Quantcast

Categorized | News

IS the MARK OF THE BEAST about to be ENACTED in AMERICAN LAW?

I got a very disturbing email from Campaign for Liberty today about an obscure bill that purports to replace the paper I-9 immigration verification system with a computerized E-Verify one:

Last Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee voted on and passed the so-called “Legal Workforce Act,” H.R. 1147.

This legislation creates a mandatory National ID system requiring all Americans to carry a government-approved ID containing “biometric features.”

You will be required to show this ID to any potential employer so they can verify your identity in a federal database . . .

And confirm that you have federal permission to hold a job.

Now I do not believe every word in an email or on the Internet.  But I did verify it and they are mostly right.  Here’s the legislation text from the US Congress and below are several interesting paragraphs (written in fluent legalese) with my translation below:

  ``(A) Attestation after examination of 
                documentation.--
                            ``(i) Attestation.--During the verification 
                        period (as defined in subparagraph (E)), the 
                        person or entity shall attest, under penalty of 
                        perjury and on a form, including electronic and 
                        telephonic formats, designated or established 
                        by the Secretary by regulation not later than 6 
                        months after the date of the enactment of the 
                        Legal Workforce Act, that it has verified that 
                        the individual is not an unauthorized alien 
                        by--
                                    ``(I) obtaining from the individual 
                                the individual's social security 
                                account number and recording the number 
                                on the form (if the individual claims 
                                to have been issued such a number), 
                                and, if the individual does not attest 
                                to United States nationality under 
                                subparagraph (B), obtaining such 
                                identification or authorization number 
                                established by the Department of 
                                Homeland Security for the alien as the 
                                Secretary of Homeland Security may 
                                specify, and recording such number on 
                                the form; and
                                    ``(II) examining--
                                            ``(aa) a document relating 
                                        to the individual presenting it 
                                        described in clause (ii); or
                                            ``(bb) a document relating 
                                        to the individual presenting it 
                                        described in clause (iii) and a 
                                        document relating to the 
                                        individual presenting it 
                                        described in clause (iv).

This law says:  Any employer (after a certain time) must verify electronically the ability to legally work in the United States using a document that either one, verifies BOTH employment status and identity [clause (ii)] or a document that verifies employment status [clause (iii)] and a second document that verifies identity [clause (iv)].

Harmless enough.  So far, Campaign for Liberty is not correct.  BUT, see this little gem:

 ``(v) Authority to prohibit use of certain 
                        documents.--If the Secretary of Homeland 
                        Security finds, by regulation, that any 
                        document described in clause (i), (ii), or 
                        (iii) as establishing employment authorization 
                        or identity does not reliably establish such 
                        authorization or identity or is being used 
                        fraudulently to an unacceptable degree, the 
                        Secretary may prohibit or place conditions on 
                        its use for purposes of this paragraph.

This paragraph says DHS can decide what employment documents [clause (ii) and clause (iii)] are legal to use.  And US companies and businesses MUST use those documents and ONLY those documents.

Guess what – one of the documents specifically authorized in clause (ii) is a BIOMETRIC ID CARD (emphasis added):

 ``(VI) other document designated by 
                                the Secretary of Homeland Security, if 
                                the document--
                                            ``(aa) contains a 
                                        photograph of the individual 
                                        and biometric identification 
                                        data from the individual and 
                                        such other personal identifying 
                                        information relating to the 
                                        individual as the Secretary of 
                                        Homeland Security finds, by 
                                        regulation, sufficient for 
                                        purposes of this clause;
                                            ``(bb) is evidence of 
                                        authorization of employment in 
                                        the United States; and
                                            ``(cc) contains security 
                                        features to make it resistant 
                                        to tampering, counterfeiting, 
                                        and fraudulent use.

Since every employer must use a document from clause (ii) or a document each from clause (iii) and (iv) and then DHS can say:  In order to meet the E-Verify standard you MUST USE the BIOMETRIC ID CARD.  Campaign for Liberty is largely right.  It won’t HAVE TO be enacted right away.  But it will for sure.  This is scary for another reason:  It is the beginning of the Mark of the Beast.

A biometric ID card is one that uses some sort of body image to verify identity.  See this definition from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (emphasis added):

Many countries are now “modernizing” their ID databases to include biometric identifiers that authenticate or verify identity based on physical characteristics such as fingerprints, iris, face and palm prints, gait, voice and DNA.

So under this law – the Federal Government can require a biometric ID card to verify employment.  In effect control legal employment in the US.  Let me put it bluntly:  You can’t work legally without the DHS issued ID card.

If this sounds familiar try this:

“And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name…”  Revelation 14:17 (KJV)

Note by the way:  it is not necessary the number (cited in the next verse as 666) be on the person’s hand.  But here are the Republicans in Congress, under the guise of “enforcing the immigration laws” causing all law-abiding persons to show they are legally able to work – in order to work in the US.  This bill is going to place in American law the precursor of the Mark of the Beast.  It is thus unacceptable.  Evangelicals should arise up and say NO.

We have an excellent I-9 system if enforced.  Simply audit random employers with enough frequency and maybe the first non-compliant give a break but strictly fine (or in appropriate cases charge criminally) the next employers found in non-compliance.  This biometric ID thing is dangerous and unnecessary.  Tell your congressman and senator NO to the biometric ID card.

But before you do that, take time to ask the question that every follower of Jesus Christ knows the answer to:  How did a guy who wrote Revelation nearly 2000 years ago know about biometric ID systems?  It had to seem crazy for generations:  The government will never require all to take a mark and through this control all commerce!  As long as there is a dark alley or a quiet home, there will be buying and selling.

But with this new technology, it is possible.  Or will be soon.  The Apostle John might have just guessed well.  Or he might have been told by Jesus Christ what will happen.  And if so, you better be right with Jesus – or else – face terrible tribulation.  I am not by the way a pre-trib rapture Christian.  I think the rapture will occur when Jesus comes again after all have been forced to take sides – martyrdom or take the mark of the beast which means Hell for eternity:

“…them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image.  They were both cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.  Revelation 19: 20 (KJV)

If you need to find out more about Jesus, go here.

 

About Elwood Sanders

Elwood "Sandy" Sanders is a Hanover attorney who is an Appellate Procedure Consultant for Lantagne Legal Printing and has written ten scholarly legal articles. Sandy was also Virginia's first Appellate Defender and also helped bring curling in VA! (None of these titles imply any endorsement of Sanders’ views)

2 Responses to “IS the MARK OF THE BEAST about to be ENACTED in AMERICAN LAW?”

  1. John Collignon
    Twitter:
    says:

    If the mark of the Beast is the number 666 as stated in the Bible, which is obvious that is what is being referred to then one has to locate a 666 somewhere in the code number at the very least. Also, I believe the Beast is specified as the Devil himself and his mark has to be on the forehead or hand, actually marking the individual.

    • Sandy Sanders
      Twitter:
      says:

      Thanks for visiting John. I think we all agree the number 666 has some relation to the Mark of the Beast but what does that mean? Some actually thought it originally meant the Roman emperor Domitian, who was a serious persecutor of Christians about the time John was dictated the Revelation to by Jesus.

      Sandy

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    CommentLuv badge

    Tom White Says:

    Nothing is more conservative than a republican wanting to get their majority back. And nothing is more liberal than a republican WITH a majority.

    Check out NewsMax!

    Sign up for Virginia Right Once Daily Email Digest

    No Spam - ever! We send a daily email with the posts of the previous day. Unsubscribe at any time.
    * = required field

    Submit a Blog Post!

    Submit a Blog Post for our 'Boots on the Ground' feature

    Click Here for Instructions on How to Submit a Post

    Google Ad

    Google Ad

    Follow Us Anywhere!

    Google Ad

    Archives

    Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
    %d bloggers like this: