It is now LAW-- we must now have a NATIONAL ID Card

Got this link from an email from Mark Crispin Miller. Most disturbing.

Once the people accept the national drivers license, it will be a cinch to sell the sheep the bio chip implant, guaranteed. And the 501-c-3 corporate church leadership will help them.

Last week the House of Representatives passed an unconstitutional piece of legislation which will force all Americans to accept a national ID/driver's license. Those who refuse to accept this card will not be able to fly, take the train and one day you will be unable to travel the roads and streets without "your papers, please!" According to Congressman Ron Paul, "The bill establishes a huge, centrally database of highly personal information about American citizens: at a minimum their name, date of birth, place of residence, social security number and other sensitive data."

http://www.newswithviews.com/paul/paul29.htm

this is the real deal. guckert/gannon, all that other crap, doesn't matter a bit. what matters is this. bastards.

is this possible to fight anymore, or can we only fight the next step?

the G/G thing was definitely a diversion, now we know what. (maybe multiple diversions?)

whatever it was, it's already starting...and we have to start fighting now! this stuff won't go away if we don't make it.

That they don't want us to look in!

letting the states handle most of the bureaucracies. Oh, but that was the old Republican Party that espoused that as one of their guiding principles.

The new one prefers good old-fashioned jackbooted fascism.

Don't you think it would be easy to convince the Rapturists that a chip implant (or even the ID card, itself) is the "mark of the beast". Wouldn't their heads just explode, if they came to the same conclusion?

and given their level of gullibility, it might be fairly easy...we can get the survivalist/neo-nazi types to go against the id as well (the black helicopters crowd). And how long before some 14 year old figures out how to hack the chips? I give it a couple of weeks after implementation. Then there is always the judicious application of a large magnet, which reprograms almost any high tech equipment.

My guess is that you didn't. Instead, you're accepting as fact a gross overstatement of what the "Real ID Act" does and does not do.

Among the things that it does NOT do is establish a national ID card.

In a speech before the House of Representatives, he said:

"The REAL ID Act establishes a national ID card by mandating that states include certain minimum identification standards on driver’s licenses. It contains no limits on the government’s power to impose additional standards. Indeed, it gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to unilaterally add requirements as he sees fit."

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr020905.htm

The bill requires that all states include on their driver's licenses

"(1) The person's full legal name.

(2) The person's date of birth.

(3) The person's gender.

(4) The person's driver's license or identification card number.

(5) A digital photograph of the person.

(6) The person's address of principle residence.

(7) The person's signature.

(8) Physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes.

(9) A common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements."

Big effin' deal! With the exception of the last item, which I can't see as objectionable, my driver's license already includes all of that and more and has for years and I daresay that most states include most of that info already, as well. It's a matter of consistency.

And before anyone gets all nuts about #4, there is nothing whatsoever in the bill that requires anyone to get an "identification card". This refers to the picture IDs that the states already issue as an alternative to driver's licenses to non-drivers. You know, so non-drivers can purchase alcohol, enter a casino, or board a commercial airplane. They're voluntary and nothing in this legislation changes that.

Speaking of airplanes, when was the last time that anyone here was able to access an airport boarding gate anywhere in this country without showing a picture ID? This is nothing new, it just helps to provide uniform information on the licenses and/or IDs that most of us already have. I fail to see how this is such a desperately terrible thing.

And while it does not limit what else might be required in the future, it would make virtually no difference if it did. If they were to decide at some future date that they want to expand the required information, they'd just amend the law, so limitations would have little if any effect.

But the most glaring error in the premise of this thread is the assertion that any of this is "now LAW". H.R.418 was passed in the House last week and sent to the Senate where it was referred to committee for review on Wednesday. Who knows if it'll ever be passed or what it's provisions will ultimately be if it is? Why waste all this energy and chest thumping over something that hasn't happened yet? Or, more to the point, why paint is as having happened when, in fact, it hasn't? Those who, for whatever reasons they might have, object to minimum uniform information being required on driver's licenses in all states should contact their senators and voice their concerns. That would seem to be a whole lot more productive than portraying it as a done deal and generating a bunch of premature hand wringing, in my opinion.

So the cheap-ass red states that haven't paid for this already will get money from the evil gubmint. Oregon has very strict identification requirements for driver's licenses. Many states are on national databases. We paid for this out of our own state tax dollars. Stupid us.

....it does authorize".....grants to a State to assist the State in conforming to the minimum standards set forth in this title." It makes no specific allocations of funds. Since I have no idea what information all of the 50 different states do and do not already have on their licenses or which states would need to make changes or what those changes would need to be or what it would cost them to do it, I can't comment, but I do think that it's only right that, if the Federal government does force changes, they should help those states that need financial help in complying. That's what we advocate all day long for individuals. Why not for collections of individuals?

Oh, that's right. Because some of them might disagree with us politically.

Did you know Alabama hadn't even signed on to the FBI crime database because they wouldn't spend the money? Or at least they hadn't at the time of that shooting spree which was part of the reason the bullets weren't traced. I know that most, if not all, western states are on a centralized database for driver's licenses. Why should we always have to pay for services for people who whine about taxes and then turn around and stick the rest of the country with their bills. Nobody ever tells all these red staters that they're being funded by blue state liberals.

....Conservatives use. "Why should we always have to pay for (food stamps/Medicaid/welfare/etc) for people who don't work but keep having babies like it's an Olympic sport? Nobody ever tells these lazy breeders that they're being supported by those of us who actually work for a living blah blah blah blah.....".

Exact same kind of rationale.

The wealthier states should help to support the poorer states just like the wealthier people should help the poorer people.

Blue states do. That's the whole damned point. They whine about it and stick blue states with the bills. Because they won't pay for it and take pride in the fact that they refuse to raise taxes. People in red states have absolutely no idea they take more federal tax money and that it comes from blue states. It's time to tell them. And it's also time to tell them that half the reason they're broke is because they won't support unions and wage laws.

If a poor person could be making a better living doing the same thing in a different state, I'd tell them. You don't just leave people poor and on aid programs if you can help them have something better. And you don't just let red state people continue to vote down tax hikes and then turn around and take money from everybody else.

about people who "choose" not to buy insurance, even though they "could afford" it.. Talk about a double standard, eh??

A whole state chooses to use its money , but individuals somehow cannot:shrug:

....this part of his statement caught my eye, as well.

"The bill establishes a huge, central database of highly personal information about American citizens: at a minimum their name, date of birth, place of residence, social security number and other sensitive data."

First of all, it does not " a huge central database". It only states that "To be eligible to receive any grant or other type of financial assistance made available under this title", the individual states must allow the other states to link to the state's driver's license infomation databases already in existence and that those databases must contain at least

"(1) All data fields printed on drivers' licenses and identification cards issued by the State.

(2) Motor vehicle drivers' histories, including motor vehicle violations, suspensions, and points on licenses.

THAT'S IT!! So the very basic information that's shown on the driver's license that I have to show if I want to write a check at the drug store might be shared with the Department of Motor Vehicles of another state. What the heck is so "sensitive" or "highly personal" about my name, address, DOB, and license number? Nothing.

The license one must produce documentation of their social security number and the issuing agency has to keep the documentation on record for 8 years or so.

... an equivalent bill:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/10/congress.immigration.ap/

Cheers.

as a european leftist, who - at least this is what I consider myself to be - was never "anti-american", a lot of the times, when I was struggling and discussing with other Germans and even harder, French people: As a kind of last resort I did always mention that Northamericans don't even need an ID-card. The majority of Americans would consider it as a kind of attack against their personal freedom and liberty.

And this would just show that there still is something about the USA that makes it different from - sorry DUers - "OLD" Europe and our obsession with control and our tradition to create God-like governments.

Good Night (North-)America,
Dirk

Like in 1984? They would have to re-edit the Hunter for the Red October.

"No papers?"
"No papers!"

Even in a relationship that has clearly gone somewhere beyond abusive, it can hurt to be reminded how little our "partners" in D.C.—supposedly our agents, in fact, representing our own interests and using only powers we've ceded them—really respect us.

The law also includes such safety features as a requirement, at risk of losing federal money, to create a machine-readable database of all this info to be shared amongst all states, the feds—and the Canadian and Mexican governments, according to Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) The law states very specifically the nature and provenance of the documentation that the states must demand from citizens as a condition of driving on the freeways their taxes pay for. If the state I.D.s don't meet these requirements, they will no longer suffice for federal identification purposes—such as getting on a plane.

http://www.reason.com/links/links021605.shtml

to the Library of Congress database.

http://thomas.loc.gov/

Enter "418" in the search box and then click on the link in item #7, which is the final bill as passed by the House.

This is the only passage I can find anywhere in the text of the bill that makes any reference to either Canada or Mexico.

" The Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Border and Transportation Security, in consultation with the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Science and Technology and the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, shall study the technology, equipment, and personnel needed to address security vulnerabilities within the United States for each field office of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection that has responsibility for any portion of the United States borders with Canada and Mexico. The Under Secretary shall conduct follow-up studies at least once every 5 years."

I can't find anything in this or anywhere else in the bill that says anything whatsoever about sharing any data with the governments of Canada and/or Mexico. Can you?

It may well just be me, but it's beginning to look as if Rep. Paul might not be the most reliable source of information about this particular bill.

No specific mention. However, the information is to be shared between states and the federal government. Once in the federal government it might be available to other police agencies. I can not see US citizens being required to provide more info than a Canadian or a Mexican on their drivers license. Thus it would be required to be shared in the opposite directions.

Not about and for the people? The ownership society is upon us, there is wantin greed all around but when one hand taketh away another gives. The only secret is we must now figure what we gained in the avarice that is being shown or transpired.

The did or did not pass it is academic if you ask me. The people in the government making these laws to benefit the rich don't really understand all the ramifications of the things they do. Mostly it seems to me that things they doing are all crude and infantile. Establishing things of this type or nature makes for a more unstable or uncivilized society.

When the government or people who portend to be above others don't trust these people they think below them, that feeling gets reciprocated back up. As you sow, so you shall reap.

For example the fact that Homeland Security can overrule each and every law. No appeal allowed.


--------------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!