Home

Victory: Oklahoma Moves to Enact Law Accommodating Religious Objections to Biometric Photo Requirement on Drivers’ Licenses

Leave a comment

RutherfordHeader_2This press release is also available at www.rutherford.org.

May 18, 2016

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. — Spurred on by a lawsuit filed by attorneys for The Rutherford Institute, the Oklahoma State Legislature is poised to enact a law that protects individuals from being forced to violate their religious beliefs by submitting to a biometric photograph as a condition of obtaining a driver’s license.

The Institute’s lawsuit, filed on behalf of Kaye Beach, a Christian, against the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety (DPS), asserts that requiring a biometric photo requirement as a condition of obtaining a driver’s license violates Oklahoma’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Unable to renew her driver’s license because of her objection to the biometric photo requirement, Beach has been deprived of common benefits and services that hinge on possessing a valid driver’s license, including the ability to acquire prescription medications, use her debit card, rent a hotel room or obtain a post office box. Upon being signed by the governor, the new law, S.B. 683, would require that the DPS issue a nonbiometric driver’s license to anyone raising a religious objection to the biometric photo and destroy any biometric images of the residents held by the DPS. In April 2016, Oklahoma’s Court of Civil Appeals reversed a lower court judgment against Beach and reinstated her lawsuit.

“Whether a person views a biometric ID card in the form of a driver’s license or other government-issued form of identification as the mark of the Beast or merely the long arm of Big Brother, the outcome remains the same: ultimate control by the government,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “As Kaye Beach’s case makes clear, failing to have a biometric card can render you a non-person for all intents and purposes, with your ability to work, travel, buy, sell, access health care, and so on jeopardized.” More

Exploiting the elderly — a lucrative practice

Leave a comment

new-logo25By Angela V. Woodhull

 

 

10468201_687314554677465_9114756285200928886_nFew of us would enjoy having the bulk of our entire lifetime of savings converted into attorneys’ fees during the golden years of our lives. Yet that is happening with such frequency that the offspring of many of the elderly victims are gathering to speak out against ageism and the involuntary redistribution of assets.
One of the most famous occurred in Phoenix, Ariz., where 83-year-old Marie Long, was wrongly declared “mentally incompetent” (an astonishingly frequent occurrence in the courts where lots of money is involved). Subsequently, her professional guardian and the guardian’s attorneys spent all of Long’s money, $1.3 million, in less than two years. Most of Long’s money went for attorneys’ fees
Most of us are now familiar with foreclosure scams, unscrupulous homeowners associations and family court abuses. But few are aware of the lucrative corporate business of professional guardians and their attorneys gorging themselves on the assets of the elderly.
The Internet abounds with information about court-sanctioned predatory professional guardians and attorneys posted by groups such as the National Association to Stop Guardianship Abuse, the National Organization to End Guardianship Abuse, Estate of Denial, and ANGER (Advocates for National Guardianship Ethics and Reform)
Ageism is the new frontier of exploitation. This new civil rights movement promises to affect all of us at some point, since every one of us expects to grow old.
Few of us would enjoy spending our golden years imprisoned in a marginal nursing home while unscrupulous attorneys and their guardians gouge our assets.
The American Association of Retired Persons has tenuously addressed this noteworthy issue, and the Government Accountability Office recently released a 57-page report about financial exploitation of the elderly. Increased public awareness is the first step to ending court-sanctioned predatory guardianships, ageism, and the involuntary redistribution of assets.

Q: Why Will the Democratic Party and its Super-Delegates Some Day Regret Sabotaging Bernie Sanders’ Candidacy?

3 Comments

Duty to Warn

new-logo25kohlsBy Gary G. Kohls, MD

 

 

 

A: Because Hillary is a NeoCon

This presidential election has been both invigorating and frustrating for me and many other progressives who have awakened and witnessed the real, but now weakening hope for the much-needed, nonviolent political revolution that has been proposed by the New Deal/Fair Deal, democratic socialist candidacy of Bernie Sanders.

If the Democratic Party continues sabotaging this highly respected, increasingly popular, increasingly electable  and very well-liked altruistic candidate and denies him his deserved candidacy because of the party’s pro-Wall Street, pro-War Street insiders, it will regret having done so as much as the GOP will regret running Donald Trump as their candidate.

After a disastrous, long dry spell of rule by the pro-economic colonialism, pro-militarism elites (that control both political parties), another rare, highly ethical, truly democratic politician who is not beholden to the powers that be) has successfully – albeit totally unwelcomed by the establishment – interjected himself into the consciousness of the American electorate and has ignited the imaginations and hopes of millions of folks who have “felt the Bern”.

But there have been other American idealists throughout history that have also felt the Bern, but such people-power movements have happened only a handful of times over the last century, each movement or candidate usually getting snuffed out, either by assassination, imprisonment (as in the case of Eugene Debs), smear campaigns or other political intrigue. More

%d bloggers like this: