You Are Here:<Contents>>Home Page>>Other Stuff>>MEG's Editorials>>Top World Threat Today

Let Us Know!

Top World Threat Today

(Final Draft... I Think...)

As self-reliant survivalists, we must always be looking ahead to identify the possible threats to ourselves, our families, and our futures. This allows us to avoid or prevent a potential hazard, whenever possible, and prepare for those that may not be eliminated through proactive strategies. Learning to start fires (for heat & cooking) and survive wilderness conditions or limited periods of isolated existence is an excellent foundation for personal survival, yet it does nothing at all in preventing or avoiding the threat(s) that may force the survivalist to utilize these skills. Learning to protect and defend ourselves, our homes and our property is a practical and logical response to the ever increasing lawlessness, lack of civic responsibility and the failure of appointed or elected entities to perform their original designated tasks ("to protect and serve") - yet it does nothing whatsoever to decrease the hazards. The list goes on and on, but what are we doing about it?

The problem is that most survivalists are studies in paradox: They are active and socially aware, but they are not activists. They hold strong political views, but are reluctant to become politically active. They are intelligent enough to recognize a threat and knowledgeable enough to survive a given threat and industrious enough to obtain the skills and supplies to carry them through a threat scenario... and yet are often too hesitant to become vocal opponents against the cause of a particular threat or advocates for the solution to a particular threat.

And now, it appears, it may just be too late. The world's population has skyrocketed beyond the point which it can sustain itself using the established technology of bygone eras and the corporate politics of our forefathers. The various governments of the world, cognizant of this fact, are constantly striving to keep one step ahead of the next crises - the economy, overpopulation, immigration, energy, terrorism, and the demands of society. The natural order of things has become unbalanced, and even nature herself is rebelling. Something has to be done - and everyone is demanding that "the government" take care of it.

You Can't Get There From Here:
President Bush, in his speeches, states that "freedom is the destiny of every man, woman and child on this Earth" and " We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. Our aim is a democratic peace -- a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman" and "I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this country's gift to the world; freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on the face of the Earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom" and I truly believe that he truly believes what he says. One glaring problem is that our President has reduced our Republic to a democracy - something it was never meant to be. But perhaps that explains why the President's definition (and that of our elected and appointed officials) is not really "Freedom" at all…

Freedom: 1:(n) freedom (the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints) 2: (n) exemption, freedom (immunity from an obligation or duty)

"A complex philosophical concept referring to an individual or group's ability, right, or possibility of self-determination or political independence. Often associated to the concept of human free will, our individual capacity to choose our own destiny rather then follow the dictates of others, nature, or even supernatural forces. The concept of Freedom has been defined in very different ways depending on the school of thought, philosophical branch, or discipline that attempts to define it. ..." [source: www.elissetche.org/dico/F.htm]

And there's the problem: To a self-reliant individual, "Freedom" means Self Responsibility and all that term affords and demands. The freedom to act in your own best interest (while respecting, and without infringing upon, the right of others to do the same) and accepting the consequences of those actions - be they the beneficial outcomes of wise action or the detrimental effect of unwise action.

Unfortunately, this is not a common point of view - nor a typical interpretation of the term "Freedom." For the majority of the world, "freedom" means freedom from as much responsibility as they can pass on to another. Since no man could conceivably be expected to shoulder the responsibilities of others, governments are created to distribute the weight upon the backs of all. The theory is the responsibilities of those with greater needs or those afflicted with lesser abilities will be compensated by the actions of those with fewer needs or those possessed with greater ability.

Thomas Jefferson said: "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." While Thomas Paine wrote: "That government is best which governs least." Margaret Mead added: "It may be necessary temporarily to accept a lesser evil, but one must never label a necessary evil as good."

The "democratic" majority, however, stands in direct opposition of these views. Independence in thought, action and responsibility has been bred out of society as a whole due primarily to overpopulation and the lack of resources and available space to expand. The new "cultivated" population of the world is a super-hybrid of designed dependency who are all but incapable of conceiving any virtue in self-reliance or individual responsibility. The "virtuous" hue and cry of the day is that "we must all stand together and we must all pull together! If one falls, so fall we all!" which is but a shadow's width away from tenets of Marxist socialism: " From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs…"

All men want the best they can get with the least amount of effort expended. There's nothing wrong with that when what you get is the result of your own productivity and resourcefulness. Nor is there anything wrong with people of various skills or levels of ability voluntarily banding together and sharing the rewards of diversity, provided that all members of such a group are equally industrious in the application of those skills to the greatest level of their ability and further providing that any member may "opt out" of the group (and forfeit their share of any benefits) at any time, for any reason. Sadly, this is exactly the point upon which it all seems to eventually break down.

"These things I believe: That government should butt out. That freedom is our most precious commodity and if we are not eternally vigilant, government will take it all away. That individual freedom demands individual responsibility. That government is not a necessary good but an unavoidable evil. That the executive branch has grown too strong, the judicial branch too arrogant and the legislative branch too stupid. That political parties have become close to meaningless. That government should work to insure the rights of the individual, not plot to take them away. That government should provide for the national defense and work to insure domestic tranquility. That foreign trade should be fair rather than free. That America should be wary of foreign entanglements. That the tree of liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. That guns do more than protect us from criminals; more importantly, they protect us from the ongoing threat of government. That states are the bulwark of our freedom. That states should have the right to secede from the Union. That once a year we should hang someone in government as an example to his fellows." [Lyn Nofziger]

The great experiment of the American Republic was to create a nation of individuals free to prosper or fail by their own merit, and to protect that freedom - construed as a God given right - against the encroachment of others (including the government itself) upon them. This is made quite clear when reading the original documents and the published letters and articles of the debates surrounding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the various drafts of the Declaration of Independence. That the effort was sabotaged from the start by the failure to abolish slavery and include the slaves, women and the original inhabitants of this land as whole persons does not diminish the intent nor invalidate the noble attempt. What it has done, however, is lead us to the miserable failure of purpose and design that the "democratic" majority blindly refuse to acknowledge today.

"The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principles on which it was founded."
[C. L. De Montesquieu]

Aside from a physical location and a national "title" suitable only as a pointer on maps and globes, there is very little left of the essence of the United States of America. It is not so much because of an erosion or eradication of the rights, liberties, privileges and responsibilities held so precious by our founders as an abrogation of their original definition supplanted by post-modern interpretations designed to make people "feel good" about having these rights, liberties, privileges and responsibilities without ever being able to exercise them.

Get to the Point!
The point is, that Nature has nothing in it's arsenal as dangerous as government gone wild. Nature provides us with many threats which, over the past 3000 years or so, we have managed to identify, categorize, analyze, and produce a viable strategy for avoiding or surviving their occurrences. Aside from the occasional mutated virus or haphazard wandering bit of space debris, all natural hazards can be said to be constant, relatively predictable and, with foresight, eminently survivable. Civilization, science and technology has shown us the areas of greatest natural danger and given us tools to survive in nearly any natural condition if we simply pay attention to where we are and what is happening around us. Even the most profound natural disasters such as a physical pole shift, asteroid collision or modern ice age can be prepared for - and those who are prepared stand a pretty good chance of survival provided they are not a.) in a seriously wrong place at the wrong time (i.e. directly beneath an asteroid strike), or, b.) prevented from implementing a plan for survival by the true threat to mankind. The worst that nature can do is kill us.

The point is, there is no freedom in America today - except as an outcast and/or an outlaw. To those individuals who work at becoming or being self reliant this is not a revelation. They learned it the moment they attempted to assert a freedom or liberty of any kind, or in their very first confrontation with government "authority" of any kind. Because they know this, they tend to not provoke the wrath of those who control the world in which we they must survive by expostulating the truth. In a sense, it's very practical: one doesn't stand up behind enemy lines when outnumbered and outgunned in an effort to "reason" them to death before they get bored and kill you. On the other hand…

Many people have very little or absolutely no idea of just how weird things have gotten. This article is my attempt at enlightening them. The optimist in me believes that it may do some good. The darker side of my nature figures "What the hell - it couldn't hurt much worse than it already does…"

Most people automatically assume that I'm talking about taxes - income taxes - when I start on my "There's no freedom left in America" rant. Income taxes are an abomination and were never intended to exist in this country. Consider this:

Suppose you lived above a small shop that you owned and operated in a nice quiet neighborhood. Business is okay, though nothing to scream about. You are happy and content and you are not hurting anyone. You consider yourself to be an upstanding citizen. Your business is one that brings goods and/or services the community needs and you provide jobs for others - both in the shop, and by purchasing your goods and business supplies from wholesalers.

One day a couple of burly young fellows with Italian sounding names and Brooklyn accents walk in and comment on what a nice life you've made for yourself. Pretty shop, pretty family, nice customers - be a shame if anything happened to all that…

You try to be nice because you're a bit naïve. You smile and explain to them that you have insurance for those types of things and besides, this is a quiet neighborhood and nothing like that ever really happens. The bruisers laugh and explain the facts of life to you. They don't want to hurt you or your family or your business - but you are living in their little piece of paradise, and they have a lot of needy mouths to feed. They are here to protect you from all that nastiness, and it's really not cheap or easy keeping those thugs from the next neighborhood away from here. You have to step up to the plate! You have to get with the program and pay your fair share!

The whole time they are explaining things to you they are also moving closer. Very imposing, and you notice that somewhere along the line they've stopped smiling. Something goes "Click!" inside your brain and you suddenly see things the way they really are. You ask them how much it's going to take to be considered a productive and "patriotic" neighborhood citizen. The smiles return and you realize it's okay to take another breath. It's not easy, but you manage to keep from swallowing your own tongue.

The smaller of the two Cro-Magnons wraps his tree-sized limb across the back of your shoulders and gives you what he figures is a comradely little shake and while your senses are still reeling in adjustment he explains how much they "value your contribution to society" and how they wouldn't want to put you out of business by asking for too much. "Golden Duck." The big one quips over his shoulder as he walks across to the room to the cash register. "Yeah!" the little one agrees, "we wouldn't want to kill the Golden Duck, now would we?" You notice (aside from the fact that you're dealing with literary geniuses) that he has recently ingested large quantities of garlic and the Altoids he swiped off your shelf don't seem to be working.

You don't want to piss him off so you just slowly shake your head and (inhaling when you're facing away from him) hope that's the response he's looking for. Apparently it is because he goes on to explain that you'll be required to pay 20% of whatever you take in. "In Advance" says talkative one as he opens your till and starts counting bills. Somehow he's figured out how to run an X report and you can't quite wrap your mind around that.

The little guy goes on to tell you the rules. You have to pay. There's no way around it and you have to pay in full and on time. You can't cheat. If you cheat, and they find out, you'll pay a lot more than you can afford, and they will have to rough you up a little as an example to the others. Maybe even rough up your family a little too, just to get the point across. If you're late or if you are short, you pay a fine. The longer it takes you to pay the fine (as well as make up any shortages) the greater the fine becomes. That's a deep hole you don't want to get into. As long as you continue to pay in full and on time, there won't be too many "visits" like this one. "If we see that you've paid too much, we'll kick a little back to you at the end of the year. Give you something to buy all those Christmas presents with. You see? We're not such bad guys, and we really want to see you do well! Oh yeah - if you have any employees? Well, we'd really appreciate it if you collected their fair share for us. You can just take it out of their paycheck each week and send it in. We'll take care of the rest, and if they have any problems, you tell them to come see us. We'll be happy to straighten them out."

The little guy grins and releases your shoulders. It seems like they are about ready to leave. With the weight off your shoulders you feel almost as if you might float up to the ceiling. That, or pass out. Hard to tell. The big guy is stuffing an astonishingly large wad of your cash into his pocket. You don't know if it's 20% or 100% and you really don't care because, Thank God!, it really looks like they are getting ready to leave. No Luck.

The big guy bends down and whispers in your ear: "If you mess with us, we will destroy you - but not before we destroy your family and your reputation. Then we'll take your business and your property and anything else that you have left and give it to someone who knows how to show us the proper respect. We'll be watching you. We are always watching you. Remember that, and do the right thing. Have a nice day, sir."

As they leave the shop, you decide that you're going to call the big one Shakespeare. He really seems to have a way with words…

The above scenario is what is known as a "protection racket." It is prosecutable by law. If you feel sufficiently reckless, you might go to the police and file a restraining order in a court of law. In which case, if you were dealing with the mob, you would wind up very dead, or very non-existent. There's really not much of a difference. OR you might go to the FBI who would want you wired and would put up cameras in your shop in an attempt to capture the evidence - and the results would be pretty much the same unless you were very, very lucky, managed to make it through the witness stage, and joined the witness protection program.

Of course, we're not talking about "The Mob," are we? I know I have a fairly intelligent readership. Above average, really. I kind of gave it away by mentioning the income tax before starting the story. Bad job of excessive foreshadowing. Sorry.

We are talking about the government. The bruisers are actually lightweights in knock-off Brooks Brothers suits. They are auditors for the IRS. They are probably WASPs, but they couldn't tell you the location or purpose of the nearest church if they were standing in St. Peter's Square. What a couple of Protestants would be doing in St. Peter's Square in the first place is beyond me, but hey - that's the IRS for you. They wear colored underwear and stare at their "package" at night in the mirror before going to bed. They practice making stern faces, but never seem to manage making it past "befuddled." These are not the enforcers - they are the bad accountants who couldn't make it in the real world, but get off on threatening productive Citizens with the full force of the Evil Empire behind them. They actually call their government-issue vehicle "the Death Star" and talk to each other like Darth Vader when they think no one is looking. If you shout BOO!!! at them with sufficient credibility, they "go tharn" and pass out. Unfortunately, when they recover and change their Calvin Klein's (now you know why they wear colored underpants) - that's when they call in the real enforcers and then it's pretty much all she wrote. Your "Duck" is cooked.

But if you are offended by the thought of a bunch of Italian gangsters conducting themselves in this manner (and God help you if you are not!), how could you possibly be any less offended when the Government does exactly the same thing (and worse) under the guise of the Income Tax!?! If anything, you should be even more outraged. Keep in mind that if anyone else tries to do this IT's ILLEGAL!!!

"Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame and danger that their acts would otherwise involve... But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them and gives it to the other persons to whom it doesn't belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish that law without delay ... No legal plunder; this is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony and logic." [Frederic Bastiat]

It wasn't "by mistake" that the founders of this country "omitted" a personal income tax in the Constitution. They didn't "omit" it - they forbid it! They told Congress that the only way they could legally raise funds for the governance of this Nation were the methods clearly delineated in Article 1, Section 8 and specifically forbid an income tax and other shady methods of ripping the people off in the following Section (9) of the same Article. They intentionally put Congress on a budget and made the methods of raising revenue so simple and onerous that, if they tried to step out of line, the people would be sure to rise up and slap them back into place. But that wasn't good enough for the cheating, lying, thieving, backstabbing, double-talking, no-good scoundrels we somehow manage to keep on electing, was it? Oh, no. No sirree, Bob. Not nearly enough. Now look at the mess we all have to contend with.

Do you see why you shouldn't get me started in on the Income Tax? I wasn't even going to mention the income tax - nobody listens anyways. There are far greater things to worry about now than the income tax, although that, in fact, was the enabler of all the bad things to follow. Because, in the end, it all comes down to two things anyway, doesn't it? Money and Power - and the abuse of both.

Man, oh Man!
In the not too distant past it was possible to cross the country unimpeded by anything other than the hazards of the day: hostile natives, highwaymen and nature. You didn't need to carry an ID or have any "papers" at hand to prove who you were. If someone asked you your name, or where you were from, or where you were headed, you had the freedom to answer them or ignore the question as you saw fit. You didn't need to carry any money on you, nor provide proof of a job, a home, a destination, a purpose in life, nor anything else. In fact, it was considered "bad taste" (to the point of insulting!) to be too nosey about another's affairs. If you persisted in being excessively curious about another when that person had made it clear they preferred their privacy, it was considered de rigeur that that person pound your annoying personage into the dust. If you were hungry and you had no money, you hunted, fished and/or foraged - and you didn't need anybody's permission or anything as ridiculous as a "License" to provide for yourself. No one bothered you and no one cared as long as you were not killing somebody else's livestock. There was nothing as silly as a "hunting season" nor even the concept that a particular critter might be "out of season." Firearms were tools that were respected and nearly universally owned and carried. It was assumed that you were carrying a firearm and that you were familiar enough with it to use it in the proper manner. Few people were outlaws, few outlaws were any good at it, and even fewer people - whether they were lawmen or men outside of the law - ever attained the title of "gunslinger."

To get a job, you entered a place of business and asked if there were any jobs available. If the owner or manager thought you could be of use, you negotiated terms that each could accept, and you started at the agreed upon time and rate of pay. There were no papers to sign, no reporting to the government, no supplements not negotiated at the time of hire, no requirements and no restrictions not set by the owner of the business and agreed upon at the time of hire. You didn't have to prove who you were, where you were from, or where you were living. If you were willing to work for squat, then that was just fine. When you got tired of working for squat, you asked for a raise or split the scene - and that was fine. If the owner or manager decided you weren't working out, then you were let go and they didn't need to provide an explanation (though most generally did) - and that was fine, too. The government could not interfere. There were no "Fair Hiring Practices" because "fair" was whatever you were sly enough or valuable enough to negotiate with the owner or manager, and vice-versa. The two people involved decided on what was fair or not, and nobody - including the government - had any business interfering. The government didn't demand that you inform on your employees, nor shanghai any part of their pay in deference to the State. The government could not force anyone to hire or not hire or retain anyone, nor force any individual to pay homage to the State in order to earn a living.

If you earned a living that provided more cash than you cared to carry, you went to a bank, satisfied yourself that your money would be safe there, opened an account with just your name and received a "passbook" that kept track of your holdings. Your privacy was paramount. It was understood that your account was an investment, that the bank would be using your money and would provide "earnings" in the form of "interest". It was further understood that, should the bank be robbed or run badly, part or all of your investment could be lost. This made the town fairly protective of their banks - at least, to those who had investments in them - and robbing a town's bank was likely to stir up the investors into a rather uncompromising posse. It was a lot more risky to rob a bank in those days. But if you didn't trust the safety of a bank or the wisdom of a bank manager and didn't care about earning interest on your savings, you could always dig a hole in the middle of the night or stash your cash somewhere in your home. Loose fireplace stones were very popular. And another thing… what you earned was more than just a "promise to pay" and it didn't matter if you had any faith in the government's ability to make good it's promises or not. Money was either gold, silver, or paper backed dollar-for-dollar by gold and silver sitting in a treasury vault somewhere. The government could go belly-up and your hard currency would still be good.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point. In the three paragraphs above, nothing is as it was - nor as it should be.

The paper money we use today is backed by nothing more than the willingness of others to accept it in exchange for goods. It has no backing and even less intrinsic value. If the time comes when goods equal life and the scarcity of goods is the norm, your paper money will be most useful for starting fires, wiping your behind, or stuffing between layers of clothing for insulation. It won't buy anything. You can't eat money and you can't trade it for anything if nobody believes it's worth anything. While you can't eat gold or silver, people have always liked bright and shiny precious metals and jewels. Go figure. Me - I believe that a brick of .22LR and a good knife have more value than any shiny bauble. Still, in 1800, the average blue-collar wage earner made about $16 a week and the price of gold was about $19 per ounce - 1.1875% of weekly earnings. Today, the average blue-collar wage earner makes about $500 a week and the price of gold is about $580 per ounce - 1.16% of weekly earnings. Very stable. It takes $32 to buy what $1 would buy in 1800, but an ounce of gold will still buy today about what an ounce of gold would buy back then. You still can't eat it…

To get a job today is just plain weird. Neither party is "allowed" to do it the way they used to. It's illegal. Both parties have to pay the government for something the government has nothing to do with. The government didn't create the job or any of the goods or services involved in the job. The government doesn't do any of the work involved, nor find the job for the potential employee in the first place. The government didn't train the employee and isn't going to pay him for his efforts. The government contributes absolutely nothing to the relationship between employee and employer except reams of intrusive rules, regulations and paperwork. Oh yeah - and both parties have to pay for this dubious contribution in more than mere money. They are required to inform on each other to the government (lest one or the other party attempt to "cheat" the government out of something it has no right to in the first place). They must pay in time and effort to obtain and compile and verify and report on all the requisite documentation involved. They must deal with the apprehension of knowing that, should they make a mistake in this process, the government will make them pay dearly for it. Some must deal with the guilt and shame of complying with a process they instinctively know is wrong, while others must somehow cope with the rage and frustration of knowing they have capitulated to a coerced injustice. Even worse, as long as they are employed or in business, they must justify themselves before the all-powerful overlords of commerce and swear fealty to them, under penalty of perjury, that they have correctly debased and devalued their lives to the exact penny required.

"How long do we have to spend working for the government, rather than ourselves? The answer is nearly half the year. The March 2005 Budget moved Tax Freedom Day later by 3 days. The March 2006 Budget means that this year we will have to work yet another three days for the government. These are both historically very large increases in the tax burden. And 3 June is the latest that Tax Freedom Day has been since 1988!" [source: http://www.adamsmith.org/tax/]

You do realize that this means you are required to spend nearly half of your life (and earnings) justifying your existence to the government, don’t you?

I'm not going to get started on the banks or the Federal Reserve, though I may provide a link at the bottom of this article to those who do nothing but expose the shenanigans therein. Nor am I going to get into the whole 2^nd Amendment abuse debate. If you want to read what I think about that, go to my "The Right To Keep & Bear Arms" article located at: http://www.ssrsi.org/os1/meg.htm

But let's discuss simply surviving - pure existence - in America. The government has made it effectively impossible to legally exist in this country without either a.) depending solely upon the largess of the State (paid for by everyone who does not depend solely upon the largess of the State) in the form of one welfare program or another, or b.) paying, and paying, and paying some more to the State - for everything and anything that you want to do. In addition, everything that you do will be monitored and regulated and must conform to State mandated methods and means. (We only want to help you…)

You can't own property without paying property taxes. Here's a shocker: I don't have a problem with that. Nor do I have a problem with property confiscation for failure to pay property taxes. It's only right. But what I do have a problem with is taking your property despite the fact that you've complied with the property tax laws [through eminent domain] or stealing your property [confiscation through forfeiture laws] for any reason other than failure to pay property taxes. This Nation was founded on property rights. If you take away the foundation, the whole house crumbles. Even if you have what appears to be a good reason, failure to respect property rights invalidates any justification for the Nation itself - including the government and all of its laws, both good and bad. Besides, it makes us (as a Nation) look really stupid when you have the government filing criminal cases against inanimate objects: "United States Government vs. 1968 Chevrolet Camaro" which is what they do when some Sheriff somewhere decides Sheriff Junior needs a new car and the long-haired Liberal pothead down the block doesn't deserve to drive such a fly ride. I'm not a big fan of liberals, (or, at least, of their philosophy) but that just ain't right.

"If you think we are free today, you know nothing about tyranny and even less about freedom." [Tom Braun]

You can't produce a living for yourself by growing, hunting, fishing, trapping or foraging for food without giving the government it's cut first. You've got to be licensed and certified to play that game, and there's a whole slew of rules and regulations to follow regarding times, size, sex, number and method of obtaining whatever it is you are after - and you need a new license if any of these variables are changed - and, of course, all of these licenses and stamps must be paid for. Nor can you simply toss a few seeds in the backyard plot and raise a few chickens for the stew pot. First of all, your property has to be zoned for agricultural use (which may actually save you a little on property taxes, if you can qualify) but then comes the real kicker. Agriculture is deadly and must be over-regulated and monitored to the N-th degree. GPS chickens are all the rage. Think I'm kidding? Read: Old Big Brother Had a Farm - USDA ID-tag plan for farm animals has some small-scale farmers unhappy and USDA Poised to Push Us Off Our Farms With the National Animal Identification System

"Arguments against the NAIS system are filling up small farm Internet sites. The greatest fear seems to be that NAIS will stifle local sources of production through over-regulation and additional costs. NAIS is seen as an economic threat to medium and small sized small farms who will be forced to register and bear the economic cost of the location registration, reporting the movement of animals off-farm into the selling, slaughter, or exhibition venues, the cost of the micro chips tags, equipment to read the tags, and software to upload the data to the government. County fairs, and perhaps even farmers markets, would fall under this additional regulatory burden. Others argue that if the growing numbers of small-scale farmers who sell directly to citizens are forced out of business then customers will have to buy food from the industrial food system which, by its scale and single species confinement, only multiply the effects of food safety and disease problems. Some argue that increased testing rather then tracking of livestock is more effective in preventing disease. There is concern about the privacy of the information in the state and federal databases that may be managed private companies. Voices against the system point out that the best way to prevent food safety problems is to raise the food yourself or know the farmer that you buy from. Finally, state agencies have an incentive to fast track the NAIS surveillance system so they can access USDA grants to pay for department personnel."
[source: http://www.tpforganics.com/newsletter/mail.cgi/archive/Traders/20060303143918]

There's a lot more out there on this. Just type "NAIS, Farms" in a search engine and you'll get pages of pages.

On August 1, 1910, North America's first driver licensing law went into effect in the U.S. state of New York, though it initially applied only to professional chauffeurs. In July of 1913, the state of New Jersey became the first to require all drivers to pass a mandatory examination before receiving a license. France and Germany were among the earliest countries to require mandatory driver licensing, right at the start of the 20th century. As automobile-related fatalities soared in North America, public outcry provoked legislators to begin studying the French and German statutes as models. [source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver's_license]

This was the beginning of the end. Until the genesis of the "Driver's License" there was no official ID, no demands for papers. You could travel anywhere in the United States and not once would anyone be so rude as to question your identity or demand proof thereof. Of course, with so many people and so little open land left… there's really not many places you really need to go anyway, is there?

As little as 50 years ago (in the US), it was possible for a survivalist type to escape the floodtide of humanity and establish a private oasis in the wilds. Today, there are no wilds. Those of you reading this in the backwoods and hidden glens of the supposed wilds of America had better take heed... you are not as far off the beaten path as you think - and nowhere near far enough for a panicked and desperate mass of humanity or a suspicious and vengeful authority to reach. If you think otherwise, take a look at this high resolution image of the U.S.A. at Night (with State outlines). Think about what you see there and what all of those blue splotches represent - hundreds of thousands, and in some cases MILLIONS of predominantly unprepared people. Most of them driving SUV's. [To check out the rest of the world go to the Dark Sky website - it's very spooky.] Escaping the masses is no longer a viable option. If/When the dam bursts, those little blue splotches are going to expand rapidly and violently into what little black space is left searching for shelter, food, medicine, solace - and after a few days without food or water, they probably won't be too polite about it. If/When the government decides that those who prefer to fend for themselves (and have proven themselves capable of it) are "dangerous to society" and must be "assimilated" the first place they are going to look are the very few remaining dark spots on map. If you don't think one or both of these scenarios is going to happen, then you haven't been paying attention. Your little hidey-hole has probably already been identified and tagged on a government map with …

"… plaster tire tracks, foot prints, dog smelling prints, and … twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against [you]... and pictures of the approach, the getaway, the northwest corner the southwest corner and that's not to mention the aerial photography…"
(Arlo Guthrie)

Long before Jefferson, Paine, and Meade warned us of the nature and danger of governments and the frailty of human conviction, Aristotle observed that: "A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side." If you take the time to work your way through the 192 modern countries of the world, you will note that all world leaders today (with the exception of a couple of brutal dictatorships who already have complete control over their populations) express a "deep, abiding faith" in whatever predominant religion or religiously-adhered-to philosophy holds sway among their citizenry. Does this mean there is something wrong with religion? Absolutely not! Does this mean that all world leaders are tyrants? Not really. What it implies, however, is that those cagey enough to attain the peak political office of a nation have apparently all read the same playbook.

I don't mean to question another person's faith, but I don't see how a truly religious man or woman could reconcile the necessities of politics with the tenets of their faith. Politics is about power, control, domination, retribution, economics, and compromise. It is replete with Machiavellian machinations, misdirection, broken promises and bold-faced lies. In politics there are no bright lines of delineation. It is a hazy, shadow world where right and wrong and good and bad cannot exist as concrete principles, but are rounded and worn by "shades of grey" into amorphous guidelines which need not be headed. "Right" becomes "less wrong" and "wrong" becomes "less right." "Good" becomes "the greater good" which dispels any notion of, or responsibility for, acts of injustice and undeniable evil against individuals or groups considered outside of that congregate of "the greater" determined to be deserving of the good. Evil becomes a "concept" that cannot be defined except as "that which opposes the ruling elite." Any action taken by the government is for "the greater good" - and often "for the glory of God." Any action taken against the government is "evil."

This is why the founders abhorred the idea of any religion established by the State. They understood that religion and politics do not mix and that any attempt to do so inevitable results in the corruption of both. It was not freedom "from" religion that they established, but freedom "of" religion. The freedom to worship your God in the manner in which you choose, as well as the freedom to choose not to worship at all. No man could be forced to worship and no man could force another to not worship.

Freedom of religion is one of many "checks" on the abuse of power. A devout worshiper - a person who truly adheres to the tenets and morals of their religion - is not plagued by ambiguity when it comes to right and wrong, good and evil, moral or immoral. "Thou shalt not kill" means "you never kill" - whether it concerns an enemy or a criminal or a slave or a pagan savage simply doesn't matter.

The founders knew that, while such a person could never effectively run or defend a country, the failure to cultivate such persons and ensure that they had the opportunity to give voice to their convictions would almost certainly hasten the downfall of the Nation. Moral certitude is the voice of "conscience" on the shoulders of government. Whether it is heeded in every instance or not, it serves as a constant reminder of the degree to which a particular action has strayed into the nebulous void of compromise or political expediency.

The founders knew that a limited government was necessary to ensure that the Nation could protect itself from other nations. They hoped to protect it's Citizens from themselves by restricting the powers of government in every conceivable way in hopes of keeping it from ever becoming the overbearing behemoth it is today. How could they envision that the inviolable rights and liberties that they so clearly enumerated - and the restrictions against encroachment upon them - would be so cruelly abused by future generations of politicians using "interpretation" of pure concepts, like gold, into the baser leaden muddle of their own ambitions?

We have met the enemy… and he is us. [Pogo]

Modern politics is nothing more than a pleasant distraction provided for the masses:

"... it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

It's purpose is to keep the common folk divided and too full of vitriol towards opposing (or even slightly differing, though basically supportive) points of view that they fail to notice what is really going on and ensures that they will never come together long enough to enforce their combined will upon those in power. It is the application of the "divide and conquer" strategy employed beneath the cloak of empowerment. The politicians are united in their purpose. To them, political affiliation is a mask they wear to get more votes than the guy with a different mask on. But if we look beneath the mask - if we appraise them not by what they say, but what they do - then we see that they are far more united and persistent than the Citizens of this country will ever be.

If we look at the political makeup of the people in power - the presidents and the parties in control of the Senate and the House from 1861 to the present, we find that the parties have held sway for pretty much equal amounts of time (107 years Republican/Whig and 108 years Democrat). For 215 years Republican and Democrat citizens have been at each other's throats, pointing fingers and hurling insults and accusations - and all this time the politicians have been smirking at us behind their masks. Are we any freer than we were in 1800? Are we even as free as we were then? Sure, we've given women the right to vote and freed the slaves (which should have been done in 1789 with the inception of our Nation) and then, 100 years later, gave them civil rights (which should have been done immediately), but these were corrections of omissions.

Our Constitution and the original Bill of Rights created our Nation and guaranteed certain Liberties and Rights - provided we were eternally vigilant in holding our government to task. At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic, Madame - if you can keep it" responded Franklin.

If you can keep it!
Franklin and the others knew that it all could be lost if we failed to keep our government in check. The Bill of Rights was a warning to the people of exactly how an unfettered government would seek to overthrow the rights and liberties wrested from the English monarchy by the Declaration of Independence and secured by the Constitution and the first ten amendments!

The U.S. Congress recently passed the REAL ID Act of 2005, which mandates federal requirements for driver's licenses. Critics argue that it would make driver's licenses into de facto national IDs. HR 1268 "Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, to establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver's license and identification... (Referred to Senate Committee after being Received from House)" was passed in the House of representatives on 16 March 2005. Starting in 2008, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service. Practically speaking, your driver's license likely will have to be reissued to meet federal standards.

When Social Security numbers were introduced in the 1930s, the system was “voluntary.” Citizens who worried about the biblical number of the Beast (Rev. 13: 16-18: "16He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, 17 so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. 18 This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.") or more mundane forms of tyranny were assured that, by law, the number would never -- ever -- be used for ID. In the tradition of nearly every limited, temporary, or voluntary government program our Social Security number eventually became our universal identifier. No law requires you to get a Social Security number, even today. But try functioning in the everyday world of work, banking, credit, schooling, home-buying, or even video rental without one. If national ID becomes U.S. law, five years from now you won’t be able to do any of these things without submitting to various biometric scans. But that’s barely the beginning. The new, more high-tech national ID system would enable the federal government and its contractors to follow and electronically analyze your activities in real-time -- to pinpoint your location, check your purchases, view records of your medical condition, and monitor your bank deposits and withdrawals as you make them, for instance. Worse yet, it ultimately gives government the ability to control your activities -- to (accidentally or deliberately) freeze your bank account, shut down your credit cards, deny you access to public transportation, forbid you entry into such public places as county courthouses, deny you health care, even deny you entrance to your job once your employer has (in the name of standardization, and possibly with the spur of federal subsidies or regulations) adopted the federal system. All at the click of a computer key, somewhere in Washington, D.C... ...This is still only the beginning. Shortly (after too many people have misplaced their cards, and too many criminals continued to get useable ID), the card-borne “smart chip” would be replaced by an implanted chip -- one of which, Digital Angel, is already on the market. Periodic scanning could then be augmented by 24-hour-a-day, satellite-based tracking. People in the U.S. will be watched and controlled far more thoroughly than Winston Smith was controlled by Big Brother in 1984 -- and for the very same reasons; to impose some social manager’s ideal of order.

Adapted from Backwoods Home article "Living the outlaw life: National ID — Our Line in the Sand" by Claire Wolfe

Your entire life will be keyed to this card. Without this card, you will be unable to conduct a normal life. Your life (in the form of your identity and property) may be terminated at whim with a few keystrokes. You can be branded a terrorist, an outlaw, or a sexual pervert at will - and everyone will believe what the information returned by the card tells them, no matter what you say!

It is too late to stop implementation of the card. You have two years to prepare for it. Things will get harder and harder as time passes. And when the time comes, you either queue up or clam up - and become an outlaw. This is why you, as a self-reliant survivalist, are such a threat to the corporate government. This is why any Christian who has read and believes in Revelations 13:16-18, has just been branded a potential terrorist and/or outlaw. This is why BOTH groups will find ever closer monitoring of their activities and ever growing ridicule of their beliefs as the time draws nearer to the implementation of the National ID. It may be decades before implants are required. Decades in which the general population will be able to convince each other that "it's not so bad" and that acceptance of an implant is the "only logical solution" and that its refusal is too absurd to contemplate. That is when life as a citizen upon this earth will become a living nightmare for anyone daring to upset the order of things. The only people who could be reasonably expected to successfully evade implementation or aid those who wish to abstain are the very same people who have spent their lives learning to survive the worst that nature and warfare could throw at them - the Survivalists.

It really doesn't matter (to the government) whether you are a full-blown die-hard wilderness survival type, or just someone interested knowing how to take care of yourself, or a Christian, Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Patriot, or flaming anti-government activist. All they want to know is will you submit to the card? If you will, then there's really no problem. In fact, you may even find a lucrative business prospect by infiltrating and informing on the groups who refuse. You can pretend to be whatever you want to be - because the government owns your entire identity and can turn it on or off, or change it entirely in just a few minutes. You are who they say you are. You are what they say you are.

By not accepting the card, you immediately become an outcast (if not an outlaw) and life becomes a bit more difficult. As long as cash is accepted, you may still be able to find menial labor, but you cannot have a bank account, you can't cash checks, you can't use credit cards and any credit that you did have will be lost. You won't be able to get a driver's license or license your car, so you won't be able to drive. Public transportation will (probably) eventually require that you scan your card before boarding, and if you don't have a card you might as well keep on walking, learn to skate, or get a bike. Of course, bikes will probably require licensing as well. Don't even think about getting on an airplane or even within an airport terminal without the card. Before long, you won't be able to enter public buildings - government offices, libraries, museums, concert halls, sports arenas, theaters, etc., and eventually apartment complexes, industrial and office buildings will be added to the list. You won't be able to own property if you can't pay the taxes on that property. Initially (since the government always wants money) you may be allowed to pay your taxes (if you can afford to, now that you have no bank account and can only accept and use cash) - but how will you pay without a card identifying your tax ID number and linking you to your property? Initially, you may be able to rent from someone willing to accept cash each month, but what happens when there are no places left to rent that accept cash. You won't be able to rent an apartment, remember, because apartment complexes require the card...

Sometime soon after the card is assimilated into society, accepted by almost everyone as pretty much harmless and much safer than credit cards, the government will announce that, despite Herculean efforts to combat it, there is an economic crises caused by the near miraculous ability of terrorists, terror nations, and drug dealers (for good measure) to counterfeit our dollars. The "solution" is a cashless society. The cards have proven to be a safe and effective method of identification - and they are already linked to your bank accounts, insurance, health care, taxpayer ID, 401k, etc. - what do we need cash for anyway?

A cashless society will be touted as a windfall against violent or anti-social crime. You can't buy or sell illegal drugs with the card, because the government will be monitoring all transactions. You can't fence stolen goods with the card for the same reason. And those who refuse to submit to the card won't be able to buy or sell anything. You can't pay for a prostitute with a card without the government knowing about it, and unless you are an identical twin to your victim - right down to the retinal scan and DNA markers, stealing a card from someone won't buy you anything.

Of course, none of this is true. We live in a technological age full of technological criminals - some of whom are quite intelligent - who now will be impressively motivated to exercise their talents. There is nothing a techno-geek likes more than a challenge, and telling them that technology exists that can't be duplicated or hacked is just the right enticement for them to get started. As far as selling drugs, all you need is a small art gallery. You buy some paint, some plaster, some canvas - chuck it all in the dumpster - sell your crack as hand-painted works of art and leave it up to the junkie to explain what he did with all your masterpieces. Something similar would work as well for fencing stolen goods, and what's wrong with a "business consultant" spending an hour in a cheap motel with a client? "Just doing market research, your honor... "

So if it won't really stop crime - and we all know it won't stop illegal immigration or terrorism - what is the purpose for these Draconian measures? Aside from the Antichrist intent on destroying humanity, why would a government go to such extreme measures? Remember, we are dealing with a Corporate Government here, and the only thing that motivates a corporation is Profit and Power. If everyone is linked to a card, which is linked to all financial activity, which is linked to the Corporate Government, then everyone pays taxes on every transaction automatically - and in a cashless society, no one is able to "cheat on their taxes." The government reaps in trillions of dollars once lost to innovative tax cheats. No one will need to fill out tax forms anymore. The Corporate Government knows how you get your money, how you spend it, and how much you have left. Taxes will be automated and you'll receive a statement each month online. The government will be able to reduce paperwork and personnel, resulting in a lower cost per dollar collected and a higher profit margin. Just think of all the votes they'll be able to buy then!!

Power may be secondary to some in the corporate world, but certainly not in the world of government. The power to control entire populations through the implementation of two simple steps - the card, and a cashless society - must be near orgasmic to those in charge.

The fact is, the card is no real danger (except as a precursor) if you don't mind taking your chances on the benevolence of your government. The fact is, the card will be universally accepted despite any and all grumbling challenges. Anyone protesting the card will be made to look the fool, unpatriotic, unreasonable, or downright paranoid and possibly a menace to society. We will all have a "Real ID" in the very near future. Those who are approached and are found to be without a "Real ID" will be detained, indefinitely, until one can be issued to them or until the reason they do not have a "Real ID" is determined to be criminal evasion of one sort another. These people will disappear into the penal system - perhaps to reemerge at some future date as a solid citizen who has paid their dues and accepted the card, or perhaps to never see the light of "freedom" again. Eventually everyone (even those incarcerated) will have a card assigned to them and everything will be peachy-keen. Until you step out of line, that is.

Lest you think this is simply a US phenomenon, think again. It's world-wide... (Do I have your attention yet?)

"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason if we remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were, for the moment, unpopular." [Edward R. Murrow]

"Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgment, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgment that men cannot part with according to the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights without which we can preserve no other." [John Locke]

"The Republic was not established by cowards; and cowards will not preserve it ... This will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave." [Elmer Davis]

"It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings. ... Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things, which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. ... Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" [Patrick Henry]

MEG
March-April 2006

A Bit of Good News for Blair: ID Cards for Britons Advance. New York Times, February 14, 2006: LONDON, Feb. 13 — The government of Prime Minister Tony Blair faced down its opposition on Monday in a politically charged vote in the House of Commons on a plan to introduce mandatory national identification cards. The Government's success in overturning the series of defeats inflicted by peers means that within two years people renewing or applying for passports will be required to have an ID card, at a cost of £93 for both documents.

Smart cards arrive amid tight security By Muawia E. Ibrahim, 14 June 2005: ABU DHABI - UAE authorities received on Tuesday the first consignment of Smart Cards for the planned national identity card which will be issued to all nationals and expatriates by end of this year. Fingerprinting for [Taiwan] ID cards halted: INKY ISSUE: The Council of Grand Justices said people won't have to provide their fingerprints to get a new ID until the council issues an interpretation of the law. By Jimmy Chuang STAFF REPORTER Saturday, Jun 11, 2005: Judicial Yuan president Weng Yueh-sheng, left, and other members of the Council of Grand Justices leave a meeting yesterday in which they passed an interim order to suspend the collection of fingerprint data for new national ID cards. Fingerprints will not be collected when people apply for their new national identification cards until the Council of Grand Justices issues an interpretation of the Household Registration Law, an official said yesterday.

Japanese court says national ID system violates citizens’ constitutional right to privacy (AP) 30 May 2005 TOKYO - A Japanese court on Monday said the government’s national computerized ID system “seriously violates” citizens’ constitutional right to privacy, and ordered a prefectural (state) government in western Japan to remove data on dozens of residents from the system.

Privacy Report Slams Canada ID Plans. An international report finds serious flaws in a Canadian proposal for a national ID card that would require fingerprints and iris scans of all Canadians. The ID plan, which will be discussed at a conference on biometrics in Ottawa, would exceed $5 billion and offer no security to the country. A Canadian parliamentary committee report also questioned the proposal. See EPIC and PI's recent Privacy and Human Rights 2003 report for background and EPIC pages on National ID Cards and Biometrics. (Oct. 8, 2003)

South Korea: Building on the present national photo-id card, the Korean ID Card Project involves a chip-based ID card for every adult member of the population. It is to include scanned fingerprints, and is intended to support the functions of a multi-purpose identifier, proof of residence, a driver's licence, and the national pension card. Its impact is reviewed in Kim (1997).

Malaysia: Malaysia's Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) initiative features a number of 'flagship' applications. One of these is a 'National MultiPurpose Card' (MPC), which is to be a chip-based multi-purpose identification card, with specific support for driving licence, immigration status, and health data. It is expected that its uses will be extended to other electronic government projects. Of particular significance for other countries is the voluntary and gratis participation in the initial phases of the MPC project of most of the world's major smart card technology developers. They would appear to perceive great advantages to themselves in being involved in the first of what they hope will be a wave of such implementations, throughout at least Asia.

Thailand: Chip-based technology is bound to be attractive to government agencies that already have substantial databases, in countries whose population is already subject to id schemes. Thailand is an example of a market ripe for the plucking. "The Thai Ministry of Interior maintains the second-largest relational database in the world ... In conjunction with the Central Population Database project, the Ministry of Interior introduced a new identity card issuing project in early 1994 ... An image of the person's right thumbprint is scanned and stored in the national database at the time of card creation. The card contains printed biographical information and an identification photograph on the front side, and a magnetic strip containing biographical information and a reference to the person's thumbprint on the back side" (technology-provider LSC Inc.'s promotional material).

New Zealand Office of Privacy Commissioner, BACKDOOR ENTRY FOR ID CARDS? March 1998. Report on Land Transport Bill: Photo ID Driver Licences, March 1998.

Greece to Demand Religion on National ID Cards, 2 May 1993. This demand was criticized by the European Parliament and the Greek Data Protection Commission. Prime Minister Costas Simitis announced in May 2000 that new Greek identity cards would not include religion, not even on a voluntary basis. The decision was opposed by Archbishop Christodoulos, the leader of the powerful Greek Orthodox Church who said, "These changes are being put forward by neo-intellectuals who want to attack us like rabid dogs and tear at our flesh."

Jim Greenfield National ID Card and cashless society: Jim Greenfield Residence: Minneapolis, MN, File size: 6.3 MBLength: 52:27 Format: mp3 DESCRIPTION: The Secretary for Homeland Security will have unlimited decision power over the new National ID cards! This card will be required to travel abroad and interstate. It could also be required to use any government services says Trudeau.

Day proposes national ID card - Canadian Press, Friday, February 17, 2006: Ottawa — Sooner or later, Canadians will have to carry some form of identification other than a passport to travel outside the country, says the new federal minister of public safety. The British Commons has just adopted legislation for a government-issued national ID card and Stockwell Day suggested in an interview with The Canadian Press that such a card is inevitable for Canada.

AMERICAN LIFE UNDER A NATIONAL ID CARD by Tom DeWeese, September 20, 2005 “Oh, yes,” I said, “I know what you’re going to say next. Your ilk always says it. “So what. If that keeps me safe, it’s OK.” “Well,” I continued, “consider how those ID cards will be used. Without one, you won’t be able to get on a plane or a train. You will be denied all government services. You will not be able to open a bank account. You will be literally shut out of American society.”

Real ID Act guarantees a National ID card is on the way In an almost empty Senate chamber, ten senators claimed that the Real ID Act was dangerous and poorly conceived. They objected to the Conference Committees improperly adding the act to a military appropriations bill. They objected to the fact that the Real ID Act was never open to debate. Then, on May 11th and along with all other US Senators, they unanimously voted to create what many feel is a big step towards an electronically invasive National ID card and make the Real ID Act the law of the land. Any state that opts out will automatically make non-persons out of its citizens. They will probably not be able to fly or take a train.

What's So Scary About a National ID? by Jarrett Murphy: Discussion about whether the U.S. needs some kind of federal identification card has been around for years. Several countries already have national ID cards; according to Privacy International, this list includes Germany, France, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain. 9-11 revived the push, and national ID proponents might secure their first victory next week when the Senate votes on the conference committee version of the $82 billion supplemental funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that the House OK'd yesterday.

Chip-Based ID: Promise and Peril by Roger Clarke. Multi-purpose identification schemes in general, and national identification schemes in particular, represent the most substantial of information technologies' threats to individual liberties. This is because they concentrate information, and hence power; and because it is simply inevitable that, at some stage, even in the most apparently stable and free nations, power will be exercised against the interests of individuals, and of the public generally.

EPIC - National ID and REAL ID Act Big page of links on the National ID here and abroad.

National ID Cards: Current law puts the government in a position to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every citizen. Not only is the national ID movement underway, it is now a reality.

Cashless society gets mixed reviews: Saturday, February 8, 2003 Posted: 7:09 AM EST (1209 GMT) PARIS, France (AP) -- France is leaping toward a cashless future with a nationwide launch this year of computerized "smart cards," a concept that has so far failed to entice many American, British and German consumers.

Cashless Society 'Inevitable;' a Boost to Globalist Taxers? Wes Vernon, NewsMax.com Saturday, June 29, 2002 WASHINGTON – Money won’t be around anymore in just a few years, according to trend watchers. And the same globalist taxers that are already trying to confiscate your hard-earned money can’t wait for the cashless era to begin.

Cashless Society or Digital Cash? by Reynolds Griffith Southwestern Society of Economists March, 1994 For more than a decade there have been predictions of the elimination of physical cash as a transaction medium and the substitution of one form or another of an electronic payments system. Some forecasters view the prospect with delight, looking on it as increasing the efficiency of the economy. Others behold it with foreboding, anticipating it to be another way in which the details of our lives become subject to scrutiny. This paper examines the issues surrounding the prospect of a "cashless society" and the possible alternative of digital cash.

The Cashless Society "... and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand. (Daniel 12:10)" The global economy may become cashless. It is planned and huge sums are spent from our taxes to achieve it. It is Already Happening Around Us: A global network of internationally interconnected databases is being built, which stores an enormous amount of information about us. These advancements in information technology made banking, taxpaying and paying in shops electronically possible. Salaries, welfare and social benefits are electronically deposited into bank accounts. All of the above contribute to the gradual replacement of real money with electronic or virtual money, just numbers in a computer. We have been slowly conditioned to enjoy these convenient forms of electronic enslavement. Now we are in the next stage: the use of cards and electronic money is becoming mandatory. In some Western countries, cash transactions involving more than a few thousand dollars are considered suspicious. In this way, the population is forced to use cards.

THE CASHLESS SOCIETY IS HERE By Chris Beard After years of planning, research, and development the world's financial institutions are announcing the much anticipated GLOBAL CASHLESS SOCIETY. The ability to conduct all manner of monetary exchange is now being replaced by microchip technology and electronic currency. MONDEX is the company providing this cashless system and has already franchised over 20 major nations. This system was created in 1993 by London bankers Tim Jones and Graham Higgins of NATEST/COUTTS, the personal bank of Britain's Royal Family

Moving Toward a Cashless Society What if you were told that you would no longer be able to use that paper and would be forced to rely upon electronic technology for every single transaction you were to make? How would this affect your freedom and privacy?

Getting the kids used to the cashless society - Mastercard introduces credit cards for children by Steve Watson, January 27 2006: Mastercard is to introduce credit cards directly aimed at children, encouraging them to go into debt and consume products without the use of cash. Supporters regard the cards, which are issued by Bluecorner, as the natural step in an increasingly cashless society. They argue that the prepayment cards will familiarize children with plastic without spending too much. Says the London Times. The cards are designed to get children used to the fact that cash is obsolete and their money, and the amount they are allowed to spend is controlled by someone else who also profits from their spending.

 

 

Please Read The Website Disclaimer!
Copyright 2006, The Survival & Self-Reliance Studies Institute (SSRsi), All Rights Reserved
Site conceptualized, designed, created & maintained by MEG Raven
Snail Mail: SSRsi, PO Box 2572 Dillon, CO. 80435-2572