Global Banking found a way to force micro- chipping Legislation through jobs, attacking Americans at their weakest areas.  Legislation to create a set of standards for the microchipping of employees -- a move described as a "pre-emptive" action by the bill's sponsor -- was passed January 2019 Thursday by the House 84-4, sending the bill to the Senate.

 Holding up printouts of news articles that describe "thousands" of people in Sweden volunteering to have microchips implanted under their skin, and reporting on a company in Wisconsin that was experimenting with the practice, Rep. Stephen Meeks, R-Greenbrier, said lawmakers should create rules to protect workers before the trend comes to Arkansas.

Meeks' legislation, House Bill 1177, sets up several rules for the practice of microchipping employees. The law would require that workers have an option to decline being microchipped, and that if they elect to have chips implanted, they can later request that they be removed at any time.

Employers also would have to disclose to their employees what data are carried in the microchip, and how they may be used. Employers would be required to pay the full cost of implanting or removing the microchip.

Meeks said he was unaware of any companies in Arkansas planning to implant their workers with chips.

[RELATED: Complete Democrat-Gazette coverage of the Arkansas Legisl...

 According to a National Public Radio story, which Meeks referred to in his floor speech, rice-size microchips implanted in a web of skin next to the thumb are being used by Swedes to swipe for entry into their homes, workplaces and even into subways.

 Meeks said the microchips gaining popularity do not have GPS technology that employers could use to track users outside the workplace.

 Lawmakers in Maryland last year passed similar legislation. That legislation included civil penalties for employers who violate the law. Meeks' HB1177 does not include any penalties for employers who violate the law. He said he may look at amending the bill to strengthen enforcement.

 Asked why not propose legislation to simply ban the practice, Meeks said such a ban could be overruled by the courts, leaving the state with no protections.

 Meeks, who is chairman of of the Joint Advanced Communications and Information Technology Committee, said he has no plans to implant himself with a microchip.

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/jan/25/rules-on-worker-mic...

Views: 124

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hey hey haha ha ha ha haha hey hey ha

Figures

 They said they would vote on this a long time ago, now they found a back door to enforce it.

Lets put this back in Mr. Nelson's face...:)-

What... This is a LABOR BILL not a Banking Bill... This labor bill gives workers the right to refuse manditory microchipping by employers and certain other rights if they voluntarily accept microchipping... This bill has nothing to do with BANKING... or international finance... nothing.

As usual, the Danites are lost again... wondering around in left field looking for an exit. Try calling home ... or pushing the panic button on your celphone for GPS assistance and directions home.

It's Johnny, He Is Back...:)

 Well Ronald, a lot of people seen it different...:)

Enjoy...:)

Yeah, a lot of people see a lot of things thru jaded lenses but that doesn't mean they got it right... why do you think the sages of old said ... believe only half of what you see and nothing you read?  

It is often not a matter of vision... it is more a matter of COMPREHENSION... something they evidently don't focus on when teaching kids to read today.

micro- chipping Legislation, like Da!!!!!!!!!

Did you bother to read what is posted... this Bill protects workers from indiscriminate and arbitrary employer requirements for labor to be micro-chipped... it requires the employees consent and gives the employee the right to recend that consent at will... it also mandates that the employer inform the employee of how the information collected is used by the employer. It is a bill that keeps employers from forcing employees to take a chip.. Wake up... read what you post before commenting.

IThis is the beginning of the Mark of the Beast told of in the Book of Revelation in the Holy Bible.  I will NEVER consent to accepting satan's mark, regardless of the cost.  I will follow Jesus Christ and refuse to bow to satanic pressure, even to the point of death!!!!!

No, this protects employees from being forced to take a micro-chip and gives them rights should they take one and later decided to recend their choice.  It also provides employees with notice as to how the employer intends to use the information collect from the microchip.s  This is an anti-microchip bill.

I remember seeing a video, on youtube that they said, "mark my words, you will vote on this"

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service