Memorial Day 2013

he·ro – [heer-oh] (n) plural he·roes; A person who risks their life limb or career for a cause greater than themselves.

One does not have to die in order to be a hero. It’s a statistical risk, not a certainty, that you will die, if you charge that machine gun or dash into danger to save others. But you make a conscious decision to do it (one you might not make if you had more time to think about it. Doesn’t matter, you’re still a hero.)

One does not become a hero just because they put on a uniform. While a certain risk is involved in all military service, it’s minimal and those who enlist don’t do it for the chance to risk their lives for others – they do it for the money, for the job security, for a career, for skills they can learn, for future benefits, etc. Nothing wrong with any of that, but it doesn’t make them a hero any more than if they go to work for Jack-in-the-Box.

Nor does it make you a hero to just be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just because you are walking across the street and a couple of raghead jihadists run you down and decapitate you, that does not make you a hero. It makes you a victim of terrorists (who should be shot, after a speedy trial of about 15 minutes, with bullets smeared with pig fat).

Being killed in war does not make you a hero. It makes you a casualty. Not to take away from the pathos, but when we label every casualty a hero, or worse, when we label every man and woman in uniform a hero, we cause the word to lose its meaning.

Memorial Day is to remember those who have served in uniform, and particularly those who paid with their lives. But what say we just drop the false hero-worship?

Of more concern to all of us should be the walking wounded (and some of them are not walking, obviously). More people are wounded, for life, than are killed. They suffer for the rest of their lives, physically, and we should respect that. We should give them job preferences. We should appreciate that they will pay every remaining day of their lives for a job which delivered far fewer benefits than were promised when they signed up.

And of even more concern to all of us should be those who are emotionally and psychologically wounded. Few of them will ever completely recover.

We still have plenty of Korean War veterans with us who went through a frozen hell, in an unconstitutional war, not to defend our freedoms, but to promote the role of the United Nations and the New World Order.

We have even more Vietnam War veterans with us, who went through a sweltering hell, in an unconstitutional war, not to defend our freedoms, but to promote the role of the United Nations and the New World Order.

We now have a huge population of Gulf War veterans, Iraqi War veterans, and Afghani War veterans, who went through a parched hell, not to defend our freedoms, but to promote the role of the United Nations and the New World Order

Neither the physically damaged, nor the mentally damaged, are really heroes, because they didn’t ask for this. But they definitely are victims, most of them living daily in misery and pain as part of their reward for enlisting in the military.

Not only is war “hell”, it is a racket, as Marine Corps General Smedley so aptly called it.

How strange it is that so many Americans will wave the flag and worship at the feet of Mars, the God of War, stirring the blood of our young men (and now women) to “go to glory” with the hoopla of military music and parades and flags waving and preachers exhorting their parishioners to go off and kill the enemy.

And yet, how many of those same “patriotic Americans” will give no thought to the illegal and unconstitutional nature of the war of the decade? How can we care less for the Constitution than for the nation? Apparently it’s not very difficult to do.

And therein lies the problem. Even though every soldier, and every politician, takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, it’s promptly forgotten, much like we treat marriage vows these days. Oaths have become a legal nicety, while we continue to pursue what we want. This nullifies both the marriage vow and the Oath of Allegiance.

It’s bad enough to send young men and women into battle in defense of their nation. But to send them into no-win wars is treasonous.

And to send Americans to fight, bleed and die in order impose a globalist agenda on nations and on people who did not attack us in the first place, is also treasonous. Has our policy become Orwell’s “perpetual war for perpetual peace”?

Those who would vote to expand war as policy in order to get re-elected, are traitors. This will not change until we start electing statesmen who are committed to enforcing the enumerated powers of the Constitution, and defunding every unconstitutional agency and program on the books. It is not the Veteran’s duty alone, it is the duty of the Voter to defend our freedoms (and try to get them back).

If the Constitution no longer matters,

then America no longer matters.

Obama’s Scandals Rival His Predecessors

One would be hard-pressed to select the most corrupt Presidential administration in US history. Over time, both Democrat and Republican administrations have a track record littered with all kinds of corruption, scandal, malfeasance, dishonesty, and unconstitutional conduct. Out of all of them, only two Presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, both Democrats. Neither of them were convicted of the charges and removed from office. A third President, Republican Richard Nixon, would almost certainly have been impeached had he not resigned first.

Andrew Johnson’s impeachment was doubtless the most politically-motivated impeachment of a President in US history. He was impeached by radical Republicans who were angry at Johnson’s mild and temperate approach to reconstruction after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and surrender of Southern forces. Specifically, Johnson was impeached for violating the Tenure of Office Act in 1867, which forbade the President from dismissing office holders without the Senate’s approval. The Act was ruled unconstitutional in 1926.

Bill Clinton’s impeachment was based on four charges: grand jury perjury, civil suit perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. There seems little doubt that Clinton was guilty of the charges, but a timid GOP Senate leadership had no stomach to be the first Congress in US history to convict and remove a sitting President from office.

Charges that would have been brought against Richard Nixon had he not resigned, included illegal wiretapping, misuse of the CIA, perjury, bribery, and obstruction of justice.

However, the truth of the matter is if every President who deserved to be impeached and removed from office had been indeed impeached and removed from office, it would have included a good number of them. In my humble opinion, that list would have included Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, and G.W. Bush–and now Barack Obama.

Never mind the fact that had the media and congressional leaders objectively and thoroughly examined Obama’s birth certificate, it would have been easily proven that the documents were forged and that he was totally unqualified to be President of the United States. But setting that aside, the scandals of this White House certainly rise to the level of the US Constitution’s grounds for impeachment, which is “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Here is a list of the Obama White House scandals which is publicly known:

*The “Fast and Furious” gun-running operation, whereby federal government agencies deliberately and willfully supplied untold numbers of firearms to known Mexican drug-traffickers, which led to the death of at least one Border Patrol agent.

*Using the IRS as a political weapon against conservative groups.

Now, if one thinks that Obama invented this diabolical tool, one is sadly mistaken. Ron Paul recently noted that the IRS has been used as a strong-armed bully to harass and intimate political opponents under several Presidential administrations, including the Kennedy, Nixon, Clinton, and G.W. Bush administrations.

The Washington Times quotes Dr. Paul as saying, “‘The bipartisan tradition of using the IRS as a tool to harass political opponents suggests that the problem is deeper than just a few “rogue” IRS agents–or even corruption within one, two, three or many administrations,’ Dr. Paul writes in his weekly column, Texas Straight Talk. ‘Instead, the problem [lies] in the extraordinary power the tax system grants the IRS.’

“The libertarian and tea party hero goes on to argue that the power of the IRS can only be countered with a complete overhaul to the country’s tax system.”

See the Washington Times report here:

Ron Paul: Fix IRS By Shutting It ‘Once And For All’

Amen, Dr. Paul!

Barack Obama is only the latest President who is known to have used the power of the IRS as an abusive force against political opponents.

*The stand-down of military troops and cover-up of the attacks by Muslim extremists against the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

The Obama administration doesn’t want the American public to know that the US was using the Benghazi annex to store and supply weapons to Syrian jihadists and that it was competing Muslim extremists who stole the arms stored there. And, of course, there is the burning question as to why American forces were ordered to stand-down and not interfere with the attack which led to the deaths of the US Ambassador and three other Americans that has not been answered.

Obviously, many US Presidents have used duplicity, deceit, and chicanery to hide the truth of US foreign entanglements from the American people in order to accomplish a personal or political agenda. Johnson did it in Vietnam; George H.W. Bush did it in Kuwait; and G.W. Bush did it in Iraq. Now Barack Obama is following suit in Libya, Syria, and elsewhere.

*Associated Press telephone records seized without a warrant.

Suddenly now, the media is alarmed to discover that their darling Barack Obama has actually turned the monster of oppressive government against THEM. Egad! As long as the federal government is only illegally spying on average-Joe American, the media is nonchalant and unconcerned. However, now that it has been discovered that the federal government is spying on the members of the media, they are enraged–well, somewhat enraged.

Hey folks! When it comes to the all-time champion of using the power of the federal government to spy on Americans, G.W. Bush, not Barack Obama, takes the blue ribbon. Everything that Obama is now using to spy on reporters and average citizens was taken from the blueprint designed by G.W. Bush. It was Bush who championed the Patriot Act; it was Bush who championed the Military Commissions Act; it was Bush who championed the Department of Homeland Security; and it was Bush (and now Obama) who championed the NDAA.

But now that the federal government has specifically targeted members of the media in its illegal spying activities, media talking-heads are aghast. Even Mr. Big Government, himself, Piers Morgan, is publicly re-thinking his rabid gun-control agenda. Morgan recently said this:

“Though I was appalled by the media’s relentless and shameless push last month to pass the Toomey-Manchin bill that would have tightened background checks, I did support its passage, and said so many times while criticizing the media for their disgusting behavior. But this chilling reminder of how corrupt the federal government is has changed my mind completely.”

See the report here:

Joe Scarborough, Piers Morgan: Obama Scandals Prove Gun Advocates Aren’t Crazy

Now all of a sudden, anti-gun Piers Morgan says that gun-rights advocates who refuse to surrender their firearms because they distrust the federal government are NOT crazy after all. Amazing!

*Sexual assaults in the military.

This scandal received public notoriety when two military officers were discovered sexually abusing female subordinates after having been put in positions of authority assigned with the duty of PREVENTING those very crimes. Of course, Barack Obama feigned total shock and disgust at the revelation.

Noted researcher and investigative analyst, Joel Skousen, covered this story in his last World Affairs Brief. Skousen quotes Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) as saying, “We have arguably 26,000 [sexual] assaults a year, but only about 3,000 are even reported, and only a handful go to trial and result in conviction.”

Of course, the problem of sexual assault in the military is not a new one. It has gradually been getting worse as Presidential administrations (from both major parties) insisted on putting women in close-quarters with men on ships, as well as in ground units. But Barack Obama has exacerbated the problem even further by putting women in combat units.

To subscribe to Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief, go here:

World Affairs Brief

Yes, folks, Obama’s campaign for change has turned out to be nothing more than business as usual. If the Obama Presidency is not the most corrupt in American history, it is surely one of the most corrupt.

Perhaps, the most honest man in recent memory to run as a major party candidate for President of the United States was Republican Congressman Ron Paul; but I guess honesty is not a qualification which most people desire anymore. So, we are left with the likes of G.W. Bush and Barack Obama. One would think that sooner or later the American people would tire of all of these scandalous shysters and want to elect an honest man. One would think.

(c) Chuck Baldwin

We Are the Idiots

Dr. Henry Miller, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and Gregory Conko, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in their Forbes article “Rachel Carson’s Deadly Fantasies” (9/5/2012), wrote that her 1962 book, “Silent Spring,” led to a world ban on DDT use. The DDT ban was responsible for the loss of “tens of millions of human lives — mostly children in poor, tropical countries — have been traded for the possibility of slightly improved fertility in raptors (birds). This remains one of the monumental human tragedies of the last century.” DDT presents no harm to humans and, when used properly, poses no environmental threat. In 1970, a committee of the National Academy of Sciences wrote: “To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. … In a little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable.” Prior to the DDT ban, malaria was on the verge of extinction in some countries.

The World Health Organization estimates that malaria infects at least 200 million people, of which more than a half-million die, each year. Most malaria victims are African children. People who support the DDT ban are complicit in the deaths of tens of millions of Africans and Southeast Asians. Philanthropist Bill Gates is raising money for millions of mosquito nets, but to keep his environmentalist credentials, the last thing that he’d advocate is DDT use. Remarkably, black congressmen share his vision.

Wackoism didn’t end with Carson’s death. Dr. Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist, in his 1968 best-selling book, “The Population Bomb,” predicted major food shortages in the United States and that “in the 1970s … hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” Ehrlich saw England in more desperate straits, saying, “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” On the first Earth Day, in 1970, Ehrlich warned: “In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.

Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” Ehrlich continues to be a media and academic favorite.

Then there are governmental wacko teachings. In 1914, the U.S. Bureau of Mines predicted our oil reserves would last 10 years. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior revised the estimate, saying that American oil would last 13 years. In 1972, the Club of Rome’s report “Limits to Growth” said total world oil reserves totaled 550 billion barrels. With that report in hand, then-President Jimmy Carter said, “We could use up all proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.” He added, “The oil and natural gas we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are running out.” As for Carter’s running-out-of-oil prediction, a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office and private industry experts estimate that if even half of the oil bound up in the Green River formation in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado is recovered, it would be “equal to the entire world’s proven oil reserves.” That’s an estimated 3 trillion barrels, more than what OPEC has in reserve. Fret not. Carter, like Ehrlich, is still brought before the media for his opinion.

Our continued acceptance of environmentalist manipulation, lies and fear-mongering has led Congress to establish deadly public policies in the name of saving energy — such as Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, which downsize autos and cause unnecessary highway fatalities. That’s on top of the stupid 1970s 55 mph laws. The next time an environmentalist warns us of a pending disaster or that we are running out of something, we ought to ask: When was the last time a prediction of yours was right? Some people are inclined to call these people idiots. That’s wrong. They have been successful in their agenda. It’s we who are the idiots for listening to them and allowing Congress to let them have their way.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

Undoing the Brainwashing

This time of year, as college students return home for the summer, many parents may notice how many politically correct ideas they have acquired on campus. Some of those parents may wonder how they can undo some of the brainwashing that has become so common in what are supposed to be institutions of higher learning.


The strategy used by General Douglas MacArthur so successfully in the Pacific during World War II can be useful in this very different kind of battle. General MacArthur won his victories while minimizing his casualties — something that is also desirable in clashes of ideas within the family.


Instead of fighting the Japanese for every island stronghold as the Americans advanced toward Japan, MacArthur sent his troops into battle for only those islands that were strategically crucial. In the same spirit, parents who want to bring their brainwashed offspring back to reality need not try to combat every crazy idea they picked up from their politically correct professors. Just demolishing a few crucial beliefs, and exposing what nonsense they are, can deal a blow to the general credibility of the professorial pied pipers.


For example, if the student has been led to join the crusade for more gun control, and thinks that the reason the British have lower murder rates than Americans have is because the Brits have tighter gun control laws, just give him or her a copy of the book “Guns and Violence” by Joyce Lee Malcolm.


As the facts in that book demolish the gun control propaganda fed to students by their professors, that can create a healthy skepticism about other professorial propaganda.


There are other books that can likewise demolish other politically correct beliefs that prevail on campuses. My own recent book, “Intellectuals and Race,” has innumerable documented facts that expose the fallacies in most of what is said about racial issues in most college classrooms.


For those students who have bought the campus party line on Third World nations, the classic study of that subject is “Equality, the Third World, and Economic Delusion” by the late P.T.

Bauer of the London School of Economics. He made a veritable demolition derby of most of what has been said in politically correct circles about the relationship between rich and poor countries.

For those students who have been conditioned to regard the welfare state as the solution to social problems, there is no book that exposes the actual human consequences of the welfare state more poignantly than “Life at the Bottom” by British physician Theodore Dalrymple. He has worked in both low-income neighborhoods and in prisons, so he has seen it all.


Although Britain is the setting for “Life at the Bottom,” Americans will recognize very similar patterns here. Problems found in low-income black ghettoes in the United States are found in low-income white neighborhoods in Britain, where none of the usual excuses about racism, slavery, etc., apply. The only thing that is the same in both countries is the welfare state and its poisonous ideology.


If your student has been led to believe that “comprehensive immigration reform” — amnesty, in plain English — is the only way to go, a devastating book titled “Mexifornia,” by Victor Davis Hanson, introduces some cold, factual reality into a subject usually discussed in sweeping and lofty rhetoric.


A book that offers a choice between the island-hopping strategy that General MacArthur used in the Pacific and the all-out assault across a broad front that was used by the Allied armies in Europe is titled “The New Leviathan.”


It has thirteen penetrating articles by leading authorities on such subjects as national security, ObamaCare, environmentalism, election frauds and more.


Those parents who want to follow the MacArthur strategy can recommend reading one, or a few, of these articles, while those who want to follow the strategy of attacking all across a broad front can recommend that their student read the whole book.


However the battle is fought, what is most important is that the battle be fought, since the young are the future, and the propaganda of today can become the government policies of tomorrow.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is

As Towns Say No, Signs of Rising Resistance to Smart Meters

BRADY — In October, the city council of this Central Texas town voted unanimously to purchase advanced electric meters, known as smart meters, for the city-owned electric utility. But some residents resisted, and the smart meter vote played a large role in last weekend’s recall of the city’s mayor and the electoral defeat of two council members.

Voters here passed a referendum last weekend to enshrine in the city charter the right of residents to refuse the installation of smart meters on their property. Sheila Hemphill, an organizer of the effort, called the victory her “San Jacinto.”

The reaction in Brady could signal a shift in the debate over smart meters, which collect detailed data on electricity use and transmit it to the utility using radio frequencies. A raft of bills were introduced during the legislative session that would allow individuals to keep their old meters for free, but all have faltered. Local resistance to smart meters, however, appears to be rising.

Advocates say smart meters, which are being installed statewide at the urging of the Texas Public Utility Commission, improve a utility’s efficiency.

Critics have raised concerns about health and privacy. They say they fear the cumulative effect of the meters’ radiation emissions. The Public Utility Commission found no health risks in a 2012 study that blamed social media for spreading inaccurate information.

Some critics have concerns about sovereignty; Texas, unlike other states, controls its own electricity interconnection. Thelma Taormina, founder of the We the People Are the 912 Association, a Houston-based Tea Party group that advocates for smart meter opt-out options, gained notoriety over a news report that when a meter installer arrived at her home, she met him carrying a gun. She said she was concerned about the role smart meters might play in the future.

“The ultimate goal of the smart grid, of which smart meters are a part, is to connect us internationally to share the power we generate with the world,” she said. Having its own grid provides the state with autonomy it would not have otherwise, she said. “We’ve survived all these years without being connected to another grid,” she said.“Why should we change that?”

John Fainter, the president of the Association of Electric Companies of Texas, which represents electricity distribution companies, expressed bewilderment.

“Nothing could be further from the truth,” he said. “All our companies are interested in is selling electricity, accounting for it and getting paid for it.”

But resistance remains lively. Brady joins the Hill Country town Camp Wood, which placed a moratorium on smart meter installation in March. And Hemphill said residents of 23 counties have contacted her about replicating her efforts in Brady.

Utilities say a patchwork of old and new meter systems could lead to more cost and less efficiency. But the strength of the opposition leaves Fainter with a sense of resignation.

“It’s hard for me to be surprised about much these days,” he said.

DOJ: We don’t need warrants for e-mail, Facebook chats

An FBI investigation manual updated last year, obtained by the ACLU, says it’s possible to warrantlessly obtain Americans’ e-mail “without running afoul” of the Fourth Amendment.

he U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI believe they don’t need a search warrant to review Americans’ e-mails, Facebook chats, Twitter direct messages, and other private files, internal documents reveal.

Government documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union and provided to CNET show a split over electronic privacy rights within the Obama administration, with Justice Department prosecutors and investigators privately insisting they’re not legally required to obtain search warrants for e-mail. The IRS, on the other hand, publicly said last month that it would abandon a controversial policy that claimed it could get warrantless access to e-mail correspondence.

The U.S. attorney for Manhattan circulated internal instructions, for instance, saying a subpoena — a piece of paper signed by a prosecutor, not a judge — is sufficient to obtain nearly “all records from an ISP.” And the U.S. attorney in Houston recently obtained the “contents of stored communications” from an unnamed Internet service provider without securing a warrant signed by a judge first.

“We really can’t have this patchwork system anymore, where agencies get to decide on an ad hoc basis how privacy-protective they’re going to be,” says Nathan Wessler, an ACLU staff attorney specializing in privacy topics who obtained the documents through open government laws. “Courts and Congress need to step in.”

The Justice Department’s disinclination to seek warrants for private files stored on the servers of companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft continued even after a federal appeals court in 2010 ruled that warrantless access to e-mail violates the Fourth Amendment. A previously unreleased version of an FBI manual (PDF), last updated two-and-a-half years after the appellate ruling, says field agents “may subpoena” e-mail records from companies “without running afoul of” the Fourth Amendment.

The department did not respond to queries from CNET Tuesday. The FBI said in a statement that:

In all investigations, the FBI obtains evidence in accordance with the laws and Constitution of the United States, and consistent with Attorney General guidelines. Our field offices work closely with U.S. Attorney’s Office to adhere to the legal requirements of their particular districts as set forth in case law or court decisions/precedent.

Not all U.S. attorneys have attempted to obtain Americans’ stored e-mail correspondence without a warrant. The ACLU persuaded a judge to ask whether warrantless e-mail access has taken place in six of the 93 U.S. Attorneys’ offices — including the northern California office that’s prosecuted an outsize share of Internet cases. The answer, according to assistant U.S. attorney Christopher Hardwood, was “no.”

Still, the position taken by other officials — including the authors of the FBI’s official surveillance manual — puts the department at odds with a growing sentiment among legislators who insist that Americans’ private files should be protected from warrantless search and seizure. They say the same Fourth Amendment privacy standards that require police to obtain search warrants before examining hard drives in someone’s living room, or a physical letter stored in a filing cabinet, should apply.

In response to prodding from Sen. Ron Wyden (left), acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller said the agency would change its written policies.In response to prodding from Sen. Ron Wyden (left), acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller (right) said last month that the agency would change its written policies.

(Credit: U.S. Senate)

After the IRS’s warrantless e-mail access policy came to light last month, a dozen Republican and Democratic senators rebuked the agency. Their letter (PDF) opposing warrantless searches by the IRS and signed by senators including Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said: “We believe these actions are a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Steven Miller, the IRS’ acting commissioner, said during a Senate hearing that the policy would be changed for e-mail. But he left open the possibility that non-email data — Google Drive and Dropbox files, private Facebook and Twitter messages, and so on — could be accessed without a warrant.

Albert Gidari, a partner at the Perkins Coie law firm who represents technology companies, said since the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2010 ruling in U.S. v. Warshak, the Justice Department has generally sought court warrants for the content of e-mail messages, but is far less inclined to take that step for non-email files.

Ron Paul: Gang of 8 Hiding National ID Card in Immigration Reform


While his son, Senator Rand Paul, has taken most of the national spotlight away from his father, Ron Paul has not stopped advancing his “Campaign for Liberty.” Ron Paul and his supporters have built up a massive database of “liberty loving” supporters since the organization launched in 2008, following his second unsuccessful campaign for the Presidency. And today, he is robo-calling his supporters to sign a petition against the inclusion of a National ID card in immigration reform negotiations. From the petition:

Right now, freedom-stealing Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), banding together with other statists from both parties, are scheming to sneak a massive power grab into a new “immigration reform” bill.

If passed, it would require every American to obtain a National ID card to work legally in the U.S. – and you can bet it will be only a matter of time until they’re required even for simple purchases.

Ron Paul calls the current proposals “by far the worst national ID card the statists have come up with yet.” And he blames the “Gang of 8,” which includes Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and Chuck Schumer, for working with Obama to “sneak a national ID” into an immigration reform bill.  ”A statist’s dream,” Paul decries.

According to Paul, the national ID would create a new federal database with biometric information on all citizens and those who work within the United States. He claims that, in short time, it would be illegal for anyone to have a job without an ID card. “Every time any citizen applies for a job, the government will know…[and] once the government bureaucrats know exactly how we run our lives, they will try and control them.”

He warns that “the government will know what you eat, drink, and read. Once they know this information, they will regulate everything” from your food to your education, depriving us of our freedom. Issues like amnesty are just being used as cover. The National ID is what the “statists” really want.