Citizens need to know the facts and the real motives behind the relentless quest for a national ID that we are led to believe is so necessary to our national security.

A national ID really is a scheme to collect data, surveille and control us so we can become more reliant socialists. If you find this hard to believe, read on. And especially get your legislators to catch on.

States Alex Newman of TheNewAmerican.com, “Republican leaders in Congress are once again plotting with Democrats to stab the American people and the U.S. Constitution in the back, on multiple key issues. Under the guise of getting “something” in exchange for providing amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants (and future Democrat voters) in Obama’s illegal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, the establishment wing of the GOP is pushing a radical longtime goal of the bipartisan Deep State: mandatory national biometric ID cards for all Americans. Privacy and liberty are under serious threat, critics warned.

“The Orwellian national ID scheme, known as “E-Verify,” is ostensibly aimed at making it harder for illegal immigrants to find work in the United States. Basically, as part of the program, which would become mandatory under the bill, every employer would be forced to buy a scanner and use it to check the legal work status of potential employees. On top of that, every worker would be forced to have a biometric ID issued by the federal government in order to be able to legally work. Without this national ID, employers would not legally be able to hire somebody.

“But in reality, illegal immigrants are typically paid under the table anyway — many of them simply work as day laborers and get paid in cash at the end of the day. In light of that fact, the unconstitutional plot to mandate national ID will do little to prevent unscrupulous employers from continuing to hire illegal immigrants, off the books. What the scheme will do, though, is force all law-abiding Americans to carry an unconstitutional national ID with all their information on it, including sensitive biometric data, just to be allowed to work. It will also give the feds a key new tool to monitor and control people.

“There is a reason the leadership of both parties have supported the effort for many years. Indeed, even Obama, who did his best to help the United Nations flood America with Third World immigration under various guises, firmly supported the national ID plan, calling for a package containing it to be sent to him so he could sign it as quickly as possible. But now, instead of a Big Government liberal program to track Americans, the plot is being marketed as an ostensibly “conservative” measure to supposedly boost “border security” and limit illegal immigration.

“A previous version of the scheme was actually sponsored by ultra-leftist open-borders advocate Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). But with the GOP in firm control now, the controversial national ID provision most recently surfaced in the Republican-backed “Securing America’s Future” Act (H.R. 4760). Sponsored by Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the bill has some 70 cosponsors less than two weeks after being introduced. And already, organizations such as NumbersUSA that portray themselves as pro-America, anti-amnesty are expressing a willingness to cave on amnesty as long as the national ID and E-Verify become law.

“Unsurprisingly, the establishment media is celebrating the grand bargain of national ID plus amnesty, too. ‘Republicans win with E-Verify as it gives them cover for approving amnesty for the Dreamers with the hard right base,’ wrote Jake Novak at CNBC, as if only the “hard right” base was opposed to amnesty (even Democrats used to publicly oppose illegal immigration and amnesty not too many years ago). ‘The added plus for the GOP is that pushing for E-Verify will prove they’re not the slaves of their service industry corporate donors.’”

WARRANTLESS SURVEILLANCE WAS PASSED WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE

To start with on the issue of warrantless surveillance please see the article ‘Amash, Massie Warn of Secret Surveillance’ where they revealed the deeply buried massive surveillance bill inside the $1.1 trillion spending package signed into law by Obama on Dec. 18, 2016.

The New American magazine’s Joe Wolverton, II, J.D., explains in that article, “Not only does the spending bill contain billions of dollars in funding for unquestionably unconstitutional programs and policies, but it will allow the federal domestic spying apparatus to achieve previously prohibited levels of unwarranted searches, seizures, and sharing of personal data of Americans caught in the surveillance dragnet.”

Wolverton quotes Representative Justin Amash (R-MI) “These provisions were quietly slipped into the omnibus to avoid full scrutiny. We take an oath to defend the Constitution, and our Fourth Amendment privacy protections are as important as anything.”

“Perhaps the most constitutionally egregious aspect of all the Fourth Amendment violations contained in the new law (the measure was signed by President Obama on December 18) is the fact that all the authority to spy on Americans without a warrant was formerly rejected in one form or another by the same senators and congressmen who approved it last week.” – Unquote Joe Wolverton, J.D.

‘NATIONAL ID’ IS QUEST FOR FEDERAL CONTROL

Consolidating immense power is the true purpose of a national ID. Forcing Americans to carry around an identification card to affirmatively prove citizenship offends our basic concept of freedom.

“I am against government lists of those who own or have transferred a firearm for the same reason I oppose any pathway to a national ID. I don’t think that government should have the awesome power of monitoring the legal activities of American citizens. That is not a proper role of the federal government — or any level of government, for that matter.” – Unquote Senator Rand Paul, (R-KY)

Opposing the Real ID Act back In 2007 Senator Paul said, “The REAL ID Act will create ‘domestic travel restrictions that are the hallmark of authoritarian states, not free republics.”

So what counts as an acceptable form of ID under current guidelines?

Here is a list of over a dozen perfectly acceptable already federally- approved ID’s such as a passport to board an airplane provided by the government: .

• Driver’s licenses or other state photo identity cards issued by Department of Motor Vehicles (or equivalent)
• U.S. passport
• U.S. passport card
• DHS trusted traveler cards (Global Entry, NEXUS, SENTRI, and FAST)
• U.S. military ID (active duty or retired military and their dependents, and DoD civilians)
• Permanent resident card
• Border crossing card
• DHS-designated enhanced driver’s license
• Airline or airport-issued ID (if issued under a TSA-approved security plan)
• Federally recognized, tribal-issued photo ID
• HSPD-12 PIV card
• Foreign government-issued passport
• Canadian provincial driver’s license or Indian and Northern Affairs Canada card
• Transportation worker identification credential

The ID requirement applies to all travelers 18 years and older.

Oddly, though, you can still potentially fly without bringing any ID whatsoever. Once more, from DHS/TSA:

In the event you arrive at the airport without valid identification, because it is lost or at home, you may still be allowed to fly. The TSA officer may ask you to complete a form to include your name and current address, and may ask additional questions to confirm your identity. If your identity is confirmed, you will be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint. You may be subject to additional screening.

In an op-ed published in the Washington Times in May, 2016 Senator Paul evoked the images of dictatorships of the past and their citizen registration policies: “Forcing Americans to carry around an identification card to affirmatively prove citizenship offends our basic concept of freedom. Wanting to avoid a “papers please” culture in our country is also why conservatives oppose federal universal gun background checks. We oppose such measures not because we don’t believe in common-sense rules or regulation — but because we are wary of giving the federal government this kind of centralized power over our daily lives. These draconian ideas would simply give government too much power.”

A MUST SEE:

The Federal Government’s quest for our personal national ID’s is just the tip of the iceberg. To see the scarier than hell incredibly broad spectrum of what they are already doing on their own website to know all they can about you see: Surveillance Techniques: How Your Data Becomes Our Data

Also see: GOP Leaders Plot Amnesty in Exchange for National ID

All That Matters is a Clear Understanding of Only Three Strong Points!

There is so much frustration and utter disgust with how much is wrong in our government today it has become a perfect climate for the quick fix schemers advocating the answer to our various problems in an Article V Constitutional Convention by whatever name.

1. A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION – Why should we believe that Congress would magically follow new laws any more than present laws? Few state legislators seem to realize that our nation’s disastrous budget deficits had accrued out of disregard for constitutional restraints in the first place. Had government been held only to its constitutionally authorized activities, no budget crisis could have developed. See: ‘The Solution Is the Constitution, Not Article V’Much can be accomplished by following the Constitution, existing laws and by Nullification.
2. A RUNAWAY CONVENTION CANNOT BE PREVENTED!!! – Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren Berger issued a stern warning:‘Nobody tells a Con-Con what to do. Its powers to propose Amendments are unlimited. In light of this information, does America, do you, really want to risk a convention?“Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risk involved. A new convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subject needing attention. I have discouraged the idea of a Constitutional Convention, and I am glad to see states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a convention.”

   Similar views come from Former Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Arthur J. Goldberg who said: “A few people have asked, ‘Why not another Constitutional Convention?’ I would respond by saying that one of the most serious problems Article V poses is a runaway convention. There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from reporting out wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Moreover, the absence of any mechanism to ensure representative selection of delegates could put a runaway convention in the hands of single-issue groups whose self-interest may be contrary to our national well-being.”

   Justice Goldberg is not the only imminent legal scholar to be concerned about a runaway convention. The late Rex E. Lee, former law school professor and later President of Brigham Young University has written: “In short, if the question is whether a runaway convention is assured, the answer is no, but if the question is whether it is a real and serious possibility, the answer is yes. In our history, we have only one experience with a Constitutional Convention, and while the end result was good, the convention itself was a definite runaway.”

   In his early career before he became Justice of the Supreme Court, the late Anthony Scalia is often quoted as stating he supported a constitutional convention. However, later in his career with the wisdom from a lot more experience and considering the realities of the day he became opposed to it.

   Quoting Christian Gomez’s article ‘Justice Scalia’s Warning of a Constitutional Convention’ in The New American.com:“During the question-and-answer session following a speech Scalia gave to the Federalist Society in Morristown, New Jersey, on May 8, 2015, he was asked whether a constitutional convention would be in the nation’s interest.

   “‘A constitutional convention is a horrible idea,’ Scalia replied. ‘This is not a good century to write a constitution.’

   “Although COS might have one believe that a constitutional convention is a ‘different creature entirely‘ from an Article V convention or ‘convention of the states,’ as they call it, this is simply not true.” – These were Justice Scalia’s most recent stated views.

3. RATIFICATION REALITY –You can count on this! A Constitutional Convention would not risk sending their results out for 38 state legislators to ratify since Article V’s option (Ratifying Conventions) offers such a failsafe alternative. (Factoid: Utah’s legislature would never have repealed Prohibition. A Ratifying Convention repealed it.)The mindset of the convention will assuredly be that ratifying in state legislatures would be entirely too perilous with endless debate, filibustering, committee assignments, legal challenges etc. into ad nauseum multiplied times 38. No. They would send convention results to hand-selected delegates at Ratifying Conventions who will be like-minded baggage carrying colleagues who would be chumps in the world of constitutional patriotism.

LASTLY:

1. Legislators should realize where the funding for all these well healed lobbyists and their very expensive promotional efforts are coming from to push this with such dogged urgency.
2. Application rescissions never time out, they are intentionally rescinded once states come to their senses. Idaho has had 6 applications in our past going all the way back to 1910. You have to ask yourself why so many times did our states awaken and rescind.I think Americans are smarter than they often are given credit for and have just temporarily given into the spell cast by poker-faced presentations which have been fueled by our being fed up with how poorly our system has performed from not following the Constitution and the hunger to right things with the wish of a quick fix.

   After awakening to reality, legislators have often done the right thing and rescinded those applications. We’ve been blessed with the wisdom of those patriotic Americans.

3. Please read the fresh in-depth report ‘The Left Wants a Con-Con Too’ from TheNewAmerican.com., the 2016 report ‘The Dangerous Path – Big Money’s Plan to Shred the Constitution’ from CommonCause.org and the 2017 report ‘States Likely Could Not Control Constitutional Convention on Balanced Budget Amendment or Other Issues’ from The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

A must-see 31-minute video!

In this video former federal prosecutor Joe diGenova discloses much information divulging names and specifics about the plot to stop the Trump campaign and later to undermine his presidency. His outline is comprehensive, compelling and very believable given the amount of other information now starting to dribble out in the media.

The Dailey Caller News Foundation’s exclusive interview of Mr. diGenova deserves a lot of credit for getting this done concisely and quickly.

The above graphic is from the ConservativeTreeHouse.com which presents an impressive array of graphics and resource links on their website that is pertinent to this report.