Although the women of the United States are confined within the narrow circle of domestic life, and their situation is, in some respects, one of extreme dependence, I have nowhere seen woman occupying a loftier position; and if I were asked... in which I have spoken of so many important things done by Americans, to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of that people ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply, To the superiority of their women.

--Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

Saturday, December 10, 2011

Newt Tried to Install Internal Passports on Us in 1998 - Guess Who Stopped Him?

I've had Jon Christian Ryter linked a long time here as I found his work on State Department memo 7727 identifying its authors. He's done a comprehensive piece on Newton Leroy McPherson Gingrich. That's his real name, ya'll. His mama was married to his daddy for three days for him to be legitimate. The back story there is pretty white trash stuff, and I don't down anybody for how they came into this world, but it would explain some of his issues. .


The question the American people—conservatives and liberals alike—need to be asking themselves is—do they want a man in the White House who has already tried, and failed, to impose an Internal Passport on them? The Soviets did it to the Russian people in 1917. The fascists in Italy did it in 1924. The Nazis did it to the German people in 1933, and Newt Gingrich tried to do to the American people in 1998.



Do you remember the 1995-96 budget battle when the GOP shut down the federal government in order to force the Democrats to live within their means? Everyone does. It was good media. To bad everyone was paying attention to the talking heads and no one was watching the legislative shell game taking place in the House under the watchful eye of Speaker Gingrich [R-GA], Minority Leader Dick Gephart [D-MO], Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole [R-KS] and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle [D-SD]. The same sleight-of-hand that inserted half-of-a-bill into the Immigration Reform Act of 1996 was used to inserted the same bill in the House version of the bill to the Omnibus Budget Act of 1996. When the House voted on the Budget Bill, it appears they also voted on, and passed, the National ID Card that would be implemented by the NHTSA sometime down the road..
 According to Barr, who appeared as a guest on a Paul Weyrich's America's Voice segment hosted byCoalition for Constitutional Liberties Director Lisa Dean on July 13, 1998 to talk about the new national drivers' license being implemented by the NHTSA. Gingrich's internal passport had been innocuously disguised as a drivers' license. But as everyone knows, when it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
 Barr told Lisa Dean "...this bill (the Omnibus Budget Bill) was several thousand pages long [and] was not distributed to House members before the vote. The only chance any of us might have had to have seen this bill was while it was sitting on the floor during the debate—but there was no debate on it. No chance for review. It was slipped in as a mickey and was enacted into law because it was part of a very important omnibus spending bill."



Funding this infringement on States' rights by the NHTSA was not viewed by the federal bureaucracy as a problem since the costs for upgrading drivers' licenses falls on the States. And, although Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-4) to prevent the federal government from forcing the States to foot the bill for costly bureaucratic federal programs and regulations when the cost to the States to comply exceeds $100 million (collectively). The NHTSA did another sleight-of-hand and projected the cost of standardizing drivers' licenses nationwide at only $72 million. NHTSA documents show the government made their projections based on the average cost to implement the program in 5 sparsely populated States. In reality, the cost to implement the program in California, Illinois, Michigan, New York and Texas alone would be almost double their estimate—well over $200 million.


In an Open Letter to Congress on July 15, 1998, Dean said, "...This plan pushes us to the brink of tyranny, where citizens will not be allowed to travel, open bank accounts, obtain health care, get a job or purchase firearms without first presenting the proper government papers. The authorizing section of the law and subsequent NHTSA proposal is reminiscent of the totalitarian dictates of the Politburo members of the former Soviet Union, not the Congress of the United States of America."


Congressman Barr said as much himself. "This is not some theoretical exercise. This is a very real, very serious problem with practical ramifications for every citizen in our country, ranging from everything from gun control to bank accounts to government [control] over travel to seeing a doctor or enrolling child in school. Once this program goes into effect, if we allow it to, then the government will be able to not only track everything that an American citizen does, but they will be able to stop citizens from doing certain things—if we don't do something very quick. We will be faced with a government that is all-powerful, and an executive branch that can override either of the two branches of government at will."

Impressed with Bob Barr's stance, Paul Weyrich and Dean scheduled a meeting with Barr at his office on Tuesday, July 28, 1998 to see how the Free Congress Foundation could help Barr kill the funding for the government's all-purpose internal passport. Barr's opening remark stunned them. "At the moment," he told them, "there isn't anything I can do about killing the funding to implement the national ID card." He added that he was backing off as a favor to Lamar SmithBarr said Smith did not view the national drivers' license as a threat, and wanted to give it a chance.


Within a day or two, something happened to change his mind. A few days later Barr and Dr. Paul introduced the legislation to defund the national drivers' license and suspend it in bureaucratic limbo, but unable to kill the measure outright. Once introduced, the bill was shelved by the Speaker. It was not going to even get on the floor for a debate. Soon every American would be carrying a drivers' license that would be their passport to cross a state line, transact business or rent a home. Barr hit the talk show circuit. People began asking questions about the new national drivers' license. On August 4, 1998, more to appease Barr than to accomplish anything, a hearing was held in the office of the Transportation Subcommittee. BarrDr. Paul, Smith and several Congressional staffers attended. Barr requested that the "comment period" on the legislation be reopened. That is, of course, like discussing the changes you would like to make in the script of a movie you just watched.


Barr requested that "interested parties" be allowed to consider the NHTSA's proposal and suggest changes, adding that "...I don't think Americans are interested in giving the federal government unprecedented power to track and identify them. Hopefully, these hearings will be the beginning of the end of efforts to create a national identification system." Barr quickly learned it wasn't going to be that easy. Barr and Ron Paul hit the talk show circuit. Smith—the shill for the leadership—and Gingrich and Gephart al denied knowing about the language that was creating an internal passport, doggedly pushed House Appropriations and Transportation Subcommittee chairman Frank Wolf [R-VA] to derail Barr's attempt to derail the national drivers' license.


On Tuesday, October 6, 1998 Gingrich agreed to eliminate Barr's provision from the Transportation Bill. After an overnight battle, Barr won a temporary victory—support from several other House members led by Majority Whip Tom Delay who met with Gingrich to demand why Smith and Gingrich were zealously pushing for something the American people vehemently opposed. Delay told Gingrich that, beginning the following morning, he would be on every talk show in America, and any chance that Gingrich had of being reelected would die. Fearful of voter backlash,Gingrich was forced to cave. Barr's measure to defund the national drivers' license was enacted.


So America, which product of an "at risk" mom do you want shoving you into a totalitarian bankster hell? The mulatto from Chicago, or the trailer trash from Georgia? Ain't this America? (As a former teen mom, I'm not down on their age, just the end products:)

Update: Linked by the Daily Paul.
 Feel free to check out my little boutique of liberty-minded research and info. 

16 comments:

  1. Wow. I'm glad you dig all this stuff up. Not that I'd have been fooled anyway, I hope. Still, there's a lot there that I would never have known if you didn't do all the heavy lifting for me. Thanks. :0)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I honestly had no idea this particular incident took place. Reading about the battle to fight the national driver's license tells me two things. First, Newt Gingrich can not be trusted, which I knew already. Second, the danger of these omnibus spending bills is not a new danger. Who knows what else is hidden in some of this legislation that no one knows about. It should give us all pause to stop and think about the direction of our country.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks Cindy, but you've shown me how to get traffic - just mention the Duggars! I enjoy digging this stuff up - it beats jigsaw puzzles, plus the kids don't eat the pieces in cyberspace.

    LD, it would seem I am also relearning the true history of the '90s as I was an avid Rush listener during that time, but don't remember hearing anything about this or reading it in the Limbaugh Letter, which I got for my 16th birthday. I feel pretty gypped and misled as I thought I was supporting the most pro-American people at the time, but was in actuality hoodwinked into supporting a form of liberalism. Hence, I don't listen to Rush anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have never liked Rush. I do listen to him, on occasion, but take everything he says with a bucket of salt.

    I have written before about the habit Congress has of writing these large pieces of legislation and including completely unrelated items in them. I understand that may be necessary at times, mainly for the sake of running out of time to pass everything, but things like you have outlined are completely inexcusable. That's how we get such monstrosities and no one is the wiser. An open and transparent government, we do not have.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mainly for the sake of running out of time to pass everything? The government if it were as it should be under the constitution there isn't much of anything they need to do as its not in their authority.

      You are right I suppose when it comes to what they think they have the right to enact now...there are pretty much endless things they want to do so they have no time.

      If they were limited like they are supposed to be they would be getting paid a ton to do virtually nothing. I would prefer overpaying them to do next to nothing than for dealing with the stupid overreaching laws they currently work on passing though.

      Delete
  5. Awesome. Pure awesome truth. shared.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I've been saying-"NO on Newt" even to those who honestly believe that voting for the lesser of two evils is better than 'allowing' a Dem to hold office------
    Thank you for this ....
    Carol-CS

    ReplyDelete
  7. As I recall, the National ID is moving forward. It was done by edict by one of the Czars, and was postponed a year or two so the States could comply.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sooner or later, eh, Bunker?
    Will have to check that out. It would seem that TN is on the fast track for all this statism, so I guess I better see what the Department of Safety has on its site. What do you want to bet they'll just put the chip in your license without telling you - better go check my wallet.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I found the post I had done--
    http://bunkerville.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/national-chip-id-card-for-american-citizens-id-act-effective-on-may-11-2011/

    ReplyDelete
  10. I found this site via an external link, very interesting. Could someone elaborate on exactly why a national driver's license is worse than the state-by-state system?

    One reason I ask is that since 2000, my job has had me relocate to (let me recall) Texas, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Oregon, Florida and now Arkansas. In each case I had to do the hassle of switching driver's licenses (Florida the biggest pain, by far). I assume a national license would eliminate that problem?

    In terms of the "feds could track everyone" or the like--they can do that ANYWAY. In fact, by having to get a new driver's license as you go state-to-state, that creates a bright NEW tracing trail every time you move, right?

    ReplyDelete
  11. To answer your question Vince,
    It's just not the role of the Federal Government to do this.
    All other rights are given to the states - the 9th amendment.
    Now the Elites use practicality and convenience to get us to accept what they want us to do. They use regs to gently shepherd us where they want us to go -not using incandescent light bulbs for example.

    I also think that the biometric angle that would/could be tied to the National ID is a big invasion of privacy.

    Does anyone else out there have anything to add?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I love blogs. Real journalism. Thanks for the write up, and for allowing me to comment without signing up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The actual writer of this piece is Jon Christian Rhyter. His stuff is pretty good and he writes at News with Views. I just try to get these nuggets out there. Glad you stopped by!

      I am doing a piece this week that is original to myself that you might be interested in - I'll try to link it up on the Daily Paul when I get done.

      Delete

Related Posts with Thumbnails