place, this would technically be within the parameters that Mr. Grassley used to reassure his constituent that her right to privacy is not being subverted.

As we see by the actions of Conservatives around the country, it does not appear that Mr. Grassley feels, that his responsibility as protector of the Constitution in his position as a Senator in the Congress of the United States, applies when it comes to laws around the country that mandate a non-medically required procedure. Does he mean what he says when he speaks about the "constitutional right to privacy"? I haven't read where he is introducing legislation that will protect the women in the twelve various states within the Union that are currently violating their right to privacy from the government, and of its ability to impose unnecessary laws requiring that they be forced to have invasive technology inserted in their person prior to receiving non related medical attention from a professional medical practitioner. Where is his call to the Federal Government to act in enforcing the Constitution?

This is really "Big Government" forcing its will on the citizens, so do the Conservatives mean what they say when they are against big government? It does't appear so by their actions. Is this what "re-branding the Party" means? Yes it does!



Latest Activity: Aug 31, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Blog has been viewed (1747) times.

DLangdon commented on Thursday, Feb 28, 2013 at 13:34 PM

If you expect consistancy and logic from politicians, you are going to be disappointed.

TheSovereign commented on Friday, Mar 01, 2013 at 02:23 AM

How correct you are!

Bull153 commented on Friday, Mar 01, 2013 at 03:54 AM

@ TheSovereign...

It would be nice if it started with the POTUS...

- Ron
ICRD - D60

“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything.” - Mark Twain

“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” - Albert Einstein

crimeriddendump commented on Friday, Mar 01, 2013 at 08:22 AM

Hello Bull153,

And perhaps you should start with yourself.

Friendo commented on Friday, Mar 01, 2013 at 20:44 PM

Obama does one thing very well...he disappoints.

Bull153 commented on Saturday, Mar 02, 2013 at 13:10 PM

@ TheSovereign...

First of all, there is no 'Conservative Party'. There is the Democratic Party, there is the Republican party, there are also several other parties of little consequence like the Libertarians and the Peace and Freedom Party, ther is even a TEA Party - alas, there is no 'Conservative Party'. Sorry...

Fear mongering isn't the sole purview of conservatives, liberals and others have engaged in the tactic for years. They continue today. President Obama's minions continue to proclaim that if the agenda he has set forth for the next four years isn't followed, thousands of police and firemen will lose their jobs. Teachers and educators across the nation will be laid off. The economic recovery, sluggish as it is, will collapse and the dollar will become the penny. It is all baloney, just as much as forced implantation of microchips.

Claims that the administration's health care legislation, i.e. 'Obamacare' requires U.S. citizens be implanted with microchips by 23 March 2013 (36 months after the legislation was signed) has been proven to be completely FALSE, despite what some colander wearing, tin foil protected, nuts would have you believe. Senator Grassley certainly doesn't wear a colander and hasn't claimed Mr. Obama wants to implant microchips in the citizenry.

It would be helpful to understand exactly what Indiana Senate Bill 371 says. You know, like Nancy Pelosi claimed about the Obama Health Care Bill? " We have to pass the bill so that you can read the bill and understand it away from the fog of controversy..." So here it is, read it for yourself.
Text of Indiana SB 371:

While we are talking education, one might wish to understand the furor over ultrasounds. I am not a doctor nor a specialist on ultrasounds. I've never been pregnant. But the way this is being presented makes it sound like women are going to be marched en mass and probed in private places like some mad scientist has gone wild.

Bull153 commented on Saturday, Mar 02, 2013 at 13:11 PM

From what I have read, "A fetal ultrasound, or sonogram, is an imaging technique that uses high-frequency sound waves to produce images of a baby in the uterus. Routine fetal ultrasounds are considered safe for both mother and baby. Researchers haven't noted any adverse effects of fetal ultrasounds in children followed for several years after birth."

This is hardly earth shattering. If you believe the opponents, every procedure under the bill would be invasive. It doesn't appear that way. I trust that doctors and health professionals will follow the cannons of their profession and 'do no harm'. Invasive procedures are common in medicine for all sorts of diagnostic and pre-transplant procedures. I had to sign a waiver in order to receive cortisone shots, an invasive procedure. The same applied to my arthroscopic surgery. Even forced blood draws for drunk driving are permitted and performed.

"Implied Consent provision of California's vehicle code mandates that the individual must submit to chemical testing in order to determine his or her blood-alcohol content (BAC) level. In addition to some severe consequences being imposed (jail time and loss of driving privileges), if the individual refuses to submit to a chemical test, California police are authorized to draw blood by force - either by holding the driver down and pinning the person's arm, or by threatening to do so."

So, if you look at what Senator Grassley actually said, I don't find it at all a case of his not "saying what he means and meaning what he says." Even if you were to grant that the Senator was not being true in his statements, there are frequent gross violations of that principle from Congress and the President. Mr. Obama has done his share of saying one thing and doing another since before he took office. Like Ms. Pelosi, who can forget Mr. Obama's proclamation that under his 'Obamacare' - "If you like your doctor you can keep him. If you like your insurance plan you can keep that too." We all know, and he knew, that if the provisions of his plan were fully implemented, it would be far cheaper for business owners to pay fines for non-compliance than to provide health care coverage. So employees are being forced into the clutches of 'Obamacare' because you cannot keep something that your boss no longer offers. This is but one example, there are more...

Bull153 commented on Saturday, Mar 02, 2013 at 13:11 PM

When Barack Obama took the oath of office, he swore to 'protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America'. Well, there are at least three cases where he has failed to do so.

--- The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that President Obama failed to follow the Constitution in that the Senate was not in recess when three NLRB appointments were made.

--- President Obama violated the Constitution by attacking Libya without authorization from Congress.

--- The president authorized and ordered fatal drone strikes on US citizens without due process.

Say what you mean and mean what you say... Right!

Senator Grassley's comments pale in comparison. Besides, in the case of the President, his actions affect the entire nation. The abortion issues brought up affect only Indiana and the eleven other states. This is a states rights issue, and if there is a desire that these laws not be implemented, the solution is simple. Force the elected representatives in those states to do the will of the people. Of course, it doesn't always work out that way. Remember proposition 8 here in California? Who cares what the people want, litigate - litigate - litigate until you get your way. After all, it is the liberal's battle cry! Say what you mean and mean what you say!

- Ron
ICRD - D61

“My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington.” - Barack Obama

"I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class." - Barack Obama

crimeriddendump commented on Saturday, Mar 02, 2013 at 13:40 PM

Hello Bull153,

Seems male ultra conservatives, such as yourself, have zero problem telling women how they should feel and what is and is not a violation of their privacy.

Also very HYPOCRITICAL of you to claim women's rights is a state issue yet gun control is not.

TheSovereign commented on Thursday, Jun 27, 2013 at 03:40 AM

"because the reality of it is, every cell phone sold in this country by Federal law, must have a trackable GPS chip in it, so your where abouts can be tracked as it is now. This way the Federal Government does not need to grow in order to track someone, they just turn to the corporation that services your phone to provide the information. In our current "corporate friendly" Federal government, laws have been written in order to more easily share information between the government and the corporations with very little push back from the corporations. Its that give and take that make controlling the masses easier to do while extracting profits a little less abated by laws. "

Were you listening then, or did you think I was being extreme? I wrote this in March, and contrast this against what has just come out in the news lately. As the story goes, the NSA was collecting personal data on large numbers of people without warrants. There were a number of corporations that were complicit in providing the requested data. Some of these supposed corporations are cell phone providers. We give away a little bit more of our liberties with every new shiny object that tracts everything we do.

Do you have a store card for Safeway, SaveMart, or Raily's? If you do, Maybe its because you received rebated money? You have started a data base of every thing you buy at those locations. Do you remember when you were a kid, and you never wanted anything negative to be placed in your file? In the case of these store cards, you have started a file with your name and address on it, and it tells all of the big food corporations just what food you buy, and this helps them focus their marketing at you.

Quit selling your souls for trinkets. Ask the Native Americans who sold Manhattan for some beads, how it worked out for them.

rozemist commented on Saturday, Aug 31, 2013 at 20:06 PM

Log In to post comments.

Previous blog entries by TheSovereign
My opinion on the gun control debate
November 15, 2017
Karen, I commend you for stepping into one of the muddiest debates possible. I have aways stated that my goal is to play with perceptions, and one of the greatest misperception is that we have an untethered right to own and carry "guns". Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being ...
Read More »
This is what represents YOU! And you picked them!
September 14, 2015
Those lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer are here, and it is time for congress to recess. And when they recess they do what? That's right, they hold townhall meetings with the constituents that live in the district that they represent. Oh joyous times, we as citizens now get to ...
Read More »
Its Just Political Theater
October 02, 2013
We are now hearing the drum beats of military intervention from our current President. He and his administration are building a case to intervene in the Syrian uprising. The Secretary of State, John Kerry is telling us that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons on its own people, and ...
Read More »
4th of July Quiz Time
July 11, 2013
Time for all of us political junkies who are celebrating the Declaration of Independence, to test our knowledge of this nation. So, here is a civics test for all to take and challenge one self. Good luck, and post your scores. Share whether you thought the test was easy or ...
Read More »
Its all about Liberty
June 30, 2013
Well, the Supreme court has ruled on, or should I say, avoided controversy, with the California Prop 8 decision. The court decided that those who were bringing the case to the court did not have standing to do so, and let a lower court'(s) ruling that the proposition was not ...
Read More »
[View More Blogs...]

Powered by
Morris Technology