I now understand you to mean that you think that “pass ID” is a liberal trick to neuter “real ID”. Did I get it right?

If so, I agree.

Some state drivers licenses are as crappy as a high school ID card; just a piece of paper with a shoddy lamination job. Yet “unknowns” — aka illegal aliens — can open bank accounts, enter gov’t buildings, and board mass transit with them. It’s foolish to suggest this is a good thing.

If you want to learn about how PASS ID is a great thing for those who wish to kill us all, read this:

The Appearance of Security:
REAL ID Final Regulations vs. PASS ID Act of 2009
http://www.cis.org/PASSID

Your agenda is getting in the way of the facts. We don’t make a citizen prove himself to be in his own home. But we do, when he wants to open a bank account.

We don’t make a citizen show id, to drive down the road, but we do when he is stopped, or when he crosses a major border.

We don’t check ID when a citizen goes to work every day, only when he starts the job and fills out the initial payroll tax information. Only when he collects some government benefit, does he need to prove that he is entitled (such as send kids to free school, collect food stamps, etc).

Anywhere in the united states, if a citizen suspects that employers, or illegals, or criminals, or drug trafficers are committing a crime, the law enforcement should have the right to investigate, and not be hampered by artificial “racial favortism”.

But the above commenter is correct, in that we must carefully audit ourselves and our law enforcement and our military, to see that all races and ethnicities and social strata are treated uniformly.

Notice that even the Uighurs said being a prisoner at Guantanamo was better than being a common citizen of communist china.

You “ID” yourself by 1) Who you are – biometrics, iris or fingerprint, 2) what you know – password or answer to “secret question”, and 3) what you have – a key, matching piece to a torn piece of paper, a passport, a driver’s license

While many TAC bloggers do not consider themselves as liberal, often they feel more comfortable on liberal websites, and with liberal companionship. Most liberals or progressives will be disturbed by the idea of securely identifying an individual, because this is a slippery slope, leading to accurate and “american-only” elections, which is antithetical to the liberal ideal of voters being a high percentage of the “lowest common denominator”, which presumibly votes automatically to anyone promising a variation of the “nanny state”.

“…what makes … the new ID would be more secure?”

Is a driver’s license more secure than taking the driver’s word for it? Yes. Perfect? No.

Is a passport more secure than than a driver’s license? Yes. And it requires about the same level of “background documentation” as does filling out a W4 form for employment. Perfect? No.

An ID document is a statement that some person or agency has taken a certain level of evidence to ID the person. If the government wishes to pass a law requiring a more thorough initial check, and to create a document that is harder to counterfeit, this does not necessarily entail additional databases, but would organize exisiting data, and make it more accessible to law enforcement.

This is absolutely no more extensive than the procedures in place currently, to control sale of firearms.

Bottom line, the liberal president wants to ID all americans for purposes of taxation and control. Look for other liberals to oppose him, for purposes of preserving democratic voting blocks.

The average TAC blogger, while siding with the rank and file liberal on this issue, will need to differentiate by mentioning privacy concerns, yet be willing to negotiate with the government in an era of increasing border security concerns.

While we expect this process to be less intrusive than the next 10-year US census, we want the government to answer,

“No, really. What *all* will this information be used for?”

And, “Will this new process entail the government collecting any new information, not previously approved by the public?”

And per Philip Giraldi’s comment, “Has anyone done a realistic cost-benefit analysis on this?”

I buy most issues of TAC, and I’m on the blog quite regularly. If you can point to any instance of anyone connected to the magazine or the site ever defending Obama’s card check laws, I’ll eat my hat.

Besides, what makes you thing the new ID would be more secure, just because it was federal? Does that assumption jive with your general assessment of the FedGov? In any case, all of the states already “agree to” one another’s ID’s. I took my (wretched) Ohio ID to Indiana this past weekend, and I’ll take it to my home state of Michigan tomorrow, and I don’t expect that any policeman would refuse to accept it if he needed it.

I just don’t dig on databases and and government centralism is all.

So, if I understand correctly, it is undesireable to offer the option of a nationally approved secure ID card, because of privacy rights, so you could ride a California plane into NYC with an ID that everyone agrees to.

On the other hand, we’d like to see the union officials and company bosses look over our shoulder as we vote, and maybe later the President can watch us vote, in a helpful way, of course.

We passed a law a few years ago, that says the government must tell us why it needs the information it collects. For the last 20 yrs, the standard paragraph at the bottom of the government form says, “We need this information because we said so, and to do our proper governmental function, as authorized by statute.” Wasn’t telling us why you needed the information supposed to give us an idea of what would be done with that info?

My dad is tickled pink with his new biometric passport, and he was a real conservative, before most of us were born.

In a saner country, Pass ID would be brought down by the ridicule he would garner for making such a statement.