Sunday, August 1, 2010
"ALL AMERICANS" SHOULD CARRY A BIOMETRIC ID CARD?
"ALL AMERICANS" SHOULD CARRY A BIOMETRIC ID CARD?
“By far the most significant negative aspect of biometric ID systems is their potential to locate and track people physically. While many surveillance systems seek to locate and track, biometric systems present the greatest danger precisely because they promise extremely high accuracy. Whether a specific biometric system actually poses a risk of such tracking depends on how it is designed,” explains the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Earlier this month, a biometric ID card was introduced at a large technology show in Hanover, Germany. The card will mandatory for all Germans on November 1, 2010. “ The card has three functions: 1. biometric identity verification, 2. electronic identity verification, 3. authenticated electronic signature,” Fox News reported on March 2."
By Mark Daniels
Global Political Awakening
According to Alexander Bolton, in his article, "Political momentum grows for revoking birthright citizenship", Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina called on "all Americans" to carry a biometric identification card to prove to employers they are eligible to work legally.
Why wouldn't every American want to submit to carrying a "biometric" ID card in order to stop illegals from crossing our border? Oops, I guess it won't do that will it. It is only after they cross the border that we will catch them if they don't have an ID card, right? Sounds good so far......
Why wouldn't every American want to submit to carrying a "biometric" ID card in order to stop illegals from crossing our border? Oops, I guess it won't do that will it. It is only after they cross the border that we will catch them if they don't have an ID card, right? Sounds good so far......
Unless, of course, "comprehensive immigration reform" is really about something more sinister? Is all the recent news and controversy about Arizona's illegal immigration woes really an attempt to prepare the American people to give up their constitutional rights? Do people like Senator Graham really want to use Biometrics to track U.S. citizens every move?
Ezra Klein of the Washington Post, posits in his article,"Is Biometric, national ID Card an immigration game changer? "The Democrats' immigration-reform proposal (pdf) is 26 pages long. Pages 8 through 18 are devoted to "ending illegal employment through biometric employment verification." I don't think the Democrats are going to like me calling this a biometric national ID card, as they go to great lengths to say that it is not a national ID card, and make it "unlawful for any person, corporation; organization local, state, or federal law enforcement officer; local or state government; or any other entity to require or even ask an individual cardholder to produce their social security card for any purpose other than electronic verification of employment eligibility and verification of identity for Social Security Administration purposes."
Ezra Klein of the Washington Post, posits in his article,"Is Biometric, national ID Card an immigration game changer? "The Democrats' immigration-reform proposal (pdf) is 26 pages long. Pages 8 through 18 are devoted to "ending illegal employment through biometric employment verification." I don't think the Democrats are going to like me calling this a biometric national ID card, as they go to great lengths to say that it is not a national ID card, and make it "unlawful for any person, corporation; organization local, state, or federal law enforcement officer; local or state government; or any other entity to require or even ask an individual cardholder to produce their social security card for any purpose other than electronic verification of employment eligibility and verification of identity for Social Security Administration purposes."
So, yet again, we have the Democrats and the Republicans presenting this false dichotomy, acting like they are disagreeing about so-called "Immigration Reform" while they actually agree on one thing...."ALL AMERICANS" SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PRESENT THEIR PAPERS in order to work; support themselves, feed themselves, provide shelter for themselves.
Well, then you may ask.....what's the harm? In short, it is a clear violation of our right to privacy. Not to mention that it would also help accomplish what the "Globalists" have been attempting for a long time now.....to gain control over the masses.
According to one globalist, Zbigniew Brzezinski, "There is a new and unique development in human history that is taking place around the world; it is unprecedented in reach and volume, and it is also the greatest threat to all global power structures: the ‘global political awakening.’
Brzezinski seems to be concerned about the masses of people "awakening" to the injustices and inequalities around the world. Don't think for a moment that the United States is the first nation to implement a Biometric National ID Card; several countries in the European Union have them. Well, since the global elites are too few in number to accomplish their goals for population control, they need "front men". So, let me introduce you to Senator Chuck Schumer and the aforementioned, Senator Lindsey Graham.
In a Washington Post op-ed on immigration reform, Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), wrote:
"We would require all U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who want jobs to obtain a high-tech, fraud-proof Social Security card. Each card's unique biometric identifier would be stored only on the card; no government database would house everyone's information. The cards would not contain any private information, medical information or tracking devices. The card would be a high-tech version of the Social Security card that citizens already have."
In an article at CATO @ LIBERTY, Jim Harper, reports: "First, let there be no doubt that this is a national ID card. As I’ve written in the past, a national ID has three characteristics: It is national—this is. It’s practically or legally required—this is. And it’s for identification—yep.
Students of card security will recognize one of the adjectives in the sentence as rather extravagant. No, it’s not “high-tech”—that’s a throwaway. The extravagant claim is “fraud-proof.”
The senators may mean one of three things, only one of which might be true. All three have to be true or their implication of a bullet-proof card system is false:
1) Impervious to fraud in issuance. Issuance is the weakest link in card security. Today at the hundreds and hundreds of DMVs across the country, ingenious young people (under 21—understand their motivation?) regularly submit identity documents falsely—siblings’ birth certificates or driver’s licenses, for example, or fake Social Security cards, utility bills, and such. Illegal aliens do too. Many DMV workers are gulls. Some can be made willing gulls for the right price. The same will be true of Social Security Administration workers. If the motivation is high enough, there is no practical way of making a national identity document fraud-proof in issuance.
2) Impervious to alteration. With various printing methods, secure card stocks, and encryption, card security is the easiest to do. It is possible to create a card that can’t be altered except at extraordinary expense.
3) Impervious to forgery. Odd though it may seem, technology does not govern whether a card can be forged—motivation does. Any card can can be forged if the price is right. Were a single card to provide entrée to work in the United States, it’s virtually guaranteed that criminal enterprises would forge the physical card and defeat the digital systems they need to.
The idea of a “fraud-proof” card (in whatever sense the senators mean) sounds nice. But it doesn’t bear up under the stresses to be encountered by a national ID system that governs whether people can earn a living (and probably much more). During the decade or more that this system is being designed and implemented, new ways of attacking biometrics and encryption will emerge. A reasonably ”fraud-proof” card today is not still fraud-proof in 2020.
Each card’s unique biometric identifier would be stored only on the card; no government database would house everyone’s information.
It is possible to have a biometric card without a biometric database. The card would hold a digital description of the relevant biometric (such as fingerprint or iris scan). That algorithm would be compared by the card or by a reader to the person presenting it, determining whether it should be accepted as theirs.
The promise not to create a biometric database is a welcome one. The senators should require—in law—that the enrollment process and technology be fully open and transparent so that non-government technologists can ensure that the system does not secretly or mistakenly collect biometrics.
But the promise not to create a national identity database is almost certainly false.
Let’s review how an identity card is issued at a motor vehicle office today: People take the required documents to a DMV and hand them over. If the DMV accepts their documentation, the DMV creates a file about the person containing at least the material that will be printed on the card—including the person’s photograph. Then the DMV gives the person a card.
What would happen if DMVs didn’t keep this file? A couple of things—things that make the senators’ claim not to be creating a national identity database highly doubtful.
If there were no file and a card were lost or stolen, for example, the person would have to return to the card issuer again—with all the documents—and run through the entire process again. Because they have databases, DMVs today can produce a new ID and mail it to the address of record based on a phone call or Internet visit. (They each have their owndatabases—much better than a single database or databases networked together.)
If no file exists, multiple people could use the very same documents to create ID card after ID card after ID card in the same name but with different biometrics. Workers in the card issuing office could accept bribes with near impunity because there would be no documents proving that they had issued cards wrongly. Criminal use of the system would swamp it.
So that they can provide customer service, and for security reasons, state DMVs keep information about license holders, including a biometric of a sort—a photograph. Senators Schumer and Graham may think that they are designing a database-free biometric identity system—such a thing can exist—but the realities they confront will drive it to become a full-scale biometric national identity database."
Senators, why not do it without the national ID?
Kurt Nimmo, in article at MediaMediocrity, writes: "A biometric ID system is not about securing the border or preventing terrorism. It is about tracking citizens.
“By far the most significant negative aspect of biometric ID systems is their potential to locate and track people physically. While many surveillance systems seek to locate and track, biometric systems present the greatest danger precisely because they promise extremely high accuracy. Whether a specific biometric system actually poses a risk of such tracking depends on how it is designed,” explains the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Earlier this month, a biometric ID card was introduced at a large technology show in Hanover, Germany. The card will mandatory for all Germans on November 1, 2010. “ The card has three functions: 1. biometric identity verification, 2. electronic identity verification, 3. authenticated electronic signature,” Fox News reported on March 2."
Watch the following YouTube video of an interview on Fox News with Congressman Ron Paul. Pay attention to how Megan subtly tries to make the Congressman appear naive about the subject. When he is proven to be correct about his fears, it will be too late!
Well, if you are not concerned, yet.....Do some more research! See what's happening in places like New Zealand. You too, can join the Global Political Awakening!
Oops! Obama mama passport 'destroyed'
WORLDNETDAILY
BORN IN THE USA?
Posted: August 01, 2010
6:28 pm Eastern
BORN IN THE USA?
Oops! Obama mama passport 'destroyed'
State Dept. claims records gone for Stanley Ann Dunham prior to 1968
Posted: August 01, 2010
6:28 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
 Photo from Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro's 1972passport records |
Last week, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the State Departmentreleased passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham, President Obama's mother – but thoserecords for the years surrounding Obama's 1961 birth are missing.
The State Department claims that a 1980s General Services Administration directive had resulted in the destruction of many passport applications and other "non-vital" passportrecords, including Dunham's 1965 passport application and any other passports she may have applied for or held prior to 1965.
Destroyed, then, would also be any records shedding light on whether Dunham did or did not travel out of the country around the time of Barack Obama's birth.
The claim made in the FOIA response letter that many passport records were destroyed during the 1980s comes despite a statement on the State Department website that claims Passport Services maintains U.S. passport records for passports issued from 1925 to the present.
That records that were released, however, do contain interesting tidbits of new information about Obama's mother, including the odd listing of two different dates and locations for her marriage to Obama's Indonesian step-father, Loro Soetoro.
In the released documents Ann Dunham listed both March 15, 1965, in Molokai, Hawaii, and alternatively, March 5, 1964, in Maui, Hawaii, as the dates and times of her marriage.
Ann Dunham later divorced Loro Soetoro in Hawaii. The divorce decree took effect on Nov. 5, 1980, but the divorce papers do not list the date of the marriage.
No marriage certificate between Dunham and Soetoro has yet publicly surfaced, but a released application to amend AnnDunham's 1965 passport to her married name Stanley Ann Soetoro includes a checked box indicating that a passportofficer had seen the marriage certificate.
The released records also document that on Aug. 13, 1968, Ann Dunham applied to have her 1965-issued passport renewed for two years, until July 18, 1970.
Under 22 USC Sec. 217a, from 1959 through 1968, passports were initially issued for three years, but they could be renewed for an additional two years.
Obama, by any other name
Also revealed by the released records is a heretofore unknown, alternative name for Barack Obama.
In the 1968 application to renew her 1965 passport, Dunham listed as her son Barack Hussein Obama, including in parenthesis below the name, "Saebarkah," in what appears to be a variation of an Indonesian surname not previously associated in the public record with the president.
For some unexplained reason, the designation of "Barack Hussein Obama (Saebarkah)" is crossed off the 1968 application by five, handwritten, diagonal hash marks.
 S. Ann Dunham in Indonesia |
Ann Dunham also appears to have used two different variations of her name in obtaining and amending passports while married to Loro Soetoro: Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro and, without her maiden name, Stanley Ann Soetoro.
On April 27, 1981, Ann Dunham applied from Jakarta, Indonesia, for a U.S. passport, indicating that she was in Indonesia working on a two-year contract from the Ford Foundation, from January 1981 through December 1982.
At that time, Ann Dunham was working on a microfinance program for the Ford Foundation, which was overseen by Peter Geithner, the father of Timothy Geithner, the current U.S. secretary of the treasury.
Ann Dunham's occupation in the 1981 passport application was listed as "Program Officer, Ford Foundation."
No passport records subsequent to 1986 for Ann Dunham were released, though presumably a passport was issued following her 1986 application, such that the 10-year period prior to expiration would have extended one year past her death.
Ann Dunham died Nov. 7, 1995, and was known to have been in Indonesia in 1994 when an Indonesian doctor first misdiagnosed as indigestion the first signs of the ovarian cancer that was the cause of her death the following year.
The released documents shed no light on proving or disproving whether Ann Dunham might have held a passport prior to Barack Obama's birth that she could have used to travel to Kenya for his birth, as has been speculated in the absence of the release of Obama's long-form birth certificate from Hawaii..
The State Department released the documents on July 29, responding to a FOIA request submitted by Christopher Strunk, a New York resident who has actively pursued obtaining documents regarding Barack Obama's birth and his eligibility to bepresident under the "natural born citizen" requirement of Section 1, Article Two of the United States Constitution.
The Ann Dunham passport documents released last week by the State Department in response to the Strunk FOIA request have been archived on the Internet.
The controversy continues
A prominent array of commentators, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Lou Dobbs,Peter Boyles and WND's Chuck Norris and Pat Boone have all said unequivocally and publicly that the Obama eligibility issue continues to be legitimate and worthy.
Longtime New York radio talker Lynn Samuels did the same. "We don't even know where he was born," she said. "I absolutely believe he was not born in this country."
WND has reported on multiple legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether Obama was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.
Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and his appointmentof lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation.
While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.
 |
Related offers:
Obama Wants to Jail Americans with New Law
Obama Wants to Jail Americans with New Law
By Europe Union TimesJune 15, 2010
Foreign Ministry reports circulating in the Kremlin today are warning that an already explosive situation in the United States is about to get a whole lot worse as a new law put forth by President Obama is said capable of seeing up to 500,000 American citizens jailed for the crime of opposing their government.
Sparking the concern of Russian diplomats over the growing totalitarian bent of the Obama government is the planned reintroduction of what these reports call one of the most draconian laws ever introduced in a free society that is titled “The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act”.
First introduced in the US Congress in 2007 by Democratic Representative Jane Harmon, this new law passed the US House of Representatives by a secretive voice vote, but failed to pass the US Senate, after which it was believed dead until this past week when it was embraced by Obama who became the first American President to name his own citizens as a threat to his Nations security.
In what is called the National Security Strategy document, that is required of US Presidents by their Congress, that embraces the dictatorial ideals of the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act”, Obama has ordered his Federal police and intelligence forces to begin targeting Americans opposed to him and his radical socialist polices.
Obama’s top counter-terrorism advisor, John Brennan, in speaking to reporters about this new “strategy” says it makes the problem of home-grown terrorists a top priority because an increasing number of individuals in the US have become“captivated by extremist ideology or causes.”
The Times of London is further reporting that Obama’s new National Security Strategy “officially” ends America’s “War on Terror” in what they call “a sweeping repudiation of the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military strikes.”
And as Obama begins re-focusing his forces from fighting America’s foreign enemies, to those opposed to him in his own country, it is important to remember the warning about this new law given by the former CIA official, Philip Giraldi, who had previously warned of the Bush-Cheney plan to attack Iran with nuclear weapons, and who said:
“The mainstream media has made no effort to inform the public of the
impending Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. The Act, which was sponsored by Congresswoman Jane Harman of California, was passed in the House by an overwhelming 405 to 6 vote on October 24th and is now awaiting approval by the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which is headed by Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.
impending Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. The Act, which was sponsored by Congresswoman Jane Harman of California, was passed in the House by an overwhelming 405 to 6 vote on October 24th and is now awaiting approval by the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which is headed by Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.Harman’s bill contends that the United States will soon have to deal with home grown terrorists and that something must be done to anticipate and neutralize the problem. The act deals with the issue through the creation of a congressional commission that will be empowered to hold hearings, conduct investigations, and designate various groups as “homegrown terrorists.”
The commission will be tasked to propose new legislation that will enable the government to take punitive action against both the groups and the individuals who are affiliated with them. Like Joe McCarthy and HUAC in the past, the commission will travel around the United States and hold hearings to find the terrorists and root them out.
Unlike inquiries in the past where the activity was carried out collectively, the act establishing the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Commission will empower all the members on the commission to arrange hearings, obtain testimony, and even to administer oaths to witnesses, meaning that multiple hearings could be running simultaneously in various parts of the country.
The ten commission members will be selected for their “expertise,” though most will be appointed by Congress itself and will reflect the usual political interests. They will be paid for their duties at the senior executive pay scale level and will have staffs and consultants to assist them.
Harman’s bill does not spell out terrorist behavior and leaves it up to the Commission itself to identify what is terrorism and what isn’t.
Language inserted in the act does partially define “homegrown terrorism” as “planning” or “threatening” to use force to promote a political objective, meaning that just thinking about doing something could be enough to merit the terrorist label.
The act also describes “violent radicalization” as the promotion of an “extremist belief system” without attempting to define “extremist.”
As an example of those American’s Obama will be targeting, Giraldi further writes that The Simon Wiesenthal Center, in testifying before the US Congress in support of this new law, swore that an organization called “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth” was an example of a homegrown terrorist organization, leading one Russian diplomat in this report to state:
“If 1,200 of America’s top architectural and engineering professionals are deemed terrorists simply because they question their governments propaganda than truly no one is safe in the United States anymore”.
As another example of how dictatorial the Obama regime has become, and as the Gulf of Mexico oil debacle has now become the worst ecological disaster our World has ever seen, the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, this past week slammed American reporters for “asking too many questions about BP”.
Leading one to ask that if Obama’s regime can’t be asked about this disaster, what can they be asked about?
The answer is apparently none, as Obama himself, just this past week, in announcing his signing of a new law called the Press Freedom Act refused to answer any reporters’ questions and abruptly left them standing in stupefaction over the irony an ordeal that shows how far America has fallen.
Another irony apparently lost upon the American people is that their President Obama, who has been dubbed “The Great Communicator”, now holds the dubious distinction of having held fewer press conferences than any American President in modern history.
And if yesterday’s press conference, his first in nearly a year, was any example one can see why as incredulous press corps was left astounded that Obama had no knowledge of the firing/resignation of one of his top officials.
In all of these events one fact, beyond all others, stands out….in what was once called “The Land of the Free, And the Home of the Brave”…..the United States today has become “The Land Of Slave, And the Home of the Coward”….and these Americans have only themselves to blame.
Source: Eu Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)