MANDATORY RFID CHIPS TO REPLACE FOOD STAMPS AND WELFARE ATM DEBIT CARDS !!!

December 16th, 2015

Awake Goy

“And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and
bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 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 13:16-17) ~ Videos

Food stamp welfare individuals must soon be chipped

In a little while, the above scene in Revelation 13 will become a
global reality. People can no longer buy or sell without the mark of the
beast. And sometimes that would mean no longer being able to eat!

The USDA is now considering biometric identification for all
individuals who will want to benefit from their Food and Nutrition
Services. The RFID chip may just soon be a must for everyone who does
not want to starve!

The following is an excerpt of the executive summary of the FINAL
REPORT of the Use of Biometric Identification Technology to Reduce Fraud
in the Food Stamp Program:

Biometric identification technology provides automated methods to
identify a person based on physical characteristics—such as
fingerprints, hand shape, and characteristics of the eyes and face—as
well as behavioral characteristics—including signatures and voice
patterns.

Already operational in some states

Biometric identification systems are currently operational at some level in
Arizona, California (under county initiative, first by Los Angeles
County), Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and
Texas.

Finger imaging is the principal form of technology used in all
eight States, though alternative technologies have simultaneously
undergone trials in Massachusetts (facial recognition) and Illinois
(retinal scanning).

By the end of 2000, new systems were expected to be
in place in California (statewide unified system), Delaware, and North
Carolina.

Other States are currently in the initial planning stages,
including Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and
South Carolina.

However, there is little information available at this
point regarding the specific course and trajectory these States will
follow in terms of system types, implementation schedules, and the
benefit programs in which they will implement the new requirement.

The States planned for implementation of their biometric
identification systems in response to a wide variety of factors and
considerations idiosyncratic to each State environment.

Some States
reported that their respective legislative mandates, which prescribed
specific dates by which biometric systems were required to be in place,
allowed insufficient time for development and planning.

The States
developed and followed implementation schedules in accordance with
internal priorities and considerations.

The States uniformly described
their implementation processes as largely uneventful, though they
encountered a variety of minor implementation issues, most of which were
associated with the logistical difficulties of mobilizing and managing
such a complex initiative.

Preparing staff for the implementation of the biometric systems, both
philosophically and operationally, took different forms, priorities,
and levels of effort in the States.

At implementation, advance
notification to clients and/or the general public about new biometric
client identification procedures was considered important by all State
representatives.

The objective of providing advance notification was to
inform and prepare clients for the additional application or
recertification step (i.e., to explain the requirement and who is
required to submit, and to address client concerns), as well as to
accelerate enrollment of the existing caseload.

All States prepared
informational mailings to clients advising them of the new requirement.

Some States reported developing additional outreach media including
multilingual (English and Spanish) videos, posters, and brochures for
viewing and distribution in the local office.

Most of the States also
identified various outlets in the community through which they informed
the general public in advance about the implementation of biometric
client identification procedures.

Program outcomes

The evaluations of finger imaging systems conducted by six States have produced the following findings.

A small number of duplicate applications (approximately 1 duplicate
for every 5,000 cases) have been detected by finger imaging systems.
Finger-imaging systems appear to detect more fraud in statewide
implementations than in regional pilot systems. Additional matches have
been found by interstate comparisons of finger-image data.
Institution of a finger-imaging requirement can produce a
significant, short-term reduction in caseload, because some existing
clients refuse to comply with the requirement. The number of refusals
depends on the implementation procedures and appears to be lower when
finger imaging is incorporated into the recertification process.
The most carefully controlled estimate of non-compliance among
existing clients suggests that introduction of a finger-imaging
requirement reduces participation by approximately 1.3%. However, this
estimate reflects both reduced fraud and deterrence of eligible
individuals and households.