RCJ: Congress pushing for National Drivers License.
The Associated Press is writing at the Rapid City Journal's website this AM about the Real ID act of 2005 and the Federal Government's push for a national driver's license:
I think it came to my attention in my late teens, when the Federal Government threatened to withhold federal highway money if we didn't raise the drinking age. It hasn't gotten any better since.
Long ago, it was Ronald Reagan who said "I believe in states' rights." Was he perfect in that aspect? No. But at least he gave it lip service. Which I think is more than we've seen since.
Maybe next election, we should consider a Republican presidential candidate who believes the same thing.
A revolt against a national driver's license, begun in Maine last month, is quickly spreading to other states.Read it all here. I haven't noticed in South Dakota has passed such a resolution as of yet, but yet another federal mandate upon the states really begs the question as to whether or not states should continue allowing the long encroaching infringement upon states' rights by the federal bureaucracy, or if the concept that states have some rights to self-determination (of the laws not reserved by the federal government) is simply an illusion that some of us still hold that should have long ago went the way of the dodo.
and...
The Maine Legislature on Jan. 26 overwhelmingly passed a resolution objecting to the Real ID Act of 2005. The federal law sets a national standard for driver's licenses and requires states to link their record-keeping systems to national databases.
Within a week of Maine's action, lawmakers in Georgia, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, Vermont and Washington state also balked at Real ID. They are expected soon to pass laws or adopt resolutions declining to participate in the federal identification network.
"It's the whole privacy thing," said Matt Sundeen, a transportation analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures. "A lot of legislators are concerned about privacy issues and the cost. It's an estimated $11 billion implementation cost."
I think it came to my attention in my late teens, when the Federal Government threatened to withhold federal highway money if we didn't raise the drinking age. It hasn't gotten any better since.
Long ago, it was Ronald Reagan who said "I believe in states' rights." Was he perfect in that aspect? No. But at least he gave it lip service. Which I think is more than we've seen since.
Maybe next election, we should consider a Republican presidential candidate who believes the same thing.
Comments
Well, there is one. Only one. His name is Ron Paul.
Privacy any more is an illusion. The IT firms that control your internet, for one example, have access to nearly everything about you. The companies which own your cell phone service are only too willing to allow government agencies information on your phone calls. It is a matter of very little time before all information on every American will become centralized, analyzed and sold to others who want to sell us products or control our lifestyles.
Get used to it. Deal with it. Ask how this power can be controlled before the wrong people use it to manipulate others. 'Future Shock' is here.
What is the color of the terror alert status today? What are the different colors? Is the color alert changed today because of the super bowl? Is there a color alert chart posted in each town? You know, like how the “fire danger” level is posted in the West River towns.
One of my friends said the "terror alert colors" has been done away with. The people weren’t paying attention to it so our government simply doesn't use it anymore. Is that correct?
No hidden agenda here. Just a discussion that came up among a group of us that are sitting around getting ready for the super bowl. Told them that somebody would know on South Dakota War College so we are checking.
Any answers?