In part I of this series, I exposed the several phony declarations of “state sovereignty” currently being announced in the media, lately, by pointing out the fact that several of these same states have also been concurrently passing new laws that further violate the Second Amendment, under the pretense of lifting Second Amendment restrictions and “protecting” gun owners from gun confiscations during martial law.
In part II, I went a step farther and pointed out the fact that all of the states “declaring sovereignty” also happen to have FEMA camp locations within their boundaries and that some of them have also played host to martial law training drills for soldiers, police, firefighters and other “first responders” to “emergency” situations like biological and nuclear attacks.
In this part of the series, I shall point out that some of the same states are also either complying with the federal government’s illegal mandate for Real ID, or are currently making preparations to do so.
First, there is Nevada, which has has introduced legislation (SB52) that will bring Nevada into full compliance with Real ID standards. This bill has been introduced by the Nevada State Senate’s Finance Committee.
Then there is Arkansas, which has passed a similar bill (HB 1978), introduced in the Arkansas House of Representatives by Rep. John Edwards (D-Little Rock).
As for the state of Washington, also declaring its “sovereignty,” there seems to be some question as to whether or not its governor’s assurance it would not comply with Real ID are genuine, given the state’s previous apparent acceptance of Real ID.
The same sort of backsliding seems to be occurring in New Hampshire (the state whose motto is “Live free or die”), where there was first an “overwhelming” majority voting to reject Real ID, back in 2006, but in 2008, Governor John Lynch reportedly drafted a letter to ask Homeland Security to merely delay the enforcement of Real ID in New Hampshire. What a difference two years makes.
While Missouri has recently announced it will reject Real ID, after all, it had originally approved funding to put into place a “verification hub” to accommodate Real ID, in 2008. Can they be expected to reject Real ID, or will they flip-flop again and use those funds as planned earlier? Given that it is the Missouri Information Analysis Center (directed by the governor and the Missouri State Highway Patrol) that has recently released to police officers and highway patrolmen an “alert” branding all patriots - including supporters of third party candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr - as “militia members,” to be feared as enemies of law enforcement in Missouri, it seems probable.
Oklahoma - first to “declare sovereignty,” has also taken a less than certain stance on Real ID, first approving of it, then appearing to back away from that decision. But, as I pointed out in Part II, Okahoma has several FEMA detention centers, including the main federal inmate transfer center west of the Mississippi, right here in Oklahoma City. So, again, what are we to believe about the sincerity of Oklahoma legislators’ intentions?
California, another of the states alleging to declare its “sovereignty,” has apparently caved on Real ID, first passing a law complying with it in 2006, then passing an initiative that prepares for it in 2007.
Georgia, also pretending to declare state sovereignty, has never seemed to have a problem with the contradictory approval of Real ID for its unwitting citizens, even going so far as to deny its citizens access to the Hartsfield-Atlanta Airport if they did not comply.
Indiana, another state supposedly declaring its sovereignty from the federal government, was among the first states to eagerly adopt Real ID. So much for that “sovereignty.”
As of 2007, Kansas, yet another of the several states “declaring sovereignty,” said it had no problem with Real ID, either.
Alabama, another “early adopter” of Real ID, has since also appeared to (maybe) flip-flop on the issue, making the pretense, later, of rejecting it, but, being among those states that has FEMA detention facilities while “declaring its sovereignty,” what are we to believe is the truth?
As for those “sovereignty movement” states that appear to be rejecting Real ID, as I pointed out in Parts I and II, there are other concerns which make it doubtful that they will, ultimately follow through with their rejection of Real ID.
As with the so-called “sovereignty movement,” the “rebellion” against Real ID appears to be all for show - a contrivance to lull Americans into a state of false security, believing their states will protect them from the fascist federal regime, while, at the same time, those same states are preparing for the implementation of martial law in America.
If you have any further doubts of this, look into each of the “sovereign” states’ recent legislative track records and ask yourself if the blizzard of laws they are all feverishly passing lately either rejects or supports the rise of a fascist police state. If you actually bother to read those laws, I think you will find more support for it than rejection.
Ultimately, when a government tells you it will voluntarily limit its own powers, you can be sure that’s a warning that the opposite is about to occur, for no government in history has ever willingly relinquished its power - and none, once they have it - ever will.