Arizona is not far behind Oklahoma. the Arizona MVD is working on compliance with the 15th-18th REAL ID benchmarks, a far far cry from being out of the national ID program (sometimes called “REAL ID”, but it goes by many other names as well). From a Christian patriot’s travails in Oklahoma.
I was shocked when the DMV clerk told me that I must submit to a finger scan. Who doesn’t associate being fingerprinted with criminality? I balked but was told no scan-no drivers license. At the time I had a small child, my own business and countless tasks to accomplish every day that would be very difficult if not impossible to meet without a valid license so I grudgingly complied. I had no idea that it wasn’t just my fingers that they were scanning. The old cameras had been replaced with high resolution digital cameras that capture, map and digitize our facial features for use with facial recognition technology.
Drivers license photos compliant with International Civil Aviation Organization biometric data interchange formats? CHECK
Drivers license require finger scans from applicants? According to the American Association of Moter Vehicle Administrators, it is under consideration.
I always knew that if it came down to it, I was not going to just roll over and comply. I have a child and to just give up and leave her with the legacy of government control by cataloging and monitoring people through an international biometric ID is not an option for me.
Once the fight is finally over and the biometric identification plans are fully implemented those who refuse to be enrolled and will not carry a “government issued photo ID”, will essentially be viewed as invalid, non-persons, unregistered.
Furthermore their invalidated status will be a red flag rendering such persons especially suspect by a government that demands its right to know all about everyone at all times. Where did our government get such a right? They got it from us. Our complacence is compliance and as far as they are concerned that gives them permission and therefore the right to scan our body parts and use those measurements as a personal tracking number.
The ones that do comply won’t be much better off really. Their government issued biometric ID will allow our government to keep tabs on their every transaction, their travel, their habits and more. This biometric identification system puts our ability to access our daily necessities at their pleasure. Will such an all powerful government choose to be a benevolent father? History does not give one much hope that it will.
From Revelations 13:
7And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
8And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
9If any man have an ear, let him hear…….
15And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
16And 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:
17And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark,
Seems pretty clear from Revelation, that if you bear the mark, regardless of your self-perception of whether you are a saint or not, you serve the Beast of revelation. The sure sign is (see P 16 above) that if you do NOT have the mark, you cannot engage in commerce. If you do, you can.
It’s all right there in black and white. I am so grateful to my Christian sister in Oklahoma who is showing good patriots and Christians the way to resist the beast.
Feel Safer, America?
Thank you to John McCain and other Republicans for voting to create the TSA that has resulted in this situation. While Napolitano has widened this outrage, this is what you get when our party strays from the constitution and from its roots. Republicans have always opposed an internal national police force to “monitor” the law abiding ala the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the old Soviet Union.
You asked for it, you got it! Those who trade liberty for security, will have neither.
Tips for helping you Survive Your Government Grope
NOTE: Even if you choose to go through a scanner (which will produce a picture of you naked and subject you to radiation)* you still may get pulled out for an “Enhanced Pat Down Search.”
Before a TSA employee puts their hand on you – insist that they put on a clean gloves. Here is a short list of parasites and infections that could be transferred from an earlier passenger to you:
The symptoms of usually appear after about a week of being infected with the bacteria. Abdominal cramps followed by watery diarrhea are the first symptoms this infection. The dehydration caused by the loss of fluids makes an individual feel sick and tired. Soon, it makes sores in the intestines and the stools become bloody. An individual also might suffer from mild fever and nausea or vomiting.
Staph skin infections, including MRSA, generally start as small red bumps that resemble pimples, boils or spider bites. These can quickly turn into deep, painful abscesses that require surgical draining. Sometimes the bacteria remain confined to the skin. But they can also burrow deep into the body, causing potentially life-threatening infections in bones, joints, surgical wounds, the bloodstream, heart valves and lungs.
Pneumonia, Colds and Flu
Small droplets of fluid containing the virus can be wiped off the person before you and transferred to you.
Body lice are unable to burrow into the skin. Although a few body lice may be seen clinging to body hairs, most are on the clothing of an infected person. Body lice and their eggs are most abundant along the seams of clothes worn close to the body. Someone infested with body lice typically will have 10 or fewer active lice on their skin at any one time, but the clothing may contain many dozens or hundreds. Infestations of body lice are more common in the winter months, when destitute people tend to wear many layers of clothing for long periods and have more contact with the clothing of others who may be infested.
The reason why this invasion is spreading is bed bugs get in the clothing of people at hotels who help bring them to their new homes.
REMEMBER: The Enhanced Pat Down searchers hands runs up and down the moist private crevices of other travelers body’s before he/she comes to you. Unless you want their bodily secretions on you, then insist on a new pair of gloves.
Look at what TSA is touching
Ties: In 2004 University of Birmingham researchers studied the ties of 40 doctors and found that all had potentially dangerous levels of bacteria.
Hair: That’s where lice and their eggs are.
Crotches: At least one gram of E. Coli in this region
INSIST ON CLEAN GLOVES TODAY, Write your Congressman tomorrow. Ask your elected officials to support Ron Paul’s American Travelers Dignity Act. But your Congressman may not know about this, because they are given special treatment by TSA.
*Why Should You Object to the Scanner?
- Pilots and Flight Attendants Union both urged their members to opt for their own safety
- Manufacturers can’t be sued for faulty design under the 2002 Homeland Security Act
- It’s radiation. Unlike a medical x-ray that passes through the body, this stays in your skin.
- Google Dr. John Sedat’s letter to TSA warning of dangers of “Back Scatter Technology.”
- You don’t want strangers to see you naked.
- Ask the TSA employees if they can wear radiation detection badges. They should, but they are prohibited.
Why should you be forced to put your health and dignity at risk just to travel in the “land of the free and home of the brave”?
The 4th Amendment to US Constitution: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”
Despite protestations to the contrary from the law’s sponsor and others, this law turns the Arizona drivers license (actually any state license) into a national id.
It’s a common misconception to believe that the national id must be a card or a chip.
National ID not a card or a chip, but is the data that the federal government has on you. What the federal government has been attempting to do for many years, most notably under the Clinton administration, was to find a way to integrate all of the various data they have on American citizens into an easily searchable, easily sharable database and data exchange format.
F. Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the purposes of determining eligibiltiy for any … license and for the purposes of verifying any claim of residence or domicile.
This section removes ALL restrictions from the exchange of license data between any state agency and any federal agency. This section applies to ANY PERSON. This section includes ANY LICENSE. Under this section ANY state agency may exchange ANY person’s license data with ANY federal agency without any restriction whatsoever.
This problem has nothing to do with what occurs at a police stop. It removes ALL restrictions from data exchange, including a full data dump, or including full back and forth real-time queryability, between any state license database and any or ALL federal agencies, beginning July 1, including the IRS or Homeland Security.
Protestations from the bill’s sponsor have included: “That’s not what it says.” “That’s not what it means.” “It’s not in there.”
Yes, Mr. Pearce, but that’s what the law SAYS word for word, in black and white, in 8th grade level English, no lawyers required.
Other protestations such as in this post include playing word games….
The fact that A.R.S. section 11-1051 allows for the sending, receiving, maintaining or exchanging of immigration status information with any federal, state or local agency does not in any way invoke the application of RIDA (REAL ID Act) in Arizona.
First, what does the REAL ID act have to do with it? Nothing. The REAL ID Act was a single federal program which attempted to force the state to turn over certain data to the feds. This bill turns over the same data that the REAL ID Act mandated, but does so voluntarily by the state, having nothing to do with REAL ID, but having everything to do with national id once the federal government gets their hands on the data. REAL ID here is completely irrelevant.
Second, what is “immigration status” relative to a citizens’ domicile? Or how would you verify a citizen’s eligibility for a drivers license (or any license) via exchange of that citizen’s data with the federal government? Why would you need to? Where is the limitation to the term “immigration status” in the data exchange with the federal government in checking a citizen’s domicile information with the feds or a citizen’s eligibility for a driver’s license (or a business license, or a hunting license - ANY license, remember). Nowhere. Why would the state need to do so relative to its citizens? But that’s precisely what the law enables.
The county attorney’s office goes onto state:
Subsection F states four limiting “official purposes.” If a public agent or bureaucrat cannot demonstrate that he accessed a person’s information pursuant to subsections F’s official purposes
A bureaucrat accessing the person’ s information is not at question here. Removal of all restrictions in sending law abiding citizen’s data to the federal government relevant to check the citizen’s domicile and/or eligibility for a license is.
Arizona law cannot dictate what the federal government does with law abiding citizen’s data once it is handed over to the feds. The feds, of course, will promptly put the data into whatever database they want which accomplishes their longstanding goal to implement a national id system.
Again, national id is NOT a card. It is the unique identifiers such as your name, SSN, domicile and biometric data such as your digitial photo on file with the MVD, once turned over to the feds and put into their national id database. Once the data is placed into the national id database, then your DL can be run against that national id database and is, VOILA, a national id.
And, yet, he fails to address the matter of the data exchange of law abiding citizens’ license data with “any agency” of the federal government, including Janet Napolitano’s agency, who is dying to get her hands on this information, especially gun owners’ information.
The only time the exchange of citizens’ data has ever been addressed was in the opinion that Andrew Thomas’ office wrote, linked to above, which stated it’s not REAL ID. So what? REAL ID is not the only national id program. PASS ID, BELIEVE ID, or just drivers’ license database dumps into the Homeland Security database all turn state drivers licenses into national ids…..
….but only if the state hands over the data. Which SB1070 does, willingly, of all citizens.
Russell Pearce is quoted as saying, “If we don’t turn over all of our data to the federal government, then how will be know who is SUPPOSED to be here.”
Wait a second, Senator Pearce, I thought this bill was supposed to be about who is NOT supposed to be here.
Senator Pearce, if you’re telling the truth and are against national id, THEN FIX THE LAW and prohibit the exchange of law abiding citizens’ data with the federal government.
No patriot hands over the private data of law abiding citizens to the feds, such as you have done in SB1070.
Anyone who does betrays the hard work of conservative patriots who have been fighting national ids since before the Clinton administration and since.
Fix the law before July 1. Otherwise, welcome to the leftist globalist Clintonista agenda as implemented by the right.
Gun Owners of America oppose national ids because they state that once the federal government has your drivers license data, they have enough information to track gun purchases…
“Since I need a driver’s license to purchase a gun from a dealer, BATFE would finally have its long-coveted tool to impose gun control on targeted groups — particularly under a liberal anti-gun administration. If you believe in the Second Amendment, please vote against this anti-gun monstrosity.” http://seclists.org/politech/2005/Feb/0016.html
Not to mention the fact that from the federal side of the fence, they plan on using the SAME SYSTEM to enable AMNESTY. We can’t have it both ways – to use secure ids to keep illegal aliens out and at the same time use secure ids to let them in.
Fix the law, Senator Pearce.
Several weeks ago, I posted about how the right, in its vigor to try to stem the problems of illegal immigration, is actually advancing the leftists agenda of national id and north american integration.
This installment is to provide more evidence of the same.
In a March 8, 2010 Wall Street Journal article, “ID Card for Workers is at Center of Immigration Plan”, you can see that it is the explicit intent of the leftists (such as Schumer), globalists and RINOs (such as Lindsay Graham) to force anyone applying for a job to present a national id to obtain one.
What do you think e-Verify is? It’s a web front end sitting on top of the US Department of Homeland Security’s national id database which integrates data from the US Department of Labor, the US Department of Health and Human Services, the State Department, pretty much every department, but most importantly and worst of all, from the states.
Why do the feds need the state data on the states’ own citizens so badly? Because otherwise, the feds to not have all of the data they need to track each legal citizen uniquely. Why? Because in the past it’s been ILLEGAL to do so. Not to mention the fact that there is absolutely no authority in the constitution for the federal government to track law abiding citzens, nor to expend sacred tax dollars on doing so.
How does the federal government get data from the states? There are several ways, but here’s a summary of a few relevant ones….
1) 42USC666 (a)(13), implemented under the federal Deadbeat Dad’s law. This federal statute required states to collect SSNs from all drivers’ license applicants and remit them to the federal government. However, this information alone was still not enough to create a water tight data tracking system for citizens (nor to obtain enough information on individuals to tie to legal gun purchases from dealers, but that’s another story.)
2) REAL ID. The REAL ID program was a federal mandate on the states to collect and remit certain information on their citzens in order for the federal government to complete building out their national id database. The cost of compliance on states was very high. Additionally, conservatives opposed this strongly on religious and political grounds and many states, such as Arizona, “opted out”.
3) A state voluntarily hands over the data.
This one is a tricky one. For example, the state of Arizona, has always traditionally resisted handing over data from its law abiding citizens. However, recently under SB1070, the anti-immigration law, SB1070 removes ALL RESTRICTIONS from sending and exchanging license data for ANY LICENSE for ANY PERSON (legal or illegal), with ANY AGENCY of the federal government.
SB1070 does not restrict the sending and exchange of law abiding Arizona citizens’ data with the feds to a police stop. It removes ALL RESTRICTIONS and ALL PROHIBITIONS from the exchange of law abiding Arizona citizens’ license data with the federal government, beginning July 1.
That means any agency that has license data on Arizonans can send all or none, it can send the entire database of license data anytime it wants, beginning July 1, 2010.
You can rest assured that the federal government, especially Janet Napolitano and the US Department of Homeland Security, will amply incentivize the MVD and DPS to do so, so she can get her hands on the data she needs to track your gun purchases, among other things.
So, whereas Arizona opted out of the federal mandate program called “REAL ID” wherein the federal government attempted to pull data from Arizona to complete its national id database data on Arizona citizens, under SB1070, Arizona turns around and hands Janet Napolitano and G_d only knows who else, including the IRS, all data it has on you as a law abiding Arizona citizen.
So, how does that turn Arizona licenses into national ids? Despite the cartoon picture at the top of this post, a national id is not a card, barcode, RFID chip, nor a magnetic strip.
It is the DATA the government has on you, such as your unique identifers, name, domicile, any biometric identifiers such as the digitized MVD photo on your license, which is also in your MVD data file.
So, if Arizona hands the data over to the feds and the feds promptly stick the data in their national id database and all of that data links directly to your drivers license, guess what?!?!?!?
VOILA…. your Arizona drivers license turns into something Clinton always pined for and dreamed of foisting on the country, A NATIONAL ID CARD!
The same card can and will be used to deny birth certificates for your children, unless you agree to a national id card check.
The same card can and will be used to deny you the ability to work, per the WSJ article above, to deny you work. In other words, no citizen may work before the US Department of Homeland Security clears them to work (or doesn’t if you happen to be a political opponent.)
If you do not have your unique identifiers and national id on your mind or in your hand at all times, you will be denied the ability to buy, sell, or engage legally in any commercial transaction, such as banking, buying/selling a home, opening a business (SB1070 does not exempt the exchange of business license data with the feds either.)
Conservatives have ALWAYS opposed national ids, since day 1 when FDR wanted them, in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan was vehemently opposed, in the 1990s the conservatives stopped every Clinton and democrat attempt at creating them.
The left has wanted Americans to register with the federal government and obtain a national id card ever since Franklin Roosevelt tried (and failed initially, until he stacked the court in 1937) to get the Supreme Court to rule that the Social Security system was constitutional.
Ever since then the left has been pushing the idea of registering Americans particularly in order that the federal government can dictate who can work.
In the 1990s it was the Clinton Goals 2000 program that resurrected the concept which conservatives vehemently opposed and prevailed, building upon Reagan’s vehement opposition to national ids in the 1980s.
However, today, national id has been resurrected both on the left and on the right. On the right, it is being touted as the only way to tell who is here legally and who is not. However, the actual animus behind the proposals being put forward by the right as the “solution” to the illegal immigrant problem comes directly from the left.
According to beatthechip.org
Legislators talked into surrendering privacy for security in the past by signing onto the Patriot Act and the Real ID Act (2005) seem content to move another form of national identity forward. The mandate would require all citizens to provide their biometrics [fingerprints, iris scans, DNA] on an ID card to work in America. This national ID initiative is the latest on the stack of many attempts to legislate the market for identity in America.
Interestingly in the 2000s, it was the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” (read: amnesty) supporters such as John McCain, Jon Kyl and Senator Bennett (now defeated), who first put forward the concept of law-abiding Americans needing to get prior permission and prior clearance from the federal government before getting a job via Homeland Security’s e-Verify system.
Why would the left be touting something the right believes in so strongly as a solution to the illegal immigrant problem?
That’s the wrong question. The right question is: Why would the RIGHT be touting something the left believes in so strongly as being the solution to the illegal immigrant problem?
First of all e-Verify is the implementation of Hillary Clinton’s proposal from the early nineties: school-to-work, Goals 2000, federal government tracking of students through school and federal government targetting of who should be able to work and where they should work.
Secondly, e-Verify was first touted by the Council on Foreign Relations (the very same people who brought you the North American Union) as the system to use for amnesty, i.e. for employers to use to see who is employment eligible and who is not. I.e. once amnesty passes, all of those who registered for amnesty would – POOF – overnight gain employment eligibility as verified via the e-Verify system.
At some point along the line since the early 2000s, either the right has been duped into adopting this federal top-down driven verification system as a solution, or they knowingly did so because, despite protestations to the contrary, they actually support the concept of a national id.
Further, beatthechip.org reports:
Over 2 years ago, the release of national ID card regulations in drivers licenses challenged advocates in new and unusual ways. Regulations had a tangible reach into State’s coffers as an unfunded mandate due to national law, the Real ID Act. The law became controversial through its association with the border fence, immigration, surveillance and tracking technologies, and its ability to deny citizens the ability to bank, to travel or enter federal buildings based on identity prerequisites….all 50 states are still being held to benchmark compliance deadlines. Many of these States will receive grant monies towards standardizing drivers licenses after appropriations were passed for Homeland Security operations.
So, I think as conservatives we really need to ask ourselves, why were our predecessors in our movement so vehemently opposed to national ids or Hillary Clinton’s school-to-work employment eligibility idea?
Do you know? If you don’t, find out, or else you’ll find yourself in a position where you are betraying the hard work and dilligence of the hard-core conservative, limited government patriots who came before you.
A few days ago I posted a piece (CELEBRATION, ANYONE?) that featured the following paragraph:
“Black History Month reminds me of that portion of an application form that asks for the race of the applicant; race is not supposed to matter but everyone knows that it does—especially to Liberal policy-makers and administrators. Despite the Civil War, a civil rights movement, several acts of congress, amendments to the constitution and ongoing preferential treatment Liberals are still convinced that new and institutionalized racism is the cure for past racism. They must believe that new injuries cure old injuries.”
The Census Bureau provides for us another example of the “Liberal policy-makers and administrators” that I wrote about in that paragraph. Question #8 of the 2010 census form asks: “Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?” If the answer is ‘yes’ there are several boxes for you choose from that identify the specific type of “Hispanic” that you are. Among the selections are “Mexican”, “Mexican Am.”, “Chicano” (Does anyone know which country “Chicanos” come from?), “Puerto Rican” and “Cuban”. By the way, can someone explain to me what the difference is between a “Mexican” and a “Mexican Am.”?
If you answer ‘no’ to question #8 question #9 then, allows you to declare what race you are. A few of the options include “White”, “Black”, “African Am.”, “Negro”, “American Indian”, “Chinese”, “Japanese”, “Filipino”, “Vietnamese” etc. Apparently none of these groups was special enough to merit a whole question just about them—they had to be lumped in with the “White” people. Let the healing begin!
The concept of being judged not be the color your skin but by the content of your character was a fundamental component of the Civil Rights movement that I once supported but, it is not a component of modern Liberal philosophy. Liberals are obsessed with race and skin color. I wouldn’t mind their obsession if they quietly kept it to themselves but, they keep forcing it on the rest of us. They’re not interested in simple equal protection of the law for all people. Instead, they want to engage in social engineering by redistributing wealth and bestowing rewards and preferences on some groups based upon their victim status and voting value to Liberal politicians.
If Liberals were really ‘liberal’ in the true meaning of the word they’d quit asking the rest of us intrusive and insulting questions that keep the nation racially divided. Leave us alone!
By Nick Dranias
Confidentiality appears to be guaranteed by the Census Bureau when you fill out one of their mandatory surveys. But when it comes to sharing your private information with the federal government, the only real guarantee is that there isn’t one.
The Patriot Act provides the legal authority for Homeland Security to gain access to confidential Census Bureau data through The National Center for Education Statistics. But that authority isn’t restricted to crafting education policy.
The law was amended in 2002 to authorize access by other federal agencies to NCES data for “investigation and prosecution of terrorism,” which is broadly defined.
The only thing keeping Homeland Security away from your confidential Census Bureau data in the NCES’ possession is the requirement that the Attorney General apply for a court order before it can access it. But the court’s only function is to confirm the application shows “the information sought” is “relevant” to “investigating or prosecuting” a laundry list of federal offenses. This is a far lower standard than the test of probable cause required for criminal search warrants. Unless someone botches the application, the court’s only real power is to verify it was signed.
The bottom line is that not much stands between Janet Napolitano and your confidential census data. Fortunately, you risk no more than a $100 fine for each question you do not answer; and it is unlikely you will be fined more than once. So the question to ask yourself is whether your privacy is worth $100–or whether the Census should be reformed to ask the only question the U.S. Constitution actually authorizes: “How many people reside in your household?”
Nick Dranias holds the Goldwater Institute Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan chair for constitutional government and is the director of the Institute’s Dorothy D. and Joseph A. Moller Center for Constitutional Government.
I’m saying this right up front, full credit for the following goes to Robert Wenzel, editor and publisher of the Economic Policy Journal. To read it at his website, the link is provided. These questions are based on material provided by three individuals, who unlike the Organizer-in-Chief or the Speaker of the House, have actually bothered to read the pages of the legislation.
When history books for this era are written, both these men’s names should go down as heroes, for letting the public know what this so called, “healthcare” bill is really all about.
Question 1: Who actually wrote this bill? Congressman can you get us the names of the people that wrote this bill, so that we can understand their views on healthcare?
Question 2: If this bill is only about getting the poor insurance, why will the Secretary of Health as opposed to my doctor determine if I should be re-admitted to a hospital, as outlined on pages 284-288, SEC. 1151?
Question 3: Why, if I am happy with the type of health insurance I have, can you force me to get different insurance as outlined in pages 167-168, section 401 or force me to pay a penalty tax?
Question 4: Why is a simple catastrophic health insurance not allowed under this plan, when that is really what insurance should be about? Is this really happening in America? I reference pages 26-30, SEC. 122.
Question 5: Why will the Health Secretary have full say over all health payments as outlined on page 124, Sec. 223? Isn’t this against the free market system and more in line with the thinking of Mussolini?
Question 6: Why does the healthcare bill on pages 195-196, SEC. 431 and on page 145, section 312 open up my tax information to federal employees, and force my employer to supply any information asked of him by the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury?
Question 7: Why MUST any Doctor who orders durable medical equipment or home medical services be enrolled as a Medicare provider , as outlined on pages 719-720 Sec 1637?
Question 8: What are these so called home visitation programs by the government for families with young children & families expecting children, as outlined on pages 838-845?
Question 9: On page 936, this bill mentions a “Healthy People & National Public Health Performance Standards”. Does this mean you are going to try and tell me what I can and can’t eat? Are you going to force manufacturers to stop making some foods?
Question 10: Most of the Healthcare Bill has little to do with providing health insurance to the poor, and a lot to do with controlling everyone. Why is this so? If I am happy with my health insurance why don’t you just leave me alone?
There are 3 recent postings on this topic I have provided you the reader; the first on the duplicity of the Whitehouse in putting out a “snitch” line to stifle freedom of speech, the second on the actual intent of this monstrous legislation, and finally this piece, specific questions to ask Gabby Giffords, Raul Grijalva, Ed Pastor, and Ann Kirtpatrick. (Look over your shoulder Ann, Bill Konopnicki is coming for your job)
Here what the Acorn Organizer-in-Chief has to say on the topic,
“You can’t fix the economy, without fixing health care.”
An issue affecting less than 59 million Americans (out of a population of about 330 million). Of course, if there were less people there’d be less pollution, more for everyone else, and fixing the economy would be much easier (especially if they don’t have to pay out Social Security to the Baby Boom generation now coming into the system. But how to do that?
And here’s the special interests, the big drug companies who stand to recover their paltry $150 million to change your entire future…
WASHINGTON (AP) — The nation’s drugmakers stand ready to spend $150 million to help President Barack Obama overhaul health care this fall, according to numerous officials, a staggering sum that could dwarf attempts to derail Obama’s top domestic priority. [a special interest of Biblical proportions]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/08/08/drug-industry-helping-obama-overhaul-health-care/
But who wrote those thousands of pages of health care legislation? Your elected officials or their staff? Who’s Orwellian vision is this [e-u-g-e-n-i-c-s] program? Have you ever heard of Jacob Hacker or Tides Momentum? How about Senator John Kerry? Yes? you recognize that name … well remember his ‘french’ wife, Theressa?
The Tides Foundation is her ‘progressive’ organization and a part of the
Open Society foundation network (George Sorros) and the Tides Foundation (Theressa Kerry):
This quote is taken from Tides Momentum 2008 Plenary Session, the guy quoted is the guy who designed those thousands of pages of “health care reform” now sitting before the U.S. Congress. Remember his name, Jacob Hacker.
For the first time since 1992, we can more than just hope that the U.S. healthcare crisis will somehow be solved—we can see real possibilities emerging. Already on the ground and in the trenches in the U.S. and abroad, Momentums Health plenary speakers are laying the foundation for system-wide changes
Since 1992? A crisis? Have you listened to these guys?
Well, it seems very few folks are even aware they exist. Yet BigDrug Inc is willing to invest $150,000,000 to ram this health care nightmare through Congress this Fall whether or not you like it.
The last video for you to digest is complete disinformation about the disinformation from the White House Office of Disinformation … note the old video footage. Oh, and that guy Jacob Hacker? Watch
As for ACORN? Just the “community thugs” to enforce CHANGE (whether or not you want it) … and if you’re over 55? the ‘community counselor will be by to dialog with you about hospice’ (monthly until you die). And don’t worry about the health care costs of the mentally or physically challenged in the years to come, DNA screening and abortion will be provided to those found in need – no one will be left out.
Are you ready for Eugenics in the Progressive Era?
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag(at)whitehouse(dot)gov. www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/
Indeed, facts are stubborn things Mr. President. However, here’s my question; If few if any in the Congress bothered to read this bill beforehand, and Mr. Obama has only been “briefed” as to its provisions, how can he call well researched facts reported by various groups who ARE reading the bill “disinformation” and “rumors”?
It seems Mr. Obama’s biggest mistake was not to ram this legislation through as he did the Stimulus debacle. By providing the delay needed, whether they know it or not, the Blue Dog Democrats provided enough time for interested parties to begin actually reading the Trojan Horse called “Health Care Reform”.
Another curious thing that has been avoided is this question: If 80 something percent of the population has good health care insurance but less than 20 or so percent are less than covered (although that isn’t the case in Arizona and we’ll ask that in a minute), how is this a “national crisis”? And what does SEIU or ACORN have to do with this public debate? (whoops, that’s yet another question for later)
Ok, so much to digest. But here’s the most disturbing line of that entire White House quote I opened with: “If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to…” [Big Brother and the Thought Police]
That should disturb you … a lot in fact.
Attorneys have pointed out that the White House “is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act”. This simply means that they never have to tell you if someone has snitched you out to Big Brother!
It gets worse. Legal opinions suggest that any emails collected by this means may be addressed by the Presidential Records Act. This Act requires the White House to preserve and maintain its records for permanent storage in a government database. (you can read more at the Washington Examiner link below)
Bottom Line: A secret and permanent database of dissidents(or Americans exercising their First Amendment Rights) will be around for the balance of this administration and those to come.
Decision Time … as they say in the marriage vows; If there’s anyone here that feels this administration’s actions should not be allowed to stand, let them speak now … or forever hold their piece.
We have TLOs [terrorism liaison officers] comprised of law enforcement officers and public safety personnel from throughout Arizona. We bring them in and train them as intelligence officers, and we supply equipment to them, and then we send them back out into the community. They are a direct tie to the AcTIC center for both information coming in and information going out…” Roger Vanderpool, Director of AzDPS
Do you know what a “TLO” is? I certainly didn’t until I ran across this interesting bit of – its either a very slick security system or a major hub of Big Brother – I’ll let you sort that one out.
Here’s where it gets interesting, conservatives are the ones who are not supposed to want a Nanny State and liberals are the ones voting in the folks who bring us more of the Nanny State, right? Imagine my surprise when I ran over this take on the matter. The article is titled, “The New Snoops: Terrorism Liasion Officers, Some from the Private Sector“. They maintain that a TLO can be police officers, firefighters, paramedics, the cable guy, and even utility workers.
That’s Roger Vanderpool chatting with Watch Center Commander, DPS Lieutenant Norris. Get a look at that media wall behind them! Want to know where all those ubiquitous intersection security cameras feed into? I’m guessing its here. I’m not sure if I should be impressed or worried.
This good readers is the Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center in Phoenix, home to 32 different terrorism and enforcement related agencies ranging from DPS to the FBI, Homeland Security and many more.
by Gayle Plato
My SA brethren seem overly concerned about sex lately. I just wanted to note that I’m finding the chat off point. Taking this to the truly conservative perspective, I feel discussion of sexual choices does not belong in any public workplace, forum, or societal gathering. That reality is a con game from the left. We are all buying in friends.
As a conservative, I truly feel that the trending to discuss sexuality is a liberal rights movement trick, coming out of the National Organization of Women, and much ado about freedom of choice. This whole thing is about getting it all out there and talked up. If we talk freely, then we must allow choice.
Perez Hilton is a gossip columnist with a foul mouth, and I have no clue why he would ever be invited on any pageant to be a judge. That fact alone adds to my distaste of pageants. I also think this was all basically planned. It’s worked and the lack-luster pageants, losing ratings and interest, just received a ton of free press.
The sexism of the stupid judge, is equal to the sexism of the young women who go through months of training, spray tanning, double-stick tape in unmentionable spots, and lots of question prep to sound like a person with depth.
The girls are accomplished and some fairly intelligent. This is a huge scholarship competition and I truly understand the desire to try out. The adulation is real; and the pull for all girls to be Barbie never ends.
But as a school counselor, seeing lots of pre-teens, and teens, with eating disorders, suicidal over boyfriends or their acceptance, sexually active as early as 4th and 5th grade, and worried that they would be too ugly, I see the sexism promoted as vile an act as the stupid judge pushing his activism.
Miss California deserves credit for standing up for her beliefs. I am saddened though that she paraded a round in a tiny bikini, letting the world judge her body not as an athletic aspect of a wellness campaign, but as a sexual entity. Do not tell me that any of those girls would win a thing if each had all the same skills and beliefs and came out a size 14, wearing a bikini. NEVER. Yet, a size 14 IS the most typical of American women. Regardless if the size is good or bad. For some that would be big, but for others, it would be healthy. Pageants are not about healthy though are they? If they were, then the girls would offer athletic competition in work out clothes, or exhibited skill in an athletic area of expertise.
If the pageants are going to push sex, then do not get all uppity when sex sells. Do you think the pageant didn’t know Perez Hilton would ask a controversial question? Does Anderson Cooper like tea bags?
Good for Miss California, but next time you preach ‘values’, try a competition about brains, fitness, talent, and poise. Until the bikinis verging on pornographic with camera shots from a peeping tom angle are dumped, I am not going to get all hot and bothered about this entire media scam.
As for gay rights, as a true conservative I say this: Keep your bedroom yours and do not involve me. I do not tell you if I am gettin’ some, and frankly, do you really want that broadcasted or even referenced over the Xerox copier or Bunn coffee brew? Why does anyone need to discuss orientation at all? I am oriented to want Clive Owen or Russell Crowe to show up, but I don’t think that really matters to your day now does it?
Provocative talk, push of agenda, and even the fact that one blip of space was wasted about pseudo-wholesome girls or queens with gossip blogs, shows me that the NOW nags got their way and we are sexualizing every day talk.
I am going back to writing of economics, something rambling like usual, and maybe a political topic or two. But you know what, if I type it all in my slinky jammies, I promise not to tell.
… the US government has intensified its crackdown on political dissidents opposing corporate globalization, and it is using the same intimidating and probably unconstitutional tactics against demonstrators at the presidential inauguration. (The Nation Magazine, January 19, 2001)
The Canada Free Press is citing one FBI source who is strongly suggesting that those who attended the recent Tea Party may now be semi-celebrities on law enforcement surveillance video tapes.
The second citation provided above is the other side’s story of protest surveillance, those who have been protesting the World Bank, the IMF for years now. I liked the second story particularly because it was written at the dawn of the second Bush administration.
Keep in mind, Janet Reno was Janet Napolitano’s mentor when Nappy served in the US Justice Department. Their relationship is well documented. So we have an idea of what to expect under Nappy’s reign at Homeland Security. I know for a fact that the MMCDC was infiltrated by the SPLC who provided information on the Border Watch to a government agency. Yeah, the old folks in lawn chairs sitting on the border in 2004 were the subject of government surveillance.
My point is, rather than sniping at each other as in the cartoon Spy versus Spy, both sides of the political spectrum should be carefully looking at the emergence of a very paranoid centralized government with legal powers not seen in North America since before the founding of our country.
Perhaps those “hidden hands of power” have perfected the illusion of Republican versus Democrat to the point that most Americans view their governance as yet another sporting event.
Could it be that, as the title of Larry Elder’s book suggests, there’s only a dimes worth of difference between either major political party? Rather, those holding power have utilized the dialectic to herd an inattentive populace into fascism with a happy face?
Perhaps this is what’s behind the government’s paranoia; the people might wake up. Consider that since at least the Jimmy Carter Administration, fear has been the means of motivation behind many calls for “Change”.
Maybe both sides now should look at their common ground, step out of the sporting event dialectic and as Toto did in the Wizard of Oz, pull back the curtain behind which our nation’s leaders are hiding.
Proponents say electronic health records are superior in many ways. … Also, worries about patients’ privacy persist. – Arizona Republic
The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States”. Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. … the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. … Tom Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make. The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness…” [Bloomberg Reports]
A tale of two views, Big Brother making your health care decisions. The Arizona Republic is careful to avoid telling you why the medical industry in Arizona is moving so quickly to digital and database; simple, those medical providers not in compliance will not become approved providers on your healthcare insurance unless they comply.
Of course, you don’t have to comply. But then again, the costs of maintaining your medical services with a doctor not in compliance will be astronomical. The debt of the Obama stimulus program is being used to force your medical and healthcare decisions into the hands of a federal bureaucracy.
Here’s where the dog hunts: My 71 year old aunt has lived in Great Britain for going on 25 or more years now and is a legal property owning tax-paying resident. She had her first heart attack when she was 66. Although diagnosed as needing a bypass procedure, she was not “approved” by the government health ministry for the procedure until 2 more heart attacks and 3 years had passed. The reason? Simple, she was judged too old to be given medical priority (that and she was a Yank not a Brit).
The system had decided her priority for medical treatment. She is a used bookstore manager and co-owner, but her expected future productivity was deemed insufficient against other medical users of more value to the state.
Of course silly me, that’s only in Great Britain. It could never happen here.
Then again, maybe it could. Read Tom Daschle’s book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” If you are over 50, be concerned. As for the buffoons at the Arizona Republic? They’ll print anything if they think it makes the Administration’s programs look good.
File this under, O’bam-it!
I hate to be right during times like these but here is a screenshot of a speculation/prediction I made on my Twitter account on March 30th at 11:29 PM. The actual “Tweet” is in small text at the bottom with the date and timestamp.
The next screenshot is from The Drudge Report this morning.
Here are the accompanying articles:
If my fellow bloggers and conservative community organizers suddenly “disappear” sometime in the near future, you will know what happened to us.
Need I say more?
Be afraid. Be very afraid…
Senate bills No. 773 and 778, introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., are both part of what’s being called the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, which would create a new Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor, reportable directly to the president and charged with defending the country from cyber attack.
These bills include granting the White House new powers to access private online data, regulate the cybersecurity industry and even shut down Internet traffic during a declared “cyber emergency”.
Here’s the question: Why does Jay Rockefeller feel the need to expand Federal powers over the internet? Isn’t that sort of what we criticize China for doing? Will our information become as sanitized as China’s? And check out this feature of the bill, the text proposes implementation of a professional licensing program for certifying who can serve as a cybersecurity professional.
Could it be that Jay Rockefeller doesn’t like the organizing power of the internet?