The End of America: May 10, 2005

[FWiedner]

The End of America: May 10, 2005

An Alert from Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership

On Tuesday, May 10, 2005, America became a true police state. Your U.S. senators voted -- unanimously, with no discussion, and without even reading the bill -- to create a national ID card.

The Real ID Act blackmails state governments into turning their drivers licenses into a draconian tool of the federal homeland security apparatus. If states refuse, their citizens lose such "privileges" as being allowed to board an airplane, enter a federal building, or apply for social security. President Bush is expected to sign the bill eagerly on Thursday.

In three years -- by May 2008 -- this Stalin-style internal passport will be an American reality. But your government will have more control over you than Stalin ever dreamed in his most violent, vicious, anti-freedom dreams. (See links to the text of the law and articles about it at the bottom of this article.)

But that's only the beginning.

The creator of the Real ID Act, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, smiles and tells us that his Real ID Act is all about "solving illegal immigration" or "preventing terrorists from entering the country." This is one of the biggest of the thousands of "Big Lies" we've heard from the tyrants in Washington. The Real ID Act is about tracking and controlling Americans. You. Me. Our children. Everybody.

In May 2008, barring a miracle, America as we once knew it will be in ruins. It will be gone. And the rights of gun owners will be among the first scheduled for destruction.

GUN OWNERS: PREPARE TO RESIST

Here's your future:

You walk into a gun store, fill out your 4473, and show your government ID just as you now do. But instead of looking at your license and taking down some information, the clerk runs the license (which is likely to contain a radio-frequency ID chip) through a scanner. Your purchase is instantly recorded in your state drivers license registry. The federal government isn't currently allowed to keep a gun registry. But no problem; the Real ID act gives them an open door into your state records.

Complete information on every firearm you buy will be instantly available to every police officer (and possibly every government employee, store clerk, or computer hacker) you ever encounter. You'll be an instant criminal suspect every time you deal with someone who has access to the database.

Just as travelers are encouraged to get background checks and give fingerprints to avoid some of the worst excesses of TSA screening, gun owners will be encouraged to get background checks and give whatever biometric ID the Department of Homeland Security requires. This will be sold as a "benefit," ensuring you'll never again experience an "instant-check" delay. In fact, Congress, the ATF, or the FBI might even "mandate" 5-day or 15-day delays for anyone not enrolled in the "Trusted Firearms Buyer" program.

The private purchase "loophole" will be closed, so that all gun buyers must make trackable purchases. (The ultimate goal is for every purchase of every kind to be trackable.)

Buying ammo? The store scans your national ID card and -- bingo! -- your purchase is registered in the state database.

The federal government or state governments can now also _effectively_ legislate limits on the amount or kind of ammunition you're "allowed" to purchase. Try to buy more and the database instantly rejects you.

The federal government or state governments can now also _effectively_ legislate limits on the number of guns you may own. Try to buy more, and the database rejects you.

Eventually -- after the federal government "discovers" the obvious, that national ID won't stop either illegal immigration or terrorism -- the old attack on "evil guns" will resume. When they want your .50 BMG they'll know just where to find it (because the Real ID act says your home address _must_ be revealed). When they want your evil "scoped sniper rifle" (you know, the one you hunt deer with), they'll know just how to get it. Ditto with you "Saturday Night Special" or your "assault weapon."

If you don't surrender your guns, well, then the Department of Homeland Security will cut off your driving "privilege," as well as your right to escape the growing police state via plane. You'll be a prisoner in your own home, in your own country. Or you'll be forced to function as an outlaw, operating and living a precarious existence beneath the government radar.

PARANOID? OR PAYING ATTENTION?

You say these projections are ridiculous? That we're paranoid?

Well, frankly, if the Real ID Act doesn't make you paranoid, you're not paying enough attention. We ask you to consider the long-term impact of a few other acts of government.

In the 1930s, Congress promised us that our social security numbers would never, absolutely never, be used for identification. Now, they're the key to everything about us -- and without a social security number you won't get a drivers license and you won't even be "allowed" to drive after May 2008.

In 1913, Congress and the media swore to us that the brand- new income tax would only affect the rich. Well, how rich do you feel after paying 40 percent of your income (or more!) in taxes?

This is the way government works. They've even got a term for it: mission creep. And there is no creepier mission than the mission the federal government has currently set itself: to track everyone, everywhere, and to control what we do.

We warned you in The State vs. the People that this was coming. That book is still relevant, still a good read, and still filled with information about what our future will be like in this new American police state.

Be forewarned. Be aware.

REAL ID: IT'S THE LAW AND IT'S CRIMINAL

Please take a moment to go to this site: http://www.rebelfirerock.com/home.html. Click on the link that leads to the song "Justice Day." Listen to the music or read the lyrics. Here's the opening of the song:


You're the boot.
Stomping on the human face forever.
You're the eye.
Staring down on everyone and ever seeing all.
You're the lie.
Twisting all our minds into your whoredom.
You are Death.
You are war.
You are slavery.
You're the law.
You're the law.
You're the LAW!

George Orwell was the first to describe totalitarianism as a "boot stomping on the human face forever." But in Orwell's day Americans would have had a hard time believing that the law -- the good old, all-American legislature -- all those smiling senators and "representatives" would be the ones to plant their iron heels in our faces. Back in those innocent days, we imagined tyranny would come from outside.

Well, tyranny is here. And it's a gift from the very people we so trustingly put into office.

Tyranny is THE LAW.

Is this a way to run a country? Tacking something as onerous as national ID onto a must-pass bill and making it law without any debate? What does this say about people the gun owners consider their friends? In the House, where the bill containing the Real ID Act passed 368-58, only three Republicans voted against it. Here's the final roll-call vote so you can see how your own congressperson voted.

In the Senate, not one person cared enough about freedom to vote against it -- or even to demand that senators discuss it.

(The Real ID Act originally passed the House in February as a standalone bill (H.R. 418) by a vote of 261-to-161. House leaders, realizing national ID would have been in trouble in the Senate, then added it to a must-pass military appropriations bill in a cynical ploy to make it almost impossible to fight national ID.)

Turning America into a full-fledged police state was just business as usual to your representatives. And, just as Adolf Hitler scrupulously followed German law while committing his horrors, so your "representatives" and the bureaucrats you face at the national-ID drivers license bureau will also be following the law -- the Real ID law that allows them to enslave you.

(To see what a real Bill of Rights leader would do, read the novel Hope by Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith)

WHAT NEXT?

We have two choices now: Resist or submit.

More than 600 organizations, from the American Civil Liberties Union to the National Governors Association, opposed the bill. Even the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (which loves national ID and was largely responsible for an earlier attempt at such legislation nine years ago) criticized it.

We can expect lawsuits against national ID, including at least one suit led by state governments.

However, nearly all the opposition from state governments focuses on one area: They're upset because the federal government didn't offer them extra money to enslave us. If Congress bribes them with enough millions and billions, they'll gladly sell our freedom.

Ultimately, real resistance is up to us, as individuals. There are certain courses of action JPFO cannot recommend. But every freedom lover should be pleased if all the people who had a hand in creating Real ID act lost their jobs -- soon. And those individuals who truly value their (and their children's) futures should seriously consider making national ID their line in the sand.

We have already heard from many people saying they will drive without a license rather than submit to a license that has become a Stalinist control document. We just hope their resolve stays equally strong when they face a world in which it's impossible to buy, sell, retire, travel -- or buy a gun -- without national ID.

We ask you to remember men like Alexandr Solzhenitzyn and Natan Sharansky. Both stood up and boldly opposed a tyrannical regime in the Soviet Union. Both risked their lives. Both suffered horribly for their resistance and their protests. But eventually, they triumphed -- and the Soviet Union crumbled.

We are in need of such people, and such courage, today. We cannot wait for someone else to stand up and show that kind of integrity.

We must become the kind of people we admire if we are ever again to live in a nation we can trust.

G-d help us if we fail.*

http://www.jpfo.org/alert20050511.htm

.

[dukkillr]

You know how environmentalists hurt their (sometimes) valid points with wild eyed crazy talk that turns off the rational voter?  Well this is the equivalent.  People are actually less likely to be pro-gun or anti national ID because of that piece.  The average reader will look at that, dismiss it, it's writers, and those who agree with him as nuts.  

Remember back when the NRA lost all those members (including then president HW Bush) because they printed that crazy fund raising letter about how cops were all bad?  Same thing.  Wild eyed rhetoric only converts the already converted.  To sway the all important undecided people you need a calm rational approach.

[FWiedner]

6 million Jews were "calm and rational" right up to the moment that they thought that they smelled gas.

With the passage of this bill our nation's current administrators have decided to take a walk on the slippery slope.  They have decided what sort of country this is to be, and it's not what our founders had in mind.

Dismiss it as extremism at your peril, and at the peril of everyone you care about.

Ignore it completely if that is your outlook, but be aware, this IS NOT a good thing.

As the old saying goes..."A prophet is usually considered a madman in his home-town."

 :?

[PA-Joe]

The new cards will most likely be marked C J M P so they know how to bury you!

[dukkillr]

Comparing this to the Holocaust proves my point.  

Lots of things fit the category of, "not a good thing" that don't lead to the "end of the world".  

I'm sure the Heavens Gate people heard that if they didn't drink the cool-aid they'd be "dismiss[ing] it... at [their] peril and the peril of everyone [they] care about."  Of course that "prophet" was a madman.  

See that's the whole deal, you've got to address issues with a rational thought process, not wild eyed crazy talk about the end of the world and peril of impending gas chambers.  

By invoking the "bad thing" test and the "slippery slope" can I compare anything I don't like to the gassing of millions of Jews?  Just wondering for the sake of argument.  Does there have to be any particular likelyhood of millions of deaths?  Do I need any evidence of anything?

[FWiedner]

Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. -- DANIEL WEBSTER

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. - Thomas Jefferson

Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would. -- JOHN ADAMS

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government. ~~ Alexander Hamilton[/b]

One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation. -- THOMAS B. REED

If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin. ~~ Samuel Adams

If a man neglects to enforce his rights, he cannot complain if, after a while, the law follows his example. --OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES

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


This is just a short list of several other Americans who occassionally engaged in "wild-eyed crazy talk".

Maybe you've heard this one before..."Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."

Our America is in a state of transition, devolving from freedom to fascism.

This theme recurs through history, where a democracy turns itself into a dictatorship, and it always seems to happen in the same way, and as a result of the same issues.

There are perceived and reported threats from the outside, which generate calls for ever increasing controls, and a democratic and easily corrupted legislative body, unable to function effectively due to pettiness and political in-fighting.

In ancient Rome, the senate killed Caesar, and than turned around and gave the government to his nephew. In France, they got rid of the king and that whole system, and then turned around and bowed to Napoleon.  Germany and Hitler, same-same.

Democracies can turn into dictatorships with full consent of the electorate.

Liberty usually dies to the sound of thunderous applause.

 :x

[dukkillr]

Every thing you say seems to validate my first comment.  Also note that I never said you were wrong.  That was never my point.

[Guy]

6As the old saying goes..."A prophet is usually considered a madman in his home-town."

 :?

And those home town folks are often right.

[FWiedner]

dukkillr, you are entitled to your opinion.

My earlier reference to the 6-million Jews was intended as an example to illustrate a people who chose to respond in a "calm and rational" manner in the face of a predictable and terrible oppression.  The result of their choice to be "calm and rational" is well known, thus my choice of that example.  Do you really believe that the same thing couldn't happen here?

The subject obviously holds a higher position on my list of issues to be aware of than on yours.

I would attempt to discuss your opinion of the subject of the article and the information contained therein, except that you did not offer one.  You chose instead to focus on the tone of the delivery, rather than the content of the message itself.

With regard to your concern about those who are distracted or turned-off by a perceived failure to accomodate their preference for a calm and rational approach, who cares what they think?  They are cut from a cloth whereon the pattern is unimportant unless there is a snag or seam which is inconvenient to them.

There is simply no way to explain the loss of fundamental liberties to a person who does not understand the basic concept, or to someone who prefers to divert and burden discussion with tangental and irrelevant issues of politically correct presentation.

...or maybe you like music, but that you just can't listen to that crap.

In a more contemporary sense, those who seek coherence will make the effort to separate the signal from the noise.

 :wink:

[dukkillr]

As you say, "Who cares what they think?".  Who do you think elected those senators?  Who do you think elects every national leader?  The swing voter.  So it IS important to make your case to them.  

And at no point did I suggest that I supported a national ID, in fact I went out of my way to say the tone is the issue.  The tone will turn people off.  The tone is crazy.  It's just as crazy as drawing a comparison between new passports and the Holocaust.  I would even make the argument that it's insulting to victims of the Holocaust.

What I support is operating in the real world.  In the real world you can't just dismiss people who disagree with you as, "cut from a cloth whereon the pattern is unimportant unless there is a snag or seam which is inconvenient to them."  Those people decide every election, and those election select the leaders who control this country.  That's reality.  

So if we can agree you can't dismiss those people then we can agree that the point should be sold to them.  But you can't sell this idea with crazy talk.  Educated people will see phrases like, "draconian tool of the federal homeland security apparatus" or "Stalin-style internal passport" and decide it's written by a nut.  The point will never be conveyed.

The article goes into the hypo about how the government will keep gun owners lists. That capability is completely unaffected by new drivers licenses.    The hypo goes on to dismiss this reality by saying, "the Real ID act gives them an open door into your state records."  Note that states do not record gun ownership even though the possibility currently exists (through information submitted for background checks).  

Again with the ammo sales, nothing changes.  If the government wanted to retain that information your current drivers license would work just fine.  The law at issue here is requiring to show a license to buy ammo, not the ID.

Then we get the standard, "Then they'll take your guns."  Maybe.  Of course we've already covered how it's record keeping (currently available in any state but illegal) that's really at issue.  In short a new, standard drivers license will not change any of this.  

OK, so I could go on but the point is that this piece uses large logical leaps (at best) to invoke fear.  Lets be reasonable.  Lets not scream about the sky falling.  Lets not title anything, "The End of America" unless, of course, the flag over the capital is being replaced.  

If the national ID is a bad idea tell me why in a calm manner.  Don't invoke historical genocide unless you see an actual genocide in this case.  Don't invoke historical dictators unless you can actually meet the criteria for a dictator (check the dictionary if there's any question).  Please, please, don't invoke George Orwell.  Don't take the issue at hand (national ID) and add it to other issues (gun control and record keeping) which you then hypothesis outside the realm of current legal possibilities.  

Please realize I'm not disagreeing with you.  I'd love to hear a step by step analysis, just without the crazy talk.

[unspellable]

The original post in this thread is wrong on one point.  The legislation mentioned does not turn America into a police state because it already is a police state.  The transition occured during the Klinton administration with the phone in check system for buying a firearm.  From that point on you have to have the permision of the government to obtain a firearm through the ordinary channels of commerce.  A rquirement for the government's permission to obtain a firearm is THE definition of a police state.  We're already there guys!   The legislation mentioned at the start of this thread is just the next step.

[FWiedner]

As you say, "Who cares what they think?". Who do you think elected those senators? Who do you think elects every national leader? The swing voter. So it IS important to make your case to them.

Swing voters are, by definition, indecisive.  They are the people without principled beliefs, without guiding ideals, without core values, and without an educated clue.

Their awareness of issues extends to what might poke them in the eye as the day goes by, or what that itchy sensation in their left nostril might be.  Beyond that, they require that some political crap-hound to spoon-feed them as many heaping gulps of BS as it takes for them to find their favorite flavor-of-the-day

They are those people who vote with no earthly idea why.  They flip a coin and rationalize a vote for "the lesser of two evils".  They wait until the last day of polling to see who's winning to decide whom to vote for, because, after all, they don't want to "waste" their vote.

You will never find a swing voter taking a stand on any issue outside of the politically correct or the popular.  In the long run, their opinions don't matter because they don't believe in anything.  

It's sad that people think it's critical to cater to the most gullible segment of the population.

 :?

[unspellable]

FWiedner,

What's your definition of a swing voter?  I take the trouble to be informed on the issues, have some strong opinions, and firm stands, but none the less I find that I sometimes have to make a close call on which candidate or which side of the issue I will vote for.

I certainly do not fit in the category of the uniformed voter who votes on the basis of popular opinion, politically correct, I was born a Democrat/Republican, flip a quarter, the union told me how to vote, etc.  On the other hand I have a sister-in-law who is in that category.  Hopeless effort trying to educate her.

I do take the polls into account in that if it's going to be an obvious landslide for either the Democrat or the Republican I will vote Libertarian.  If there is any question at all on who's going to win I vote where it counts.

It's ALWAYS a vote for the lesser of two evils.  It would be a relief to be able to vote FOR a candidate for once rather than against the other guy.

[FWiedner]

The proper definition of swing voters is those among the electorate who are "undecided" on an issue.

In my view, the more correct definition is that swing voters are those members of the electorate who are "indecisive".

It's not that they can't decide, it's that they don't know how, because they are apathetic.

They do not take the time to educate themselves or to investigate campaign issues, or go ahead and vote anyway according what may be politically correct or most popular in their peer group without any real consideration of the greater consequences.

Swing voters are a wandering herd, devoid of ideals, looking for an open feed-trough, and they don't really care if it's at the slaughter house as long as they are not the next in line.

On a different note, what did you think of the message contained in the JPFO alert?

Valid opinion or BS?  Wild-eyed crazy talk?

Or were you, like Mr. dukkillr, put off by the tone of the piece to such a degree that you could not bear to read it ?

Not trying to start anything, just curious to research Mr. dukkillr's point.

 

[iiibbb]

Swing voters to me are people that don't buy the entire platform of either party.  I side with neither so I consider myself a swing voter.  I'm more conservative than not... I am very pro-gun... being pro-gun will give you my ear, but not my vote.  I am not a single-issue voter.

If a politician were to do a speech with the tone of that article... I'd be hesitant to vote for him.

I can accept passion... but the means does not justify the ends in my book.  Backlash will lose you an issue for a long time.

[dukkillr]

Rest assured I read it.  I wouldn't comment on something I haven't read completely.  

Frequently I do research on these type articles before posting.  I have access to wonderful legal resources.  When someone claims the Patriot Act opened this site for FBI monitoring, I could find the truth.  When someone suggested a 5 year penalty for shooting a goose in the off season (first time offense) I could find the truth.  When someone invoked the Posse Comitatus Act I had the resources to find the actual legislation as well as the case history and legislative intent.  I'm lucky to have this access.  I enjoy knowing the actual, real world, truth (as opposed to an idealogically blinding view).  

I believe very strongly in operating in the real world.  In the real world things don't always go the way I want, but to dismiss offending people as, "without principled beliefs, without guiding ideals, without core values, and without an educated clue" seems simplistic, inaccurate, and doesn't fit my style.  

I promise you that it would be impossible for you to print something that I "could not bear to read."

[FWiedner]

Sorry if you took my opinion of swing voters personally.  Wasn't intended as any kind of personal slam, just a personal observation/opinion of a segment of the electorate that I feel is afforded far too much regard.  Slackers.   :wink:

Of course you read it.  What I intended to suggest was simply meant to be a rhetorical figure of speech indicating that one aspect of the piece interferred with your ability to fully appreciate another.

 

[iiibbb]

Slackers?  Ideologue only have to read half as much, and even then they only have to read about one or two issues.  Then they don't have to figure out what's been exagerated.

Basically, if you want to lose my ear, and my vote, then resort to fear-mongering.  You can bank on my 'ideal' that I will not be represented by people that feel the need to use fear over logic to sway my decisions.  Those who would rather induce panic than show leadership are not to be trusted.

There are a million reasons why national IDs may not be such a great idea... there's no need to resort to the fear mongering.

[dukkillr]

Absolutely what I was saying when I started this coversation.  You're correct on all counts.  Now be prepared to be brow-beaten and insulted for having said so.

I love this quote:

Ideologue only have to read half as much, and even then they only have to read about one or two issues. Then they don't have to figure out what's been exagerated.

[unspellable]

It always struck me that a democracy has the following weak point.  Pick an issue and call it X.  10% of the electorate will be directly affected by this issue and have taken the time to study it, learn the facts, think about it, and make an informed vote for it.  Likewise another 10% of the electorate will be directly affected by this issue and have taken the time to study it, learn the facts, think about it, and make an informed vote against it.  80% of the electorate knows nothing about it, will never know anything about it, doesn't want to know anything about it, doesn't really give a d**n about it, and will never be affected by it.  How come they have the deciding vote?

[iiibbb]

It always struck me that a democracy has the following weak point.  Pick an issue and call it X.  10% of the electorate will be directly affected by this issue and have taken the time to study it, learn the facts, think about it, and make an informed vote for it.  Likewise another 10% of the electorate will be directly affected by this issue and have taken the time to study it, learn the facts, think about it, and make an informed vote against it.  80% of the electorate knows nothing about it, will never know anything about it, doesn't want to know anything about it, doesn't really give a d**n about it, and will never be affected by it.  How come they have the deciding vote?

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute talk with the average voter."  

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."  

--Winston Churchill