RFID Chip Implant For All Americans? – Rumors and Facts
The first time that I heard it, I immediately dismissed it as one of those internet rumors that spread so quickly that there is no way to confirm it. In any case, it sounded so far out there that I didn't even try.
We get emails like this all the time -- most of them are exactly that -- well-meaning, but sensationalist rumors.
This new law requires an RFID chip implanted in all of us. This chip will not only contain your personal information with tracking capability but it will also be linked to your bank account. And get this, Page 1004 of the new law (dictating the timing of this chip), reads, and I quote: "Not later than 36 months after the date of the enactment".
It is now the law of the land that by March 23rd 2013 we will all be required to have an RFID chip underneath our skin and this chip will be link to our bank accounts as well as have our personal records and tracking capability built into it.
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."
When I went to check it out, I found all the usual sources; page after page of blogs and conspiracist sites, but not one single mainstream news story that confirmed the rumors.
Despite their protests of neutrality, I find pretty much all the so-called 'debunking' sites like FactCheck.org or Snopes.com tend to debunk rumors that favor conservatives with considerably more gusto than they do those that favor liberals and liberal causes.
Which is more or less what I found when I finally did check it out at Snopes.com. Although the site labeled the rumor "false" in its explanation of why it was false, Snopes essentially confirmed all the details.
Snopes mocked the rumors origin as being rooted in "mark of the beast" scenarios, even using a little wordplay from Ecclesiastes in saying such rumors are "nothing new under the sun" and that it is "just as false as all such previous rumors."
Ok. Good. So it has no resemblance to reality. Whew! Well . . . not so fast.
The page numbers and language of the law as referenced in the emails are NOT part of the final Obamacare bill, but they were in the early versions!
The mere fact that there was an effort to mandate implantable RFID chips into human beings as a health care measure is astonishing. The fact that it didn't make it this time simply means that it didn't make it this time. I suppose one might argue that it will never come up again, but such an argument flies in the face of history.
In the end, according to the Snopes entry, one finds that the rest of the rumor is also true in most details except that at the moment, it has not yet been mandatory.
In other words, Obamacare only invites you, rather than forcing you to. You don't have to get "chipped" if you don't want to.
On that basis, Snopes pronounces the rumor "False."
Lessee . . . there was a time when the government only invited you to get a Social Security number, too. It also used to clearly say on the face of the card, "Not for Use For Identification Purposes".
The reason was because of public resistance to the idea of being assigned a government number. The Social Security Act, or Public Law 74-271 made no mention of a numbering system.
Once the Act was passed by Congress and signed into law, the Treasury Department simply issued a directive ordering the creation of a Social Security "account", like in a bank, and mandated the issuance of an "account number" to take some of the sting out of being assigned a number.
It wasn't until 1943 that FDR issued an Executive Order linking the Social Security number to all other Federal agencies. Still, resistance was high and lots of folks refused to enroll.
They had just watched the transformation of Europe as too much power became concentrated in the hands of too few bureaucrats. They witnessed centralized government transform Europe into totalitarianism, war and ruin.
The persecution of European Jewry awakened America's Christian population as they began to see events developing in line with the Bible's warnings and signs signifying the onset of what Scripture calls the last days.
For Americn Christians in the 1940's being forced to take part in an economic numbering system sounded too much like the Mark of the Beast.
In 1949, George Orwell's anti-socialist novel, "1984" furnished the name to the faceless discomfort Americans felt at being numbered like cattle and the fear of how it might be used by some future "Big Brother."
It wasn't until 1961 that the IRS made it mandatory that one have a Social Security number in order to pay one's taxes. In 1965, the passage of Medicare captured everybody over 65, linking Medicare coverage to one's Social Security number.
Your Social Security card still said, "Not to be used for identification purposes" right on the face of it, but that came to mean, "Not to be used for identification purposes, except by the government."
By 1966, the VA started using SSNs to identify patients. By 1969, the DoD began phasing out service numbers and replacing them with SSN's.
Then, in 1970, Congress passed the Bank Records and Foreign Transactions Act, also known as Public Law 91-508. The Act required all banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions and brokers/dealers in securities to obtain the SSNs of all of their customers.
Also, financial institutions were required to file a report with the IRS, including the SSN of the customer, for any transaction involving more than $10,000.
Ooops. The card still said "not to be used for identification purposes."
People started to get nervous and so the SSA commissioned a task force to reassure the public that it wouldn't break its promise not to make an SSN a cradle-to-grave government number that would ever result in a citizen having to produce "his papers."
I'm not speaking of ancient history (well, at least not to some of you) -- I remember the debate. The SSA issued recommendation aimed at calming public fears, proposing the SSA take a "cautious and conservative" position toward SSN use and do nothing to promote the use of the SSN as an identifier.
That was the public recommendation that got all the headlines. They also recommended "mass SNN enumeration" by requiring every student to get a Social Security number in order to register in school.
In 1933, Social Security was sold as a public pension plan to provide a social safety net for the elderly. Less than forty years after pledging NEVER to force anyone into the system, the system was forcing five-year olds to sign up as a condition of going to school!
The Privacy Act of 1975 was a Congressional effort to turn a pickle back into a cucumber. Alarmed at how the SSN was being transformed into a secret password to unlock a person's life, it passed Public Law 93-579 to try and undo the damage.
It forbade the government from withholding a benefit simply because that person refused to disclose his SSN.
The same year, it passed Public Law 93-647 making disclosure of one's SSN a condition of eligibility for AFDC benefits and gave access to SSN information to the Office of Child Support enforcement Parent Locator Service.
The Tax Reform Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-455) formally dropped any pretense and officially declared your SSN is your cradle-to-grave identification number and the fact that it also serves as a password into your entire life story is just too darned bad.
It made the following amendments to the Social Security Act:
To allow use by the States of the SSN in the administration of any tax, general public assistance, driver's license or motor vehicle registration law within their jurisdiction and to authorize the States to require individuals affected by such laws to furnish their SSNs to the States;
To make misuse of the SSN for any purpose a violation of the Social Security Act; To make, under federal law, unlawful disclosure or compelling disclosure of the SSN of any person a felony, punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.
To amend section 6109 of the Internal Revenue Code to provide that the SSN be used as the tax identification number (TIN) for all tax purposes.
While the Treasury Department had been using the SSN as the TIN by regulation since 1962, this law codified that requirement.
The Federal Advisory Committee on False Identification recommended that penalties for misuse should be increased and evidence requirements tightened; rejected the idea of national identifier and did not even consider the SSN for such a purpose.
If you followed the link I provided at the beginning of our little history lesson on the evolution of your Social Security number, you probably noticed that every single fact cited above was sourced from an official Social Security website owned by the US government.
Now, let's take a fresh look at the relevant Scripture, just to keep everything together in the same place.
"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." (Revelation 13:16-17)
And so now, we return to the rumor that says:
"It is now the law of the land that by March 23rd 2013 we will all be required to have an RFID chip underneath our skin and this chip will be linked to our bank accounts as well as have our personal records and tracking capability built into it."
As Snopes points out, the rumor is false. They wanted to put that RFID provision in, but realized they didn't have the votes. So, while it was included in the early drafts, that provision was dropped. For now.
So, its false. For now.