.............................................................. >From the New Paradigms Project [Not Necessarily Endorsed]: Conspiracy Shopping Cart: http://a-albionic.com/shopping.html From: UncleWill 2000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [smashthestate] Fwd: Mark Of The Beast - This is Scary Stuff People Date: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 2:30 PM ------Original Message------ Nicky Malloy posts to a listserv from New Zealand, His posts are often shocking, but I welcome the ability to remove the "shock factor" of things coming to light, now. His stuff is always well researched and presented for the layman`s comprehension, here is an eye opener to say the least... --- Nicola Molloy wrote: This is Scary Stuff People - Mark Of The Beast > Date: > Tue, 18 Apr 2000 04:30:16 -0700 > From: > Victoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Organization: > Global Glory > > Someone asked privately about NID > > I have written articles on National ID. > http://presys.com/~ekklesia/issue9w.htm > The ekklesia Newsletter issue 9 > The Seal Deal - Neither buy nor sell > NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION > The 666 section > Redemption > > They have been turning drivers license into N ID > behind the > scene with free computers and software to the > states. > > > This is a long post but it shows you how this stuff > comes > about. All they need is a good national emergency > and people > will line up for new IDs and the system is already > present > to do it through DMVs. > > SCAN THIS NEWS > July 4, 1999 > > THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL ID PLAN > > This article memorializes, for posterity sake, the > establishment of the national identification system > in > America. > > A lot of people, just now being confronted with the > national > ID laws, are quick to blame President Clinton. He > certainly > is an easy target. But the reality is that the > Republicans > are solely responsible for these programs, as you > will see > below. > > How The Republicans Implemented the Democrats' > National ID > Plan > An Historical Account > > By Scott McDonald > > http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1/fp-republican-id-plan.html > > One day, in the not too distant future, a generation > of > Americans is going to wake up and ask: "How did we > become > shackled with a government that tracks, monitors, > regulates, > controls, and dictates our every move?" Let the > historical > record show, it was the Republican-led Congress > implementing > the Democrat's "locating and tracking" database > program that > resulted in the U.S. national identification system. > > Just how did this massive control mechanism get > established? > And, who were the key players? For a clue, their > first names > were: Bob, Newt, Bill, and Patsy -- with honorable > mention > for Rush. > > It all came about rather gradually beginning in 1994 > -- the > political period referred to as the "Republican > Revolution." > It happened during a time when the nation's > attention was > diverted to such trivial issues as funding for free > school > lunch programs. It began when the Republicans in > Congress > proudly and pompously announced, in a huge ceremony > held on > the front steps of the U.S. Capitol Building, that > they were > implementing their "Contract With America." > > Under the "Contract," the Republican Congress > enacted not > one, but TWO > national ID laws. The "Welfare Reform Act of 1996" > and the > "Illegal Immigration Reform Act of 1996" both > included > requirements which, in application, constitute a > national > identification system. Together, these two laws made > up the > foundational backbone -- and provided the financial > impetus > -- for the most massive national identification > system ever > devised by mankind. These two programs are now being > implemented throughout America. As a result, > everyone is > required to identify themselves using a social > security > number in order to engage in virtually all societal > activities. Consequently, SSNs are now required as a > condition to drive, work, fly, bank, get married, > get > divorced, hunt, fish, buy stock, obtain insurance, > get born, > and even to die. > > These two laws are in addition to the health care > reform > measures, also enacted under the Republican > Congress, which > are resulting in massive database systems that will > be used > to exchange private information about citizens, all > linked > to one's social security number. > > How could such Draconian laws get enacted with > little or no > meaningful public debate? No small amount of blame > must go > to the diversionary antics of the immensely popular, > pseudo-conservative, part-time comedian, Republican > mouthpiece, radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh. For, > it was > he who, on cue from Newt Gingrich, effectively > distracted an > otherwise concerned and otherwise trusting populace > with > relentless babble and mindless chatter. All that was > ever > discussed on his weekday program was whether or not > the > Republican's Welfare Reform plan included a > "spending > increase," a "spending decrease," or simply a > "decrease in > the proposed increase." Occasionally, Rush would > also > complain about Clinton's threat to veto the great > Republican > overhaul bill because it did not include enough > money for > free school lunch programs. Clinton followed through > with > his threat, by the way, but that obviously is not > the end of > the story. Meanwhile, Congress was busy enacting the > most > sophisticated -- most horrendous -- locating, > tracking, and > identification system ever suffered under by > mankind. None > of this was ever once so much as mentioned by the > celebrity > who's most bragged-about credential is that half > 'his brain > encumbered. > > DETAILED HISTORY OF THE LOCATING AND TRACKING LAWS > > The national "locating and tracking" system, (by the > way, > that's how it's referred to in the Act), began as > the "Child > Support Responsibility Act of 1994" (H.R. 4570). The > first > version of the bill most like the one that was > eventually > enacted, was originally sponsored by Democratic > Congresswoman Pat Schroeder (D-CO). Her bill was > introduced > in June of 1994 on behalf of "the Congressional > Caucus > for Women's Issues." Several previous attempts by > the > Women's Caucus to get similar legislation enacted > failed > miserably while the Democrats held the majority. And > Representative Schroder's 1994 attempt likewise > failed. > > But that was all before the Republicans took the > majority in > the Fall of 1994. As you will see, the ladies were > about to > receive the life-sustaining support they so > desperately > needed. > > In January of 1995, during what was referred to as > the > "First One-hundred Days," Congresswoman Nancy > Johnson (R-CN) > sponsored a new version of the same child support > bill > previously championed by Representative Pat > Schroeder. This > time the bill was called the "Child Support > Responsibility > Act of 1995" (H.R.785). In re-introducing the bill, > Ms. > Schroeder had these comments about the new and > improved > version: > > "The central component of the Child Support > Responsibility > Act of 1995 is the creation of a national databank > that > expands the Federal Parent Locator Service and > establishes a > Federal Child Support Registry. ... We do not want > noncustodial parents playing economic hide-and-seek > from > their kids." > > "Highlights of the new bill include: > > "Restricts professional, occupational, and business > licenses > of noncustodial parents who have failed to pay child > support. > > "Restricts driver's licenses and vehicle > registration of > noncustodial parents who fail to appear in child > support > proceedings." > (Congressional Record pg. H892, 1995) > > REPUBLICANS QUICKLY BEGAN TO CLIMB ONBOARD > > The same "child support enforcement" wording as > discussed > above was also included in another bill known as the > "Child > Support Enforcement Reform Act of 1995," (H.R.906). > This > bill was introduced by Congressman Robert Andrews > (D-NJ) on > February 13, 1995. Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) > presented > the Child Support Enforcement bill to the Senate "on > behalf > of [him]self and Senator Bob Dole." In introducing > the bill, > Senator Snowe said the bill's purpose was: > > "To strengthen efforts to locate parents, it expands > the > Federal parent locator system and provides for > State-to-State access of the network. > > "And, to facilitate child support enforcement and > collection, the bill expands the penalties for child > support > delinquency to include the denial of professional, > recreational, and driver's license to deadbeat > parents, the > imposition of liens on real property, and the > automatic > reporting of delinquency to credit unions." > (Congressional Record, pg. S2841) > > In the process of implementing the "Contract With > America," > all of the democrats' Child Support Reform Act > measures were > gradually incorporated into the Republican "Personal > Responsibility Act of 1995." At this stage, however, > the > Democrats were still having to fight to keep the > locating > and tracking enforcement measures alive. > > On March 23, 1995, Congresswoman Marge Roukema > (D-NJ) > offered an > amendment to re-incorporate back into the > Republican's > Personal Responsibility Act the license suspension > measures > which had just previously been removed by the Ways > and Means > Committee. > > Ms. Roukema's proposal also included a new provision > to > amend Title 42 of the U.S. Code, Section 666(a)(13) > with > regard to welfare funding requirements so as to > require that > states must obtain social security numbers from all > license > applicants as a condition for the states to receive > social > benefits funding. The strong-armed tactic, > funding-contingent incentives also required that the > states > must > implement: > > "Procedures under which the State has (and uses in > appropriate cases) authority to withhold or suspend, > or to > restrict the use of driver's licenses, professional > and > occupational licenses, and recreational licenses of > individuals owing overdue support or failing, after > receiving appropriate notice, to comply with > subpoenas or > warrants relating to paternity or child support > proceedings." (Congressional Record pg. H3628) > > Congresswoman Barbra Kenelly (D-CT) stated in her > introduction for the > amendment: > > "[W]hen we come to the amendment of the gentlewoman > from New > Jersey, > [Mrs. Roukema] the amendment for child support > enforcement, > revoking the licenses of delinquent parents, I think > it is > very nice we can come together on both sides of the > aisle > and agree on this amendment to revoke licenses of > people who > do not pay. > > "When we say licenses, we are talking about a > driver's > license, we are talking about a professional > license. We are > talking about saying to somebody if you want to have > what > society can give you and be according to the law in > the area > of what you want to do, such as drive a car under > the > rulings of the State, then you will > pay your child support." > > And Congresswoman Constance Morella (R-MD) stated: > > "[T]his license revocation amendment is so very > important to > child support enforcement. It had its inception in > the > Women's Caucus child support bill in the last > Congress. It > was also contained in the Women's Caucus bill this > year, > too. > > "This says States must have license revocation > procedures in > place. We now have 19 States that have revocation > procedures > in place, and in those cases we have found that > people > immediately get out and write their checks for child > support, because they do not want to lose their > hunting > license, their driver's license, or their > professional > license." (Congressional Record pg. H3630, 1995) > > In providing additional examples of states' > "success" in > implementing similar license suspension measures, > Rep. > Morella stated: > > "For example, in Maine, they only had to revoke 41 > licenses. > Just the fear of the revoking of the license brought > in $23 > million. In California, they collected $10 million > without > revoking one license. > > "I am really glad there has been a change of heart > on the > other side [Republicans] and that they are now going > to put > this in their bill and that now all the bills will > be as > strong as they can be on child support enforcement > because > it has been much too long in coming. > > "The children of America deserve this." > (Congressional > Record pg. H3631, 1995) > > And Congresswoman Nancy Johnson (R) of Connecticut > added: > > "The Child Support Responsibility Act, which we > introduced > earlier this year along with Congresswomen Connie > Morella, > Patricia Schroeder, and Eleanor Holmes Norton, has > been > largely adopted into the welfare reform bill before > us > today. > > "The legislation sets up interacting State databases > of > child support orders, which will be matched against > basic > `new hire' data so that State child support > officials can > locate missing, non-paying parents. > > "Finally, this legislation contains my provision > adopted in > the Ways and Means Committee that will put work > requirements > on many noncustodial parents who are behind in > paying child > support, often due to their not having a job. ... > This > provision requires parents to either pay their child > support, enter into a repayment plan through the > courts, or > work in a government-sponsored program. > > Congressman Randy Cunningham (R-CA) interjected: > > "I rise in support of the amendment. I would like to > advise > the gentlewoman from Colorado, it is the Republican > bill > that is passing it." > > And, Congressman Martin Hoke (R) from Ohio stated: > > "[W]hen you combine the establishment of a paternity > requirement along with this revocation of a license > requirement, what you are going to do is for the > first time > you are going to actually create consequences for > teenage > boys who will have to think twice about the > consequences of > their actions because they will become accountable. > > "I applaud the child support provisions in the > welfare > reform bill before us, which are based on the Child > Support > Responsibility Act that I, along with many members > of the > congressional caucus for women's issues, > cosponsored. I was > distressed to learn, however, that the Ways and > Means > Committee omitted a critical provision which > requires States > to enact laws denying professional, occupational, > and > driver's licenses to deadbeat parents. The Roukema > amendment > > would reinsert this critically important enforcement > provision. > > "The child support provisions are built around a key > element > of the Child Support Responsibility Act, the > creation of > centralized registries for child support orders and > `new > hires' information, and the centralization of child > support > collections and distribution." (Congressional Record > pg. > H3633, 1995) > > The Roukema amendment was subsequently adopted by > the House > 433-0. > > REPUBLICANS DEMAND CREDIT > > Gradually, the momentum shifted in favor of the new > measures. Soon, the Republicans and Democrats would > actually > be competing to see who would receive "credit" for > getting > the license withholding and SSN reporting > requirements > enacted. On March 23, 1995, Congressman Weller, (R., > IL.) > spoke on behalf of the Republicans regarding their > position > on the proposed "child support enforcement > measures." In > support of final passage of the Personal > Responsibility > Reform Act (H.R. 4), (which now included the Roukema > amendment), Rep. Weller said: > > "[A]s one of the chief sponsors of the Family > Reinforcement > Act, I rise in strong support of the goals of child > support > enforcement provisions and the Personal > Responsibility Act. > All are Republican welfare reform initiatives. > > "Republicans are working to change our child support > collection system. > > "The bill also provides better tools to locate > absent > parents, making additional information available to > the > States, including law enforcement systems and data > on > licenses, newly hired employees and members of > organized > labor. > > "H.R. 4 also provides streamlined procedures to > collect > child support... It also requires licensing agencies > to > collect social security numbers so States may match > child > support and licensing records and impose > restrictions on > licenses held by people who fail to support their > children. > > "Ladies and gentleman, H.R. 4 provides tough tools > to help > deadbeat parents be located and, of course, be > forced to > meet their responsibilities. If you look at the > facts, if > you look at the record, H.R. 4 helps kids. "Let us > vote for > real reform that helps kids, helps children. Let us > pass > H.R. 4 tomorrow on Friday." > (Congressional Record pg. H3705, 1995) > > On August 05, 1995, Senator Dole (R-KS) offered the > final > version of the Child Support Enforcement amendments > as > incorporated into the "Work Opportunity Act of 1995" > (the > Act that eventually passed both Houses) which later > became > known as the "Personal Responsibility Act of 1995." > This Act > is more loosely referred to as the "Welfare Reform > Act" > (H.R.4). (Congressional Record pg. S11640, 1995) > > The huge Welfare Reform bill was heralded as being > the > Republican Congress' plan to "restore the American > family, > reduce illegitimacy, control welfare spending, and > reduce > welfare dependence" -- as so stated by Senator Bob > Dole in > the Senate. And now, the Republicans were determined > to > claim full credit for the Dead-beat dad laws. > > In the House, Congressman Bill Archer (R-TX) proudly > introduced the final version of H.R.4 -- the > "Personal > Responsibility Act" -- including all of the child > support > enforcement locating and tracking, social security > number > reporting, and license suspension measures. > > In introducing the bill, Congressman Archer echoed > the very > same words > used by Senator Dole previously in the Senate: > > "I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. > 4) to > restore the American family, reduce illegitimacy, > control > welfare spending, and reduce welfare dependence." > > Representative Goodling said this about H.R. 4: > > "This conference report comes at the end of a long > and often > difficult process. I want to express my appreciation > of my > colleagues who have not only worked so hard to > achieve a > conference agreement but stood firm in helping us > negotiate > with the other body to achieve a final agreement. I > especially want to express my > appreciation to the Speaker [Newt Gingrich (R-GA)] > and to > the majority leader, as well as to Chairman Archer > and > Chairman Shaw for their leadership during the > conference > with the Senate." (Congressional Record, pg. H15511, > 1995) > > Representative Archer then offered his final > comments > regarding > H.R. 4. With great exuberance, Rep. Archer stated: > > "Mr. Speaker, this is truly an historic day. With > this vote > we arrive at a defining moment in our Nation's > welfare > reform debate. > > "At long last, the Congress and this President have > an > opportunity to show that we mean what we say. > > "We bring forward today a great bill, which includes > participation and input from many Members on both > sides of > the aisle and the White House, a bill that after too > long in > waiting does truly reform our Nation's failed > welfare > system; not by rhetoric, but by substance. > > "Earlier today 30 governors signed a letter to the > President > calling on him to sign this bill, to keep his word, > to put > his name, William Clinton, on the line. But if he > does not, > he will demonstrate that when it comes to welfare > reform, > this President is all talk and no action. He said he > would > end welfare as we know it. If he vetoes > this bill, he will be remembered as the very liberal > President who kept welfare as we have it. > > "Mr. Speaker, this is a great bill and a great > opportunity > to solve one of our Nation's most vexing problems. > > "This is a bill that only an extreme liberal could > oppose. I > urge all my colleagues to fix welfare and vote for > his > conference report." (Congressional Record, pg. > H15511, 1995) > > PRESIDENT CLINTON DOES NOT GO ALONG - VETOS THE > BILL! > > By now, the Republicans were pressuring Democratic > President > Bill Clinton to sign into law the Welfare Reform > Act. > President Clinton had already indicated an > unwillingness to > sign the legislation -- at least partly because it > did not > include enough federal money for school lunch > programs. > > On December 29, 1995, Congress PASSED H.R. 4, the > Welfare > Reform Act > of 1995, (Congressional Record, H15658, 1995). > > But, on January 9, 1995, President Bill Clinton > VETOED H.R. > 4, (Congressional Record, H342 1996). The Republican > Contract With America and the Welfare Reform Act was > wounded... but not dead! > > ROUND TWO FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT BILL > > On May 14, 1996, during the second session of the > 104th > Congress, Congresswoman Roukema again sponsored the > "Child > Support Enforcement > Reform Amendments of 1996," (H.R. 3453), (also > referred to > as the Child Support Improvement Act of 1996). The > wording > in this bill was the exact same wording included in > the bill > vetoed by President Clinton just five months > earlier. > > In introducing Roukema's bill, Senator Snowe stated: > > "Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Child > Support > Improvement Act of 1996. > > "Fourteen months ago, Senator Dole and I introduced > our > bill, the Child Support Responsibility Act of 1995, > which > later became an important piece of the welfare > reform bill. > Since that time, Congress has twice passed welfare > reform, > and twice it has been vetoed. > > "And now, we are in much the same place we were 14 > months > ago. While it is my sincerest hope that child > support will > pass as part of a comprehensive welfare reform bill > this > year, I believe that we must seize this opportunity > to move > forward on child support. Because this issue is too > important to the future of American children to > stand by and > wait any longer. > > "In all fairness, Congress has tried to strengthen > child > support enforcement mechanisms prior to this term. > In 1975, > Congress did pass the Child Support Enforcement and > Paternity Establishment Program as part of the > Social > Security Act, and then it enacted further > improvements to > this effort by way of the 1984 Child Support > Enforcement > Amendments and the Family Support Act of 1988. > > "As co-chair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's > Issues, > we made child support enforcement one of our top > legislative > priorities in previous Congresses, where some 30 > bills were > introduced to address this problem. But I believe we > have > come to a point where everyone agrees that child > support > enforcement is one of the most important aspects of > our > campaign to revamp the welfare system of this > country. It > affects every State--children at every income > level--and it > affects both single mothers and single fathers. As a > national problem, child support enforcement merits a > national solution. > > "That's why I have joined forces again with the > distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole, to > introduce > the Child Support Improvement Act of 1996. I should > add, Mr. > President, that this bill has true bipartisan > support, and > is intended to complement the efforts of my House > colleagues, Congresswomen Nancy Johnson > and Barbara Kennelly, who have introduced companion > legislation in the House. Together, we have > introduced the > same child support provisions which received > overwhelming > support from both parties of Congress, as well as > the > administration, during welfare reform. > > "The bill contains commonsense reforms which achieve > the > following: > > "To strengthen efforts to locate parents, it expands > the > Federal parent locator system by creating Federal > and State > data banks of child support orders, and allowing > State-to-State access of the network. It also > creates > Federal and State directories of new hires, to allow > for > basic information supplied by employers from W-4 > forms to be > compared against child support data. > > "To ensure that collected funds go to families as > soon as > possible, it establishes a centralized State > collections and > disbursements unit, and requires employers that > garnish > wages from employees to pay those withheld wages to > the > State within 5 days. > > "And to facilitate child support enforcement and > collection, > it requires States to adopt the Uniform Interstate > Family > Support Act, to encourage the seamless enforcement > of child > support orders across State lines. > > "Finally, this bill expands the penalties for child > support > delinquency to include the denial of professional, > recreational and driver's license to deadbeat > parents, and > permits the denial of a passport for individuals who > are > more than $5,000 in arrears." (Congressional Record > pg. > S5095, 1996) > > The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity > Reform Act > of 1996, > (H.R. 3734), was later signed into law. The PRWORA, > Public > Law 104-193, included all the new requirements for > reporting > of social security numbers on virtually every single > document used in interactions with virtually every > single > state agency so that individuals can now be located > and > tracked at government's whim. > > A very similar shameful legacy follows the enactment > of the > Immigration Reform Act of 1996 which established the > provisions that are now resulting in all states > standardizing their state-issued driver's licenses. > The > driver's license documents, once standardized, WILL > BE the > de facto National Identification documents. > > With the support of Republicans Newt Gingrich, Bob > Dole, > Bill Archer, and a willing Republican Congress, Pat > Schroeder and the "Congressional Women's Caucus" > finally > realized their long awaited dream -- a method to > locate, > track, and financially annihilate every single human > being > in America. > > by: Scott McDonald > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Note: Make sure you check out the link at the top of > the page about the "SEAL" bill and the Social Security Bill. Is this SEAL spoken of in the Bible. Is this USC 666 Social Security Law an indication that the SSN is the mark of the beast as of its passing. > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com ********************************************* iWon.com www.iwon.com why wouldn't you? ********************************************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ High rates giving you headaches? The 0% APR Introductory Rate from Capital One. 9.9% Fixed thereafter! http://click.egroups.com/1/3010/4/_/525270/_/956082634/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------- Smash The State WWW http://freakpower.homepage.com/smashthestate Shop for Cars On-Line: http://a-albionic.com/ads/srch.html Forwarded for info and discussion from the New Paradigms Discussion List, not necessarily endorsed by: *********************************** Lloyd Miller, Research Director for A-albionic Research (POB 20273, Ferndale, MI 48220), a ruling class/conspiracy research resource for the entire political-ideological spectrum. Quarterly journal, book sales, rare/out-of-print searches, New Paradigms Discussion List, Weekly Up-date Lists & E-text Archive of research, intelligence, catalogs, & resources. To Discuss Ideas: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://msen.com/~lloyd/ For Ordering Info & Free Catalog: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://a-albionic.com/formaddress.html For Discussion List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] text in body: subscribe prj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> **FREE RARE BOOK SEARCH: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ** Explore Our Archive: <http://a-albionic.com/a-albionic.html> Every Diet Has Failed! What Can I do? Click Below to "Ask Dr. Kathleen"! http://www.radiantdiet.com/cgi-bin/slim/deliver.cgi?ask-1364 *********************************** <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html <A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
