The global elite were planning a biometric national ID system long before the attacks on September 11, 2001, as evidenced by the following report from The Century Foundation, published just four months after the 'war on terror' began. The endgame is the microchip implant.
The Century Foundation (a think tank of the New World Order elitists)
Originally Published on January 9, 2002
What is a national ID card?
As proposed, the ID card would contain some sort of "unique identifier," such as a fingerprint or retinal identifier that could be read by a a scanning machine. Through this scanning system, information could be retrieved about the cardholder, such as name and address. The scanners would be linked to government databases so that the person could be checked against the files of agencies such as the INS and law enforcement agencies. About 100 countries already have mandatory national ID cards.
Why do advocates of a national identification system believe it will prevent terrorism?
Supporters of a national ID point out that the terrorists who launched the September 11th attacks lived freely in the United States without ever being detected, even though some were violating immigration laws. Two of the 9/11 terrorists were on the INS watch list of suspects, yet flew on airplanes freely, used credit cards, had bank accounts, cell phones, and frequent-fliers memberships, and took flying lessons. Five of the terrorists were able to obtain Social Security numbers, even with false identities. Seven of the hijackers were able to obtain Virginia driver's licenses even though they did not live in that state. As a result, a national ID card that would be required for a number of types of transactions would make it easier to catch potential terrorists. Moreover, the way we identify people now, one error on a computer keyboard can allow a potential terrorist to slip by. A "smart" national identification card would prevent this from happening.
Why do opponents believe a national ID card will do little to prevent terrorism?
First, opponents say that identification technology is not reliable at this time. Moreover, there can be errors in government databases, which can also fall prey to hackers. Even if we had the technology, opponents argue, an ID card only confirms your identity and history, not what you intend to do. Those 9/11 terrorists who were not on government "watch list" might not have been caught by a national ID system. Finally, it is unclear what would be required to get an ID -- passports and driver's licenses are easily forged.
Why do opponents believe a national ID card would violate “privacy rights”?
Opponents believe the government will be able to collect and disseminate an unlimited amount of personal information. Even if the government did not voluntarily distribute the information, government employees would have access to it and might deliberately or accidentally release it. And a national identification system might not stop at being used to prevent terrorism. Government agencies, employers, banks, insurance and health care companies, and consumer businesses might want people to add more information of use to them to the cards. Once people have such a card, there is the potential that they will be required to present it in order to do all sorts of things, including apply for a job, buy a gun, or open a bank account. If a person loses his or her card or has it stolen, he or she might be unable to travel freely, and potentially not be able to do all sorts of everyday tasks.
Why do supporters believe a national ID card would not violate privacy rights?
Supporters say that so much personal information is already gathered by private industry, there would be not much greater threat to privacy rights than exists now. We already require presentation of driver's licenses to cash checks, get a post office box, board an airplane, buy alcohol, register to vote in some states, enroll in college and drive. Plus, the trade off for increased security is worth it. Also, some advocates have urged that the system be voluntary, at least for American citizens. However, those who opt not to have the card would be subject to greater inspection at places such as airports.
Could a national ID card system be abused by law enforcement?
Opponents argue that the system might operate so that anyone could be stopped on the street and asked to produce their ID card. If the person forgot or lost the card, or had it stolen, that person could then be immediately suspect, and potentially subject to a search and arrest. Some further argue that a national ID card will increase the incidence of ethnic and racial profiling by law enforcement, in that people who look a certain way would be constantly hassled for their ID card. Supporters argue that it would actually reduce profiling, since an encounter would immediately halt upon production of the card.
Are there other possible advantages to a national ID?
Supporters argue a national ID card with this technological capacity would have other positive uses, including easy access to emergency medical information, drug allergies or next of kin. Such a card could be used to screen out felons trying to purchase guns if criminal records were added to the card. The cards could be required for all immigrants admitted to the country temporarily. National ID cards could be used to identify registered voters at the polling site, reducing voter fraud as well as addressing the problem of registered voters being mistakenly turned away because of administrative errors.
How much would the system cost?
Opponents say a national ID card would cost billions of dollars to administer, and that a system able to reliably identify forgeries would be particularly expensive. The Social Security Administration has estimated that creating counterfeit-resistant Social Security cards would cost $4 billion. Simple data-storage cards cost $10-$35 a person. We would also need to pay for card readers, staff and overhead, essentially, opponents ague, creating a new bureaucracy to administer the system. However, supporters say a national ID card system would not be expensive. A card might cost $8 per person and a commercial reader $50. This, they say, is a reasonable expense for greater security.
Who is supporting a national ID system?
A poll done by Pew right after the attack showed 70 percent of Americans favoring a national ID card. A poll done by Roper in early November found 66 percent of respondents supported a national identification card.
Senator Dianne Feinstein has expressed great interest and has already introduced legislation that includes a provision requiring non-citizens to use high-tech visa cards containing a fingerprint, retinal scan or other unique identifier (S. 1627).
Representative Steve Horn has called for a federal commission to study nation identify cards.
Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle Corp., a software company, has called for the creation of such a system and offered to donate the tools for creating the cards.
The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators is already developing a plan to create a national identification system that would link all driver databases throughout the country and use a card that has a unique identifier. The Association is asking Congress for up to $100 million to create the system, and Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, is working on a bill to back the proposal.
Due to customer dissatisfaction with longer security clearance lines at the airports, the American Transport Association, representing the airline industry, supports a voluntary "smart card" ID that frequent travelers can pay for and use to expedite check-in time. Such a system would separate travelers that are already known via the airline's database, from unknown people who would be scrutinized more closely.
Who is opposing it?
President Bush essentially ruled out creating a national ID card system in September, saying it was not being considered by the administration. A number of members of Congress and other elected officials have expressed skepticism. Most civil rights organizations and electronic privacy rights groups are opposed, as well as some more conservative organization, such as the Cato Institute. Critics also oppose the voluntary system advocated by the airline industry, arguing that given the convenience that such a card would provide, anyone who travels at all would feel pressured to join the system.
April 19, 2010
“This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.”--Revelation 13:18As technology grows more sophisticated and the government and its corporate allies further refine their methods of keeping tabs on the American people, those of us who treasure privacy increasingly find ourselves engaged in a struggle to maintain our freedoms in the midst of the modern surveillance state.
Just consider the many ways we’re already being monitored and tracked:
- through our Social Security numbers, bank accounts, purchases and electronic transactions;
- by way of our correspondence and communications devices--email, phone calls and mobile phones;
- through chips implanted in our vehicles, identification documents, even our clothing.
In recent years, this information glut has converged into a mandate for a national ID card, which came to a head with Congress’ passage of the REAL ID Act in 2005. REAL ID requires states to issue machine-readable drivers’ licenses containing a wealth of personal data. However, because the REAL ID Act has been opposed by many states due to its cost and implementation, we have yet to be subjected to a nationwide implementation of a national ID card. That may all change depending on what happens with the immigration reform bill now before Congress.
A centerpiece of the immigration bill as proposed by Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is a requirement that all U.S. workers, citizen and resident alike, be required to obtain and carry biometric Social Security cards (national ID cards under a different name) in order to work within the United States. Attempting to appease critics of a national ID card, Schumer and Graham insist that “no government database would house everyone’s information” and that the “cards would not contain any private information, medical information, or tracking devices.” However, those claims are blatantly false. Indeed, this proposed biometric card is nothing more than an end-run around opposition to a national ID card.
Civil and privacy rights advocates, as well as liberal-, conservative- and libertarian-leaning organizations, have long raised concerns that a national ID card would enable the government to track citizens and, thus, jeopardize the privacy rights of Americans. President Reagan likened a 1981 proposal to the biblical “mark of the beast,” and President Clinton dismissed a similar plan because it smacked of Big Brother.
Most recently, The Rutherford Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union, along with a host of other organizations, voiced their opposition to the biometric ID card. In a letter to both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate Judiciary Committees, Senate Finance Committee, House Ways and Means Committee and the White House, this coalition of groups declared that such a national ID card would “not only violate privacy by helping to consolidate data and facilitate tracking of individuals, it would bring government into the very center of our lives by serving as a government permission slip needed by everyone in order to work. As happened with Social Security cards decades ago, use of such ID cards would quickly spread and be used for other purposes--from travel to voting to gun ownership.” And the national biometric ID card would “require the creation of a bureaucracy that combines the worst elements of the Transportation Security Administration and state Motor Vehicle Departments.”
At a minimum, these proposed cards will contain a memory device that stores distinct--and highly personal--physical or biological information unique to the cardholder such as fingerprints, retina scan information, a mapping of the veins on the top of your hand, and so on. Eventually, other information, such as personal business and financial data, will probably also be stored on these cards. For the cards to be effective, an information storage system and central database, which will be managed by the government and its corporate handlers, will be required. That means a lot of taxpayer dollars will be used to create the ultimate tracking device to be used against American citizens.
As journalist Megan Carpentier reports,
“The federal government wants to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, and force employees and employers still suffering from a recession to do the same, to create and make accessible to every employer a national database of the fingerprints of all Americans from the time they are 14 years old. And they want to do it in order to keep an estimated 11.9 million unauthorized immigrants -- less than 4 percent of the total population of the United States -- from accessing the job market.”Under threat of substantial fines by the government and in what promises to be a cumbersome, bureaucratic process, employers will have to purchase ID card scanning devices (or visit their local DMV) in order to scan the cards of every individual they wish to hire before that individual can be employed. What this amounts to, essentially, is a troubling system in which all Americans would have to get clearance from the federal government in order to get a job.
Furthermore, the law’s requirement that machine-readable technology be incorporated into the card opens the door for radio frequency identification (RFID) tags to be placed on the cards. RFID is a tiny, automatic identification system that enables data--in this case the private information of American citizens--to be transmitted by a portable device. This will provide the government with unprecedented access to American citizens’ personal information. In addition, RFID tags emit radio frequency signals that allow the government to track the movement of the cards, as well as the cardholders. In other words, wherever your card goes, so do the government monitors.
When all is said and done, the adoption of a national biometric ID card serves one purpose only: to provide the government with the ultimate control over the American people. As one commentator has remarked, this is a “naked government power grab.”
The time to resist is now. If we don’t, eventually, we will all have to possess one of these cards in order to be a functioning citizen in American society. Failing to have a biometric card will render you a non-person for all intents and purposes. Your whole life will depend on this card--your ability to work, travel, buy or sell, access health care, and so on.
What we used to call science fiction is now reality. And whether a national ID card is the mark of the Beast or the long arm of Big Brother, the outcome remains the same.
A Logical look at September 11th, 2001
National ID and the REAL ID Act
Move to National ID Cards Delayed
FAQ: How will Real ID affect you?
The Proposed National ID Card: Your Passport to a Police State
The Debate Over a National ID Card
National Identification System: Do We Need One? - December 2005
PositiveID's Implantable Microchip (includes many of the articles above)
Los Angeles Pushes Mandatory Biometric Identification On Students to Condition Children
Iris Scanning Set to Secure City in Mexico, Then the World
In the Debate Over RFID Tracking and Microchip Implants, Children Are the Testing Ground
India Launches Universal ID System with Biometrics
Updated 10/8/10 (Newest Additions at End of List)