Posted on 05/05/2006 7:21:22 AM PDT by churchillbuff
Is the national ID card the next step toward the imposition of the biblical "mark of the beast" Christians believe will be required to buy and sell during the Last Days?
That's the contention of a growing group of believers who are working to turn back the approval of the Real ID Act by Congress last year. Public Law 109-13 requires the national ID portion of the plan go into effect by May 2008.
"There is a prophecy in the Bible that foretells a time when every person will be required to have a mark or a number, without which he or she will not be able to participate in the economy," states the Christian website NoNationalID.com. "The prophecy is 2,000 years old, but it has been impossible for it to come to pass until now. With the invention of the computer and the Internet, this prophecy of buying and selling, using a number, can now be implemented at any time. Has the time for the fulfillment of this prophecy arrived?"
The site asks visitors to sign an online petition vowing not to vote for any candidate who does not commit to repealing the Real ID Act.
The goal, states the site, which is sponsored by Endtime Ministries, is to get 100,000 signatures on the petition.
On the site is a link to purchase a DVD entitled "666 – How Close? Will the National ID Become the Mark of the Beast?"
Americans choosing not to carry a national ID, the site warns, will be prohibited from driving a car, boarding a plane, train or bus, entering any federal building, opening a bank account, or possibly from holding a job.
"This is probably our last chance to head off the mechanism before it is actually implemented as the mark," states the site in the FAQ section. "It truly may be now or never."
The Real ID Act requires states to participate in a federal data-sharing program when issuing driver's licenses, making those licenses de facto national ID cards.
Touted as a tool of the war on terrorism, the ID card provision of the law, which also includes border-security measures, has attracted the most negative attention.
After May 11, 2008, "a federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver's license or identification card issued by a State to any person unless the State is meeting the requirements" specified in the Real ID Act. While states can issue non-federal ID cards, they would not be accepted by the Transportation Security Administration for travel purposes, grounding those who don't carry federally approved cards.
The data required to be included in each card are, among other things, the person's full legal name, date of birth, gender, driver's license number, a digital photo, the person's address and machine-readable technology so the information can be ready easily by government or banking personnel.
Each state must agree to share the data on the cards with every other state.
Supporters of the law say it does not require a "national" ID card because each state issues its own cards, not the federal government. But detractors note the cards are virtual national IDs since the federal law has dictated what data must be included and that each state must share its database with the others.
The New Hampshire Senate yesterday voted to reject a bill to rebel against the Real ID system and not participate in a pilot program for which the state had been tapped. The state House of Representatives passed the measure last month, but the Senate instead voted to study the driver's license requirements.
U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., is urging his home state to give Real ID a try, saying it's needed to keep terrorists and illegal aliens from entering the country.
According to the Manchester Union Leader, Gregg argues that New Hampshire residents will find it difficult to get on airplanes or enter federal buildings if New Hampshire doesn't embrace Real ID.
Groups opposed to the Real ID Act are making strange bedfellows, with Christians like those running NoNationalID.com fighting on the same side with the American Civil Liberties Union, which sponsors the website RealNightmare.org.
The ACLU site decries the fact that a motor vehicles department staff person will be required to ask for immigration-status papers from those applying for driver's licenses.
"REAL ID will inevitably cause discrimination against U.S. citizens who may 'look' or 'sound' foreign to a DMV bureaucrat," states the site. "REAL ID requires DMV employees to decide whether someone is a citizen or foreigner before issuing a driver's license. The law demands that DMV bureaucrats distinguish among citizens, permanent resident immigrants and other non-citizens in deciding who is eligible for a license and what type of license may be issued.
"Based on past experience when similar requirements were imposed on employers, widespread discrimination resulted against citizens who 'looked' or 'sounded' foreign."
The civil-liberties group also slams a requirement of the law that some immigrants be issued a temporary "tier-two" license that has a prominent expiration date.
U.S. governors also have come out against the law, saying it is a huge unfunded mandate imposed on the nation's states.
The National Conference of State Legislatures is equally opposed to the Real ID Act, saying, "Federal legislators and rule makers are negating state driver's license security efforts, imposing difficult-to-comply-with mandates and limiting their flexibility to address new concerns as they arise. In other words, decades of state experience is being substituted for a 'command and control regime' from a level of government that has no driver's license regulatory experience."
Endtime Ministries' Irvin Baxter, a radio host, believes the national ID is a precursor to the forced embedding of radio-frequency chips under the skin.
Baxter told the Concord, N.H., Monitor: "That's where we are headed right now. The prophecy states that you will have to receive a mark on your hand or in your forehead."
If the government opresses you then you use that vote and lobby to change those laws.
You attempt in this example to equate an entity of multiple people to one person. Surely you can do better than that.
Here in this state if a criminal 'opresses' you you are bound to try to flee before you use deadly force. Not that I agree with it, I vote in ways that oppose such a policy but that is the law here today thanks to lefty democrats.
I would suggest to you that this state is in for change as every election cycle shows the state growing more and more red outside Chicago, a bit of rockford area and maybe some of champaign.
I never said the constitution was irrelevant.
TIP: when you have to make up things then you lost the argument. Isn't that the sign of a lefty when they make things up?
ID is not forsaking liberty. Your premise is flawwed and spun like a top.
I beg you to show me how your ID is a violation of your rights. You have yet to do so.
I just said they are already prosecuted for those crimes in the very post you are responding to. I would think that's tanamount to an admission that they are prosecuted via IDs. If they are already prosecuted for those crimes via an ID, why do we need another one?
Oh and your DNA database question? No. Why? Because I'm not a criminal, if I am a suspect in a crime they can come to me with a warrant.
Yes, W is a globalist one worlder. The wish to dismantle the USA and install a socialist regime across the world.
I'm an America firster and somewhat of an isolationist. Not as bad as Pat, but Buchanan and I agree 95% of the time.
The idea in our legal system by the by is tro make it more difficult for LEOs to make cases. Most breaks are given to the accused.
You're advocating a Code Napoleon or even EU style system of justice with your crap.
And the constitution is NOT, I repeat NOT a "living document. Its an enduring one.
Man, you're gettin' beat up all over trhis forum, pal. Do you always bring knives to gunfights?
A National ID with any DNA or biometric info on me, that will track my movements violates the Sixth Amendment.
Do I have to explain to you what a "slippery slope" is?
If the government opresses you then you use that vote and lobby to change those laws.
That is a nice idea, and actually works in a representative republic. But not in a democracy.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage." --Alexander Tyler
I just stated why I'm against national IDs.
I suggest you read ir, statist.
It is laughable that you would say the rule of law means slavery. Or that ID means slavery to the rule of law.
I advocate an ID to hold you accountable TO the constitution.
It amazes me that lengths people will go to claim that our founders were AGAINST ID! Pure Foolishness when they were indeed ESTABLISHING a national ID....that of AMERICANS.
SEE NOW they were PROUD to be identified as AMERICANS and they SIGNED their NAMES to the document that made it all happen......something about a John Hancock???????? To say these folks were against ID would mean that all the forming of the government of this nation was done in private behind closed doors by people that wanted to keep their identity secret! PURE FOOLISHNESS!
WHAT SAY YOU?
Oh no?
In other words, you think the Constitution is irrelevant because it was written so long ago.
When all else fails, resort to lies. Enemies of liberty are so predictable. 
Many of those prosecutions are contested for years upon years becasue of a dispute about ID.
The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;
Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
You mean the "common sense" that replaced it when it got too old, right?
A specific that directs the action to take in dealing with the internet. How is that? Thatis for the judgment made by congress and approved or disapproved by SCOTUS. The bodies that the constitution gives the power to handle such specifics.
Rattrap, the ID is not effective in prosecution and sanctuary cities have made it so that law enforcment CANNOT EVEN ASK FOR ID...and that is WHY there is no prosecution of ILLEGALS....care to deny that policy of sanctuary cities?
You aren't reading my posts...i never said you need another ID..I have said repeatedly you need one that actually works...do you not know the meaning of the words "INSTEAD OF"?
How can they come to you with a warrant when they cannot ID you in order to get a warrant with your name on it?
How does your DNA on your license track your movements?
Your ATM card does that today now doesn't it? Camera;s in every bank and store do too huh?
Are these all violations of the 6th also? HA HA HA suuuuure they are.
You can chose not to go there. You can chose not to have an ID.....but then you have to accept the consequences of that choice...and THAT is what you are really opposed to.
That makes you the lefty in this conversation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.