As to the have-nots voting for people who will take from the haves, my position has always been that only the haves should vote. That was the intent of the Founders and the only method that will preserve the Republic.
All we can do is convince our neighbors of the correctness of our values. We are sliding into socialism. FDR was the worst president in our history for initiating a pyramid scheme that transfers wealth from the have-nots to the haves.You can easily say that 'we' elect our officials and that 'we the people' are the government, but what happens when 'we the people' does not represent me, or you anymore?
Well, the government is not able to track you nor do they want to. No one is proposing to implant a GPS under your skin. Still, anyone is easy to track. You are required to file an income tax return, for example. I also see the government sliding into an authority that I do not like. European socialism is not my idea of a free society. But even that will not have the oppressive nature that so many fear with the implementation of RealID. The complaints aired on this thread are down in the noise compared with the real problems to the Republic that we face.Well, I see our government turning into something that does not represent me, or the values that this country was founded on. If my government, or 'the sheeple' turn against me, I do not want that government being able to track me.
That is not an argument against RealID, but rather an argument that our current laws are not being enforced. I wholeheartedly agree. The fact is that the 9/11 hijackers were not here legally and if RealID were implemented at that time they would never have been able to board those fateful flights. They entered legally and had legal drivers licenses from multiple states, which is all that is currently required to board airplanes. Will this solve all the problems. Of course not. It does help plug a gap that has been exploited. It also helps employers comply with existing law regarding illegals. Again, there is no downside to law abiding citizens.If I could see a real value from the real id, I would not oppose it so strongly, but it simply isn't there.
You said it could help with border security, or to deport those that don't have ID's, but our LEO put people in jail all the time that don't have ID and they are usually released shortly after because Immigration doesn't think it's worth it to 'only' pick up a few people.
It is far more secure than any current document. The fact it is not perfectly secure is not an argument against it. Our money has many security features to prevent counterfeiting. Can it be counterfeited? Sure. Just not as easy as it was before.To enhance security, it would have to be completely secure, and not have the ability to be cloned. That lasted all of 2 weeks.
It can be read by a sensor that is close to the chip. We are talking very short distances not the connotation of remote, which implies long distances. We have this technology embedded into our badges at work and they are not recognized at more than a few inches.My bulky wallet with my D.L., credit cards, and SSN, cannot be read remotely. I have to open my wallet and give somebody those cards by choice. With ID that transmits signals, it takes that choice away from me.
If a BG wants to steal an identity it is far easier to simply pluck some bank statements out of the trash. Shredders. Security measures for RF or other communications are far more secure with even basic encryption.The BG's have the same technology we do, and often can manipulate it before we can. A lot of our current technology is in response to what the BG's do.
It is far easier for them to look over your shoulder as you open your passport, or use tiny cameras, or microphones. It is impossible to believe that identity theft is a credible argument against RealID.With ID theft already on the rise, I cannot fathom a reason why the gov't would make it easier for criminals to intercept that information.
Exactly! We have specific laws that prevent opening mail sent through the USPS. We have no similar law preventing electronic communication to not be intercepted under all circumstances. And there is a significant difference between data mining and reading your email. You write he address of the recipient and name on the outside of our letter. Do you think it is illegal to note the sender and receiver? Further, looking for specific words of phrases in email may prevent enemy attacks. No one wants to read your email to Aunt Judy. But if Aunt Judy is coordinating an attack on America then the sooner we arrest dear Aunt Judy the safer we all are.As far as your argument about electronic communications, I believe it to be completely without merit. Your argument that it is not my papers or effects because it is in transit would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. If BG1 sends BG2 a letter, can the gov't open that letter w/out a warrant? It is in transit, neither is in possesion...so why is there a difference? Only because we allow there to be.
Everyone needs the government to provide national security. It is the ONLY reason we enjoy the benefits of our free society.The government is going way to far, and needs to back the heck off. I don't need the gov't to make me safe or to provide food for my table.