Since the Soviet Union was still around as recently as 1989, it would seem that comparisions to that system would be much more timely and relevant than comparisons to a system that was crushed over fifty-five years ago.
The ironic point is that the ACLU used to defend individual "liberties." They still do, to some extent, but they have been sadly diverted to issues like "abortion rights," pornography, and sexual perversion, and when these pet issues conflict with basic freedoms, they sometimes come down against freedom--Right-to-Life counseling being a typical issue of this kind. On an issue like National ID, however, conservatives could and should ally themselves with liberals on preserving our basic constitutional rights. After all, the politicians who would like to impose these controls also form strange alliances, such as the one that threatens between Ashcroft and Ellison.
I think the Nazi stuff always comes to the surface because it's a fantastic example of what can happen when you abuse executive power..
I mean, Look what happened.. and then look what nearly happened..
It's no wonder people make these refrences and compare..
Looks like the Russkies still have their "National ID"
Propiska
Susan Brazier *
Background
A propiska is a permit issued by the authorities that registers the bearer's place of residence. Its use is a legacy of the Tsarist government's internal passport regime implemented to control population movements throughout the Empire, particularly to manage urbanisation in the late 19th century. Restrictions on peasants' movements were lifted in 1906 and the entire internal passport system was abandoned shortly after the 1917 Revolution. In December 1932, however, the Soviet government aped its predecessors by re-introducing internal passports.
Under the Soviets, internal passports were issued at the age of 16, subject to renewal every five years, with a propiska, or residency permit stamped inside. No change in residence could be made without official permission and failure to register was subject to fines or imprisonment. A valid propiska was required in order to work, get married or gain access to education or social services. Individuals were required to present their passports and propiski for internal travel or on demand by authorities or employers.
Propiska was particularly difficult to obtain for certain places, such as Moscow. Many people were refused propiska for Moscow virtually as a rule, including ex-convicts, political dissidents and Roma. Because these documents were so difficult to get, and were sometimes arbitrarily withdrawn, bribery and fake marriages became common methods of circum-venting the law.
Post 1991 Propiska was officially abolished when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. However, several successor states continue to use propiska or some form of official permission to register one's place of residence, including Belarus, the Russian Federation and Kyrgyzstan. Armenia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Ukraine have abolished the need to apply for permission, but still require that residence be registered. Georgia has done away with all forms of registration, and in Moldova the practice was declared unconstitutional in May 1997.
Registration laws are often contradictory or unclear, enforced haphazardly or simply ignored. In Kazakhstan, the government can still refuse registration in certain places, especially the capital. In Ukraine, access to social benefits is tied to place of registration, meaning individuals can lose access to social benefits after moving. In Belarus, refugees have had difficulties obtaining their propiski because of housing shortages and bureaucratic difficulties. On the other hand, in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, the propiska laws still on the books have been increasingly ignored over the past several years.
Russian Federation: evolution of the system In the Russian Federation, courts have tried to address the issues of residence registration and freedom of movement on several occasions. The Russian Constitutional Court has abolished propiska five times since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, yet legislatures at various levels have continued to issue laws aimed at controlling migration and residency that are blatantly unconstitutional, and a propiska-like system is still in place across many parts of the country. Between 30 and 40 of Russia's 89 regions have laws unconstitutionally restricting local migration or registration, including Moscow City and Moscow District, St. Petersburg, Krasnodar and Stavropol Territories and Voronezh District.
Residence registration in Russia is restricted by a web of local, regional and national regulations that, among other things, detail the amount of floor space legally required before a propiska can be issued and list who can sponsor newcomers to an area. The enormous fees charged for registration are another common restrictive measure. These fees have usually been highest in urban centres and areas that might receive influxes of population due to ethnic conflict. In some cases, they could be higher than the cost of a house, running to several thousand dollars. In April 1996, the Moscow District decreased their registration fees to 300 times the minimum monthly wage (approximately 25,000 Russan rubles or 890 euros).
On February 2, 1998, the Constitutional Court declared un-constitutional restrictions on duration of registration at place of sojourn and floor space quotas, as well as regional restrictions. Moscow Mayor Luzhkov responded by declaring publicly that he would refuse to obey the Court's ruling.
Simple. It's because most of those who rule us were, and continue to be, fellow travelers to socialism.
The Soviets survived as long as they did because of "information", confiscation, and the fear instilled in the sheeple by the sight of frequent SWAT-equivalent violence against innocent civilians.
In his wildest dreams, Dzerzhinsky might not have imagined the current control of the serfs that is imposed by today's technology.
The main difference between fascism and communism is the location of "title of ownership" for industry/economy. Control of production, one way or another, is in government hands. Everything else, for these two forms of socialism, are more or less the same.
So, what we have here in the U.S. is a growing fascist form of socialism. This time around, the tyranny will last, as predicted in 1964, for at least a thousand years...not just 70 or 10.
Within a few years, when a few more of the sheeple wake up to the real terrorist threat, it will be too late.
WW1 (e.g. emergency war powers acts) and WW2 (e.g. payroll deduction of taxes) were used by those in power to impose "temporary" unConstitutional rules and regulations on the Nation or to simply throw out/sidestep "temporarily" Constitutional guarantees, all in the name of some "external threat". None of these "temporary" abrogations of the former Constitution were ever undone!
What can be done? Nothing. This past election was the last and only chance to restore the Republic and the freedom and liberty it used to protect.
For a while, it seemed, with perceived Constitutionalists like Ashcroft in place, that something might be done. It was similar to the hopes held when the Republcans re-gained control of congress.
However, we were rewarded, for 1994, at the hands of the Republocrats, with the greatest loss of Constitutional guarantees in our history. Now, once again, we see that it isn't known enemies (demoncruds) that we really have to fear. It is those we assume are our friends/allies.
This administration is on the verge of finalizing Ronald Reagan's prophecy.