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 youy do not have a national ID then you are not here legally and thus should be detained for such time to establish that indeed you do not have one and are not here legally and then you shall be deported.
Sanctuary cities stop law enforcment from asking for proof of legal presence and some even go so far as to prohibit law enforcement from notifying ICE about a known illegal in current custody or temporary detention.
Outlaws would not have a national ID and would be detained...and prosecuted.
A national ID card would establish a CLEAR line between legal law abiding citizens and illegals. Thus removing that excuse NOT to enforce the law pertaining to illegal immigration.
So then you are sying that when scotus makes a ruling they are changing the meaning of the constitution? CMON NOW
What they are doing is applying that to today's context.
You can live in a world where context ( in this case time) can be omitted, but I will not do so.
The utter "sovietness" of that post is absolutely disgusting.
Illegal aliens are already illegal, the national ID card does nothing to change that. The laws that are already on the books are not being enforced. If ICE wanted to go into these sanctuary cities and start arresting illegal aliens there is nothing stopping them from doing so. A national ID card is not going to make laws that are already not being enforced by choice start to be enforced.
I called UPS the other day to tell them I would come to their office and pick up my shipment. I was told to bring my "government issued I.D.". I said in a somewhat sarcastic tone "would my driver's license be sufficient?" Which they said would be fine.
Your right was not violated because you were not drafted.
So what are you complaining about again? Your own choice?
((((((Identification purposes alone are a fine use for an ID card. ))))))
I have been saying that al along and have been called a whole host of things for saying it, I am left wondering if you will be attacked the same way.......But my guess is you won't be because your nickname does not draw such kneejerk reactions ;)
In a time of war I have ZERO problem with tracking military movements and actions.
I do not advocate a policy of abuse with a Real ID. I do advocate a policy of indentifying true identity in order to hold people accountable for the actions they take under the rule of law. I believe that to be as patriotic as it gets and the very fabric of this nation.
If the government was to abuse such an entity then by all means I am all for prosecuting them for those actions. That fits with my position just fine. Criminal actions are criminal actions no matter who or what group of who's take those actions.
Yes they are already Illegal and a REAL ID proves it! Of course it doesn't change it.
I agree current laws are not being enforced and I give you two examples why.....lack of proper ID and means of gaining it....and states overstepping their constitutional suthority. Yet you disagree?????
A Real ID would remove the some of the main opposition to enforcing laws today.
EVER hear a guy named ASA say "we don't know where they are"?????? A Real ID would eliminate such foolishness....THEN we can work on the little phrase " just doing jobs Americans won't do"..... ;) and also then we can address anchor babies too.... OH WAIT....
NO Real ID when you come to deliver a baby....GUESS what....no citizenship and as soon as medically able..DEPROTATION.
You sir oppose a tool that will facilitate something you want. Amazing.
OK folks....fun debate and sparring today but I have to go now...ill check this thread for any responses later on.
Laters Freepers!
This is 652. The Beast lives seven doors down.
Perhaps, it will prove to be the mark of sanity in the world we are now living in (but I sincerely doubt it...)!
A microchip in the back of everyones neck would make it even easier to enforce, no need to ask someone for their ID, just scan it from the UAV in that area.
I am against this "tool" because it's patently un-American, in fact it is exactly the same as the "tools" used by our enemies during the cold war.
I did not complain about my military ID, I was simply stating that the civilian population would not be to keen on this type of ID. This type of ID place on the civilian population would be a violation of their rights. The government has no right to track its citizens without just cause, for instance, if they are suspected of a crime. That is an individual issue. On a national level, they cannot generally make every citizen a suspect under the guise of security...
Why was the 4th Amendment created if we were not to have personal privacy?
It's is impossible to have a reliable ID. Try to come up with an idea for one.
However, if people believe that an ID is reliable, then it becomes much more profitable to produce fakes and copies.
Of course, having such ID's will make it much easier for reporters, divorce lawyers, and private eyes to check up on their subjects.
Welcome to Future Felons of America by Claire Wolfe
(I wrote this as the introduction to Clive Sharp's book "How to Survive Federal Prison Camp" (Loompanics, 1997). This is its first appearance outside the book.) Welcome to FFA. No, not Future Farmers of America, that pleasant little relic of the days when America was the land of the free.
I'm talking about Future Felons of America, the club to which millions of us now belong. Our membership is growing by leaps, bounds and midnight kicks on our doors. You may not want to be part of this contemporary American FFA. (Who in their right mind would?) But it's best to face facts; in a country where would-be rulers, elected and unelected, are desperate to regulate every activity, we are all law breakers or soon to become so.
You and I, friends, are likely to end up in prison.
Worse, we're increasingly likely to end up in the custody of the federal prison system.
Activities that were once the business of the states-or nobody's business but your own-are being taken over by control freaks in Washington, DC whose favorite masturbatory fantasy is that they can micro-manage every human activity 24 hours a day and punish everyone who deviates from their desires.
That means your chances of going to federal prison-or a federal prison camp like the ones described in this book-are getting "better" every day.
No. A national ID card would establish aline between those who possess cards and those who don't.
Lookie here...a new variation of the "If you're not guilty, then you should have nothing to hide" canard.
I'm surprised the totaliatrians still use that one.
Just heard recently where "Better Red than Dead" Teddy Kennedy and a few of his friends from the ADL and homo lobby are trying to slip in S1145......which is a new hate crimes bill which I'm sure chocked full of lots of new and improved definitions of hate/thought crimes. I found some of this info on www.truthtellers.org (Rev. Ted Pike)........some of the info may make some folks in the "amen corner" a little testy but it is what it is.
THE SUPREME COURT AND OUR CONSTITUTION
The Constitution of the United States is a contract between the citizens of this country and their government. Like any contract, the terms within it are meant to be concrete and inflexible, unless the parties bound by its terms mutually agree to modify it at a later date. Nobody in their right mind would ever enter into a contract with another party if the terms of that agreement could be changed after the fact by a judge. The whole point of creating a contract is to show that there is a meeting of the minds between the parties who agree to abide by its terms, and whenever there is a dispute between those parties over some aspect of the contract once it's been entered into, a judge is charged with figuring out what the parties actually agreed to in the first place.
Initially the judge does this by reading the contract and considering the literal meaning of the words within it. If he should come across a passage that uses an ambiguous term like "excessive", he then must determine what the parties involved understood the term to mean when the contract was written. He can accomplish this task in several different ways, but what he should never do is simply make up a definition out of whole cloth. This, however, is exactly what activist judges do on a regular basis.
You see, ORIGINALIST judges attempt to figure out what the original intent of the people who created our most important contract was, so that the parties currently bound by it (aka the citizenry and the government) are dealt with fairly and reasonably. Activist judges, on the other hand, seek to change the terms of the original agreement and force upon everyone involved their own personal opinions of what that contract SHOULD say. This practice is grossly unfair, because it forces one of the parties to the contract (whichever one is ruled against at any given time) to accept terms that they did not agree to, and that is precisely why activists should never be allowed to preside over any court which deals with Constitutional issues.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1607742/posts
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.