President Bush hasn't registered his Crawford ranch

An LA Times article this morning about NAIS. Click through here to read the full story.

Farmers fear a barnyard Big Brother

Email Picture

Nathan W. Armes / For The Times

CONTEST: Brandi Calderwood and her steer were disqualified at the Colorado State Fair because she had not registered in the ID program. “It’s just way too much Big Brother,” her mother said.

A federal database of animals to fight disease outbreaks is a threat to privacy and family operations, critics say.

By Nicole Gaouette, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 14, 2008

WASHINGTON -- After days of parading around her beefy black steer in the dung-scented August heat at the Colorado State Fair, Brandi Calderwood made the final competition. For months, the 16-year-old worked from dawn well past dusk, fitting in the work around school, to feed, train and clean her steer. But just before the last round, when the animals are sold, fair officials disqualified her.

They alleged that Brandi had not properly followed a new and controversial rule that required children to register their farms with a federal animal tracking system. After heated words, the Calderwoods were told to leave. A security guard trailed Brandi and her mother, even to the restroom.

"Emotionally she went through the wringer and didn't get the honor of showing in the sale. For a 16-year-old, that's a big deal," said Cathy Calderwood, Brandi's mother.

A Bush administration initiative, the National Animal Identification System is meant to provide a modern tool for tracking disease outbreaks within 48 hours, whether natural or the work of a bioterrorist. Most farm animals, even exotic ones such as llamas, will eventually be registered. Information will be kept on every farm, ranch or stable. And databases will record every animal movement from birth to slaughterhouse, including trips to the vet and county fairs.

But the system is spawning a grass-roots revolt.

Read the rest of it here. And be sure to drop a thank you email to the author.

USDA Approves Digital Angel's RFID Chip for Equine Use in National Animal Identification System

Over on Stock Insight they are thrilled with this news but all they care about is money. This is a crying shame and should scare every American. I know it scares me.

Revelation 13:16-17: And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

For more, and a biblical perspective, visit The Raputure Alert and read A Big Week for The Implantable Microchip.

Press Release

Source: Digital Angel Corporation

USDA Approves Digital Angel's RFID Chip for Equine Use in National Animal Identification System
Tuesday September 4, 8:30 am ET

Company's Microchip First of Its Kind to Be Approved for NAISPotential Market of More Than Five Million Horses Used in Competition

SOUTH ST. PAUL, Minn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Digital Angel Corporation (AMEX:DOC - News), an advanced technology company in the field of rapid and accurate identification, location tracking and condition monitoring of high-value assets, announced today that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved the Company's LifeChip® equine radio frequency identification (RFID) injectable transponder for use as part of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). The USDA made the announcement at the Ag ID Info Expo held last week in Kansas City, Mo.

"We are very proud our LifeChip microchip is the first of its kind to receive NAIS approval," said Rae Powell, vice president of sales and marketing for Destron Fearing(TM), Digital Angel's animal applications business. "We believe this is another important step forward for our Company as the U.S. moves closer to establishing a national animal identification system.

"Not only does our LifeChip fulfill all U.S. animal safety standards, it also complies on a global platform with the International Organization of Standardization (ISO). Furthermore, our LifeChip with Bio-Thermo® temperature-sensing technology differentiates our product from the competition."

The exclusive Bio-Thermo feature allows equine owners, breeders, trainers and veterinarians to quickly and safely check a horse's temperature at the site of administration. Each LifeChip microchip - about the size of a grain of rice - contains a passive transponder programmed with a unique 15-digit number that can be read by any ISO-compliant reader.

Once administered, microchip numbers can be recorded in breed and discipline registries or kept in farm and ranch files for future reference. They are invaluable in providing proof of ownership in the event that a horse is lost or stolen. They also can be used to identify horses involved in breeding operations, competitive sports, and international and domestic travel.

Paramount in gaining NAIS approval is the exclusive use of a patented, biocompatible material called BioBond® that eliminates potential migration and secures the microchip to the administration site. LifeChip microchips offer an unalterable means of identifying horses and ponies of all ages, breeds and sizes.

About Digital Angel Corporation

Digital Angel Corporation (www.DigitalAngelCorp.com) develops and deploys sensor and communications technologies that enable rapid and accurate identification, location tracking and condition monitoring of high-value assets. Applications for Digital Angel's products include identification and monitoring of humans, pets, fish, poultry and livestock through its patented implantable microchips; location tracking and message monitoring of vehicles and aircraft in remote locations through systems that integrate GPS and geosynchronous satellite communications; and monitoring of asset conditions such as temperature and movement through advanced miniature sensors.

North American Union from a Canadian perspective

I like the editorial comment at the end. "...and subject Canadians to a Christian far right..." Poor Canadians.

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/04/10/01486.html

Globalists envision another 9/11 crisis as great for creating climate for North American Union

Destruction of the popular sovereignty of Canadians, Americans, and Mexicans is "just a crisis away"

by Jerome R. Corsi, WND Columnist

Robert Pastor, a leading intellectual force in the move to create a North American Union, told WND he believes a new 9/11 crisis could be the catalyst to merge the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

Mr. Pastor, a professor at American University, says that in such a case the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP - launched in 2005 by the heads of the three countries at a summit in Waco, Texas - could be developed into a continental union, complete with a new currency, "the Amero", that would replace the U.S. dollar just as the euro has replaced the national currencies of Europe.

In May 2005, Pastor was co-chairman the Council on Foreign Relations task force that produced a report entitled "Toward a North American Community," which he has claimed is the blueprint behind the SSP declared by President Bush, Mexico's then-President Vicente Fox, and Canada's then-Prime Minister Paul Martin.

At American University in Washington, D.C., Pastor directs the Center for North American Studies where he teaches a course entitled "North America: A Union, A Community, or Just Three Nations?" As WND previously has reported, Pastor is on the board of the North American Forum on Integration, the NAFI, a non-profit organization that annually holds a mock trilateral parliament for 100 selected students drawn from 10 universities in the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

Mr. Pastor had published an interview in Spanish in the Oct. 24 issue of Poder y Negocios. He told the magazine crises can force decisions that otherwise would not be made.

"The 9/11 crisis made Canada and the United States redefine the protection of their borders," Pastor explained. "The debt crisis in Mexico forced the government to adapt a new economic model. Crises oblige governments to make difficult decisions."

This was the first time WND had found a major intellectual leader behind the push to integrate North America suggesting that a crisis of 9-11 proportions might be just what was needed to advance the process toward establishing a North American Union and the "Amero". Professor Pastor along with the U.S. Bush administration envisions that "the "Amero" will replace the Canadian Dollar (along with the current currencies of the United States. and Mexico). WND reached Pastor in his office at American University and conducted a telephone interview to make sure the Spanish publication accurately reflected his views.

He affirmed the Spanish interview represents his thinking.

"What I'm saying is that a crisis is an event which can force democratic governments to make difficult decisions like those that will be required to create a North American Community," he said. "It's not that I want another 9/11 crisis, but having a crisis would force decisions that otherwise might not get made."

Editorial note:

The North American Union (NAU) would destroy and replace Canada, and subject Canadians to a Christian far right, neo-fascistic, and anti-democratic political-military-industrial complex toward a sought Orwellian "New World Order".

NAIS "How To Handbook" Discovery

USDA Internal Handbook Advises Animal-Identification Staff to Address Farmers “at the Sixth Grade Level”

The USDA’s confidential “NAIS How-To Handbook,” intended for non-public distribution to Federal and State NAIS personnel, reveals an aggressive campaign to implement NAIS in the face of farmer opposition by strictly controlling communications, manipulating media coverage, concealing the original NAIS program documents, and discrediting opponents.

by

Mary Zanoni, Ph.D., J.D.
P.O. Box 501
Canton, NY 13617

315-386-3199

mlz@slic.com


March 29, 2007

A USDA “NAIS (National Animal Identification System) How-To Handbook,” most recently revised in February 2007, instructs all State and Federal NAIS staff aggressively to promote the supposedly “voluntary” premises ID program. The goal of the campaign and the How-To Handbook is to “increase . . . premises registration results” and to promote during 2007 not only “continued growth in premises registration,” but also the “adoption of animal ID and tracing.” (Handbook, p. 1; USDA’s NAIS Community Outreach bulletin, Feb. 2007, p. 1.)

The Handbook demands uniformity and strict adherence to four “key messages” that staff are to present to audiences of farmers when promoting NAIS. As described by the USDA, these “key messages” “are organized into topic categories and supported with concise sentences. They are designed for an audience reading at the sixth grade level.” (Handbook, p. 41.)

The Handbook originally was designed for a meeting in Kansas City in late October 2006, attended by a total of 132 “State ID Coordinators, Federal ID Coordinators, and members of various livestock industry associations.” (NAIS Community Outreach bulletin, Dec. 2006, p. 1.) The meeting was designed to train all NAIS personnel to adhere strictly to “a communications campaign currently being implemented at the National level.” (Handbook, p. 3.) After the original USDA mandatory NAIS plan, set forth in the Draft Strategic Plan and Draft Program Standards of April 2005, met with an unexpected level of strong opposition from farmers and animal owners, the USDA hired a public-relations firm to analyze the opposition and repackage NAIS with a more congenial-sounding message. (Presentation by Dore Mobley, USDA/APHIS information officer, at the National Institute for Animal Agriculture’s “ID Expo,” August 2006.)

The apparent upshot of the professional public-relations advice was USDA’s completely new marketing campaign for NAIS, implemented in the fall of 2006. Crucial components of the marketing campaign included the Oct. 2006 Kansas City meeting, the Handbook and related promotional materials, and the release of the “NAIS User Guide” in November 2006.

When the USDA launched its new public-relations campaign for NAIS in the fall of 2006, the agency at the same time removed from its website the original NAIS documents, i.e., the Draft Strategic Plan and Draft Program Standards of April 2005. The common criticism of NAIS as “Orwellian” relies in significant part upon the USDA’s expungement of the Draft Strategic Plan and Draft Program Standards from the USDA site. The November 2006 “User Guide” stated that it superseded all previous program documents for NAIS. (User Guide, front cover.)

The “new” NAIS approach: emphasize “voluntary,” but aggressively pursue the maximum number of premises IDs and prepare for individual animal ID and animal tracking. The declared purpose of the Handbook is to “increase . . . premises registration results” (p. 1). Its primary goal is to “contribute significantly toward NAIS premises registration totals,” and reach “NAIS premises registration goals” (p. 4). Animal ID staff are told to emphasize “which messages hit home,” that is, which messages increase premises registration (p. 6). Staff are told to avoid wasting effort on strongly anti-NAIS audiences and instead direct effort toward “On The Fence” or “Pro-NAIS” “targets,” to maximize the number of premises signed up (pp. 7-8). Staff are advised not to “invest[ ] time” in “Anti-NAIS producers” and instead “locate and motivate more favorable individuals” (p. 9). While staff are to tell farmers that participation in premises ID will not compel them to participate in either individual animal ID or animal tracking (Handbook, p. 42), at the same time, staff are to pursue the second and third components of NAIS, “adoption of animal ID and tracing,” during 2007. (NAIS Outreach bulletin, Feb. 2007, p. 1).

USDA promulgates a unified, monolithic message to be used by all NAIS staff. The main purpose of the Kansas City meeting, the Handbook, and the USDA-promulgated advertising and outreach materials has been to focus the NAIS State and Federal staff on a consistent strategy and to prevent staff departures from the USDA-mandated NAIS “message.” As the USDA tells Federal and State NAIS staff, “The Handbook is designed to complement a communications campaign currently being implemented at the National level” (p. 3). The goal is to “change the perceptions of individuals who may be misinformed or confused about the details of the NAIS program.” Staff must use “uniform messages” (p. 4) and carefully follow the instructions on the “APHIS-led communication and information network” (p. 5). Federal and State NAIS staff must conform to “the key messages USDA will use at the national level” (p. 12). “USDA spokespersons are using the messages provided in the Appendix [of the Handbook] to provide consistent information at the national and local level. These messages will be used in speeches, print materials, media interviews and elsewhere” (p. 14). With apparent unconscious irony, at the very time the USDA is enforcing staff adherence to the precise assigned “messages,” the agency simultaneously acknowledges that a common objection voiced by farmers to NAIS is that the program “sounds like Big Brother government” (p. 7). Should it appear that all government presentations on NAIS are beginning to sound alike -- well, they are all alike, precisely alike, and it’s by careful design.

USDA instructs Federal and State staff on how to manipulate media coverage of NAIS. The USDA makes clear to NAIS staff that spontaneous responses to the media are not acceptable. As to Federal NAIS employees, we are told, “Federal staff are not authorized to handle media interviews.” Federal staff must refer all media matters to the USDA Legislative and Public Affairs Office (p. 16). Staff are encouraged, however, to use such controlled channels as op-ed pieces, letters to the editor to correct “misinformation,” and canned interviews with experts; the USDA urges staff to rely on the “complete message control” available by communicating through a NAIS website (p. 17). The properly authorized expert communications staff are encouraged to pitch canned pro-NAIS stories to the media, to attempt to influence media editorial content through attending editorial board meetings, and to compose “opinion pieces” “to explain the value of premises registration” (p. 19).

USDA reveals results of its NAIS “Opposition Analysis” and creates standardized responses to the NAIS opposition. The NAIS How-To Handbook’s treatment of the “NAIS Opposition” carefully portrays this opposition as nameless and faceless, and avoids specifying the exact points upon which the opposition arguments are based. The USDA implies that the opposition consists of insignificant “groups and individuals” who are just somehow “mistaken”: “The opposition’s information is largely based on misinformation and misunderstanding, but their zeal and emotion appeal is real” (p. 22).

Although the USDA studiously avoids naming its NAIS opponents, in fact they include: a growing list of groups such as the Northeast Organic Farming Association, R-CALF, the Sierra Club, Food and Water Watch, the National Family Farm Coalition, Family Farm Defenders, Community Farm Alliance of Kentucky, Rural Vermont, Cattle Producers of Washington, South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, Virginia Independent Consumers and Farmers Association. Some of these groups have sponsored the introduction of antiNAIS legislation in at least 9 states in the 2007 legislative session. Similarly, the unspecified “individuals” opposed to the USDA’s implementation of NAIS in fact include medical doctors, information-technology professionals, financial planners, entrepreneurs, lawyers, public-interest lobbyists, and former government employees.

The USDA’s Handbook repeatedly refers to NAIS opponents' “misinformation,” but fails to specify any statement of the opponents that is other than completely accurate. The USDA’s most detailed list of “opposition” statements, on pp. 23-24 of the Handbook, dates from January through August 2006 and does not identify any specific individuals as sources for the statements. The websites from which the statements are taken permit comments and postings by visitors, and the USDA’s quotations are not attributed to random visitors, more formal opposition statements, or any other particular source. One statement, the last under “Theme 3: Civil Liberties” (p. 23), obviously refers to the Real ID Act (a common ancillary topic of discussion on many NAIS opposition sites), and not to NAIS at all. Indeed, nearly all the statements the USDA quotes under “Opposition Themes” (pp. 23-24) are in fact quite accurate for their time frame of Jan. - Aug. 2006. During those months, the operative NAIS documents were the Draft Strategic Plan and Draft Program Standards, which did indeed impose a fully mandatory NAIS by 2008/2009 and did indeed require the participation of all common livestock species, the microchip or RFID individual identification of nearly all animals except factory-farm chickens and pigs, and the reporting of all animal “movements” and changes of status (birth, death, sale, purchase, slaughter, and all travel off-premises) within 24 hours. Only in subsequent documents did the USDA begin to waver as to some of the original requirements of the Draft Strategic Plan. And not until the USDA’s release of the User Guide in November 2006 did the USDA’s stated policy become “voluntary” rather than “mandatory” NAIS.

Even the USDA’s most comprehensive public-relations campaign can’t sell a bad NAIS system to justly skeptical farmers. The USDA’s Handbook, like its User Guide and its present NAIS approach generally, repeatedly speaks of needing to “correct” or adjust farmers’ attitudes or beliefs about NAIS. Why doesn’t the USDA actually examine the possible flaws in the design, the reasoning of, and the justification for NAIS, and abandon this unwanted and unwarranted intrusion of bureaucracy and technocracy into the lives of farmers and animal owners? Why is the USDA, as is so obvious throughout the Handbook, concerned only with appearance or “perception,” and not with reality?

For all that the USDA may think that farmers function “at the sixth grade level” (Handbook, p. 41), farmers seem to be just too smart to be lured by even the USDA’s most prettily baited NAIS hook. In January 2007, the USDA conducted NAIS “focus groups” in Sacramento, California, Springfield, Missouri, and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. (NAIS Community Outreach bulletin, March 2007, p. 1.) The participants in the “focus groups” were all livestock producers. The purpose of the “focus groups” was to gauge farmers’ responses to elements of the unified USDA NAIS public-relations campaign, particularly, the new NAIS promotional brochures and the USDA-imposed “key messages” for promoting NAIS. These farmers thus received only the USDA pro-NAIS messages and no “opposition” information. By the USDA’s own admission, these farmers, even after intensive exposure to the USDA’s well orchestrated campaign, would not accept premises registration. The USDA’s “key findings” about the attitudes of the focus-group farmers after they had received the USDA’s (and only the USDA’s) side of the NAIS story are:

“Respondents view NAIS as unwanted government intervention.”
“Current NAIS messaging and brochures will not necessarily motivate producers to register premises.”

So, after several years and multiple millions of dollars’ worth of pro-NAIS propaganda, farmers still want no part of NAIS. Perhaps the USDA should begin to entertain the notion that farmers might not be so “misinformed” after all. Maybe farmers are simply justifiably mistrustful of a government agency that insists on treating the very people it is supposed to serve like children.

NAIS Shenanigans in Washington State

Subject: Monday They Want to Take Away your Consitutional Rights in WA

Calling Constitutionalists, freedom lovers, property owners, all shepherds and animal owners, NoNAIS’ers!!!!!

Here is the deal. We the people have submitted proposed legislation in both the House and Senate OPPOSING the NAIS. In testimony last week we outnumbered the pro-NAIS group 2 to 1. In House hearing on HB 1310 2/3 of the Agriculture Committee asked;
(1) What provisions were to be made for the small farmer, and
(2) They expressed that they did not want to turn ordinary citizens into criminals.

We have the pro-NAIS legislators and corresponding agencies so SCARED that they must resort to suspending our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Summary:

Another NoNAIS testifier and I had an interesting listening session last Wednesday night. We were forwarded by the Senate Ag Chair to Bob Lee. Mr. Lee was on the phone talking with someone about ‘when these NoNAIS people were going to go away’. We waited patiently for him to get off the phone and then politely introduced ourselves. Mr. Lee talked in circles for 2.5 hours. He is the man who drafted the proposed legislation that will take away your RIGHTS. Wake up and get involved. This is it. You don’t get involved we will be like any country without representation. What will we tell our children and grandchildren? How do we answer to those who have sacrificed their lives in war to fight for our freedom? How do we answer to the G-d?

Why is this proposed legislation DANGEROUS?

The Constitution in Washington is about to be suspended. The proposed legislation does not say:

a.. What the emergency is?
b.. Why WSDA has failed to inform the public on this supposed emergency.
c.. WSDA has failed to provide WSDA with scientific-evidence of an emergency to the public.
d.. How long is this emergency for?
e.. If there is an ‘emergency’ why is not take effect until June 30, 2007?
f.. What is the legislature stonewalling our bills prohibiting NAIS and pro-NAIS bills are steam-rolled through?
g.. If this is such a big emergency why was it deceptively cloaked in an innocuous piece of legislation?

This is important as it will crop up elsewhere. On Monday proposal to suspend the Right of Referendum and Constitution from the people will be introduced in Washington. This language was tucked innocuously into a bill to extend the Cattle Advisory Board (on implementing NAIS).

What does this proposed legislation say?

Here is the verbiage of SB 5811:

AN ACT Relating to animal identification programs; amending 2006 c 2 150 s 1 (uncodified); providing an effective date; providing an 3 expiration date; and declaring an emergency.

4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

[…]

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. This act is necessary for the immediate 17 preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the 18 state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect 19 June 30, 2007.

With is Act your Rights are eliminated. Do you understand that? This state and possibly the others may have inserted this clause in ANY of its legislation.

We need to fight and fight, hard and NOW. Otherwise jump ship because the country you and I know is gone.

Who are the Traitors to our Constitution who support this legislation?

Senators Rasmussen, Schoesler, Shin, Morton, Hatfield, Kastama, Sheldon, Swecker, Hargrove, Jacobsen and Mr. Bob Lee.

The Legal Precedent:

2005 POLICY HIGHLIGHTER from The Evergreen Foundation

Right of referendum null and void?
Constitutional amendment needed to restore people’s rights
By Jason Mercier
In a 6-3 decision, the state’s Supreme Court upheld the legislature’s use of an emergency clause on SSB 6078 (amending Initiative 601). With this ruling, the people’s right of referendum is now severely compromised if not effectively eliminated.
In a strongly written dissent to the Court’s ruling, Justice Richard Sanders wrote:
The majority betrays the sacred trust the people of this state place in this court to preserve inviolate their constitutional right to veto unwanted legislation through referendum. A legislature determined to inoculate itself from referendum, a secretary of state determined to violate his statutory and constitutional duty to allow a referendum petition to at least circulate, combined with a supreme court openly hostile to the people's check on the legislature, brews a potent poison to the people's constitutional role in the legislative process.
Justice Sanders went on to say:
Where the legislature uses an emergency clause simply to avoid a referendum rather than respond in good faith to a true 'emergency' as defined by Washington Constitution article II, section 1(b); where the secretary of state declines to discharge a clear ministerial duty; and where the court essentially delegates its independent role as a constitutional guardian to the legislative branch of government in its power struggle against the popular branch of government; I find little left of the people's right of referendum.
Justice Tom Chambers also dissented, stating:
But I have come to conclude that this court has moved from an appropriate level of deference to the judgments of a coordinate branch of government, to a near total abdication of its constitutional responsibility to review legislative action. The referendum is a sword the people gave themselves to slay unwanted legislation. The people also gave the legislature a shield to protect certain legislation under certain circumstances from the referendum sword. It is ultimately and uniquely the judiciary's role to assure that both the sword and the shield are used only as constitutionally permitted.
Justice Jim Johnson also dissented, stating:
Even in this court, any doubt about the referenda power must be resolved in favor of the people.. When, therefore, the question comes whether the legislature has a right to declare an emergency which will take away the right of referendum, the doubt, if there be any, should be resolved in favor of the reserved power of the people instead of in the admittedly unwarranted declaration of the legislature.
Article 1, Section 1 of the Washington Constitution states, “All political power is inherent in the people” and Article 2, Section 1 grants the people the power of initiative and referendum. Denial of this constitutional right must be severely limited.
The lone loophole to people’s right of referendum is what is referred to as an emergency clause (See EFF PH 15-13). The emergency clause is supposed to be reserved for acts that are “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions.” The legislature used an emergency clause 98 times this past session. Now that the Court has left it up to the legislature to determine what constitutes an emergency regardless of the actual merits of such a declaration, the people should demand the Constitution be amended to restore the sovereignty of the people as reflected in the principle of being a co-equal branch of government.
To ensure the rights established by the Constitution are enforced and adhered to by Washington’s elected officials, Article 2, Section 1 could be amended by:
a.. Requiring a two-thirds vote of the legislature to enact an emergency clause;
b.. Requiring a two-thirds vote of the legislature, beyond the current two-year window, to amend an initiative; and
c.. Permitting the legislature to amend an initiative with a simple majority vote (not withstanding the two-thirds requirement above) if such changes are then referred back to the people for ratification.
A constitutional amendment reflecting these elements would ensure that if the legislature invokes the emergency clause, it would have to be declared by a supermajority vote. If a true emergency exists, both political parties will be able to recognize it. The people’s right of referendum should only be suspended in those instances of a real emergency, not for political expediency.
The legislature should also face a high threshold to alter initiatives passed by the people. By requiring a supermajority vote beyond the current two year window or allowing a simple majority vote with ratification by the people, the legislature will not be able to ignore the people’s laws.
It may sound like a catch-22 to ask the very legislature that is abusing the people’s right of referendum to pass a constitutional amendment restoring this right, but if the people rise up and demand such action, a legislator will either honor the will of the people or be forced to explain why the sovereigns of the state are not entitled to the political power reserved to them by the Constitution.
Should the legislature fail to initiate these constitutional reforms, however, the people could run an initiative that requires a two-thirds vote of the legislature to enact an emergency clause.
Fight and write now, YOUR FREEDOM IS ON THE LINE.
Please either write all the Senators on the Agricultural Committee and demand that this be stricken down and say why. This time don’t ask the questions about but make STATEMENTS of FACT (you may use the questions above as a guide)
Senators Rasmussen, Schoesler, Shin, Morton, Hatfield, Kastama, Sheldon, Swecker, Hargrove, Jacobsen
WA Agricultural Committee:
Marilyn Rasmussen - Chair (D)
Brian Hatfield - Vice Chair (D)
Mark Schoesler - Ranking Minority Member (R)
Ken Jacobsen (D)
Bob Morton (R)
Paull Shin (D)
Here is what to do:
a.. Write, call between 8-9 AM Monday morning, e-mail, send hard copy letters but e-mail also.
b.. Put your contact information (who you are and contact info in case they have questions)
c.. Write under your contact information: FOR THE RECORD
d.. Say that you are submitting a “Memorandum of OPPOSITION to SB 5811’
e.. Write you concerns address the proposed bill and language. Provable facts are best (see questions above)
f.. Ask that your testimony be read and give a reason why you can’t be in attendance if can’t be.
g.. A conclusion
h.. Your personal position
i.. What you would like to Ag Committee to do (strike it down, kill it, whatever)
j.. PLEASE COME TESTIFY IN PERSON IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. IT MADE THE DIFFERENCE LAST WEEK, IT CAN THIS WEEK. REMEMBER 2-1 ON OUR FAVOR.
k.. Out of state input wanted: Put Our state is watching to see that you uphold the Constitution.
I know this sounds like allot of work but it really isn’t. I have attempted to lay out for you how to do it thanks to Bruno and Charlene and a man name Kim.
Go forth and blessings,

Real ID is NAIS for every person - You will be tracked

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/10934036/detail.html?rss=bos&psp=news

States Prepare To Fight National Driver's License
Maine Legislature Passes Resolution Objecting To Real ID Act

POSTED: 12:35 pm EST February 5, 2007

WASHINGTON -- A revolt against a national driver's license, begun in Maine last month, is quickly spreading to other states.

The Maine Legislature on Jan. 26 overwhelmingly passed a resolution objecting to the Real ID Act of 2005. The federal law sets a national standard for driver's licenses and requires states to link their record-keeping systems to national databases.

Within a week of Maine's action, lawmakers in Georgia, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, Vermont and Washington state also balked at Real ID. They are expected soon to pass laws or adopt resolutions declining to participate in the federal identification network.

"It's the whole privacy thing," said Matt Sundeen, a transportation analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures. "A lot of legislators are concerned about privacy issues and the cost. It's an estimated $11 billion implementation cost."

The law's supporters say it is needed to prevent terrorists and illegal immigrants from getting fake identification cards.

States will have to comply by May 2008. If they do not, driver's licenses that fall short of Real ID's standards cannot be used to board an airplane or enter a federal building or open some bank accounts.

About a dozen states have active legislation against Real ID, including Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming.

Missouri state Rep. James Guest, a Republican, formed a coalition of lawmakers from 34 states to file bills that oppose or protest Real ID.

"This is almost a frontal assault on the freedoms of America when they require us to carry a national ID to monitor where we are," Guest said in an interview Saturday. "That's going too far."

Guest a resolution last week opposing Real ID and said he expects it quickly to pass the Legislature. "This does nothing to stop terrorism," he said. "Don't burden the American people with this requirement to carry this ID."

Though most states oppose the law, some such as Indiana and Maryland are looking to comply with Real ID, Sundeen said.

The issue may be moot for states if Congress takes action.

Republican Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire, along with Democratic Sen. Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, filed a bill last year to repeal the law. Sununu expects similar legislation will be introduced soon.

"The federal government should not be in charge of defining and issuing drivers' licenses," Sununu said in a statement.

Privacy advocates say a national driver's license will promote identity theft.

Barry Steinhardt, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, said the Real ID ordered by Congress would require a digital photo and probably a fingerprint on each driver's license or state-issued ID card. That, he said, will make it more valuable to identity thieves because the ID card will be accepted as much more than a driving credential.

"It's going to be a honey pot out there that's going to be irresistible to identity thieves," Steinhardt said.

An identity thief, he said, could buy a Real ID from a rogue motor vehicle department employee with is own photo and fingerprint on it.

"The victim is never going to be able to undo this," Steinhardt said.

Other criticisms include:

-Some states will have to invest millions in new computer systems that can communicate with federal databases. That is something they probably will not accomplish by the deadline.

-It will be difficult to comply with the requirement that license applicants prove they are in the country legally. There are more than 100 different immigration statutes, Steinhardt said, which will pose problems for motor vehicle clerks unfamiliar with immigration law.

-It does not solve the problem of terrorism. Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and some of the hijackers from the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, had legitimate driver's licenses.

-Even the requirement that applicants' full legal names appear on licenses will pose problems because some states limit the number of characters on the face of the card.

Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.