This release is just in from Michael Babka at Downsize DC:
We knew that the state of Montana was resisting the REAL ID Act, but we just learned some of the details of that resistance. The story is so good we had to share it, in case you hadn’t heard . . .
Brian Schweitzer, the governor of Montana, wrote a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. The letter informed Chertoff that Montana would not be complying with the REAL ID Act. Our quote of the day supplies one of the reasons for Governor Schweitzer’s rebellion. In response to the letter . . .Secretary Chertoff called Governor Schweitzer and threatened him. Chertoff told Schweitzer that Montana residents would be banned from airplanes, or subjected to severe, time-consuming inspections at airports.
The Governor countered with his own threat, “How about we both go on 60 Minutes a few days after the DHS starts patting down Montana driver’s license-holders who are trying to get on the planes and both of us can tell our side of the story.”
Chertoff didn’t like that suggestion. He said, “I see the problem. We need to get this fixed.”
So far, the “fix” involves granting Montana and all other rebellious states an extension of the deadline for complying with the REAL ID Act. But the real fix is to repeal REAL ID.
Have you protested to your elected representatives that the Secretary of Homeland Security has been threatening the citizens of states that don’t comply with REAL ID? If not, please do so. You can mention the Chertoff-Schweitzer exchange in your personal comments. Ask Congress
to repeal the REAL ID Act. You can send your message here.If you’ve sent a REAL ID Act message recently, consider sending another “I am not afraid” message. We have a lot of new people who probably aren’t familiar with our “I am not afraid” campaign. You can check it out here.
Please also consider making a donation to further our work. You can do so here.
Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC army.
Jim Babka, President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
I would also suggest that if you are a Montana resident you write your governor a hearty thank you for standing up to the power hungry DC bureaucracy. If you do not live in Montana, find out if your governor is one of the ones rebelling against DC and thank them if they are and ask them to join with the others if they are not.
Liberte! Fraternite! Up the Revolution! May the fleas of ten thousand camels reside in Michael Chertoffs armpits!
We need a Schweitzer here.
And in Ireland. HMG is busy revoking the common travel area, and warming up Irish people for the “photo ID benefit card” to be integrated into the UK ID card scheme. If you were being very harsh you could call it recolonisation. (Though actually all the eBorders schemes are closer to global colonisation from Washington.)
From the UK side of the pond I’d like to pat Governor Schweitzer on the back. If only some of our own elected officials had as much gumption as to tell the government where to go. All the best to him.
Our governor in South Carolina, Mark Sanford, sent Chertoff an excellent letter (I saved a copy) back in March, before the Real ID sanctions were supposed to go into effect, advising him that SC would not be complying with the Act and explaining in great detail why. He specifically did not ask for an extension of time to comply, as I understand some other states did (and as some our our state legislators were asking him to do; I had a nice go-around with my representative over that!). I don’t know the background story, but I do know that Homeland Security backed off and has not given SC any trouble over this. (I have flown numerous times since then, and never had a problem using my SC driver’s licence.)
I don’t know why Chertoff is picking on Schweitzer now, when other states have gotten away with thunbing their noses at Homeland Security over this, but I’m glad to hear that Schweitzer is keeping up the pressure. As I’m sure everyone on this site knows, the Real ID Act was passed without debate, as a rider to an appropriations bill for “funding the troops” and Tsunami relief. It’s as dishonest a law as you’re likely to find (which is saying something!) and needs to be repealed.
By the way, everyone on this site should be supporting Downsize DC, or at least checking out their website. I don’t always agree with them (I don’t always agree with anybody; hell, I probably don’t always agree with myself!), but they’re usually on the money.
Using my faulty memory: Back in the 60’s “the doors” were playing some college barn dance and Jim Morrison began one of his rants. Next thing you know the police were all over the stage. Morrison shoved his mike into a cop’s face and said “Say you piece man”. The police promptly dog-piled ,and cuffed him. They drug him out into the parking lot and proceeded to gang stomp him. A Time/Life photographer was there and took a series of photos that would wind up all across the world. Morrison walked away with bruises and the cops got egg all over their faces.
MORAL: If you want to take them down, do so publicly.
Laird, I see downsize DC also has an “end asset forfeiture” campaign, as well as other worthy causes. Now I’ve gotten my letters off on two issues, easily! I agree everyone should take a close look at supporting them.
Please correct me if I’m wrong; coming from a not-so-free society it is entirely conceivable I already have biases and blinkers on that I’m not aware of. But essentially, it seems to me that the problem a large number of you have with anything that smacks of ‘national ID’ is that it is a mandatory, coercive, *federal* government program that was neither voted on nor requested by the public at large. Plus, it is definitely a major blow to individual rights to privacy. Am I even halfway there?
Would you prefer it if you had a large number of private, freely competing ID verification/authentication providers (something similar to OpenID), and with government only providing birth/adoption/citizenship/passport as well as agency-specific IDs? And would ‘national ID’ be more palatable if a large number of people clamoured for it, and following a clearly-worded referendum preceded by a few months of public debate, it was passed with more than 2/3rds majority?
The reason I ask is because I’m curious as to whether this is a visceral reaction or otherwise.
Gragory, let me take a stab at your questions. (Obviously, I speak for myself and no one else.)
Beyond all of the practical problems with a national ID card (data security, theft risk, etc.), I oppose it because it is the first step toward internal passports. The government simply has no right to know where I am at all times. You’re right; it is a privacy issue. So this answers one part of your question: even if a substantial majority of the population wanted one I would oppose it. This is not an area where majority rule should apply; it is one of those “unalienable rights” referenced in the Declaration of Independence (and no, they are not all listed in the Bill of Rights).
As to the issue of privately issued identification cards, if there were some need for a secure form of personal identification we would already have something like this (and I would have no problem with it). The fact that we don’t tells me that there really is no need. Implicit in your question seems to be the notion that carrying such a card would be mandatory, and the only difference would be that the card would be issued by private companies rather than the government itself. If that is the case, it is not fundamentally different than a government-issued card; see my response in the paragraph above.
Gregory,
I would like to add to what Laird has said.
Mandatory single identity verification programs are the essential enabler of a redistributionist state. The greater the government’s cut of people’s paychecks both as a collector or disperser, the more pressure there is to game the system with multiple ID’s.
The US has never really needed mandatory single identity until our first socialist programs, progressive income taxation and Social Security, started collecting and redistributing people’s income.
If it were not for the desire by government to control people and redistribute their incomes, private ID would be fine. I have more confidence in the accuracy of eBay’s buyer and seller feedback than I do in any government’s endorsement of somebody’s identity. And eBay is far quicker responding to loss of trust in their system than governments are or can be.
Mandatory, single identity, required for economic activity, prosecute anyone who evades it – systems are the CCTV of economic privacy. They have nothing to do with protecting people and everything to do with controlling them.
Well said, Midwesterner!
Living in Montana as I di I find Brian one of the most honest politicians I’ve ever met. He is for the people.