National Identification System (NIDS) versus National ID card

by Mark Lerner   (November 19, 2013)  Constitutional Alliance        Stop Real ID Coalition 

Is one any worse than the other or are they both equally bad?

I would imagine that most people are opposed to both a NIDS and a “National ID Card”. Few people realize for all intents and purposes we already have both. From the outset it is very important to understand that NIDS and a National ID Card are both, in reality, “international.”

The issue of a NIDS versus a “National ID” card is a somewhat complex issue and as a result, this is not a short document. The very nature of the discussion is based on the amount of information that is collected about each of us, how that information is collected, and used; at times without our knowledge or consent.

As you read this document I ask that you consider the words of Bruce Schneier. Mr. Schneier’s credentials are above approach. Bruce has testified numerous times before many different committees in congress. Mr. Schneier is very respected by both Democrats and Republicans. We are each entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts. The following words are those of Mr. Schneier:

“Both government agencies and corporations have cloaked themselves in so much secrecy that it’s impossible to verify anything they say; revelation after revelation demonstrates that they’ve been lying to us regularly and tell the truth only when there’s no alternative.”

National ID Card

A National ID Card is obviously a document, a card. It must have uniform features nationwide and be issued to most, if not all of the population.

A national identity system (NIDS) and a national ID card are not mutually exclusive. In fact, in todays interconnected world, the national ID card is accompanied by a national ID system. The information collected for identification cards is deposited into a database and it is the connectivity of these databases that make a national (or international) identity system possible. With the national ID card alone, any tracking of a person requires the individual to produce the card so that it can be logged in some manner. Even if the card contains an embedded RFID chip, the use of a metal sleeve prevents the embedded chip from transmitting information.

Most people would say that they believe that in the U.S., we do not have a national ID card. They might say that our social security card is the closest thing we have in to a national ID card. Most people have it wrong. A state driver’s license has rather quietly become a National ID card. I will explain how this is so a bit later.

There is little to be gained from a national ID for the ordinary person compared to what can be lost. A National ID Card can be required for access to anything by the government or private entities. It is a tool for social control and as history demonstrates, national ID’s have earned their reputation as a tool for tyranny. As bad as a national ID is, a NIDS is even worse.

What is a National Identification System?

A NIDS requires data systems to be connected. In order to best understand a NIDS one must first understand that a NIDS does not require that there be one huge database in our country. As long as there is access to any given end user or users (government employees or contractors) to a multitude of databases you have a “national” database. The difference between information that is contained in a central database or many databases connected and accessed via a distributed network nationwide, is a trivial one

Direct vs. Indirect Access

Imagine that your bedroom is a database. When you walk into a home you typically enter through a front or a back door. Rarely do you have an exterior door on the home that opens directly to the bedroom but if you did, that would be “direct access”.

If there were no door in your bedroom that opened to the exterior of the home, you can easily walk through one or two doors and still enter your bedroom. This is “indirect access” to your bedroom (or database)

State databases, including a DMV (Department of Motor Vehicle) database hold the biometric data (ex. fingerprints, high resolution digital facial image/photo, iris scan, palm vein geometry, and DNA) of a majority of the adult population in the US. Not every state has in its databases all of the aforementioned biometrics but at a minimum all contain digital facial images/photos that are facial recognition compatible. The digital facial image is not simply a photo. It is a high resolution digital facial image incorporating standards that are specific to the use of facial recognition software. Facial recognition uses computer analysis to “map” the key characteristics of the face allowing for among other things, one digital facial image/photo face to be compared to many digital facial images. These databases can be accessed by state agencies and departments outside of a state DMV in a direct or indirect manner just like your bedroom. No matter how the database (or bedroom) is entered, access is access.

The federal government is amassing huge amounts of information about each of us. Information can come from a variety of sources including but not limited to state DMV databases, state Department of Correction’s databases, state Department of Human Services databases, state law enforcement databases, and state Department of 0Education databases.

Often the federal government is aided in their information collation activities by Fusion Centers. Fusion centers ‘fuse’ data. They are state, local and regional intelligence centers. There is at least one Fusion Center in every state.

‘The principal role of the fusion center is to compile, analyze, and disseminate criminal/terrorist information and intelligence and other information (including, but not limited to, threat, public safety, law enforcement, public health, social services, and public works) to support efforts to anticipate, identify, prevent, and/or monitor criminal/terrorist activity.’ http://www.scribd.com/doc/19251638/Fusion-Center-Guidelines-Law-Enforcement

Initiatives such as “Common Core” and laws such as the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) open the door to information about students and our medical information to be accessed by agencies and departments of the federal government. Another source of information for agencies and departments of the federal government is private data mining companies. These are private companies that are in the business of buying and selling each of our personal information. Data mining companies get information from credit card companies, associations or organizations we belong to, credit rating companies and a whole host of other commercial entities. A data mining company knows what magazines you subscribe to, where you travel, what types of and brand of goods and services you purchase, where you work and live, what schools you have attended, the doctors you use, and nearly everything and anything else that relates to you.

The Privacy Act of 1974

Many mistakenly believe that when the agencies and departments of the federal government collect or use our personal information that they must disclose why and how our information is being collected and used. This is not the case. The Privacy Act of 1974, passed to safeguard our privacy, has more holes in it than a slice of Swiss cheese. As law professors have stated, there is one or more exceptions today for every law and/or constitutional amendment.

Post 9/11, the mindset that has existed

It is important to keep in mind that post 9/11 the United States has been declared a “battlefield” in the “War on Terrorism.” Federal officials have stated the greatest threat of terrorism comes from “Homegrown” terrorists including the “Lone Wolf” terrorist. Algorithms (mathematical equations) are being applied to the information collected about each of us to determine what level of threat we present to the federal government and the public at large.

Not only are government agencies and departments relying on ‘available’ information they collect (that may or may not be accurate) to assign us a threat level they are also using that information to perform predictive analytics in order to determine what we might do in the future. Predictive analytics is the origin for what is referred to as the “Thought Police” or pre-crime.

DHS actually published for confidential use, a report titled the “Domestic Extremism Lexicon”. This report stated that if you supported Ron Paul or third party candidates you are a potential domestic terrorist. Dozens of groups you may or may not fall into were labeled as potential threats. If you support states’ rights, our constitutional rights, religious freedom, or the sovereignty of the individual you are deemed a potential domestic terrorist threat. There is no “left”/”right” paradigm to the groups of people that are named potential domestic terrorists. A person can be a strong supporter of tougher environmental policies or opposed to abortion; either of which would deem you to be a potential domestic terrorist. In fact, the broad sweeping labeling and profiling of U.S. citizens ensnarls a large percentage of U.S. citizens. If you are not a target, there is a good chance that someone in your family or extended family is.

Most people are aware of the revelations that have come from Edward Snowden. Snowden worked for Booz Allen, a subcontractor for the NSA and was previously employed by the CIA, as a computer specialist. Although the extent was not known, the general assertions that have come from the documents Snowden released have been made by several former NSA insiders and analysts going back for decades. The difference is in the Snowden revelations we actually can see the documents proving the assertions are true. Phone call data, emails, financial transactions, and much more have been and are being collected by the NSA. Not only was the information being collected and retained by the NSA but shared with others in the federal government. The DEA lied to prosecutors, judges, defense attorneys, and juries about the origin of evidence the DEA provided to prosecute alleged violators of U.S. drug laws. It is especially disturbing that the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper lied to congress and the public during a public congressional hearing about the collection of the information of U.S. citizens.

24/7 Digital footprint = Total Information Awareness on steroids

To truly understand the depth and scope of this surveillance net, one must know what is meant by a 24/7 digital footprint. The 24/7 digital footprint goes much further than just knowing what you have done but also includes what you are doing in real time. Using technologies including but not limited to facial recognition software, CCTV, smart phones that can capture your facial image and are wirelessly connected to databases including DMV databases, Automatic License Plate Readers and the up and coming rising star of surveillance, drones, we are each being watched. Computers, unlike people, do not forgive and forget. The data collected from this surveillance is kept, stored in databases and retained indefinitely. There are other technologies including the use of smart meters that can reveal what you are doing inside your own home.

The 24/7 digital footprint is a chronology of what you have done and are doing at any given point in time on any given day.

Indirect control versus direct control

Privacy in today’s world has become nearly non-existent. The last vestige of hope is in being able to protect our anonymity when we are in public. If you are walking down the street you have a right not to reveal your identity unless law enforcement has a reasonable suspicion that you have or are doing something illegal.

The importance of anonymity cannot be overstated. If a person chooses to attend a rally, a protest, a fund raising event for some “cause”, or any number of other “public” events they have a right to their anonymity. To destroy this right allows government to use “indirect” control to influence the words and actions of people.

Indirect control is defined as control that is based on fear or intimidation. A person who knows they are, or might be, being monitored may fear that there will or can be negative repercussions for what the individual is doing. As an example, your name may be added to a “watch list” of some type if you attend an event where there is discussion about our constitutional rights being eroded.

Direct control is when government enforces laws that plainly state what a person can and cannot do legally. We are legally not permitted to exceed the posted speed limit. If we do, we can be caught and fined. That is direct control.

Indirect control is far more insidious than “direct” control. It is akin to government playing “mind games” with people in order to achieve some desired result. Mass surveillance is mass intimidation and as history has repeatedly demonstrated, it is the enemy of a free and open society.

In the recent past, there were “silos” in place that provided some protected of our personal information. A silo is a system such as a database that operates in isolation from others. Anyone wishing to access data that is in a silo would need to have legal justification in order to access that information. The post 911 mantra became “Breaking down Silos” and since then, the walls have indeed come down.

The FBI has been given authority to issue NSL’s (National Security Letters) to individuals who work at companies/corporations/libraries and additional places. Those individuals are prevented from discussing the NSL with fellow employees and without prior consent from the government in many instances, even with attorneys. The Inspector General of the Justice Department condemned the FBI for abusing the authority. To be clear, a NSL does not equate to a search warrant. The standards for NSL’s are much lower. This is why NSL’s are referred to a “warrantless searches.” It might be difficult to absorb this number, 40,000, but that is how many NSL’s the FBI served in just one year. In a three year period over 100,000 NSL’s were served. The Inspector General noted that he did not believe the FBI was forthcoming about all the NSL’s that the FBI served. Even if we stick to the conservative estimate of 40,000, that equates to over a 100 NSL’s served a day.

The smoking gun that information is intended to be shared nationally and internationally

Our government has worked hard to figure out how to share information “seamlessly” between local, state, and federal agencies and their private partners despite otherwise incompatible data systems. As I mentioned earlier, the differences between one ultra-large, central database and an interoperable distributed network is trivial; with one exception. A constantly updated and continuously accessible nationwide distributed network, permits real time information sharing.

One key method the government came up with to enable widespread data sharing is NIEM – the National Information Exchange Model. NIEM is a “framework to automate sharing across federal, state and local government as well as the private sector.” Link

NIEM is an information intelligence tool.

NIEM began as the Global Justice XML Data Model (GJXDM)

‘The Global JXDM endeavor began in March 2001 as a reconciliation of data definitions and evolved into a broad two-year effort to develop an XML-based framework that would enable the entire justice and public safety communities to effectively share information at all levels–laying the foundation for local, state, tribal, and national justice interoperability.

The Global Justice XML Model (GJXDM) was later incorporated into the NIEM, the National Information Exchange Model.’http://it.ojp.gov/default.aspx?area=nationalInitiatives&page=1081

Global JXDM was folded into NIEM and then launched on February 28, 2005 as a partnership between the federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

NIEM is designed to address “the national information sharing imperative embraced by the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.” link

The International Association of Chiefs of Police, another UN accredited non-governmental organization, calls widespread adoption of NIEM a “national imperative.”

“The need for law enforcement to share information with other public safety organizations, health services, schools, and transportation, just to name a few, will drive this interdisciplinary exchange model to expand into these other domains. . . .The full value of NIEM will be realized as adoption and use become widespread throughout the country. This is a national imperative.”

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=1155&issue_id=42007

In 2010, Don Burke, CIA Information Office, described NIEM this way;

“It is a set of Web 2.0 applications. . .running on top secret, secret and unclassified networks of the intelligence intranet and hosted by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.”

On Oct 25, 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) joined the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM) On May 2013, the DOD officially adopts NIEM

NIEM is global and its adoption is growing.

‘NIEM is successfully used to facilitate interoperability among diverse organizations and is employed in more than a dozen communities of interest at all levels of government in the U.S., and international adoption is growing, most notably in Canada, Mexico, the European Union, and Australia.’ http://www.canadiangovernmentexecutive.ca/category/item/1385-information-exchange-30-the-benefits-of-a-new-model.html

NIEM was designed as an information sharing and intelligence tool for law enforcement and national security purposes. NIEM and is now applied to nearly all sectors of society, public and private and is international in scope.

Having a national/international format for information collecting and sharing is not enough

The missing link is the need for a national/international telecommunications network that facilitates the sharing of information. There are many ways to “share” information but one that has become the primary tool is Nlets (National Law Enforcement Telecommunication Network). Although this name for a telecommunication network only implies “national” information sharing, the name of this telecommunications system has been changed to define its true mission. The new name is “The International Justice and Public Safety Network”.

One of the primary sources of personal information, including your biometrics, is your state DMV database.

At first glance you might think only law enforcement entities are participating in the use of “The International Justice and Public Safety Network”. The fact is that Nlets/The International Justice and Public Safety Network has many private “Strategic Partners”

International programs/initiatives and organizations that are key to U.S. policy and goals

It is important when discussing a national/international identification system to understand the beginnings of how such a system(s) began to unfold and who the players are. Always keep in mind two facts. The United States has been named by our government as a “battlefield” in the “War on Terror” and the biggest threat to the United States is domestic or “homegrown” terrorism. These two facts are the underpinning for the mindset that the government must know everything about everyone. Our government has led the way in promoting this mindset worldwide. It cannot be overstated that in order for our government’s strategy to work, other countries must share the information of their citizens with our government and likewise or in return, our government must be willing to share the personal information including the biometrics of U.S. citizens with the governments of other countries.

Why would other countries be so willing to cooperate in mass surveillance? The simple is answer is information is power and power is control. Like it or not, believe it or not, the fact is the United States is leading the way in the creation of a surveillance state in countries across the globe. The leaders in other countries want to have control over their people just as we are witnessing our government taking control over the public here in the United States.

Globalism, simply stated, is the standardization of systems. For globalism to be fully realized political, cultural and technological systems must be harmonized.

There are many international entities that play integral roles in the collecting and sharing of all people’s information. When it comes to our most personal information, our biometrics, the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization), the ISO (International Organization for Standardization) and the International Biometric Foundation are the global leaders.

The ICAO adopts the international standards of the ISO as those standards relate to identification documents. Specifically, these standards address the formatting of information on documents, the security features for identification documents, and the specific information (including your biometrics) to be collected for identification documents. The ICAO has also adopted the ISO’s minimum standard for collecting each of the biometrics, including the fingerprints, iris, vein, facial image and more. There is only one reason for international standards and that is to facilitate global information sharing.

Julian Ashbourn of the International Biometrics Foundation stated that when it comes to biometrics, we need a global agency with global power.

Robert Mocny is the Director of DHS’s Office of Biometric Identity. The following appears in an article titled “DHS pushes global data sharing” published by Government Computer News.

“Mocny sketched a federal plan to extend biometric data sharing to Asian and European governments and corporations, so as to create a Global Security Envelope of identity management.”

Mocny also has stated DHS wants a “Global Security Envelope of internationally shared biometric data that would permanently link individuals with biometric ID, personal information held by governments and corporations.” Link

I do not know how much clearer it can be said than how Mocny has said it. “Permanently” link means exactly what it says. Mocny’s statements leave no doubt that corporations and government are working together.

No matter what country a person may reside in, there are just three elements necessary to create a single global biometric identity system.

1) Enroll citizens using but not limited to driver’s licenses, state issued valid with photo ID cards for those that do not drive, passports, military and dependent ID, a national ID card and school ID cards.

2) Adopt international standards for identification cards/documents. This applies to the nature of the information collected and the formatting to facilitate information sharing.

3) Create and link databases globally so that the information collected can be shared. This allows for not just for the identification of people but also provides the capability for global surveillance.

Make no mistake about it, this system exists today.

There is legislation that has been repeatedly introduced in Congress. This legislation would require a person to provide their biometrics in order to be able to conduct financial transactions. The legislation is titled the “Photo Identification Security Act”. This type of legislation along with other bills currently before congress, will ensure that you will have to provider your biometrics in order to be able to buy, sell, travel, or even work.

Our Driver’s License is our National ID Card

As I stated in the beginning, our driver’s license is a national ID card. Now I will explain how.

In 2005 the Real ID Act 2005 was signed into law by President Bush. The Real ID Act is comprised of 39 benchmarks that, once achieved, signify full compliance with Real ID. When a state meets the first 18 of these Real ID benchmarks, they are considered to be in “material compliance” which qualifies that state to place a gold star on their driver’s licenses.

The first Real ID benchmark is the requirement that states capture and retain a digital facial image which is biometric.

Many people if not most people have no problem with a photo on their driver’s license. There are people that have a religious objection to photographs and those religious objections should be honored. It has been said that religious freedom is on a collision course with national security. Religious freedom is freedom of conscience. Nations that destroy or undermine religious freedom in the name of security have a long documented history of undermining our God given rights as stated in our own Declaration of Independence.

Not too long ago I was invited to participate in a “Privacy Coalition” and a “Surveillance Coalition”. Many of the most well known organizations/legal advocacy groups also participated in these coalitions. I was astounded to realize that nearly none of the people who also participated realized that the photograph on state driver’s licenses is in itself a biometric.

The digital facial image is akin to a fingerprint. Both are defined as being “biometric samples”. A biometric sample is defined as being that which can be converted to biometric data. Biometric data then has an algorithm applied to it that results in the creation of a biometric template. I am only going into this amount of detail because it is important to know biometric templates have already been compromised. Biometric templates have been reversed engineered. A person can take your fingerprint biometric template and reverse engineer it to create your fingerprint. Biometrics, unlike credit card numbers, bank accounts numbers, and even social security numbers, are irrevocable. You cannot “get” new biometrics. Your body literally becomes your ID with the use of biometrics.

All states use the same standard for the digital facial image. The primary vendor that produces driver’s licenses in the United States is named Morpho Trust. Morpho Trust is a subsidiary of a French company named Safran and owned in part by the French government. Safran is a mega global company with offices all over the world including in Russia and China. Safran and its subsidiary Morho Trust have adopted the international standards for the capture of the digital facial image/photograph used by the ICAO. The ICAO is an agency of the United Nations. The ICAO adopted its standard for the digital facial image from the International Organization of Standardization (ISO).

Not only has Morpho Trust, the primary vendor for US drivers licenses/ID cards (and more!), adopted the standard of the ICAO and the ISO but so has AAMVA (American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators). All states follow AAMVA’s technical standards for driver’s licenses and ID cards. Although AAMVA’s name implies it is an American organization, it is not. It is an international organization that has members outside the United States. AAMVA.net is another telecommunications networks that is used to facilitate the sharing of information outside the United States and with corporate partners.

Getting back to the Real ID Act and the “standard” for the “digital facial image” I have been referring to, you can find this standard articulated in the NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) for the Real ID Act 2005

The following appears on page 68, footnote 17, in the Real ID Act’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued by the Department of Homeland Security in March 2007:

“The relevant ICAO standard is ICAO 9303 Part 1 Vol. 2, specifically ISO/IEC 19794-5 – Information technology – Biometric data interchange formats – Part 5: Face image data, which is incorporated into ICAO 9303.”

Just as there is no longer any confusion among the members of the Privacy Coalition or the Surveillance Coalition about the fact that the digital facial image/photograph is a biometric, no such confusion should any longer exist among the public: Real ID is a biometric ID.

The author of the Real ID Act and the law itself says the Real ID Act 2005 puts in place federal guidelines for state driver’s licenses. What is not revealed is that those federal guidelines are, in fact, international standards as they pertain to the document itself, the driver’s license and the collection of your facial image biometric.

It is worth repeating that it does not matter whether a person lives in a Real ID compliant state or not; their facial image biometric is being captured specifically for use with facial recognition software.

A dress manufacturer, working from one design, can produce many different colors of the same dress. In much the same way driver’s licenses may appear different in Real ID and non-Real ID complaint states yet because of their common use of the facial image biometric they still are tied together and thus we already have a “National ID card.”

The federal government has made no secret of the fact it wants access to every state DMV database especially the photos/digital facial images for use with facial recognition technology. And as I mentioned previously, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill would ensure, for once and for all, that the federal government gets exactly what it wants.

There is no provision for a religious objection to a photograph in the Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation that has passed in the senate (S744). There is other legislation Congress has considered and some members are still pushing titled “The Legal Workforce Act” that would also mandate biometric enrollment .

Currently many states are participating in photo sharing compacts with the assistance of the federal government and federal law, the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994 already allows states to share information in a state DMV database with agencies and department of the federal government.

Conclusion

There should not be any doubt we have both a “National ID” card and a “National Identification System.” As to the question of which is worse, the answer is they are both bad but the “National Identification System” is far worse. NIDS allows for the identification and tracking of an individual, across time and territory, without their knowledge or consent using biometrics and surveillance tools such as CCTV, drones, and smart phones. Automatic License Plate Readers allow for the tracking of individuals without the use of biometrics.

What is painfully clear is whether a person is speaking about a NIDS or a “National ID” card the common denominator is “biometrics”.

Earlier I briefly mentioned Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Included in Comprehensive Immigration Reform is a requirement that employers and employees are “registered/cleared” by DHS using what is referred to as E-Verify. This will only add to the depth and scope of information contained in government databases. Much of the information is exempt from the Privacy Act of 1974. People who do have a lawful presence in the United States comprise about 4 – 6 % of the total amount of people in our country. Where is the logic in destroying our rights to address people who comprise such a small part of our population? Whether a person is for or against immigration reform the first test of any legislation must be that the legislation is consistent with our constitutional rights and the principles our country was founded upon including our right to be presumed innocent.

E-Verify is not the solution to stopping illegal immigration. There will always be a “black market” for those who enter our country illegally. There will always be employers who do not want to pay a fair wage. We have failed to enforce past and current immigration law. Tougher punishments for those who hire people in our country who do not have a lawful presence should be a consideration. Much better border security is needed. If E-Verify is mandated in all states and there is even a 1% error rate, 1.5 million citizens would be unfairly delayed from working.

The government today does insist we have its approval before we can fly, enter a federal facility, and more including work if congress has its way. Whatever happened to the “consent of the governed” rather than the governed requiring the consent of government?

Many people have asked if I believe RFID chips will eventually be implanted in all driver’s licenses and other state issued ID. I do not know for sure if that will be the case but what I do know is before former Secretary of DHS, Janet Napolitano was confirmed she stated she believed all driver’s licenses should be Enhanced Driver’s Licenses (embedded with a RFID chip). There are many proponents of the Real ID Act 2005, biometrics and the use of smart cards that believe embedding RFID chips in ID documents is a must.

Let’s say that the day comes when all ID cards will be embedded with RFID chips, the National Identification System (NIDS) is still worse than a “National ID card.” The NDIS does not require your knowledge or consent.

With the national ID we still have some measure of awareness and control. Unlike the national ID card, with a NIDS you are being tracked and monitored but are cannot know when, where or exactly how the technology is used.

We (most in academia, the media, and the public) have previously defined government for the most part as being those we elect or are appointed to office and the bureaucrats who supposedly serve the public. The belief being “government” is based on the consent of the governed. Today as I stated previously, the governed require the consent of government. The new definition that should be applied to government is those that decide policy. Yes, those we elect and those that are appointed implement policy but they no longer decide policy. Proof is in the legislation and/or regulations that lobbyists write on behalf of their clients. One good example being the drone industry writing rules and regulations regarding the use of drones. Another good example is the Real ID Act 2005.

Corporations, especially mega global corporations, have a strangle hold on congress and the public. Lobbyist or more precisely their employers, these corporations, are spending $3 billion a year plus influencing members of congress. This averages out to over $5.5 million a year per member of congress. You should be asking yourself who has more influence, you or the people walking around with essentially blank checks made out to members of congress? The $3 billion a year number does not include money given to PACs (Political Action Committees) or directly given to campaign coffers.

How does your right to representation exist when international agencies, NGO’s, mega global corporations and others outside of what we have previously defined as “government” are dictating policy? The answer is you have no representation. If you think you do, you are playing checkers while those we all should oppose are playing three dimensional chess.

When it comes to what “government” is capable of doing you should always know if they have the capability they will use it: If they do not have the capability they will create it.

Lawmakers at the state and federal level should never pass legislation in the context of what any one law does or does not allow, or what technology is authorized to be used in a specific piece of legislation. Lawmakers and for that matter the public should always take a step back and look at the totality of all laws and technologies that are being implemented. Not to do so makes the lawmakers as complicit as those that are determining policy in what is happening in our country today.

State lawmakers were never intended to be surrogates of the federal government. The states and state lawmakers are, or should be the buffer between the tyranny of an overreaching federal government and the rights of citizens.

There is a woman in Oklahoma named Kaye Beach who is a mother, wife, and Christian who has decided that her body (biometrics) should not be her ID. Ms. Beach is opposing mandatory biometric enrollment. Ms. Beach has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Public Safety, the department in Oklahoma that oversees the issuance of Oklahoma’s driver’s licenses. Kaye Beach is not just sacrificing for herself but also for all freedom loving people. In Ms. Beach’s case she is not objecting to a photograph; only asking that the photograph be a low resolution photograph that is not facial recognition compatible. If you are a person who has a religious objection to a photograph, believes that biometrics will be an integral component of the “Mark of the Beast”, or are just opposed to government being able to identify and track you without any reasonable suspicion then you should be supporting Ms. Beach. Ms. Beach’s legal fees are mounting. Ms. Beach’s lawsuit can be a blueprint for what can be done in other states. Visit www.constitutionalalliance.org to find out how you can assist Kaye Beach. Honor those that have given the ultimate sacrifice to protect our rights and ensure those same people have not died in vain by supporting Kaye Beach.

I would be remiss if I did not ask you to answer one question. How can you reconcile a free society with a surveillance society?

God Bless these United States of America