Category Archives: Resistance

Patrick Wood to Speak in Norman, OK April 28th on Technocracy, Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development

Editor of The August Review and The August Forecast, Wood is an expert on international economics, globalization and finance. He is co-author of Trilaterals Over Washington with the late Antony C. Sutton.

Kaye Beach

April 26, 2012

A message from Patrick Wood;

Dear Friend,

On Saturday, I will be addressing the Norman, OK Tea Party on the timely subject of Technocracy, Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development. If you are in Oklahoma, north Texas or even Kansas, I encourage you to attend and get some great information. It will be from 10:00am-3:00pm and the details are below. Please RSVP if you want to attend so they can estimate the food requirements for lunch.

UN Agenda 21 Conference
APRIL 28, 2012, 10:00 AM – 3:00
First Assembly of God Church of Norman
2500 E. Lindsey
Norman, OK 73071
Cost $20.00 per person or $35.00 per couples
Email to teaparty@weblawman.com
Or call 405-360-1716

As always, please repost this invitation into Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, etc. to let others know as well.

Yours for Liberty,

Patrick Wood, Editor
The August Forecast & Review

Click for more info!

 

Moo-Shine!

Kaye Beach
March 31, 2012
Many people of sound mind and sound body, I might add, swear by the health benefits of  cow juice in the raw.   The government says it is not good for us and wants to protect us from our selves.
I have, and I will wager you have too,  experienced the benefits of non conventional remedies when modern medicine has failed me too many times to feel comfortable in letting the  government be the final arbiters on what is and is not healthy for me.
Access to raw milk is under fire across the nation and the product is being unfairly demonized as unsafe.
This is a use it or lose it proposition for us.  Whether we choose to partake of raw milk or not, we should  vigorously defend our right to nourish our bodies as we see fit.
____________________________________________________________

Oklahoma Raw Milk Laws

In Oklahoma the retail sale of raw milk is not permitted.

The Oklahoma Milk and Milk Product s Act regulates the sale of Grade A milk and milk products.

As currently written the Oklahoma Milk and Milk Products Act O.S. 2011, Section 7-414, which relates to milk producers, exempts “incidental sales” of raw milk directly to consumers if sold at the farm where the milk is produced.  Such incidental sales of raw milk to consumers do not require a permit.

OK. Stat. T. 2 § 7-406 (Only Grade A pasteurized Milk and Grade A Raw Milk may be sold to final consumer, but only Grade A pasteurized milk may be sold through restaurants, grocery stores, etc.), OK Stat. T.2 § 7-414 (laws do not apply to incidental sales of raw milk direct to consumer from farm (including up to 100 gallons of raw goat milk/month); OK ADC 35:37-13-1 through 6

TITLE 2 AGRICULTURE
CHAPTER 1 AGRICULTURAL CODE
ARTICLE 7. MILK AND DAIRY PRODUCTS AND MILK PRODUCTS PLANTS
D. OKLAHOMA MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS ACT

§ 2-7-406. Sale of Grade A milk and milk products.

A. Only Grade A pasteurized milk and milk products or Grade A raw milk shall be sold to the final consumer; provided, however:

1. Only Grade A pasteurized milk shall be sold through restaurants, soda fountains, grocery stores, or similar establishments, including school lunch rooms

§ 2-7-414. Construction of Act.

A. The provisions of the Oklahoma Milk and Milk Products Act shall not be construed to:

1. Include incidental sales of raw milk directly to consumers at the farm where the milk is produced;

Currently, raw milk is permitted to be sold at farmers markets through cow share lease agreements. Often lease holders pick up their milk at farmers markets.

  • Oklahoma Herd Share Laws/Title 4

How Cow or Goat-Share Programs Work

The consumer purchases a share in a milk cow, goat or dairy herd. The farmer and the consumer enter into a contract whereby the farmer feeds and boards the animal and provides the labor to milk the animal and store the consumer’s milk. Such contracts are legal and valid, as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. The consumer does not buy milk from the farmer. Rather, they pay the farmer for the service of keeping the cow or goat and his labor for milking and processing the milk into value added products such as butter, cream, cheese, etc. However, they may directly purchase other products from the farm, such as eggs, vegetables and meat.

Cow and goat-share programs protect the farmer from liability since the animal belongs to the consumer and the consumer is drinking the milk from their own animal.

http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/cow-shares.html

__________________________________________________

Mar. 16th, 201

RALEIGH — Picture a peaceful, Amish farmer, selling one of nature’s super foods — fresh, raw milk. Eager customers came from afar, even across state lines, to savor the taste and access a nutritious product. Who could oppose such harmonious commerce on Rainbow Acres Farm?

Government officials and their enforcers, that’s who. This Pennsylvania farmer has been the subject of a yearlong sting operation, which included stealth purchases and a 5 a.m. surprise inspection. In February, a federal judge imposed a permanent injunction that prohibited him from selling his milk across state lines. Given the strain of the confrontation, he has decided to call it quits entirely.

Could it get any worse? Actually, North Carolina has a far more draconian law, the topic of a House Committee hearing last week. In this state, raw milk cannot be sold for legal human consumption, period. Individuals are not even allowed to co-own a cow to gain access.

To defend this violation of freedom of choice, proponents claim to be protecting others from the purported dangers of raw milk. But this claim is laughable, since evidence to the contrary has been mounting for decades.

In fact, a myriad of developed nations allow raw milk sales without problems: Germany, Holland, Belgium, France, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Italy; the list goes on. Some of these nations are hardly known for their respect for liberty, and yet in this regard people living there are freer than North Carolinians.

Even Great Britain, that nation Americans fought against for independence, has legal, retail sales of raw milk. Supply in Europe is now so widespread — just part of everyday life — that many nations have vending machines with raw milk in supermarkets and shopping malls, and on street corners.

Back in the United States, a recent federal report (PDF) from the Centers for Disease Control did not find a single death from the product in a 14-year research period, while in 2007 alone, three individuals died on account of pasteurized milk. That is despite raw milk’s availability for legal, retail sale in nine states, including South Carolina; more than 9 million Americans consume it. The CDC acknowledged that pasteurization kills beneficial nutrients in milk, and they found state prohibition of raw milk gave no statistically significant advantage in terms of food-borne illness.

Read more

Supreme Court Rules Landowners May Challenge EPA on Weltlands Ruling

Kaye Beach

March 21, 2012

Remember this case?

In 2005 Mike and Chantell Sackett purchased a vacant lot in a fully built-out portion of property along the shores of Priest Lake, in northern Idaho, with the ideas of building a modest 3-bedroom home. In 2007, they started work, but were forced to stop when the EPA claimed they were filling a wetland without a permit.

Today the Supreme Court unanimously reversed a lower court opinion that prevented the Sackett’s from challenging the EPA in its order to stop preparing their land for building and to restore the property to its original condition.  The EPA claimed this power under the Clean Water Act and told the couple that the fine  for noncompliance could be as high as s 75,000 per day.

All the Sackett’s have won really is the right to take the EPA to court and challenge their claims but that is a start.

The Washington Post reports;

“There is no reason to think that the Clean Water Act was uniquely designed to enable the strong-arming of regulated parties into ‘voluntary compliance’ without the opportunity for review–even judicial review of the question whether the regulated party is within the EPA’s jurisdiction,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia. read more

Reuters

Supreme Court backs landowners in EPA clean water case

(Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that landowners may bring a civil lawsuit challenging a federal government order under the clean water law, a decision that sides with corporate groups and sharply curtails a key Environmental Protection Agency power.

Read more

 

Steve Martins Robo Plate Trolling Bill for Insurance Verification Curbed by Amendment

Kaye Beach

March 15, 2012

**update** video of House floor action on HB2525 here (choose HB2525)

Sometimes (like when you have the flu…) you really feel thankful for the work of the Oklahoma Watchdog.

Catching up on today’s legislative action in the House as hammered out by the Oklahoma Watchdog himself on Twitter, I found an intriguing description (all in 140 character or less!) of the action taken on the infamous Robo Cop bill by Rep. Steve Martin.

Of course this caught my eye first;

‘HB 2525 by Rep. Steve Martin passed tonight’

Ack!  But wait…there’s more.

It looks like Reynolds added an amendment that ensures that cops can’t just sit around running tags (manually or robotic-ally with the license plate reading cams) and checking to see if the vehicle is insured or not then pulling you over if the system indicates you are not insured.  There has to be some other reason for a stop first.

This ‘trolling’ of plates as a pretense for stopping and fining drivers is what had some Okies inflamed back in Feb. when the bill was first offered by Rep. Martin.

The video for this session is not up yet so I will have to check back tomorrow to be sure but from looking over the bill and amendments it does appear that the “trolling for plates” idea was sent to the curb by Rep. Reynolds!

As reported by the Oklahoma Watchdog on twitter   https://twitter.com/#!/WatchdogOK

  • now up, HB2525 by Steve Martin
  • Martin: one in four motorists are uninsured and law enforcement will need more tools to deal with this.
  • Williams asking if the Martin amendment is a floor substitute because he said “it replaces the bill”
  • Chair: it only amends one section, so it is not a floor substitute

(Martin’s Amendment here)

  • Reynolds amendment: this amendment requires probable cause before an officer can pull you over.

(Reynold’s Amendment here)

Reynold’s Amendment;

By deleting the language in the amendment

b.   at any other time, may access information from the online verification system and, if compliance is not confirmed, stop the operator of the motor vehicle and verify the current validity of the policy described on a security verification form produced by the operator.

And inserting

b.   at any other time, with probable cause, may access information from the online verification system and, if compliance is not confirmed, stop the operator of the motor vehicle and verify the current validity of the policy described on a security verification form produced by the operator.

  • Morrissette: what you’re trying to do is good, but I think it’s written incorrectly
  • Reynolds: you may be right but since I don’t even think we have enough members to suspend the rules I think we should go forward with this.
    • Virgin: so the officer must have probable cause to pull a driver over before checking insurance? Reynolds: yes. (Emphasis mine)
    • There will be debate on the Reynolds amendment to the Martin amendment.
    • My amendment ensures that the bill does what the author says he intends.
    • Reynolds amendment to the Martin amendment passes 39-25(Emphasis mine)
    • martin amendment adopted by voice vote.
    • McCullough: seems like you’re trying to create probable cause by checking the tag to see if there’s insurance(Emphasis mine)
    • Martin: that was the intent but with the Reynolds language it’s now back to existing law.
    • Holland: I just want to make sure that as it stands now, can a police officer run your plate and pull you over for not having insurance? (Emphasis mine)
    • Martin: under current law they cannot and under this bill they cannot. (Emphasis mine)
    • HB2525 passes 56-11

Michigan Rep. Raps Real ID Cheerleader

Kaye Beach

March 2, 2012

Janice Kephart, Director of National Security Policy with the Center for Immigration Studies put out her yearly progress report on Real ID.  Real ID opponents fairly bristled at the glowing portrayal she gives of the highly unpopular biometric identification card scheme.

We know that 25 states passed either a law or resolution against implementing the Real ID Act but if you read Ms. Kephart’s report, you might wonder just what all the fuss was about since she claims that,

“Overall the report finds that there is substantial compliance sought across the board by all states and territories. . .”

Michigan Representative, Paul Opsommer, answers back,

“We do not see ‘tremendous value’ in pursuing ‘REAL ID standards’ as this report attempts to assert,” said Opsommer. “These are state policy positions we are pursuing on our own, irrespective of REAL ID.”

Janice Kephart is so dedicated to the Real ID cause that she even dropped by my little blog recently to reassure readers that

“There is no national ID here. Not even close.”

What a relief!  After years of study and worry about Real ID being a national, no!  An international ID,  to be precise, I can finally rest easy because I have it on good authority that Real ID is no such thing by Ms. Kephart.

Sarcasm aside, at least Kephart is not trying to hide the hated Real ID behind the cute little star that is gracing the face of state driver’s licenses that meet the federal standards imposed by Real ID which would indicate to most that their Real ID or  “STAR ID” card, is indeed a national ID. Some of  these same astute Americans will tell you that the national standards imposed by Real ID  on state driver’s licenses and ID cards, are also international standards leading them to the conclusion that not only is Real ID a national ID, it is also qualifies as an international ID as noted by a knowledgeable reader of AxXiom For Liberty in his response to Ms. Kephart,

International standards, international organizations and an international organization named a “hub” and “backbone” in the Final Rules issued by DHS in January 2008, HMMM!

Janice Kephart’s progress report on Real ID, while it is a very helpful guide for loyal opponents to the Real ID Act in helping to flush out the state’s that have either followed the will of the people or betrayed them by forging ahead with the Act that was formally opposed in 25 states, also does a grave disservice by claiming achievements for Real ID that it doesn’t deserve as Rep. Opsommer illustrates in his response to Kephart’s REAL ID Implementation Annual Report

Opsommer: Real ID implementation report shows major portions of law no longer needed.

Michigan State Representative and House Transportation Chair Paul Opsommer (R-DeWitt) said that a recent report put out by the Center for Immigration Studies, titled the ‘REAL ID Implementation Annual Report’, misrepresents the notion of ‘compliance’ and actually makes the case that the federal law that would turn driver’s licenses into national ID cards is not needed.

“We do not see ‘tremendous value’ in pursuing ‘REAL ID standards’ as this report attempts to assert,” said Opsommer. “These are state policy positions we are pursuing on our own, irrespective of REAL ID.”

Before REAL ID was passed in Washington by dubious methods, there was already a negotiated rule making process going on with the states to make sure they were not giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, and that licenses were made out of tamper-resistant materials from secure card production facilities.

“REAL ID not only repealed that process, but did so in a way that creates a national ID card that puts unelected federal bureaucrats permanently in charge of wireless computer chip, facial recognition technology, fingerprint, and foreign data sharing decisions,” said Opsommer.  “For cheerleaders of this national ID card campaign to highlight that states continue to pursue secure standards on their own, even in those states that have not authorized REAL ID or have passed laws opposing it, as somehow indicative of mass acceptance or compliance is nothing more than a public relations gambit.”

read more

Happy Monday! Oklahoma Slips in a New Health Insurance Exchange Bill for ‘ObamaCare’

Kaye Beach

Feb. 26, 2012

Problem

Tomorrow, Monday Feb. 27th, a new Health Insurance Exchange bill is  to be presented in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee.  The language for the Exchange is expected to be inserted into SB1629

Action

Please make calls or send emails to the committee members right away and tell them to VOTE NO on the Health Insurance Exchange bill!

(Contact info below)

Background

Oklahoma is one of 28 states that has filed suit against the federal government to challenge the constitutionality of the federal health care reform law.

Last legislative session, the legislation needed to enable creation of the Health Insurance Exchange was discovered by sharp eyed activists, it was exposed and rejected by Oklahomans and ultimately, Oklahoma legislators.   In April of 2011, this push back also led to Gov. Fallin returning 53 million in federal funds for the creation of the Health Insurance Exchange.

The majority of Oklahomans like the majority of Americans are adamantly opposed to a federal takeover of their health care but our elected representatives seem not to care and keep pushing forward no matter what we say or do. (More info on this here)

Some legislators claim that by implementing the health insurance exchange ourselves we can retain more control over the system than if we wait and allow the federal government to do it for us.  Participating in our own undoing is insane!

From ExposingHealthCareReform.com

  •  “Do you want a computer making life and death decisions, or your doctor?” - Health care reform is really about replacing our traditional medical system with a non-human, technology-based universal health care system.
  • “Do you want the whole world to know your most intimate secrets?” – This system will replace real doctors with virtual doctors; globally share your most intimate information with people you don’t know, severing the once-confidential relationship between patients and doctors.
  • “Do you want your medical records accessible by the government, without a search warrant?” – Our medical records (which include mental health counseling) used to be held as private and inviolate. Under health care reform (“Obama Care”) these records would be accessible not only by the Department of Homeland Security, but thousands of others, including foreign governments.

 

ACTION ITEM

Please call or email the committee members first thing and tell them that the absence of this exchange is all that stands between us and the federal takeover of our health care and that building the exchange undermines the legal case against the flawed health care reform mandates.

Tell the Committee members to VOTE NO on any Health Insurance Exchange Bill!

 

Senate Health and Human Services Committee Members

Agenda for 2/27/2012
Sen Brian Crain                 405-521-5620      crain@oksenate.gov
Sen Sean Burrage             405-521-5555     burrage@oksenate.gov
Sen Rick Brinkley              405-521-5566      brinkley@oksenate.gov
Sen Constance Johnson  405-521-5531      johnsonc@oksenate.gov
Sen Rob Johnson              405-521-5592      johnsonr@oksenate.gov
Sen Dan Newberry          405-521-5600      newberry@oksenate.gov
Sen Steve Russell             405-521-5618      russell@oksenate.gov
Sen Jim Wilson                 405-521-5574     wilson@oksenate.gov
Sen Brian Bingman          405-521-5528     bingman@oksenate.gov

Reality Check for Real ID

Kaye Beach

Feb. 23, 2012

On Feb 14th I wrote an article entitled Are You Seeing Stars on Your State Driver’s License?  Say Hello to REAL ID

Janice Kephart, true believer in the Real ID cause and Director for National Security Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, stopped by to leave a comment on my blog singing the praises of Real ID and denying that it is a national ID.  I was traveling when she left the comment and had little time and I will admit, little patience to respond to Ms. Kephart.  Fortunately, someone else stepped in and gave a great rebuttal to Kephart’s claims.  (You can read Gene’s reply at the bottom of the post in the comments section)

Paul Henry of Floridians against Real ID has been tireless in his activism and efforts to reverse the federal Real ID Act in his state for years now.  Paul is also a retired law enforcement officer and one that worked specifically on driver license fraud and other identity-related cases.  He too earned a visit from Janice Kephart  and his reply to her was most thoughtful as well as extremely thorough.  Highly recommended reading for anyone who wants to know the truth about Real ID.

Do you wonder;

  • Would Real ID have stopped the 9 11 hijackers?  Or illegal immigration?
  • Does Real ID require an RFID chip?
  • Is Real ID a “national ID”

Read Paul Henry’s reasoned reply!

An E-mail Conversation with a REAL ID Proponent

 

 

Oklahoma Action Alert! Pushing Back against the UN and Sustainable Subversion

Kaye Beach

Feb. 14. 2012

The problem with UN Agenda 21 is not that it came from the United Nations but that our government leaders have embraced the plan and have worked diligently to naturalize the policy into US law and national, state and local policies. The principles of government promoted by the UN and it’s Agenda 21 are antithetical to our form of government that has traditionally put great emphasis on private property rights.   This emphasis on individual liberty and property rights is largely responsible for the historic success of United States as a nation.

The implementation of the tenets of Agenda 21 is nothing short of subversion.  This has nothing to do with environmental stewardship.  It is about control!

There are battles being waged all over the United States as citizens and legislators struggle to protect fundamental property rights against multitudes of non-government organizations and agencies carry out the goals of Agenda 21.

Below is information on two efforts taking place in Oklahoma to defend against the implementation of contrary UN goals, a little history on how the UN policy came to America, one example of how damaging it is to industry and innovation in America and a new agreement (signed Feb 11, 2012) between the EPA and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).

____________________________________________________

Two efforts to push back  taking place in Oklahoma right now. Your support is crucial.

On the county level;

Cleveland County Commissioner Offers Resolution Opposing Agenda 21

On a state level; HJR 1072, Support for the American Sovereignty Restoration Act by Rep. Charles Key.  This measure reiterates the intent of the American Sovereignty Restoration Act  which would end membership of the US to the United Nations. 

HJR 1072 urges Congress and the President of the United States pass legislation and take steps to end membership of the United States in the United Nations. Read HJR 1072

This measure was  referred to the House Rules Committee on Feb. 7, 2012 but it needs to be scheduled for a hearing in the Rules Committee.

Let the Rules Committee leaders know that it is very important that HJR 1072 gets scheduled and heard! 

Call or email;

____________________________________________________
Some background;

Land Use Control

Since the mid 1970s, both the United Nations and the United States have been moving toward ever-tightening “public” control of land use.

By: Henry Lamb – Sovereignty.net

Ownership of land is the foundation of freedom in America.  The hope of owning even a small plot of ground compelled our forefathers to brave incalculable risks crossing the ocean and challenging the wilderness.  Land ownership was so cherished by our nation’s founders that they guaranteed that government could not take private property without just compensation paid to the land owner.  This founding principle has eroded dramatically over time, especially since 1976.
The United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (HABITAT I) met in Vancouver, British Columbia in 1976.  Agenda Item 10 of the conference report was entitled simply “Land.”

Here is an excerpt from the Preamble to that item:
“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market.  Private land ownership  is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes.  Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….”
This policy document was agreed to by the United States.  Among the U.S. delegates were William K. Reilly, former EPA Administrator, and Carla Hill, former Trade Negotiator in the Bush Administration.

Read more

Here is one example of how the principles of UN Agenda 21 looks on the ground as it is being carried out in the USA.

Signed on Feb 11, 2012-New Agreement between EPA and United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). 

http://www.epa.gov/international/io/unep.html

Administrator Jackson signed the first Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between EPA and United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) during the 26th Session of the UNEP Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum, held in Nairobi, Kenya in February 2011. The MOU identifies areas for strategic cooperation, including strengthening environmental governance and regulatory capacity in developing countries; creating healthy urban communities; facilitating the transition to a green economy; responding to global challenges such as climate change; and providing scientific leadership.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
THE UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
AND
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


WHEREAS the United Nations Environment Programme (hereinafter referred to as UNEP) is the leading organization within the United Nations system in the field of environment;
WHEREAS the mission of the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States of America (hereinafter referred to as EPA) is to protect human health and the environment within the United States and EPA may, consistent with applicable law, cooperate with other nations and organizations to protect the environment globally;

Full text of the MOU

Government Uses Anti-Terror Laws to Crush Dissent and Help the Too Big to Fail Businesses

Kaye Beach

 

Feb. 9, 2012

Very good article by George Washington at  Zero Hedge  on Feb. 9, 2012

For years, the government has been using anti-terror laws to crush dissent and to help the too big to fail businesses compete against smaller businesses (and see this).

This trend is getting worse by the day.

On January 31, 2012, the Department of Homeland Security’s Behavioral Science Division pointed to the following as indicators of potential terrorism (please note – as you review the list – that some indicators are conservative, some are liberal and some are bipartisan):

  • “Reverent of individual liberty”
  • “Anti-nuclear”
  • “Believe in conspiracy theories”
  • “A belief that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack”
  • “Impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
  • “Insert religion into the political sphere”
  • “Those who seek to politicize religion”
  • “Supported political movements for autonomy”
  • “Anti-abortion”
  • “Anti-Catholic”
  • “Anti-global”
  • “Suspicious of centralized federal authority”
  • “Fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
  • “A belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in … survivalism”

Given that most Americans fall into one or more of these categories, the powers-that-be can brand virtually anyone they dislike as being a terrorist.

ndeed,  judges and  prosecutors discuss conspiracies every day,  and federal and all 50 state’s codes include specific statutes addressing conspiracy, and specifying punishment for people who commit conspiracies.  (But surely judges, prosecutors and legislators are not terrorists.)

And Public Intelligence notes:

A flyer from a series created by the FBI and Department of Justice to promote suspicious activity reporting states that espousing conspiracy theories or anti-US rhetoric should be considered a potential indicator of terrorist activity. The document, part of a collection published yesterday by Public Intelligence, indicates that individuals who discuss “conspiracy theories about Westerners” or display “fury at the West for reasons ranging from personal problems to global policies of the U.S.” are to be considered as potentially engaging in terrorist activity. For an example of the kinds of conspiracy theories that are to be considered suspicious, the flyer specifically lists the belief that the “CIA arranged for 9/11 to legitimize the invasion of foreign lands.”

I have verified the authenticity of the flyer: here it is posted on the Columbus Police Department’s website. (Take screenshots; it might soon be moved from the public section of the website.)

Read more

Spingola Files: One Woman’s Willingness to Stand-Up to Orwellian ID Act

Kaye Beach

Feb 4, 2011

Respected former detective weighs in on biometric ID case

The very best law officers have one thing in common; they want to get the bad guys and protect the innocent.  But what happens when the tools offered to law enforcement to get the bad guys also threaten the innocent?   This is not a new dilemma for law enforcement but with the myriad of changes taking place in recent years on both the legal and technological front, it must be an incredibly tricky one now.

Steven Spingola is doing something very important.  He is opening a dialog on issues that desperately needs an airing among those who swore an oath to serve and protect the people of the United States.

Spingola is a former Milwaukee Homicide Detective, an author and nationally recognized investigator whose excellent reputation proceeds him.  He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy, a death investigations expert, a police shooting reconstruction expert and is formally trained in investigative analysis.  (Read more about Steven Spingola)

This former detective is truly is an investigator to his core.  Not satisfied with accepting anything at face value he is examining issues at what must be an uncomfortable intersection for anyone involved in law enforcement.

At his blog site, The Spingola Files, Steve wrote an article about my efforts to defend against biometric ID by filing a  lawsuit against the state in Oklahoma.

I continue to heartened by the positive feedback I have received from members of law enforcement and am most grateful to Steve Spingola for his courage in bringing issues such as this to the fore.

From The Spingola Files, Feb. 4, 2012

One Woman’s Willingness to Stand-Up to Orwellian ID Act

When Oklahoma native Kaye Beach sought to renew her driver’s license, she refused to comply with that state’s version of the Real ID Law.

In Oklahoma, and throughout 26 other states, including Wisconsin, the one digital photo taken at the counter will no longer suffice.  Instead, applicants are required to submit to several photos, including a full body profile.

When Ms. Beach declined to acquiesce to the new array of photographs, officials from Oklahoma’s version of the Department of Motor Vehicles denied the renewal of her driver’s license.  Predictably, a time came when Ms. Beach had a traffic related law enforcement contact, at which time she was cited for driving without a valid operator’s license.

But instead of simply walking like a sheep to the slaughter to renew her permit, Ms. Beach fought to have her citation dismissed and then filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Oklahoma’s Real ID law.

http://constitutionalalliance.org/work/article.php/20110910201040513

Why is Kaye Beach making such a fuss? After all, what is so difficult about submitting to a series of photographs?

Read More