VP Joe Biden promised mandatory microchip implant Supreme Ct

[joshua1:9]

*Obama’s VP Joe Biden promised mandatory microchip implant Supreme Court ruling


http://ignoranceisfutile.wordpress.com/ ... rt-ruling/

[mark s]

The headline makes it sound like Biden will see that it happens, but the actual paragraph sounds more like Biden is saying that this is an issue that will come up before the Supreme Court in the coming years.

[GodsStudent]

Actually, Mark, that is exactly what happened. Biden named many things that will be coming before the supreme court in coming years, this just among some of those. This one gets a particular "goat" among prophecy watchers, but I think the article here takes Biden's remarks totally out of context, as he did not say we would be microchipping, he was going down a long list of things that the supreme court will be facing and having to rule on in the coming years.

[est92305]

I'd like to hear everything that he said. That short little clip makes it sound out of context.

[D4Christ]

Transcript: Day One of the Roberts Hearings

Snipet:

BIDEN: And once again, when it should be even more obvious to all Americans we need increased protections for liberty as we look around the world and we see thousands of people persecuted because of their faith, women unable to show their faces in public, children maimed and killed for no other reason than they were born the wrong tribe; and once again, when it should be obvious we need a more energetic national government to deal with the challenges of the new millennium -- terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, pandemic disease, religious intolerance -- once again our journey of progress is under attack.

And it's coming from, in my view, the right. There are judges, scholars and opinion leaders who belong to this group of people, who are good, honorable and patriotic Americans. They believe the Constitution provides no protection against government intrusion into highly personal decisions like the Schiavo case, decisions about birth, about marriage, about family, about religion.

There are those who would slash the power of our national government, fragmenting it among the states in a new reading of the 10th and 11th amendment.

Incredibly, some even argue, as you well know -- people won't believe this -- but some are arguing today, in this constitutional exile group, who argue that the national government has no power to deal with what's going on in the Gulf at this moment.

Judge, I don't believe the Constitution -- I don't believe in a constitution where individuals could, for very long, have accomplished what we did had we read it in such a narrow way.

Like the founders, I believe our Constitution is as big and as grand and as great as its people. Our constitutional journey did not stop with women being barred from being lawyers, with 10-year-olds working in coal mines or black kids forced in different schools than white kids just because the Constitution -- in the Constitution, nowhere does it mention sex discrimination, child labor, segregation. It doesn't mention it.

Our constitutional journey did not stop then and it must not stop now, Judge.

BIDEN: And we'll be faced with equally consequential decisions in the 21st century.

Can a microscopic tag be implanted in a person's body to track his every movement? There's actual discussion about that.

You will rule on that -- mark my words -- before your tenure is over.

Can brain scans be used to determine whether a person's inclined toward criminality or violent behavior?

You will rule on that.
And, Judge, I need to know whether you will be a justice who believes that the constitutional journey must continue to speak to these consequential decisions or that we've gone far enough in protecting against government intrusion into our autonomy into the most personal decisions we make.

Judge, that's why this is a critical moment. There are elected officials in this government, such as Mr. DeLay -- a fine, honorable, patriotic man -- and others who have been unsuccessful at implementing their agenda in the elected branches. So they have now poured their energy -- as the left would, if it were different -- and now poured their energies and resources into trying to change the court's view of the Constitution.

And now they have a once in a lifetime opportunity, the filling of two Supreme Court vacancies, one of which is the chief and the other is for associate justice -- the first time in 75 years.

Judge, I believe with every fiber in my being that their view of the Constitution and where the country should be taken would be disaster for our people.

Like most Americans, I believe the Constitution recognizes a general right to privacy.

I believe a woman's right to be nationally and vigorously protected exists.

I believe that the federal government must act as a shield to protect the powerless against the economic interests of this country.

And I believe the federal government should stamp out discrimination wherever -- wherever -- it occurs.

And I believe the Constitution inspires and empowers us to achieve these great goals.

Judge, if I look only at what you've said and written -- as used to happen in the past -- I would have to vote no. You dismissed the constitutional protection of privacy as, quote, "a so-called right." You derided agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission that combat corporate misconduct as "constitutional anomalies," quote.

And you dismissed gender discrimination as, quote -- and I quote -- "merely a perceived problem."

This is your chance, Judge, to explain what you meant by what you have said and what you have written.

[est92305]

Thank you, D4Christ.