"The Future is in the Cards," the Federal Card Services Task Force Electronic Processes Initiatives Committee report announced on January 30, 1998. The report describes a new government "... where all Americans have the opportunity to get services electronically and where, aided by technology, the productivity of government operations will be soaring."

They were talking about smart cards, of course. These smart cards would carry all of our identification and a chip full of other information -- information which was yet to be determined at that time.

http://policyworks.gov/org/main/me/epic/scards.html

Realizing the potential for government abuse if they imposed their smart cards on citizens, and not liking the tone of their propaganda in the report anyway, we commented that government employees should be required to use the new smart card system and get the bugs out first. Then, after some period of time, the American people can decide if they like the idea or not.

Well . . . apparently sometimes one should just say "no" and shut up!

Now comes an article by Colleen O'Hara in the November 15 issue of Federal Computer Week. O'Hara writes that:

A new mandate that requires the use of a common smart card throughout the Defense Department and an upcoming estimated $1 billion government wide solicitation for smart card products and services have set the stage for the federal government to become the largest consumer of smart cards in the world.

 

Government really is going to try it first, in other words.

As a start, the Department of Defense is slated to start the order bidding process for smart cards to be used as a

standard identification card for military, civilian and contractor employees. Employees also will use the card -- which features an embedded computer chip to store data -- to gain access to buildings and to the department's computer networks and systems.

There are already smart cards available for that, of course. And this article would not be here if that was all there was to it. Among other things, DOD wants to incorporate the smart card into its "public-key" encryption system, so it holds the digital security "token" that identifies users when they take part in secure digital transactions.

That's nice. But still not impressive -- or a problem.

It's more than just the military, though. The General Services Administration is also ready to release a solicitation for its government wide Smart Access Common ID Card procurement, which vendors valued at more than a $1 billion contract. This

indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract will provide common, interoperable multiapplication smart cards and services to agencies. The cards will be used as a government ID card but also will support access to computers and buildings.

The GSA says it is not just interested in securing networks and buildings, but also providing the tools to support electronic commerce. And, that's where the government smart card starts to apply to those of us who are not in government.

For instance, the Social Security Administration is interested: GSA's contract "will certainly make it easier to obtain card services," said Tony Trenkle, director of electronic services at the Social Security Administration. Still, it will be up to agencies to make a business case for smart cards, he said. "There is still some internal work that needs to be done, but there's certainly some interest in it for security reasons."

No doubt! The smart card could hold information on the user's Social Security account as well as Medicare and/or Medicaid information. There will probably be plenty of room left over for medical records, too.

In other words, here we go again!

Joseph Leo, deputy administrator for management at the Agriculture Department was also interested: "We want to watch what the big commercial folks are doing because it will have an effect on us." Like, for food stamps, no doubt. And, if it's used for food stamps, then welfare payments and Medicaid will also be added.

So, by this time next year, the federal government is slated to be the largest consumer of smart cards in the world. That will jump start the smart card industry big time. Which means, we can look for commercial smart cards to be everywhere within a couple years.

The future is in the cards, as they said. Our mission will be to keep government out of our personal smart cards.

CyberMark: http://stadiumcard.com/what_is_it/developments.html

DataCard Corp: http://www.datacard.com/products/p6.htm

Dear Charlie: A few years ago, you asked me to attend a Town Hall meeting you and Tom put on. It was a good meeting and I am glad I attended. Except, that is, for a remark both you and Tom made to a constituent about a "yes" vote you both cast on a bill in the previous week's session of the General Assembly.

That bill was to conform to the federal government's demand that states make seat belt use mandatory for all private vehicles. Both you and Tom laughed, saying that was a "no brainer" vote and that there were "protections" for people's rights included. I stated then that the bill was a wholesale violation of liberty and will come back to haunt you in a couple years.

Well, Charlie, the "couple years" is up. Our right to liberty has been almost totally trashed, and that bill helped set the stage for the problem to develop.

When I turned on the television news Thanksgiving weekend, I noticed video footage of police roadblocks reminiscent of Germany near the East-West border in the 1960s. Police were stopping families under a federal directive to insure adults were buckled up and that children were locked in government approved kiddy restraints, the news reader said almost gleefully.

Yeah. Happy Thanksgiving. The police now have an unconstitutional general search warrant with which to violate our personal liberty.

Like Germany in the 1960s, these guards, or police, had guns. They also demanded that citizens present their papers. And, as with the German guards of old, if people did not stop as demanded, the police would chase them down and shoot as necessary.

Talk about deprivation of our right to liberty. This was a first class example of official government oppression -- an unconstitutional general search warrant.

Our right to liberty, as understood by the Founding Fathers, was described by Sir William Blackstone in the law books known as "Blackstone's Commentaries on The Law." Therein, Blackstone writes that our right of Personal Liberty "consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, of moving one's person to whatever place one's own inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint, unless by course of law." We find this right protected, to a limited extent, within the body of our federal Constitution, and further guaranteed within the Bill of Rights.

As with all States, our right to liberty is also protected by the Bill of Rights in the Kentucky Constitution.

Section 1 in the Bill of Rights states that: "All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights." Among these rights are "The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties." The latter could be construed to mean that we also have the right to defend against police roadblocks.

Section 2 states that: "Absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority," which would include the right to be free from being stopped by government agents while suspected of nothing more than existing.

In Section 10 is found our right to be free from warrantless searches, which should include unnecessary traffic stops:

The people shall be secure in their houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable search and seizure; and no warrant shall issue to search any place, or any person or thing, without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.

Do "papers and possessions" include our vehicles and the associated papers? How about "person or thing" then? If not, how did that come about?

Part of "Liberty" is our right to be left alone and "of moving one's person to whatever place one's own inclination may direct." Our right to the liberty of individual autonomy against restraint by governmental authority is protected by our State and federal Constitutions -- those very same Constitutions each and every public official and employee takes an oath promising to defend and obey.

Does an oath of office mean anything anymore? If so, when?

Recently, in a federal appeals court case, it was determined that police officers may be held personally responsible when they violate a citizen's Constitutional rights. The police, of course, replied that they should have immunity from prosecution and/or civil action because they were merely following orders. The court didn't see it that way, though. The police were culpable.

It is the responsibility of every person in government to protect, specifically, the rights of every citizen equally. There being no exception in our State or federal Constitutions for interfering with liberty while driving a vehicle -- just so an officer may "see" if citizens are breaking a law -- the activity is illegal. Therefore, all involved should be prosecuted for deprivation of liberty.

Else, police and their superiors are above the law.

Most of them don't realize it, but American soccer moms are a major source of revenue for anti-Christian communists. That is, they spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year to purchase goods which are made by the Chinese.

More specifically, millions of American soccer moms spend many millions of dollars to purchase goods made in communist Chinese prison camps by forced labor. Some of these are goods which will then be given to friends and family as Christmas gifts.

Many of the people in these Chinese prison camps are there simply because they are Christians. Therefore, it can also be said that millions of American shoppers are purchasing Christmas gifts made by Christians in a communist labor camps for Christians in the United States.

This gets hard to follow because the inmates in these communist labor camps produce everything from office supplies to baby toys. Small, simple to produce items like paper clips and toddler toys are common. So is clothing.

China, you see, is not only the world's largest country, it is also the world's largest oppressor of Christians. Generally speaking, anything but state approved religions are illegal in China. Authorities reportedly raided and closed hundreds of "house-church" groups of both Catholic and Protestant denominations in 1996 and 1997 alone. Yet, the State Department estimates the unregistered Christian population in China to still be between 30 and 70 million people.

That's 30 to 70 million people breaking the communist laws. As a result, there are more people imprisoned for religious activity in China than in any other nation in the world. And, housing and feeding all of these religious prisoners takes a lot of money.

So, the communist Chinese make the Christian prison camp inmates work. It's as simple as that. The prisoners must produce a product that realizes a profit for the communist government. Then, China ships much of those inexpensive products over here for us to buy.

Some religions are tolerated in China. That is, as long as their teachings are approved by government and the membership registers their faith. But not all Chinese Christians wish to do that. That's where we get those 30 to 70 million Christians in China our State Department identified as "unregistered." The communist Chinese call them "counter-revolutionaries."

Communism demands conformity. So, the government started a crack down against the counter- revolutionaries. The Chinese communist government called for the eradication of the independent Christian movement -- those counter-revolutionarily criminals practicing religion without permission.

Roman Catholic priests and bishops have been arrested for simply celebrating Mass. Protestant believers are arrested for holding prayer meetings in their homes or preaching and distributing Bibles without government approval.

Local authorities love the new laws. Because, to them, it means an extra source of income. They frequently use the central government regulations to extort money from unregistered church members. That is done by forcibly breaking up clandestine prayer meetings and holding worshippers without being charged until they can raise enormous sums to buy their releases.

If the Christian does not immediately have the money demanded by the local officials, they get beat -- often severely enough to cause death. Reports are that Christian Chinese women have been hung by their thumbs by wires, beaten with heavy rods and shocked with electric probes. The torturers like to do most of that in front of the prisoner's family members so as to encourage the family to come up with quick payment. Another torture method favored against Christians entails crushing the ankles of victims while they are forced to kneel.

China has thousands of forced labor camps where devout Christians and ordinary citizens alike are sentenced. Many of these labor camps are providing products that are marketed here. The communist Chinese government usually realizes the profit from these camps, but some camps are also involved in providing labor for multinational corporations.

The Clinton Administration, of course, is silent about persecuted Chinese Christians. Clinton acts as though these people don't even exist. Perhaps that is because Clinton and Gore owe the communist Chinese so much.

Regardless, we should watch those labels when we purchase. Just because the Clinton administration does nothing to help the imprisoned Christians (and other persecuted religious minorities) in China, there is absolutely no reason we need to buy the products of these labor camps.

If things at last week's World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting in Seattle went like the 1993 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting, the VHF/UHF radio frequency energy level in that city raised a few thousand times.

At the APEC meeting, leaders of about 15 nations gathered in Seattle to discuss the future of trade and security issues involving the United States and various Pacific countries. And, as one might imagine, some of that information could be worth quite a lot to various large multinational business contributors to the Clinton campaign fund and the Democratic Party coffers.

Anyway, according to Timothy W. Maier in the September 29, 1997 and October 20, 1997 issues of Insight Magazine, the FBI and federal spooks joined forces in a large scale espionage project. "There were bugs placed in over 300 locations," a high-level source with detailed knowledge about the extraordinary top-secret operation told Insight.

It was a top secret national-security operation. Audio and video-surveillance equipment was everywhere. Most hotel rooms, telephones and meetings were bugged. But, there was yet another twist: Sex was provided to the visiting dignitaries. Illegal and perverted type sex.

According to Insight:

As part of the spy program, underage boys were provided as prostitutes to visiting dignitaries attending the week long November conference of 15 Asia-Pacific nations.

As reported, the espionage data were turned over to attorneys working closely with the DNC. And/or, information was passed from the White House to big Democratic corporate donors. Such is this administration's idea of "national security."

http://207.238.36.125/archive/investiga/dncindex.shtml

For last week's WTO meeting, the only twist we know about so far is the normal cast of shady public protest characters. We thought some of these folks had retired by now, but apparently not.

The semi-professional communist agitator groups and a few socialist instigator groups were in the background pulling the strings of dissent. They even had anarchist goon squads out smashing cars and windows, hoping they could incite a full scale riot. It almost worked, too.

Making up the bulk of the real people protesters, thousands of union people took time off to be there. The dock workers closed down most of the West coast shipping docks to protest. And old professional protest training groups were even there (Ruckus) to show the novices how to get the most results per chant.

Obstruction and disruption being two of the primary goals of a demonstration, the far left protesters got what they wanted the first day: the opening of the meeting was delayed. Protesters surrounded the place, so few foreign delegates could get to the meeting. Police responded by turning out in force, dressed in riot gear rather than crowd control uniforms. By evening, the police were tired and confused by the coordinated street action.

Complicating the issue, the King of the U.S. was coming that night and his Palace guards demanded that those protesters get dispersed quickly.

So, Tuesday evening, Seattle's Mayor declared a state of emergency and imposed a curfew. With that, most civil rights were suspended and people were ordered to be off the downtown streets. Except, the city also cut off the downtown public transpiration service, so evacuation took a while. The police panicked and were reinforced by professionals. To speed things up, they brought in armored vehicles and a couple tons of strong chemical irritants. Then, police began shooing people away by spraying everyone and anyone with tear gas and pepper spray. Modern concussion grenades, rubber bullets and bean-bag shells were an interesting touch for the "crowd control" of peaceful demonstrators, too.

They also called in the National Guard (unarmed) and some of the hotels actually went into "lock-down" mode, forcing patrons (and all the foreigners) to stay in their rooms and/or the hotel bars -- where they were easy to watch (i.e., bug).

And so began Seattle's second major mistake. Through poor planning, the Seattle Police lost control of the streets surrounding the meeting area. Then, instead of removing to "safety" the handful of foreigners who were of no consequence or importance to the city or the American people, the police allowed the foreigners to stay and attacked the American citizens. Silly and unproductive!

Generally speaking, many of the most obvious protesters were from far left groups. Not all WTO dissenters were lefties, though. From Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, and quite a number of conservative Members of Congress on the right, to Ralph Nader and the tree hugger green groups on the far left, the WTO was constantly criticized by most political camps.

Nader warns that the WTO would "impose an autocracy above our modest democracy." Decisions about trade policies are made by unaccountable, unelected foreign bureaucrats in Geneva. Far away committees made up of third world representatives are allowed to alter U.S. trade policies as well as some of our health, safety and environmental standards. Interestingly enough, Nader agrees with Gingrich that appointments to the WTO Secretariat could be dominated by corrupt regimes, which could then undermine U.S. interests.

It's true, too. There is a definite problem with the organization. The WTO was created by and for multinational corporations. Consequently, one of the most important concerns with WTO is that the multinational corporations are both calling the shots and then benefiting from the rulings -- usually to the detriment of the involved nations. The WTO not only promotes free international trade, it also attempts to control that trade by banning nations -- like the United States -- from interfering through regulations. Worse, WTO decisions are made in secret and then compliance is demanded upon announcement.

"The WTO should never have been created. It's an embryonic monster. I don't think it has a great life expectancy," Pat Buchanan said.

By bringing China into the WTO and by seeking to grant China unrestricted, open access to the greatest market on Earth without asking anything in return, Bill Clinton in my judgment is dealing away the human rights of the Chinese people, selling out the workers of the United States and impairing the sovereignty of this country.

Buchanan is correct. Except for the very wealthy, and the politicians to whom the wealthy contribute bribes and campaign funds, most groups seem to have some type of an ax to grind with the WTO. Already, there has been a major protest/riot in London. Others are planned. The World Trade Organization's days are probably numbered.

Ruckus: http://www.ruckus.org

Action Network: http://www.amnesty.ca

Urban75: http://www.urban75.com

(Anarchist) Mid-Atlantic Infoshop: http://www.infoshop.org

Black Army Faction: http://www.onecity.com/pirate/pe6/anarch.html

  ** uhuh **

The President said he is reducing taxes.

uhuh.

Congress says they are balancing the budget.

uhuh. Sez who?

Web Home Page: www.uhuh.com

---

This web page can NOT be altered or sold, but may be copied intact for reasonable distribution in keeping with the philosophy of uhuh and GR Force, who can assume no liabilities. Please make you own decisions.

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 1996 by Forest Glen Durland.

hu161.htm. Revised 12-4-99. uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.