National….No, International ID—What is “the mark”?

In Missouri we passed a law “prohibiting” Real ID. It didn’t have any enforcement clause in it, so when the State broke the law, there was a lot of theater and a sacrificial lamb resignation and General Assembly hearings. Then the lawmakers changed the law and actually allow for it via digital photographs. I don’t think they meant to do that, but that is what they did. You can have a driver or non-driver ID without a digital photo on it, but the DOR requires that the issuing bureau take a digital photo and upload it into the database. So there is no religious or moral objection allowed.

All these ID’s are being sent to a company called Morpho Trust which then sends it on to its owner, Saffron, over in Europe. Saffron then contracts with the World Bank and the IMF to share all of this biometric identification, and voila! You can’t travel without it, and soon, you won’t be able to buy or sell without it. (Think BitCoin is great?…consider it a bit more, please.)

Let’s see….you can’t get a job without it, you can’t get a bank account without it, you can’t travel without it; it IS the MEASURE of a man, which is the number, and hey, the average Christian believes that you will have to literally bow down and worship a statue in order to take the “mark of the beast”. Nevermind that “worship” is co-equal to “obey”. Read Romans 13 in context and with the rest of scripture in mind. If the common teaching on that chapter is applied, everything government does is ok including killing innocents as in the Holocaust.

Listen, I don’t preach much, but I am telling you today, we all serve someone. The issue at its core is that we are looking for someone to provide for our needs. Our choice is in whom that provider is. In the Hebrew, 1666 is equal to aleph vav vav vav. 666 is vav vav vav. Aleph is Father/Provider/Strength. Vav is Man/Hook/Nail. Think about it, please. The measure of a man, that ties you to a provider….And you don’t have a choice on the face of it. If you don’t drive, don’t work, don’t have a bank account, it is very difficult to live and pay bills.

Ha Satan does not come out in the open and say, “Hey, worship/obey me!” he works through deception and he hides so that he can not be found out.

Please listen to the show I am posting below. Think deeply about this issue. Check scripture, and even if you aren’t a believer, think about the privacy and control implications of this Real ID program.

Here’s the copy of the radio show coming up. Please listen:

If America implemented a National Identification and the mainstream media didn’t cover it, would it still matter? What if we told you that’s already happening?

For the first time in the nation’s history, a National ID law will take effect this year, and it will have a major impact on your life.

That’s the subject of this week’s edition of Off The Grid Radio, in which Jim Harper of the Cato Institute tells us everything we need to know about the law – what it means, why we should be concerned, and how it could be used and abused in the future. Eventually, you won’t be able to fly without one.

The ID is being rolled out through a law known as the Real ID Act, and it is turning ordinary driver’s licenses into National IDs that are unlike anything we’ve seen.

That picture you get at the DMV? It’s now being stored in a database that is accessed by the federal government, and in an instant it can be matched to, say, a picture of you taken at a toll booth or in a post office. In some states, you can’t even smile for a picture – because doing so would confuse the computer.

Sadly, this isn’t fiction.

Harper tells us:

  • How the government can track you using a National ID.
  • How other countries have abused National IDs
  • Why the Founders would have opposed a National ID.
  • How the law’s text allows the DHS secretary to require IDs for entry pretty much anywhere.

If you care about freedom and privacy, you don’t want to miss this week’s episode!

Click here to listen to this week’s interview.  

Want to share Off the Grid Radio with your friends and family? Each week’s episode is now on CD! Go to your favorite episode and order your copy today.

 

Another Problem with Massive Amounts of Government Data

While I want to make clear that I do not like CAFO’s, I also want to make it even more clear that I do not at all appreciate terrorism, theft, destruction of property and harassment. Also, as some of you have heard me speak about, I have been involved in attempting to get information on Morningland Dairy from my own state’s agency for over four months. None of that information could possibly be deemed to be used to terrorize anyone with. Simple transparency in governmental actions is the desire behind the request for my FOIA on Morningland….More about that tomorrow.

What I want to share with you is the result of the EPA showing exceptional and dangerous favoritism to animal rights activists. Please read this article and share it with anyone you think may have an interest in protecting privacy.

January 14, 2014 6:30 PM

The EPA’s Privacy Problem
Farmers and ranchers sue after the EPA releases confidential information to environmental groups.

Text

The fire at San Joaquin Valley’s Harris Farms burst out suddenly and rapidly, consuming 14 trailer trucks in the dawn of January 8, 2012. Wreaking more than $2 million in damage, it constituted one of the biggest acts of agro-terrorism in American history.

An anonymous news release issued by the Animal Liberation Front, a radical animal-rights group, explained that unnamed activists had placed containers of kerosene and digital timers beneath the trucks, linking them with kerosene-soaked rope to carry the fire down the row, “a tactic adapted from Home Alone 2.” The statement concludes threateningly: “until next time.” The perpetrators remain uncaught.

Two years later, farmers and ranchers in 29 states worry they’ll be similarly attacked; last year, the Environmental Protection Agency released to environmental groups extensive personal information about 80,000 to 100,000 agricultural operations.

The data released included names of owners, addresses, global-positioning-system coordinates, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, and, in some instances, notes on medical conditions and inheritances. Though environmental groups had requested information about “concentrated animal feeding operations” — “CAFOs” in the bureaucratic lingo, and “feedlots” in the vernacular — some of the information released clumped in data about crop farms, too.

Farm groups say the EPA violated farmers’ and ranchers’ privacy, increasing their risk of agro-terrorism as well as harassment or litigation from animal-rights and environmental activists. The EPA has admitted to having improperly released farmers’ data on two occasions, and has twice attempted to claw back those records.

The American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Pork Producers Council are now suing the EPA to prevent it from releasing even more information. Though it hasn’t been much covered, the case has significant implications regarding privacy. It also raises questions about whether the EPA acted politically, cooperating with environmental groups to help them achieve long-term regulatory goals.

“This is really important to farmers and ranchers because this is not just a place of business — this is where they live, this is where their children play,” says Danielle Quist, senior counsel for public policy at the American Farm Bureau Federation. “We are not opposed to transparency in agriculture. In fact we are a huge supporter of transparency. But that’s not what we’re talking about with this lawsuit. All citizens in this country deserve the protection of their private home information. Our farmers and ranchers deserve that same protection.”

Agro-terrorism is a primary concern, say agricultural groups, but there are others: Because the information released is so comprehensive, some worry that it may be used by activist trespassers or scoured over by class-action litigators who could profit from suing feedlots for any shortcomings.

Ashley McDonald, environmental counsel for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, tells National Review Online that “we’ve actually heard from folks that, yes, there has been some suspicious activity that they think might be tied to [the EPA] release.” And Grace Boatright, legislative director for the National Grange, says it has been “pretty disconcerting for families to have their private information accessed by groups that have made it pretty clear they don’t agree with all their current business practices.”

Yet environmental groups say the data collected and released by the EPA is standard for other industries and that farmers and ranchers shouldn’t be treated exceptionally.

“Sometimes the owner or the operator of the facility lives at the facility, so I think that’s given rise to some questions about personal privacy,” says Eve C. Gartner, staff attorney at Earthjustice’s Northeast office. “But it does seem to me like a very difficult question: If someone chooses to locate their home at an industrial facility, does that automatically mean that everything about that facility becomes private?”

Animal-rights activists claim the feedlots systemically abuse animals. PETA, for instance, cites everything from manure smells that cause cows “chronic respiratory problems, making breathing painful” to “a highly unnatural diet” that causes “chronic digestive pain — imagine your worst case of gastritis that never goes away.”

Environmental groups say feedlots increase emissions, cause pollution, and contaminate drinking water. Jon Devine, the senior attorney at the water program of the Natural Resources Defense Council, recently wrote that such operations “generate nasty waste” because “animal manure contains bacteria, viruses and other pathogens, as well as organic compounds, heavy metals, antibiotics, pesticides, and hormones.”

Farm groups dispute these claims, questioning the environmental effect and highlighting improved humane practices with respect to feedlot animals.

Regardless, environmental and animal-rights groups have long sought more federal control of CAFOs, pushing for two specific policy goals: requiring the government to collect extensive data about feedlots, and requiring feedlots to be regulated and permitted under the Clean Water Act.

In the last decade, the EPA has mounted a largely unsuccessful effort to increase permitting requirements for feedlots. But environmental groups were able to work out a settlement with the agency in 2010, compelling it to begin collecting CAFO data.

Supreme Court Will Examine Cell Phone Searches

Being treated as though we are property is becoming increasingly offensive. I wonder what the “Supremes” will decide. In my estimation, we have been legally (not lawfully, nor correctly) turned into subjects without our knowledge or consent. Perhaps the more clear way of encapsulating it is to say that the entire US has become a debtor’s prison without literal walls. Anyway, whether we have the slightest reasonable expectation of privacy is to be determined by the appointees. We wait with bated breath….

U.S. Supreme Court to weigh cell phone searches by police

 

News microphones wait to capture reactions from U.S. Supreme Court rulings outside the court building in Washington, June 25, 2013. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

News microphones wait to capture reactions from U.S. Supreme Court rulings outside the court building in Washington, June 25, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst

Related Topics

(Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether police can search an arrested criminal suspect’s cell phone without a warrant in two cases that showcase how the courts are wrestling to keep up with rapid technological advances.

Taking up cases from California and Massachusetts arising from criminal prosecutions that used evidence obtained without a warrant, the high court will wade into how to apply older court precedent, which allows police to search items carried by a defendant at the time of arrest, to cell phones.

Cell phones have evolved from devices used exclusively to make calls into gadgets that now contain a bounty of personal information about the owner.

The legal question before the justices is whether a search for such information after a defendant is arrested violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which bans unreasonable searches. The outcome would determine whether prosecutors in such circumstances could submit evidence gleaned from cell phones in court.

Digital rights activists have sounded the alarm about the amount of personal data the government can now easily access, not just in the criminal context, but also in relation to national security surveillance programs.

President Barack Obama on Friday announced plans to rein in the vast collection of Americans’ phone data in a series of limited reforms prompted by disclosures by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden about the sweep of U.S. eavesdropping activities.

Stanford Law School professor Jeffrey Fisher, who represents one of the defendants, said in court papers that it was important for the high court to decide the issue.

“In light of the frequency with which people are arrested with cell phones and the judiciary’s confusion over whether the police may search the digital contents of those phones, this court’s intervention is critical,” Fisher said.

According to a 2013 report by the Pew Research Center, 91 percent of adult Americans have a cell phone, more than a half of which are smartphones that can connect to the Internet and contain personal data from social media websites and other sources.

Under court precedent, police are permitted to search at the time of an arrest without a warrant, primarily to ensure the defendant is not armed and to secure evidence that could otherwise be destroyed. In the past, it has applied to such items as wallets, calendars, address books and diaries.

In the case involving Fisher’s client, David Riley was convicted of three charges relating to an August 2009 incident in San Diego in which shots were fired at an occupied vehicle.

Prosecutors linked him to the crime in part due to a photograph on his smartphone that showed him posing in front of a car similar to one seen at the crime scene. The photograph was shown to the jury at trial, as were videos that showed Riley making gang-related comments.

Police searched the phone after pulling over Riley’s car for having expired tags 20 days after the shooting. Riley sought the high court’s review after his convictions were upheld by a state appeals court in California.

MASSACHUSETTS CASE

In the other case, the federal government appealed after an appeals court threw out two of three drugs and firearms counts on which Brima Wurie had been convicted by a jury in Massachusetts.

The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a May 2013 ruling that police could not search Wurie’s phone without a warrant after the September 2007 arrest for suspected drug dealing.

One major difference between the cases is that Wurie’s phone, unlike Riley’s, is not a smartphone. Officers used the phone only to search the phone log. They were able to find a phone number that took them to Wurie’s house in Boston, where drugs, a gun and cash were found.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital civil rights group based in San Francisco, urged the court to hear the case in a friend-of-the-court brief.

“I think it’s another opportunity for the court to decide how changes in technology implicate the Fourth Amendment,” one of the group’s lawyers, Hanni Fakhoury, said in an interview.

Fakhoury, a former federal public defender, said that searches of cell phones upon arrest are routine in the vast majority of jurisdictions nationwide.

The U.S. Justice Department defended the practice in its brief urging the court to hear the Wurie case. Government lawyers say searching a cell phone is no different than searching other items commonly found on a person at the time of arrest.

A prohibition against the searches would be particularly troublesome to prosecutors because of “the ubiquity of cell phone use by drug traffickers and other serious offenders,” the government lawyers said.

The court will hear oral arguments in April and issue rulings by the end of June. The cases are Riley v. California, 13-132 and U.S. v. Wurie, 13-212.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham and James Dalgleish)

Obama Administration: “Heads I win, tails you lose”

Headquarters of the National Security Agency

The Department of Justice regards American citizens as “nothing more than rabble,” charges the attorney who won a legal challenge to the National Security Agency’s spy-on-Americans program called PRISM.

The DOJ moved Wednesday to block the plaintiffs in the case brought by attorney Larry Klayman, founder of FreedomWatch, against the NSA’s telephone call-tracking program.

In its motion filed with U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, who earlier issued an injunction against the spy program and called it “Orwellian,” the government is asking that the judge halt any further proceedings while an appeals court examines the ruling that said the government was violating the Constitution.

Klayman said the move wasn’t exactly a surprise in light of the government’s spying on Americans and its reluctance to provide information about the programs.

“This is a further attempt to keep information about the biggest violation of the Constitution in American history from the American people. It’s an outrage,” he said.

He said the Obama administration has the perspective of “heads I win, tails you lose,” and its attitude is: “We control all the information and the American people be damned. They don’t have rights.”

Klayman said he already had requested a status conference on the case, asking the court how to proceed with discovery in preparation for trial.

The government move reveals its true attitude, he said.

“It’s important for the American people to see how the government treats them and views them. We’re nothing more than rabble,” he said.

Politico reported on the government’s motion, which argued: “Further litigation of plaintiffs’ challenges to the conduct of these programs could well risk or require disclosure of highly sensitive information about the intelligence sources and methods involved – information that the government determined was not appropriate for declassification when it publicly disclosed certain facts about these programs.”

The information actually was disclosed when former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked details of the program.

The DOJ argued that if the litigation proceeds, “it will ultimately become necessary to conclusively determine, as a factual matter, whether plaintiffs have established their standing to challenge NSA’s alleged interception of the content of their communications, and collection of metadata about those communications.”

“Further litigation of this issue could risk or require disclosure of classified national security information, such as whether plaintiffs were the targets of or subject to NSA intelligence-gathering activities, confirmation or denial of the identities of the telecommunications service providers from which NSA has obtained information about individuals’ communications, and other classified information.”

But that’s exactly the point of his lawsuits, Klayman says: to find out the details of the programs and whether the government, in its alleged pursuit of information about terror activities, has been violating the constitutional assurances of Americans’ privacy.

The government is alarmed at that aim.

“Plaintiffs have indicated in their pleadings (and during argument on their motions for preliminary injunctions) that they intend to pursue discovery to obtain ‘full disclosure and a complete accounting’ of what the government defendants (and other defendants in these cases ‘have done [or been] allowed to do’ in connection with the challenged NSA intelligence programs; ‘identification of any and all ‘targets’ subject to defendants’ surveillance’ and production of ‘all other relevant reports, risk assessments, memoranda, and other documents,’” the government said.

But the Obama administration said it had to keep all that information secret or risk “exceptionally grave damage to national security.”

DOJ lawyers said they would oppose allowing Klayman or anyone else “access to classified information.”

The DOJ is asking Leon to halt proceeding while there are appeals of his ruling that the government likely is violating Fourth Amendment.

The government apparently doesn’t want to release any information, even if that’s the case.

“Even if the mere collection of information about plaintiffs’ communications constitutes a Fourth Amendment search … conclusively resolving the reasonableness of that search ultimately could risk or require disclosure of exceptionally sensitive and classified intelligence information regarding the nature and scope of the international terrorist threat to the United States, and the role that the NSA’s intelligence-gathering activities have played in meeting that threat,” government attorneys warn.

Josh Gerstein at Politico noted: “Klayman’s past litigation has been known for being as impactful and sometimes more impactful in the discovery phase, where lawyers demand documents and conduct depositions, as in its ultimate outcome. So, the government’s desire to head that process off for now, and perhaps entirely, is understandable.”

WND reported just days ago that several states are working on plans to resist the NSA operations, strategizing on ways to make the information unusable even if the NSA collects it.

According to the Tenth Amendment Center, lawmakers in Missouri are proposing to amend their state constitution. Their plan would add “and electronic communications and data” to the provision that provides privacy and security for residents.

If changed by voters, it would read: “That the people shall be secure in their persons, papers, homes [and], effects, and electronic communications and data, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and no warrant to search any place, or seize any person or thing, or access electronic data or communication, shall issue without describing the place to be searched, or the person or thing to be seized, or the data or communication to be accessed, as nearly as may be; nor without probable cause, supported by written oath or affirmation.”

The Joint Resolution, pending before the state Senate, proposes allowing Missouri voters to decide next November whether or not to amend their constitution.

According to the Tenth Amendment Center, federal judges and lawyers may squabble over the constitutionality of the NSA data-gathering, but lawmakers could make it impossible for any information obtained to be used in those states.

In Kansas, Rep. Brett Hildabrand, R-Shawnee, prefiled a bill that would “ban all state agencies and local governments in the state from possessing data ‘held by a third-party in a system of record’ and would prohibit any such information from being ‘subject to discovery, subpoena or other means of legal compulsion for its release to any person or entity or be admissible in evidence in any judicial or administrative proceeding.’”

The access the data, under the bill, government would be required to obtain “express informed consent” or a warrant.

In Kansas, it’s called the Fourth Amendment Protection Act.

“I want to make sure that electronic privacy in Kansas is protected in the same way that physical letters in the mail are protected from random government searches,” Hildabrand told the center. “Each day, we hear a new revelation about how the NSA is violating our personal privacy. My bill will ensure the state of Kansas doesn’t utilize this illegally obtained data.”
Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/01/obama-moves-to-block-nsa-slayers-lawsuit/#Ru2FgeMfYVWafTbI.99

Next Newer Entries