I had a rather disturbing conversation with Michigan Rep. Martin Griffin's male receptionist today. I explained the Real ID act to him and he seemed very indifferent and unconcerned.
I asked him if he realized that making the drivers license a de-facto national ID card was a forerunner to implanting a microchip under the skin of the people.
He argued with me on every point that I made. He told me that he "didn't agree" with me. He claimed that he didn't think that microchipping the people would ever happen. He thought it was a stretch.
I told him that they were already doing it with the cattle, and that Michigan has already bought into the National Animal Identification System hook, line, and sinker, even though that was supposed to be a "voluntary" federal program. And I told him that the NAIS would put farmers and cattle men out of business because of the bureaucratic red tape. He didn't act like he even knew about the NAIS.
After arguing states rights with him, I finally told him: "You people at the capitol had better realize that your authority to govern is being undermined by the federal government. They are bullying you into adopting this program. You better start saying 'NO' to the federal dollars and refusing to implement their programs." The silence on the line was both deafening and awkward.
It's apparent to me that these people have absolutely no realization of the power the states have, let alone the power they give away on a regular basis.
I am amazed at such colossal ignorance on the part of someone who works at a lawmaker's office. These people should know better. It would seem to me that anyone with even the slightest finger on the pulse of current events would be aware of the fact that they are already microchipping human beings, and that everything we see with the profiling, tracking, and databasing of our movements, our purchases, our every action, is leading in the ultimate direction of the implantable microchip.
Thankfully, I had better luck at Sen. Mark Schauer's office, where a very nice woman, who "agreed" with all of my contentions about the federal action, and also found the measure "scary", found the sole resolution that had been introduced to oppose the Real ID act.
Sadly, it wasn't much of an opposition.
Here in Michigan, the resolution pending is HR 25, and it's not really in opposition to the Real ID, but instead is calling for the federal government to fully fund its implementation.
Rep. Agema offered the following resolution:It seems the only thing state governing officials are worried about, these days, is money. I suppose if the federal government mandated that the first born of every family be slaughtered, any opposition the states mounted would be on the grounds of funding the program.
House Resolution No. 25.
A resolution to memorialize Congress to fully fund the states' efforts to implement the Real ID Act of 2005.
Whereas, Congress enacted the Real ID Act in 2005, which mandates that beginning in May 2008, a state driver's license cannot be used for any federal purpose such as boarding an airplane or entering a federal building, unless the driver's license meets specific national standards. Federal requirements include a digital image of the cardholder's face, proof of legal status, and card security features. In addition, states will be required to link their record-keeping systems to a national database; and
Whereas, Implementation costs are estimated at $11 billion nationwide over the first five years of the Real ID program. Additionally, the federal government has not yet issued rules or regulations detailing what the cards should look like and what information is necessary to obtain a card. States have been left with potentially exorbitant implementation costs and little time to prepare and change over to the Real ID; and
Whereas, The National Conference of State Legislatures has completed a study detailing the costs of the Real ID program. NCSL notes that states and the federal government will need federal funds to properly implement this program. NCSL urges Congress to appropriate at least $1 billion in new funding. It is important that states have both the time and resources to properly implement the federally mandated Real ID Act; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives, That we memorialize Congress to fully fund the states' efforts to implement the Real ID Act of 2005; and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and the members of the Michigan congressional delegation.
Whatever happened to opposing federal "mandates" solely on the basis that they would kill our industry, invade the privacy and rights of the people, or otherwise be oppressive? What ever happened to refusal to comply on the basis of principle, and principle alone? What ever happened to saying "NO!" just because something is WRONG?
Of course, with the National Conference of State Legislators involved in the process, it shouldn't be surprising that the "opposition" to the Real ID Act amounts to nothing more than funding. The NCSL is an entity like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Both organizations are designed to control the legislative process from the top down.
Lawmakers from various states don't need to "confer" with each other. If there are laws that need to be made for a certain state, they should be the concept of the lawmaker, and they should be written by the same. State laws should not be the product of ghost writers, group consensus, or legislative "councils". The aforementioned entities amount to a usurpation of the very purpose of state government in the first place — namely, to provide for a protection against an overbearing federal government, and to provide an avenue of escape in case one particular state enacts laws that are too oppressive to the people.
Probably due to the NCSL's involvement, the resolution we have in Michigan is typical of what is pending in other states. All the feds have to do is fund the measure and the states will fold like a cheap accordion.
We need legislators in the states to stand up for principle — not for the state budget. I would sooner have less state services, state employees, and bureaucrats, than to have a budget full of federal dollars, and a legislature rubber-stamping the federal programs that intrude into every area of our lives.
State reps had better start remembering who it is that they are supposed to be representing. It isn't the organizations whose puppet masters operate out of the District of Criminals. It is the People, who reside in the states where the laws are passed, and under whose authority the government operates, that are the employers. A legislator who forgets this basic precept is one who should find his or herself in the unemployment line.
Or, perhaps, a reinstatement of the old-fashioned tar and feathering policy might be in order.
No comments:
Post a Comment