Skeptic Project

As mentioned here:

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=231&id=241160

And the linked ATS article there-in. There's a lot of misinformation about what the terms in the bill mean and also their context. I created this thread so we could have a centralized place to post information we find about it.

I know Ed has some stuff he could post ;-)

A lot of the comments have a huge religious slant, and I often bring up the whole end times stuff as an obviously parallel to the microchip stuff, and it's just interesting how many CTs will chuck it off as unimportant.

Then they'll cite Nick Rockefeller, who isn't even a Rockefeller, as evidence, oh and of course they're citing it by proxy through a conspiracy theorist as well.

To add a bit more, drawing from the "full source article" that the zeitgeister got it from:

http://current.com/items/90842279_coverage-under-obamacare-will-require-an-implantable-microchip.htm</p>

Scrolling through the sea of links to "The Obama Deception", it appears that the definition of "class II implantable device" was simply made up, the real definition is:

"Devices in Class II are held to a higher level of assurance than Class I devices that they will perform as indicated and will not cause injury or harm to patient or user. Devices in this class are typically non-invasive and include x-ray machines, PACS, powered wheelchairs, infusion pumps, surgical drapes, surgical needles and suture material,acupuncture needles."

Class I devices being things like "tongue depressors, bedpans, elastic bandages, most hand-held dental instruments, examination gloves, and hand-held surgical instruments and other similar types of common equipment."

This is further elaborated under Subtitle C which contrary to the original article, actually states that these devices are: "a class II device that is implantable, life-supporting, or life-sustaining". What the more sensible people have concluded to be pacemakers, artificial valves and the like.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf</p>

There's the link to the pdf of the bill... my browser has glitched every time I tried to visit it, so if someone here could actually confirm the above information that would be great... but the counterpoints to the original article do seem to be legitimate.

I've heard it's not in the new version of the bill, apparently the passage in question was removed. I don't have any copy of the bill, so I can't confirm or deny it. IIIRC it's on page 1000-1004 so anyone interested in looking, it's a great place to start.

Oh Edward, just went over your other post again... Is the Nicholas Rockefeller (of Zeitgeist / Aaron Russo fame) really not a Rockefeller?

"Stirring further confusion about Rockefeller Group in the minds of some government officials earlier this year was the arrival of one Nicholas Rockefeller, a Los Angeles attorney, who says he appealed personally to Shanghai Mayor Han Zheng to take over the project after hearing it was troubled. He says he suggested to the mayor that his name would make it easy to adjust any contracts.

Nicholas Rockefeller declined to say where in the Rockefeller family he fits. But the family's patriarch, David Rockefeller, said through an associate that he doesn't recall ever meeting Nicholas. The relationship "is probably quite distant, seventh or eighth cousins," according to the associate, Peter Johnson."

Source: Shanghai Project Stalls; Confusion Over Exactly Who Is a Rockefeller Stymies Plans To Restore City's Famed Bund - James T. Areddy. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Sep 28, 2005. pg. B.1

[Full article available on ProQuest]

I definitely want to post something but I need to spend a little time on it since I'm quite rusty on the whole issue.

The article I quoted says that he is a Los Angeles attorney.

The New York Times talks about "Nicholas Rockefeller, a California lawyer" involved in the same kind of stuff the Wall Street Journal describes. http://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/03/business/international-business-asian-luxury-hotel-is-near-a-rare-sale.html</p>

The website for "Global-Agora Technology" describes the same guy (works for Rockvest Development):

Nicholas Rockefeller, Chairman of the Board of Advisors, is a partner is the international law firm of Perkins Coie LLP and an advisor to the RockVest Group. His clients include several multinational companies and many succesful technology ventures throughout the world. His securities practice includes litigation before the United States Supreme Court and a number of his transactions have been featured in leading periodicals. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the International Insitutute of Strategic Studies, the Advisory Board of RAND, the Pacific Council on International Policy, the Committee on Foreign Relations in Los Angeles, the Western Justice Center, and has served as a participant in the World Economic Forum and the Aspen Institute. He is a member of the Board of Visitors of the Law Schools of the University of Oregon and Pepperdine University and is active in the affairs of his alma mater, Yale University. He recently chaired a panel at the United Nations on E-Commerce and is a co-author of "Economic Strategy and National Security."

http://www.globalagora.com/team.htm</p>

Then there is a picture of him: http://www.globalagora.com/images/NR-M-NM-W2.jpg</p>

Which resembles the picture of Nicholas and Aaron Russo that's online: http://www.jonesreport.com/images/210207_russo_rfeller_sm.jpg</p>

I think it is all the same guy.

Sky: lol good work. :D

btw Edward are all those people distant relatives or just people with surnames Winston?

@Ed,
As far as I know, I'm not related to any of these people, but it's certainly possible I could be. I have a fairly complete family tree, but it's just to my parents, so it doesn't include any 7th or 8th cousins I could have out there.

@Sil,
That's on my to do list, but I wanted some bigger confirmation first, I have a Rockefeller family tree some place, and that's pretty damning for Nick, he's no where on it. It'd be nice to know Nick's parents names, however.

>> While everyone is required to have it now by federal law, can the insurances companies raise your premium at any time they wish like before?

Yes, they can, and as far as I know, there's no prevision to stop this. My worry is that no longer being able to reject people for pre-existing conditions will lead them to doubling their prices "because [we] have to!"

@Edward
Thank you. That's the one answer I've been looking for, and this is the only major problem I have with this.

They don't have to do anything like that, but because they need to make capital from this, and they know they won't be able to do this anywhere else in the world.

@Sil
This was on of the things he said he was gonna do once he got into office. This was his main campaign promise. So of course, he'll just go ahead and do it.

If they were going to force it through, I'm not sure why they did it without a public option -- I guess they wanted to get *some kind* of reform through, and they thought it wouldn't pass with a public option. It's so bizarre there's so much struggle against helping people.

Hmm, can't seem to edit my post... in other words, there were too many concessions made to try and gain support from other congressmen, but it was pretty much voted along party lines in the end anyways so might as well have not made those concessions in the first place.

Talk radio, complacency, and apathy have done far more to bust unions than guys with clubs could ever do.

Many young people who have no real idea about the violent labor history in the United States will tell you why unions are bad, or perhaps worse, tell you why Austrian Economics is good, but most don't even care enough about that either.

A lot of polls I've seen show young people do not fear the word "socialism" as much as their parents did, I guess that's a good thing, because they aren't as blind to other ideas (or the fact that roads, the post office, etc are socialist in some manner), but there's still a lot of baby boomers around.

I really don't think the country will turn around in a good way until the baby boomers are dead or they change. As for Generation Xers like myself, some are interested in politics, but most are pretty apathetic, and it's weird to talk to people I knew in High School, College, and beyond who now call themselves libertarians but really don't know the first thing about Austrian Economics.