A Conclusion

I was driving home from working late at the office when I heard that yet another Obama nominee has...tax trouble! I placed this on the great mental bulletin board of ongoing outrages perpetrated against the American people by this administration, and it occurred to me that back a little while ago, we were boldly informed by the Vice President and Smartest Person in the Room (just ask him) that paying taxes is patriotic.

Now the Democrats were the same people who were getting their upturned noses out of joint by the insinuation that their overt and latent "Hate America First" activities somehow allowed those of us who don't prescribe to that toxic viewpoint to question their patriotism. Well, finally, I think that even by their quixotic standards, they are damned by the mouth of one of their spokespersons, and the fact that so very many of them do not feel that is necessary to pay their taxes, but that is only one of many reasons.

I question their patriotism when they run on a platform that has the government redistribution wealth, assaulting the concept of private property that is fundamental to the success of the American Experience.

I question their patriotism when they advocate for the concept of mandatory voluntary service, making the government the chief endorser of involuntary servitude.

I question their patriotism when they determine that people who are hostile to every idea we hold dear, and are prone to violence, mayhem and murder as expression of their beliefs should not be held on foreign shores, but here on our soil instead.

I question their patriotism when they push through a grossly obscene 'stimulus package' that has very little immediate spending, that funds political activist groups sympathetic to those who do not respect the law of the land, and that many of them never even bothered to read.

I question their patriotism when they appoint a tax cheat as the head of the cabinet agency that oversee the tax system and enforcement.

I question their patriotism when they propose a federal budget that will destroy the economy and enslave many future generations to the serve of government debt that may never be repaid.

I question their patriotism when they move beyond the role of regulator in our economy, a role plagued by uneven application and selective prosecution on its best days, to being an active participant by deciding who wins and loses by 'bailing out' some companies in financial difficulty, and letting others fail.

I question their patriotism when they bypass the Board of Directors of corporations accepting bailout money and demanding the resignations of CEO of said companies.

I question their patriotism when they seek the 'regulatory' power to seize any business that they deem to be a threat to the economy.

I question their patriotism when they introduce legislation that, if passed, would limit my choices for health care, food, or the programs I want to listen to or watch.

I question their patriotism when they actively undermine the dollar by monetizing our debt.

I question their patriotism when they propose ex post facto laws and bills of attainder to seize bonuses that were lawfully contracted for and allowed in their own legislation with regard to a corporation that accepted bailout money, and using the faux and misplaced outrage to suggest that they have a right to regulate the compensation for executives in all businesses.

I question their patriotism when they state their goal to increase taxation on American corporations with the idiotic but popular justification that the corporations do not "pay their fair share".

I question their patriotism when they foment class envy, and encourage the belief that those who did not work to earn are somehow entitled to the fruits of the labor of those that did.

I question their patriotism when they continually vilify those industries and individuals who produce innovation and bring cutting edge technology, services, and treatments on line, and are willing to risk their futures to do so.

I question their patriotism when they rule with an underlying philosophy that the government, an entity that does not produce anything, and does very little in an efficient manner, has a duty to provide health care, rescue the fiscally irresponsible, and impose mediocrity upon us all.

I question their patriotism when they appoint as 'czars' that are not part of the chains of command of cabinet agencies in roles where they will probably have oversight over the areas governed by those agencies, largely because they would not make it through the appointment process.

I question their patriotism when they stubbornly adhere to environmental policies that ARE NOT supported by the science, even though they will be ruinous to US business.

I question their patriotism when they appoint transnationalist attorneys to high ranking positions where they will be able to actively advocate for their foreign law-over-the Constitution preferences.

I question their patriotism when the overall effect of their stated goals and proposed legislation is to consolidate power, including powers reserved to the states and individuals in the hands of the federal government.

I question their patriotism when they establish automotive company advisory boards populated by people who do not own American cars, have no experience in the auto business, or any business, for that matter.

I question their patriotism when they so hamstring an industry with regulations that it simply cannot succeed, and then have the nerve to vilify the executives of those industries when they finally do fail.

But hey, what do we expect from people who aren't patriotic enough to pay their taxes?

Feel free to add your own. I know there are more reasons to question their patriotism.

Remember the American Caliphate Litigation Unit When It Is Your Loved Ones Being Body Bagged On The Evening News

WASHINGTON - Americans born after Dec. 1, 1964, will have to get more secure driver's licenses in the next six years under ambitious post-9/11 security rules to be unveiled Friday by federal officials.

Gee. Only 6 freaking years! The Government really pulled out all the stops!

The Homeland Security Department has spent years crafting the final regulations for the REAL ID Act, a law designed to make it harder for terrorists, illegal immigrants and con artists to get government-issued identification. The effort once envisioned to take effect in 2008 has been pushed back in the hopes of winning over skeptical state officials.

Yeah, the illegals may have to go through two or three steps to get their IDs.

Even with more time, more federal help and technical advances, REAL ID still faces stiff opposition from civil liberties groups.

What? How could that possibly happen?

To address some of those concerns, the government now plans to phase in a secure ID initiative that Congress passed into law in 2005. Now, DHS plans a key deadline in 2011 — when federal authorities hope all states will be in compliance — and then further measures to be enacted three years later, according to congressional staffers who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because an announcement had not yet been made. DHS officials briefed legislative aides on the details late Thursday.

Ahh yes. The leaks, from whence all real news arises.

Without discussing details, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff promoted the final rules for REAL ID during a meeting Thursday with an advisory council.

A government official speaking without giving details? How could that happen?


"We worked very closely with the states in terms of developing a plan that I think will be inexpensive, reasonable to implement and produce the results," he said. "This is a win-win. As long as people use driver's licenses to identify themselves for whatever reason there's no reason for those licenses to be easily counterfeited or tampered with."

Yeah, underage drinkers are all miffed that the cost just when up for their fake IDs.

In order to make the plan more appealing to cost-conscious states, federal authorities drastically reduced the expected cost from $14.6 billion to $3.9 billion, a 73 percent decline, according to Homeland Security officials familiar with the plan.

A billion here, a billion there...

The American Civil Liberties Union has fiercely objected to the effort, particularly the sharing of personal data among government agencies. The DHS and other officials say the only way to make sure an ID is safe is to check it against secure government data; critics like the ACLU say that creates a system that is more likely to be infiltrated and have its personal data pilfered.

Yeah. And the scumbags they make a priority would not want the competition.

In its written objection to the law, the ACLU claims REAL ID amounts to the "first-ever national identity card system," which "would irreparably damage the fabric of American life."

Hyperbole. Exaggeration. Fear-mongering. Piffle. A stumbling block to terrorist's otherwise unfettered access to free movement.

The Sept. 11 attacks were the main motivation for the changes.

Although wanting to stop illegal immigration would certainly be a plus.

The hijacker-pilot who flew into the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour, had a total of four driver's licenses and ID cards from three states. The DHS, which was created in response to the attacks, has created a slogan for REAL ID: "One driver, one license."

Which should make it harder at election time in Chicago and King County Washington.

By 2014, anyone seeking to board an airplane or enter a federal building would have to present a REAL ID-compliant driver's license, with the notable exception of those more than 50 years old, Homeland Security officials said.

Which should spark a rash of elderly suicide bombers. On the bright side, maybe Social security can stay solvent for a few more years while the government readjusts its strategy.

The over-50 exemption was created to give states more time to get everyone new licenses, and officials say the risk of someone in that age group being a terrorist, illegal immigrant or con artist is much less. By 2017, even those over 50 must have a REAL ID-compliant card to board a plane.

Wow! 2017! Nine years! Now THAT'S security!

Among other details of the REAL ID plan:

_The traditional driver's license photograph would be taken at the beginning of the application instead of the end so that should someone be rejected for failure to prove identity and citizenship, the applicant's photo would be kept on file and checked in the future if that person attempted to con the system again.

Thus the ACLU's squealing like a stuck pig.

_The cards will have three layers of security measures but will not contain microchips as some had expected. States will be able to choose from a menu which security measures they will put in their cards.

Giving government officials money and choices: like giving whisky and car keys to teenage boys.

Over the next year, the government expects all states to begin checking both the Social Security numbers and immigration status of license applicants.

Except in the "sanctuary cities", of course.

Most states currently check Social Security numbers and about half check immigration status. Some, like New York, Virginia, North Carolina and California, already have implemented many of the security measures envisioned in REAL ID. In California, for example, officials expect the only major change to adopt the first phase would be to take the photograph at the beginning of the application process instead of the end.

And we all know how good Cali is a catching the illegals. Maybe we should save ourselves the time and effort and surrender now.

After the Social Security and immigration status checks become nationwide practice, officials plan to move on to more expansive security checks, including state DMV offices checking with the State Department to verify those applicants who use passports to get a driver's license, verifying birth certificates and checking with other states to ensure an applicant doesn't have more than one license.

And how does one verify a birth certificate, exactly?

A handful of states have already signed written agreements indicating plans to comply with REAL ID. Seventeen others, though, have passed legislation or resolutions objecting to it, often based on concerns about the billions of dollars such extra security is expected to cost.

Only 17? Give it time.