Thread: SPP / NAU Logo RFID Images on NC Driver Licenses

Friends of ALIPAC,

Dr. Corsi and World Net Daily are doing a story today about these RFID holograms on the new NC Licenses.

It is a lock on the SPP / North American Union.

ALIPAC will be doing our own release on these images later today.









From the SPP.gov

WND article on this subject posted by ALIPAC Media Coordinator:

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... ic&t=81439

You can see this everywhere...especially in Trucking....it was really popping up two years ago in transportation /trucking logos.....it aways has NorthAmericam. /Americas or Global if it have words...you never just see American/America anymore...as their final plans will be in our face...
Eyes Wide Shut!!!!

The "driver license" is issued to people who engage in commerce using the streets and highways. A LICENSE is for business purposes. "Driving" is a privilege because it's regulated business activity. The term "traffic" is another word for "commerce". You can not be FORCED to ask your servants for permission and pay an annual rent to use your car to go to your place of worship or to the store to buy food and clothing. You have the unalienable right to travel for noncommercial household purposes to acquire the necessities of life or for your enjoyment. See your State Constitution.

A "driver" is someone who gets some form of compensation to go somewhere ie: Cab DRIVER, Tow Truck DRIVER, UPS DRIVER. These people get paid to do the act. If you don't get paid/compensated then you aren't properly identified as a "driver". Don't use the common definition, use the "legal" definition because that's the definition used by the State Legislature. Driver is someone who gets paid.

Understand what a "LICENSE" is for and you'll understand what the DMV regulates. If you don't sell liquor then you aren't REQUIRED to apply for a liquor LICENSE. If you don't sell flowers then you aren't REQUIRED to apply for a LICENSE because you're not a florist.

bttt

so when i drive around for my own pleasure then i can send the dmv a bill for the driving that i have done. lol. so it should be called a driving permit ?

so as far as the embedded technology in the permit, the permit holder should be informed that the technology is there there and they should have the right to not have it on there permit.

I understand your point, but it is factually incorrect. All states have in their constitutions that they have the authority to - and, for the safety of its citizens, are required to - regulate and control all laws pertaining to the "operation of motor vehicles." The fact that one does not get paid for driving (which is legally defined as the "operation of a motor vehicle") on public streets does not equate to not needing a drivers license. I, for one, sure wouldn't want to live in a state where anyone who doesn't get paid to drive would be able to drive freely without regulation. Yes, operating a motor vehicle on public streets IS a privelege, not a right, and as such it is both an appropriate and a legal requirement that states ensure that anyone granted that privelege must demonstrate minimum standards of compentency in both operating a motor vehicle and knowledge of traffic laws and regulations.

Originally Posted by DRIVINGisCOMMERCE

The "driver license" is issued to people who engage in commerce using the streets and highways. A LICENSE is for business purposes. "Driving" is a privilege because it's regulated business activity. The term "traffic" is another word for "commerce". You can not be FORCED to ask your servants for permission and pay an annual rent to use your car to go to your place of worship or to the store to buy food and clothing. You have the unalienable right to travel for noncommercial household purposes to acquire the necessities of life or for your enjoyment. See your State Constitution.

A "driver" is someone who gets some form of compensation to go somewhere ie: Cab DRIVER, Tow Truck DRIVER, UPS DRIVER. These people get paid to do the act. If you don't get paid/compensated then you aren't properly identified as a "driver". Don't use the common definition, use the "legal" definition because that's the definition used by the State Legislature. Driver is someone who gets paid.

Understand what a "LICENSE" is for and you'll understand what the DMV regulates. If you don't sell liquor then you aren't REQUIRED to apply for a liquor LICENSE. If you don't sell flowers then you aren't REQUIRED to apply for a LICENSE because you're not a florist.

If truth be told, the "driving permit" has become your primary form of identification.

Dixie

" I, for one, sure wouldn't want to live in a state where anyone who doesn't get paid to drive would be able to drive freely without regulation. "


I DO live in a state with millions of unlicensed illegal immigrant drivers; and, no, it's not safe for anyone.

The deal is that what the DMVs regulate is COMMERCE! There's a difference between COMMERCIAL and NONcommercial activity. A LICENSE is for BUSINESS. If you want to have EVERYONE who uses a car for any purpose have something then why not lobby for a CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCE. What's being done is people are equating COMPETENCY with PERMISSION.

The DMV GRANTS PERMISSION to engage in commercial conduct on the the streets by "carriers". All the terms, "driver", "transportation", "license", "passenger", "traffic", all have to do with commerce. CAB DRIVER, UPS DRIVER, TOW TRUCK DRIVER, they all have the same thing in common, they get paid for the conduct identified by the term "drive".

I'm not arguing that some form of regulation for safety purposes isn't the responsible or reasonable thing to do, I am asserting that we have been mislead about what in fact the DMVs in this country regulate and that no one in their right mind would go ask for permission to do something and pay an annual rent when they had the right to do it in the first place. "Driving" is a business activity, going to your place of worship or the doctor in your personal property isn't. You have to pay to use the streets for commercial purposes but not for the ordinary use of NONcommercial travel. IF that was the case then the State can render your right to NONcommerical travel extinct by raising the fees to a level that you can't afford. The Legislature can not LIEN an unaLIENable right.

It is settled that the streets of a city belong to the people of a state and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen of the state.
Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 65 Cal. App. 534, 547, 224 Pac. 1008, 1013 (1924); Escobedo v. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 222 Pac.2d 1, 5, 35 Cal.2d 870 (1950).

Again, the courts have drawn a distinction between COMMERCIAL and NONcommercial USE of the streets, the former is what the DRIVER LICENSE is for, not the latter. As one of the people you are not required nor could you be FORCED by your servants to ask for their permission and pay them a fee to do what is secured by the Constitution. Driving is a PRIVILEGE, it's a BUSINESS ACTIVITY and the Legislature is empowered to regulate commerce, but if you're not engaged in the commercial activity the State is empowered to regulate then you DO NOT need a LICENSE because you aren't engaged in the activity the LICENSE permits. Traveling to the store for food or clothing isn't a BUSINESS ACTIVITY and you can not be forced to get a LICENSE to do something you don't do.

Again, if you want to have people regulated for safety reasons then use the right document, CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY. Just because a building contractor has a license doesn't mean he knows how to use a tape measure or a skill saw. He may be PERMITTED to use those things but KNOWING how to use them is a different story.