“Mark Of The Beast?”
Sex Offender laws may be a sign of darker days to come
Derek “The Fallen One” Logue, Dec. 11, 2007, last update Nov. 22, 2009

    Then I saw another beast come up out of the earth; it had two horns like a lamb’s but spoke like a dragon. It wielded all the
    authority of the first beast in its sight and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose mortal wound had
    been healed… It forced all the people, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to be given a stamped a stamped image
    on their right hands or their foreheads, so that no one could buy or sell except one who had the stamped image of the beast’s
    name or the number that stood for its name.” (Revelations 13: 11-12, 16-17, New American Bible, © 1986 Confraternity of
    Christian Doctrine)

Over the past decade, sex offender laws have increased in both overwhelming popularity and severity. Sex offenders are placed on
public registries, restricted as to where they live or work, and subject to a number of unique restrictions on their lives. Such laws have
been passed on a wave of emotion, backed by public tragedies and charismatic advocates, with little or no thought or objection.
However, in the past few years there have been a number of concerns over these laws. In his speech at the Silent No More Rally,
pastor Dr. Davidson referred to the various sex offender programs as a “beta system” for the mark of the lawless government
DavidSon 2007). Eric S. Janus refers to the sex offender laws as a “harbinger of a preventive state” (Janus 2006, p. 4). Whether
secular or religious, the conclusion is essentially the same; namely, a severe form of unparalleled governmental control comparable
to conditions in Nazi Germany or the Cold War.

Degradation of Rights

Janus asserts that the Civil Rights era “all but eliminated the legitimate targeting of outsider groups,” (Janus 2005, p. 2) while
establishing “constitutional bulwarks against excessive erosions of our liberty in the name of prevention” (Janus 2006, p. 94).
However, sex offender laws have reversed this trend, reintroducing the concept of the “degraded other,” a suspect class of people
which rationalizes “a diminished system of justice in which the normal protections of the Constitution do not apply” (ibid.). Through a
series of emotional high-profile cases, sex offenders as a whole have been targeted for a series of novel laws designed to degrade
the offenders’ status in society or the sake of public safety.
There are a number of events in recent history which mirror this sentiment. The most recent event is the American reaction to the
terrorists attacks we call “9-11.” Following 9-11, a number of laws passed in the name of “public safety,” such as the “Patriot Act,”
wiretapping, email tapping, and search engine tapping have been utilized to keep tabs on suspected terrorists (Janus 2005, p. 95-96).
In post WW1 Germany, fear over the influx of homosexuals in Berlin led to the infamous changes to Paragraph 175 in the German
Penal code. Hitler would later utilize this technique in exterminating other “asocials,” such as Jews (Logue 2006). Fear over the Cold
War would lead to spying and wiretapping suspected spies on both sides of the war. The essential element is fear. Janus further
asserts such laws “created an alternate system of degraded justice in which the outsider group’s rights were reduced in order to
prevent some (imagined) future harm to the larger society” (Janus 2006, p. 97).
Only a small number of individuals would dare question their own government, especially during a time of crisis. In 1930s Germany,
the Great Depression and the threat of communism gave Hitler the opportunity to rise to prominence. By instituting programs not
unlike those of Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” Hitler gained popularity denied him in earlier elections (Hornberger 2007). The role of
propaganda was to unite the people for the good of the country; he declares, “to win the masses for a national resurrection, no social
sacrifice is too great” (Hitler 1943, p. 336). Essentially Hitler united the people in a common cause. Racial purity was for the good of
the children, “the most precious treasure of the people” (ibid, p. 403). In the case of exterminating Jews, there was a worldwide anti-
Semitic sentiment, even in the US; thus, many turned a blind eye to the genocide either out of this belief of being for the greater good or
out of fear (Hornberger 2007). Also, in the eyes of the Germans, they were the defenders, not the aggressors, in the second World War

Evolution of the Laws

Sex Offender laws are essentially a reaction to a perceived fear, further propagated by mass media and politicians. A prime example of
the attitude regarding sex offenders in our society can be found in the following press release:

    According to a US Department of Justice report 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 7 boys are molested by age 18. Of the released sex
    offenders who are charged with another sex crime, the Bureau of Justice Statistics report that 40% perpetrate the new offense
    within one year or less of their prison discharge. The country has agonized with the parents of kidnapped children, and found,
    all too often, that the person who abused and murdered them had already demonstrated their lack over grotesque, and fatal,
    impulses.”  (Ohio Attorney General 2005)

Such statements fuel the fear and loathing of the sex offender in our society. This patchwork statement gives the reader the
impression that 2 of 5 sex offenders will rape and kill a child within one year of release. It leaves little wonder why sex offender laws
are so popular.
Since the inception of the first public registry of sex offenders, a patterned has developed and repeated itself in our society. The path to
the creation of the new law tends to follow the same path:

  1. High-profile “stereotypical kidnapping,” usually ending in murder
  2. Public outrage
  3. Push for novel law by celebrity advocate, named after victim, based on the “if only…” concept
  4. Law passes with little reservation with promise it will prevent sex crimes

The key argument in this evolution of the sex offender law has been the “If Only” argument. Each high profile crime has led to the belief
that “if only” this law is passed, then the crime would have occurred. The law passes, a new high profile sex crime is committed soon
after, and the cycle begins again. The cycle is plainly illustrated in the “Adam Walsh Act (AWA),” Section 102, which lists 17 high profile
victims; the AWA is filled with acts named for many of these victims.
From the first law to the passage of the AWA, each law has been either the inception of a new law or an increased penalty of an
existing law. Registry laws are the example of the latter. The original registry law, the Jacob Wetterling Act, was intended as a resource
for law enforcement and others in direct contact with children; Megan’s law made the registry public; under the AWA Section 120, the
“Dru Sodjin National Sex Offender Public Website” allows a woman from Fairbanks to find sex offenders in Key West. Since the
original Jacob Wetterling Act, a number of new laws were created: residency and proximity/ loitering laws, civil commitment, chemical
castration, even the death penalty. There is, however, a new direction in the trend, intruding closer and closer on the actual person.

“The Mark”

The purpose of registries was to identify those who were convicted of sex crimes so people “knew” which individuals were a potential
threat to our well-being. However, problems exist with the registries, most particularly its size. The desire to identify offenders on the
move has led to a series of increasingly intrusive proposals. GPS tracking is the most noticeable and accepted intrusive tracking of
sex offenders, either proposed or passed in 20 states (Nat’l Conf. of State Legislatures, June 2006). GPS has a number of limitations;
they can be easily removed and suffer from geographical interference. Perhaps taking the classic Hawthorne novel literally, Alabama
passed a law which placed the words “Sex Offender” in bold red letters (AP 2006). At least three states have proposed laws to add
fluorescent green tags on the vehicles of sex offenders, including Ohio, where it is dubbed “Kristen’s Law;” the mother said if this law
had existed her daughter would not have died (Jones 2007). Each of the aforementioned laws place an identifying mark on the person,
yet it is not enough in the eyes of many. A couple of proposals bring that “identifying mark” closer to reality. One proposal was later
revealed as a hoax, while one has been declared by the media “only a matter of time” before it becomes a real aspect of our lives.
A proposal (later discovered to be a hoax) that made its way over the internet was the “No More Victims Act of 2007.” It generated a
great deal of controversy because it proposed testing every American citizen for certain characteristics believed to be common in with
pedophiles. Surprisingly, a number of individuals actually believed the proposal to be a good idea; one web blog heralded the law as “
‘the be all and end all’ for sex crimes (nomorevictimsact.blogspot.com 2007). The act called for everyone 18 or over, especially those
who work directly with children, to undergo a plethysmograph (a.k.a. the “peter reader”), a polygraph, and an empirical risk
assessment; those who fail the test or refuse to take the test is classified as high-risk and placed on a special registry similar to the
current sex offender registry (ibid.). Despite being a blatant hoax, the mere fact the proposal generated a great deal of interest serves
as a gauge to the extent individuals would be willing to endure in the name of public safety.
A more realistic form of “the mark,” though quite controversial in its own right, is the proposal to implant microchips in humans. As far
back as 2004, the US government has given approval to the use of microchips in humans, noting their use in livestock and pets.  The
FDA approved the use of embedded microchips the size of a grain of rice which contains an individual’s entire medical records. The
news brought mixed feelings; proponents view the proposal as convenient and useful for purposes such as tracking missing children,
while opponents cite a number of privacy issues (Coughlin 2004).
CityWatcher.com, a Cincinnati surveillance company, had become the first known company to implant microchips in some of their
employees.  The move sparked immediate outrage; within days, civil libertarians and conservative Christians denounced the act.
Some critics referred to the biblical “mark of the beast,” citing concerns the government may tell us to “take a chip or starve;” others felt
akin to the “Big Brother” society on Orwell’s classic novel “1984.” The primary concern with many critics is that chip implanting would
progress from Alzheimer’s patients and soldiers, convicts, sex offenders and so forth, until every citizen will be implanted with the
microchips (AP 2007). Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, calls the chips “a form of
electronic leases, a form of digital control.”
However, all concerns and protests seemingly disappear when it comes to sex offenders. Logue (2006) has previously stated “Hitler
did not go straight into persecuting Jews, he took the path of least resistance then eased into further persecutions.  In the same way,
America has started the campaign to deprive human rights by depriving  the rights of sex offenders who completed their sentences.”
Hitler understood the power of having a common enemy and a common cause; he wrote of a “ruthless and fanatically one-sided”
toward a “positive struggle for our own aims” to unite the souls of the people (Hitler 1943, p. 337-338).
One Ohio state senator is already proposing a system utilizing microchip technology, called “Offendar,” short for “offender radar.”
Offendar would alert customers when a sex offender wearing a GPS or microchip is within a certain distance. The company promoting
the new technology stated, “The public wants more than after-the-fact tracking of sex offenders. Many people want to know when a
threat is in the vicinity so they can take steps to protect themselves and their children before something happens” (Fields 2007). The
current state of sex offender legislation should certainly be a cause of concern for individuals opposed to embedding microchips in
humans. John Walsh, outspoken host of “America’s Most Wanted,” has at least hinted support of a similar proposal by suggesting
putting exploding chip implants in the rectums of sex offenders [he later said he was joking (“with that not really look in his eyes“),
while agreeing that ankle bracelets are not enough (de Moraes 2006).

The Beast

The freedoms America has taken for granted is now in jeopardy. History has shown us how truly fragile our hard fought freedoms truly
are. With a little fear and a promise of a safer or better society, many people gladly forfeit their freedom without question. Sadly, as
history has shown us, forfeiting our freedom comes with great risk. Both the secular setting of Orwell’s “Big Brother” society and “The
Beast” from the Bible warn us of the dangers of degrading the equal rights of any socially unpopular group; by allowing the rights of
one group to be taken away, you open the door for those same rights to be taken away from other groups, and eventually you as well.
On a final note, consider the following: the United States Supreme Court has never formally declared two American atrocities, the
"Eugenics" (sterilization) movement and the Japanese internment camps of WW2, as unconstitutional (Janus 2006, p. 98-100).

See also:
www.infowars.com- “Talk Radio’s Alex Jones v. The New World Order,” for more info and links regarding chip implants in


  1. Associated Press, “New law requires mark on sex offender IDs.” Decatur Daily, Sept. 2, 2006
  2. Associated Press, “Microchips in Humans: High Tech helpers or Big Brother Surveillance?” cnn.com, Aug. 1, 2007.
  3. CBC News. “Microchip Implants in Humans on the Market." Nov. 2, 2002
  4. Coughlin, Sean. “Security under the skin.” BBC News, Oct. 15, 2004
  5. DavidSon, Steven. “Dr. Davison Speech” You Tube video, Silent No More Rally, Dec. 1, 2007.
  6. De Moraes, Lisa. “Summer Press Tour, Day 16: An Explosive Interview.” Washington Post, July 26, 2006
  7. Fields, Reginald. “Warning sex offenders, ‘Offendar’ may find you.” The Plain Dealer Politics blog, www.cleveland.com, Dec. 4,
  8. Hitler, Adolph. “Mein Kampf.” Translated by Ralph Manheim, Houghton Mifflin, New York, 1943.
  9. Hornberger, Jacob G. “Why Germans Supported Hitler.” LewRockwell.com, July 19, 2007
  10. Janus, Eric S. “Failure To Protect: America’s Sexual Predator Laws and the Rise of the Preventive State.” Cornell University
    Press, 2006.
  11. Janus, Eric S. “The Preventive State, Terrorists and Sexual Predators: Countering the Threat of a New Outsider Jurisprudence.”
    William Mitchell College of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series, May 2005.
  12. Jones, Ben. “States may require sex offenders to use special license plates.” USA Today, May 1, 2007
  13. Logue, Derek. “The Fourth Reich.” www.oncefallen.com/NaziSOLaws, 2006
  14. Ohio Attorney General, “Statement on Substitute House Bill 227- Proponent Testimony,” www.ag.state.oh.us, June 14, 2005


Warning sex offenders; 'Offendar' may find you
Posted by Reginald Fields December 04, 2007 11:45AM (CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER BLOG PAGE)

"State Sen. Tim Grendell of Chester Township, a vocal supporter of various measures aimed at getting tougher on crime, says he is
excited about a Geauga County company's proposal "to take real-time monitoring of sex offenders to a new level."

He has invited the company to make a presentation Wednesday to a Senate subcommittee on a device it is developing and seeking to
patent called "Offendar," short for offender radar. Offendar LLC is marketing it as a "personal threat detection system featuring a key-
fob sized electronic device."
The device would give the person carrying it "a vibrating, auditory or visual alarm when a sex
offender or other person wearing a court-ordered electronic ankle bracelet is in the immediate vicinity."

Why is the company proposing it? "The public wants more than after-the-fact tracking of sex offenders. Many people want to know when
a threat is in the vicinity so they can take steps to protect themselves and their children before something happens," according to the
company's presentation.

The idea is sure to be provocative, especially among those who think efforts targeting sex offenders have gone too far. [You don't

Grendell seems to have no reservations about the company's proposal. "In seeing their idea and understanding how it can enhance
what Ohio is already doing, I was very impressed," he said in a memo Monday to fellow lawmakers and the media."


ADDENDUM: Washington State to consider chip implants for sex offenders!


The Beast is coming!

ADDENDUM 2: The Freemasons offer child ID microchip implant program in Michigan!

“Michigan Child Identification Program.” Grand Lodge of Michigan, 2008. http://www.gl-mi.org/michigan-child-
identification-program.htm, Retrieved Aug. 8, 2009
(c) 2007-2015 Derek W. Logue. No part of this website may be used in any way without expressed written consent of the site owner.