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

REAL ID hidden in immigration reform bill

1 Comment

Untitled-1

His administration has been caught red-handed spying on Associated Press reporters.

The IRS is just now admitting to spying on Tea Party and conservative groups — and accused of exacting political revenge on others.

Now you and I see, buried deep within the 800-plus pages of the so-called “Immigration Reform” Bill, a new biometric National ID scheme to open the door to more government intrusion the lives of every American . . .

You and I are supposed to believe neither the Obama administration nor career Washington, D.C. bureaucrats will abuse the massive new powers they crave.

But if recent history teaches us anything, it’s that they will.

That’s why I’m counting on you to

fill out your No National ID Petition IMMEDIATELY.

You see, President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have already announced “Immigration Reform” could be brought to the U.S. Senate floor in just a matter of weeks.

As I’ve said, without border security, any deal is dead on arrival.

But another — and perhaps even more dangerous — deal-breaker is the institution of a new National ID card.

Under the National ID scheme, the Department of Homeland Security would create a massive new photo database to include names, ages, and Social Security numbers of every single American.

The database would be tied to a biometric National ID card to include information like fingerprints and facial and retinal scans. More

Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star – DHS Knows Who You Are!

24 Comments

Lynn Swearingen (c) copyright 2011 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

There is a new component to the Connecticut and Florida Drivers Licenses – the much touted “Gold Star” two-tiered program which is partially Federally Funded, but all Federally Mandated. Starting October 3rd, residents of Connecticut will be required to provide as many as 6 forms of Identification to get this specially marked State ID (PDF). (No that xerox you took of your face does not count!)

There is an opt out, but it comes with an increasingly steep price:

DMV Commissioner Melody A. Currey said that without the gold star travelers will likely face greater scrutiny at airports and when entering federal buildings. Currey said the DMV is rolling out the new program now because Connecticut is on a six-year license renewal cycle and everyone needs to have a new license before 2017, when the federal regulations go into effect.

“This is a federally mandated program to improve security,” Currey said. “We live next door to New York City and after what happened there I think we need to assure our residents that we are doing everything we can to properly identify people.”

I find this humorous. What type of additional scrutiny are we talking about here? Already passengers  enjoy the “after dinner foreplay” without the obligatory 3 course cheap buffet to get into an airport, what’s next – a cavity search because we won’t wear carry the Federally Funded and Mandated yellow star? More

The Accidental Terrorist (Update)

12 Comments

Washington State Department of Agriculture is interested in your purchases as well.

Along with the “Watchlist Service” which apparently will become the “List of Lists” – one wonders who is watching the watchers?

Homeland Security plans to operate a massive new database of names, photos, birthdays and biometrics called Watchlist Service, duplicated from the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database which has proven not to be accurate many times in the past. DHS wants to exempt the Watchlist Service from Privacy Act provisions, meaning you will never know if you are wrongfully listed. Privacy groups worried about inaccurate info and mission creep have filed a protest, arguing the Privacy Act says DHS must notify subject of government surveillance. More

Old News – Same TSA Tactics

14 Comments

Lynn Swearingen (c) copyright 2010 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

As Mommy and Daddy put little Timmy on the bus to school for his first day of Pre-Kindergarden, they were very confused. Why were those strangers running their hands down Timmy’s little backside? Why did they choose to fondle his “special places”? Oh well, they shrugged as they turned to go home and prepare for work, Timmy was in “Good Hands” even if it wasn’t a famous insurance company.

A TSA representative presented an overview of the administration’s Intermodal Security and Transportation Exercise Program (I-STEP) as a vital resource to help school districts and private bus companies develop table-top training to prevent criminal and terrorist attacks on and using school buses.

If the above seems unbelievable, consider the fact that 10 years ago the American Public would never have considered Transportation Safety to include “Inter-Underpant Screening (IUS)” (TM). Even the thought of some blue gloved stranger sliding their approved finger under the wire of feminine support devices seemed ridiculous. Now this is a “standard operating procedure”. Everyone knows we must be safe in our “intermodal transportation process”:

Where are these programs targeted at this point? No one knows. According to DHS: More

H.J.res. 62. Amending the Constitution to end states rights?

32 Comments

 

Marti Oakley (c)copyright 2011 All Rights reserved

____________________________________________

H. J. Res. 62, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to give States the right to repeal Federal laws and regulations when ratified by the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States

_______________________

Sounds like a great deal..right?  Wrong!  The states already have the right to repeal Federal laws and regulations.  It is called nullification under the 10th Amendment. 

Or, states can refuse to contract with the Federal government or any of its privately owned corporate agencies thereby refusing the contract and any of its provisions (regulations or laws).

Secondary to this action, is the refusal to accept any federal funding offered to implement what is usually a series of laws or regulations, (these being written by unelected bureaucrats, lobbyists and other interested stakeholders), meant to deprive you of your rights, intrude on your privacy, interfere with your right to engage in business and otherwise reduce and abrogate your constitutionally protected freedoms. 

Article 5 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Any amendments to the Constitution must be ratified by the legislatures of three/fourths of the states.  Congress, neither House nor Senate, has the authority to alter or amend anything in the Constitution in and of their respective bodies. 

So what are they after? More

Stool Pigeon Protection Act

14 Comments

 

Nothing to see. Move along.

Lynn Swearingen (c) copyright 2010 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

American Citizens – rise to the call of your Masters. Something funny over at Uncle Joe’s house? Think that maybe Mary is a Muslim? Tammy is a Terrorist? Could Bob have a Bomb? Is Christina a “Fundamentalist Christian” bound and determined to conceal her secret life? See unauthorized Glassware somewhere in Texas? What about fingernail polish in California that contains the “wrong” chemical composition?

c. Dibutyl Pthalate (DBP) or Any Pthalates have been shown to cause birth defects & are technically illegal in California;

It’s okay to tell us – we are here to protect you…..

See Something, Say Something Act of 2011 : Federal HR More

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: