Thread: Woman sues state over mandatory 'mark of the beast'

Woman sues state over mandatory 'mark of the beast'

Challenges requirement for biometrics to get driver's license
Posted: September 21, 2011
8:17 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND



Michael Thompson

An Oklahoma requirement that driver's license applicants submit to "biometric" digital photographs – which are "stored and shared" without the applicant's knowledge – is a violation of religious rights, charges a lawsuit filed against the state's Department of Public Safety and several individuals.

The suit names Public Safety Commissioner Michael C. Thompson.

The state has told the plaintiff, Kaye Beach, that she must submit to the biometric requirement to obtain a license in the state, and there is no exemption based on religious beliefs.

The lawsuit contends the requirement, however, violates the Oklahoma Constitution because it "substantially" burdens Beach's free exercise of religion and does not accommodate her sincerely held religious beliefs.

The case seeks a ruling that "in order to comply with the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act, the state must provide an accommodation to Ms. Beach … which allows her to submit a low-resolution non-biometric facial photograph in order to obtain a driver's license."

"Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws"

"Whether a biometric ID card in the form of a driver's license or other government-issued form of identification is 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, which is handling the case.

(Story continues below)




"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," he said.

In March, Beach applied to renew her driver's license with the Department of Public Safety, the organization reported. Upon learning that the biometric photographs used by DPS are stored in a database that is managed and accessed by international organizations, Beach repeatedly voiced her religious objection to the practice and asked to be allowed to use a low-resolution photograph for her license. Beach subscribes to the Christian belief, detailed in the Bible's book of Revelation, that Christians must not participate in a global numbering identification system.

Rev. 13:16-18 and 14:9-11 "explicitly commands believers to not participate in a global numbering identification system using the number of man, and eternally condemns participation in that system," the lawsuit contends.

Officials with the state agency declined to respond to a WND request for comment.

The institute's report said Beach met all of the other requirements for a license and was deprived of that opportunity – "including the ability to acquire prescription medications, use her debit card, rent a hotel room or obtain a post office box" – only because of the state's refusal to provide a religious accommodation.

The case was brought in district court of Cleveland County. Rutherford Institute attorneys point out that the state's requirement for a biometric photograph does not serve a compelling state interest and that the state has other means for furthering any such state interest.

It notes that Beach was told "the interoperability and open architecture format for the high-resolution biometric facial photograph used by motor license agents as required by DPS to take the photographs for driver's licenses in an internationally set format determined by the United Nation's International Civil Aviation Organization …. and that the database into which her facial biometric data is placed is managed and accessed by a self-described international organization called the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators."

The case also alleges the rule violates her privacy and is an unreasonable warrantless search.

Read more: Woman sues state over mandatory 'mark of the beast' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=347221#ixzz1YgnDpYZA


Read more: Woman sues state over mandatory 'mark of the beast' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=347221#ixzz1YgmsbKBU

I am going to personally support this lawsuit as I believe there should be a religious exemption and if there is I plan to use it.

W

I am sorry this is the wrong lawsuit to support. We need biometric licenses to prevent illegals from obtain licenses or to find them out when we do. Women
in niqabs will use the religious exemption to prevent biometric and photo identification and they could well be terrorist.

This is naitonal security issue not a religious freedom issue which is just a canard.

Lack of Biometrics were fine in the 1950's, 60's 70'st before the 1965 immigration laws brough the Third World and Terrorists and Jihadist to our shores as immigrants. We need biometic ID's nationwide to stem infiltration by Jihadists and illegal immigrants etc.

The case also alleges the rule violates her privacy and is an unreasonable warrantless search

Privacy is nonexistent in todays technology world. There are SO MANY things they can do and you would NEVER have a clue it was done. Just as Congress passed a Privacy Act. Wow,that has done a lot of good for us. And being they (government) are probably the number 1 offender of breaking those very same laws.

Originally Posted by judyweller

I am sorry this is the wrong lawsuit to support. We need biometric licenses to prevent illegals from obtain licenses or to find them out when we do. Women
in niqabs will use the religious exemption to prevent biometric and photo identification and they could well be terrorist.

This is naitonal security issue not a religious freedom issue which is just a canard.

Lack of Biometrics were fine in the 1950's, 60's 70'st before the 1965 immigration laws brough the Third World and Terrorists and Jihadist to our shores as immigrants. We need biometic ID's nationwide to stem infiltration by Jihadists and illegal immigrants etc.

judyweller,

Your theory that biometric IDs are a solution to illegal immigration have been widely disproved.

While several groups and lawmakers in the immigration enforcement movement used to make these claims, it has become very clear that the same power groups supporting illegal immigration, amnesty, and a "common electronic security perimeter for the US, Canada, and Mexico" are the ones that want the biometric ID.

Please review what happened when we fought Governor Elliot Spitzer and his Homeland Security approved licenses for illegal aliens.

The goal of the biometric ID is to keep track of citizens electronically and remove the need for borders in the eyes of the globalists.

If you support biometric Big Brother hand more power to the government that is failing us all, then you are playing right into the hands of those responsible for the illegal immigrant invasion and the destruction of America.

Those who are FORCING biometric tracking on all innocent Americans are not interested in defending us from jihadist and illegal immigrants, they are interested in subjugating us so that illegal immigrants and jihadists can be given dominion over us and our children.

W

Ah yes, the end of the world is near. All the predictions are coming true....Seriously though, I am not for having the government track every move I make. I'm a grown woman and do not need a baby-sitter. In my state, there are actually two types of driver's licenses. The type I have, which is a legitimate license, is not the new Big Brother type they want everyone to have (and which you must provide what seems like 500 identifying documents to obtain), so it is labeled "not for federal identification", so I can not get on a plane, domestic or international, among other things. I don't like terrorism any more than the next person, but are these measures really all helping to hinder it? There are ways to get around anything if you try hard enough. It just seems more of a pain in the butt for regular citizens and a way of controlling us all to me. I'm not a gigantic conspiracy theorist, but for every crackpot story, there are others that are very true but we just don't want to see it.