Saturday, May 29, 2010

Never Again...

NJ, here we come...

New Jersey, Little Greece by Mona Charen
Governor Christie is inviting voters to consider a definition of “fairness” very different from President Obama’s.

"...Christie’s proposed economies — in addition to the one-year salary freeze, he wants teachers and administrators to contribute 1.5 percent of their salaries to the cost of their medical coverage — have provoked thousands of teachers to take to the streets, Athens style. They’ve started a Facebook page that excoriates the governor to the delight of its 68,000 fans. And the NJEA has spent $1.8 million on an anti-Christie ad campaign since January.

...This is one to watch. "

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

North Korea...

...With an estimated population of 24 million, North Korea has isolated itself like no other country in the world. It is hard to tell how much contact the average North Korean has with the outside world.

"The North Korean government exercises tight control over many aspects of the nation's culture, and this control is used to perpetuate a cult of personality surrounding Kim Il-sung, and, to a lesser extent, Kim Jong-il. While visiting North Korea in 1979, journalist Bradley Martin noted that nearly all music, art, and sculpture that he observed glorified "Great Leader" Kim Il-sung, whose personality cult was then being extended to his son, "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il. There is even widespread belief that Kim-il Sung "created the world", and Kim Jong-il can "control the weather."

I watched a news program where they sent western doctors in to North Korea to provide aid. The people who were patients, could not utter a sentence without thanking the "great leader" and denouncing the United States. Many of them were crying as they spoke.

On March 26, the North Koreans launched a torpedo from a submarine and sunk a South Korean ship. 46 sailors died. There is word that this was planned, and that China had been made aware of it. There is a reason, and we will find out what it is. Some suspect that as the "great leader" is dying, and has planned to pass his rule on to his 26 year old son - North Korean military leaders are going to oppose this. It is not easy to tell how this effects the future, because the "great leader" approved this, and promoted a certain General. Either way, it was an act of war, and should be treated as such by South Korea.

However, that is not all they I have planned, I found this...

Sunday, May 23, 2010

Arizona... the request of my sister, I will give you my summary of what is going on in Arizona. I get the question ALOT at work, since I am the resident expert on all things Arizona.

There is alot out there to read, I would suggest to anybody to go to Bill Bennett's web page and read the various articles he has posted. Among them is a discussion of the violence going on in Mexico for the last few years, including right at the border.

Here is my take... ((I'm sorry I don't have time to edit, and trim it down, but my sister has very little patience. I know I'm the first one to make fun of Internet writers and blogs that are messy, but again, she just keeps pushing me!))

A Police Officer comes into contact with numerous people throughout the day. The Police Officer can stop somebody if the person is observed, or suspected of, violating the law. The Police Officer must have a REASONABLE SUSPICION that the person stopped is the one that violated the law. If the Police Officer can articulate his suspicion, he can "detain" that person, which usually means just talking to the person, while the Police Officer investigates further. After a "reasonable" amount of time, the Police Officer has to either take action, or let the person go.

(There is much more to it, but that should suffice for this.)

During the time the Police Officer is "investigating," the officer will confirm the identity of the person. If the person is driving, they are required to have a Driver License. Other than that, no American citizen is required to carry any identification, or any documents. However, if you are not a citizen, some foreigners are REQUIRED to carry certain documents with them. It was a condition of letting them in the country.

If a Police Officer has contacted a person, who has no identification or documents on them, a simple conversation takes place wherein the person provides information as to their identification, and the Police Officer can verify it. In most states, and specifically in Arizona, name and date of birth MUST be given to the Police Officer if the person is being investigated for a crime. Any crime. The person could also provide, but DOES NOT HAVE TO, social security number, address, phone number, etc.

Many criminals have been through this so many times, they know their way around it. They memorize some other person's information, they only provide name and date of birth, etc. (More on this later).

Several times a day, every day a Police Officer works, he identifies people. Traffic stops, shoplifting calls, fights, domestic violence calls, etc. When a Police Officer contacts somebody, they identify them. It is what they do.

If a person is arrested, they are fingerprinted and identified. If a person gets a ticket, or a summons, the Police Officer has to have positively identified the person before issuing the ticket or summons.

I can tell you, that in 6 years as a Police Officer in the State of Arizona, for the majority of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, it would take about a minute to determine their status. They admit it. Why? How could they back up their lie? They usually don't understand the limited powers of the police in the United States. They come from a country where the police are not trusted, and have HUGE power. But more importantly, a local (State, county, city) Police Officer is not in charge of immigration, and has no power to arrest a person. Immigration violations are a FEDERAL CRIME. Local (State, county, city) Police Officers CAN arrest somebody for a violation of Federal Law, but they have to turn them over to a Federal Agency - and Federal Agencies DO NOT have the time to arrest every single illegal immigrant, and build a case against them.

In short (I know, too late), Arizona made a law that adopted the Federal Law with regards to Illegal Immigration. States do this all the time. They don't have to re-invent the wheel, they just adopt an existing Federal Law.

Arizona said...If a Police Officer, in the normal course of duty, has contacted a person, and develops REASONABLE SUSPICION that the person is in the country illegal, the Police Officer must attempt to positively identify the person, meaning their immigrant status. And, the Police Officer can charge them with a State Law, arrest them, and turn them over to Federal Custody.

So, the law is not a new law, it just says that Arizona is going to require local Police Officers to enforce the Federal Law. The law goes out of its way to say that the Police Officer has to have already contacted the person - meaning it can't be the primary reason for stopping somebody. Of course, a Police Officer could see a "Mexican looking" person, stop them for some other reason, and then start the "immigration investigation" - but the Police Officer has to have evidence of the reason for the stop, and can be held CRIMINALLY LIABLE if it is determined that the stop was conducted based on race.

All of this has been said, its all over the Internet. But here are some scenarios to help explain:

A Police Officer pulls over a car for a traffic violation. The driver has no driver license, and barely speaks English. The driver doesn't know his exact address, or the address where he works, but can provide a paycheck stub, and the name of the business he works at. That's a clue. It happens hundreds of times a day in any given suburb of Phoenix. A little more questioning, the person does not have a social security number, can't say where they went to school. If the person hasn't admitted anything, and claims to have been born in the United States, the Police Officer could ask for a phone number to contact a relative, or ask for finger prints - any number of reasonable steps to determine the person's status. Now the Police Officer has developed the Reasonable Suspicion into PROBABLE CAUSE - the person is PROBABLY an illegal immigrant. An arreste can be made.


A Police Officer is called to a house for a family fight, or noise, or whatever reason. A person living at the house is being investigated for a crime. The person has to provide a name and date of birth, that is all. If the Police Officer determines the person does not have a driver license, or a state issued identification card (in the "system") the Police Officer could ask for any form of identification that would help to identify the person. The person is under NO OBLIGATION to provide it. There simply is no law, no requirement that a person have these papers. But, as in the case of the traffic stop, the Police Officer will continue the investigation, gathering as much information as possible. A person CAN NOT be arrested for an immigration violation, unless there is PROBABLE CAUSE that the person committed the violation. A person could say they were born in another state, that they don't drive, etc. And nobody is required to provide their social security number to anybody but the social security administration.

A person will only be arrested, as with ANY OTHER CRIME, only after the Police Officer has PROBABLE CAUSE to believe the person is in the country illegally, and has evidence.

So what is going to happen with the law? People in jail in Arizona, a suspected minimum of 20%, 1 in 5, could be deported upon the completion of their sentence.

Police Departments will develop policies in dealing with illegal immigrants that are on every corner, everyday, looking for day jobs. They can do what the City of Chandler did years ago, and send a van out every morning, questioning the people who are loitering, jaywalking, littering, and round up the ones that are determined to be Illegal Immigrants.

Other things - the President, and appointed officials, as well as left-leaning federal officials, will attempt to nullify the law by refusing to assist Arizona, refusing to deport, etc. Arizona can arrest the people, but Arizona doesn't have a treaty with Mexico, and Mexico doesn't want these people back.

What else is going to happen? Should the law stand - illegal immigrants will evolve. They will learn ways around being questioned. They will learn to memorized dates of birth, social security numbers, addresses. They will drive less. They will not congregate in groups in front of the Circle K's and Home Depots looking for work. They will learn to speak better English. They will get better false identifications - the black market for "papers" will skyrocket.

What about the parents that get arrested. A father is at work, he gets arrested for being an illegal immigrant. He tells the Police Officer he lives in another city, and he has four kids in school. Mom is at work. Police go to the house. Mom is arrested. Multiply this times hundreds. What do you do with all the children? Do you now go to the schools and ask how the kids got admitted? What if the kids are LEGAL since the the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (intended to make former Slaves citizens) guarantees that anybody born in the United States - is a citizen.

There are going to be unintended consequences. But something has to be done.

It bothers me that there are certain areas of cities where English is the second language. But that has little to do with illegal immigration.

It bothers me that people come to this country, only to send their money back to another country. But that has little to do with illegal immigration.

It bothers me that you can't read a pamphlet, or any legal document, without having it in Spanish and English. Or that I have to press a number to hear English. But that has little to do with illegal immigration.

America is the greatest nation on earth, and it should be made available to those from other countries, who want to come here and recognize that. They SHOULD maintain ties to the old country. They SHOULD keep their customs, while adopting ours too. They SHOULD speak their old language, while they learn English. But the SHOULDN'T force us to adopt their language, their culture, etc.

And not just everybody gets in and stays. If you don't come in legally, and you get caught, you get deported. If you have permission to be in the country, and you commit a crime, you get deported.

We live in a day and age where we, like all other countries, have to protect our borders. Since World War II we have known that it is easy for people from other countries, who want to do us harm, to come into our country. German spies were caught in America during World War II. Russian spies have been here just as long.

In 5 seconds on the Google machine, I found this:

I'm not kidding myself, the Arizona law is a response to primarily Mexicans, and other Central and South Americans coming her for work. But it is all related, and something has to be done.

Hopefully the Arizona law gets the nation focused on this. But beware of "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" - its code for "Lets not really solve this, but make it harder for LEGAL IMMIGRATION."


...for Gov. Jan Brewer

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Don't Mess with Texas...

...heard about the controversy in Texas over the textbooks? Do you know what it's about? Basically, Texas buys alot of textbooks. So if Texas buys a certain textbook, the publishers will print millions, to sell around the country. As a parent, I find this comical, since I KNOW that schools buy new textbooks every 1 to 3 years, and complain they don't have money. Does math, English, science change that much?

Anway, read this article (comments added):

By William La Jeunesse & Lindsay Stewart

What do liberal lawmakers in California share with their conservative counterparts in Texas? Very little. But this week both are watching the 15 member Texas State Board of Education, which will chose the next generation of history textbooks for most American children.

The left-right culture war will play out over the choice of words, photos, who to honor and what events in American and world history should receive a few lines of text. It may sound innocent, when it is anything but.

Years of research, months of editing, hundreds of hours of debate will be boiled down into a single document – a statement of curricula – that will define the parameters followed by virtually every social studies textbook and test for students from kindergarten to thru 8th grade for the next decade.

The battle lines are drawn. On one side are conservatives, who contend academia has been hijacked by liberals. A point supported by studies that show 90 percent of humanities teachers identify themselves as Democrats.

And nowhere is their bias more visible than the one-sided treatment of American history in U.S. textbooks, where words like ‘man’ and ‘mankind’ have been stricken, ‘Founding Fathers’ has been replaced by ‘Framers’ and ‘Founders’ and racial quota’s are applied to the number of photos used in any one book.

“ The liberal extreme groups aren’t interested in balance. They want the standards one-sided, that only fits them,” says Jonathan Saenz of the right leaning Liberty Institute. “The other side’s not interested in the truth. And the reality is, they have this mission of distortion and confusion because they have a political agenda. And they’re not really interested in the content. They’re interested in changing the political demographics.”

In the last two years the board, composed of 10 Republicans and 5 Democrats, has been led by 7 influential social conservatives. By the end of this week, the board will have finished rewriting curriculum standards for three key subject areas – English, science and now, social studies.

Liberals contend the board is out of touch and the block of social conservatives have manipulated the process to reflect teachings out of the mainstream. (Is it out of the mainstream to say 'Founding Fathers'?)

“They have politicized the textbook process. And I think that our schoolchildren deserve better than politicizing it,” Terri Burke, Texas ACLU Executive Director . (The ACLU Executive Director is complaining about the process being politicized - why is he even commenting, he is the politicization!) “We really believe this curriculum should be turned over to experts who know something about history, about education, about the learning levels of schoolchildren. We ought have people who really know it being the ones who write it and vet it and tell us that this is what kiddos oughta learn.” (The School Board are not experts on what the kids need? Then why do we have a School Board? The ACLU wants to tell you who the 'experts' are).

In California, a key state Senate Committee passed a bill Tuesday designed to prohibit any textbook approved in Texas to be used in the Golden State. (Just like California - they don't know what is in the textbook yet - but they want to ban it anyway. Hey California, just work on your own textbooks. Texas should be PROUD of anything they make that gets banned in California. Kind of like California City Councils voting to boycott Arizona. HINT: Arizonans spend billions in California, very little California money makes it to AZ)

“While some Texas politicians may want to set their educational standards back 50 years, (Are the new "standards" not saying 'man' and not having pictures of white men?) California should not be subject to their backward curriculum changes,” said Leland Yee, D-San Francisco. “The alterations and fallacies made by these extremist conservatives are offensive to our communities and inaccurate of our nation’s diverse history. Our kids should be provided an education based on facts and that embraces our multicultural nation.”

Tuesday, May 18, 2010


by Christian Whiton

A State Department official has all but validated concerns that the Obama administration sees the United States as an unexceptional nation, morally equivalent to the world’s authoritarian countries and best served by self-loathing and supplication to tyrants for its purported sins. That is the implication of a dialogue between Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner and the communist government of China last week.

Posner, who runs the democracy and human rights bureau at the State Department, met with officials from Beijing on May 13 and 14 for the “U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue.” The forum was suspended for much of the previous administration because the Chinese government claimed its mere participation proved it took human rights seriously, even as the treatment of people within its borders worsened. Now Beijing has not only benefited from the veneer of legitimacy bestowed by the dialogue—it apparently has found a venue in which the U.S. conveniently flagellates itself.

At a briefing after the dialogue, Posner was asked by a reporter if the Chinese side brought up the recently passed Arizona law pertaining to illegal immigrants. To the surprise of those gathered, Posner remarked: “We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session, and as a troubling trend in our society and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination, and that these are issues very much being debated in our own society.”

We brought it up? Discrimination? This is appalling on several levels.

The new Arizona law is not discrimination and does not constitute a human rights abuse. Police in virtually every free nation have the ability to enquire if someone suspected of a crime has the legal right to be in their country. The law simply gives Arizona cops that ability. The amended act specifically precludes race as a factor to initiate or support an enquiry. Furthermore, an investigation can be initiated only after “lawful contact” between police and a suspect, such as when someone is detained for breaking another law. Suspicion of an immigration violation alone is not a legal reason to initiate action. The common-sense, reasonable nature of this recently passed law is why polls show most Americans support it.

Even if the misinformation about the Arizona statue were true, it would not compare to the intense, comprehensive and systematic infringement of human rights conducted by the unelected, illegitimate government in Beijing. This after all is the regime that recently used lethal force against scores of protestors in Tibet and East Turkestan. Tibetan nuns attempting to escape to Nepal were shot dead by Chinese border guards in 2006. Beijing routinely locks up those who dare call for democracy—or just for a more accountable government. During the 2008 Olympics, it sentenced elderly women who requested a permit to protest eviction from their homes to a year of “re-education through labor.”

If Mr. Posner was so eager to talk about the treatment of immigrants, he could have brought up the tens of thousands of refugees generously admitted to America each year because they face persecution elsewhere. This number reached 60,108 in 2008 according the Department of Homeland Security. Ironically, the largest portion of these—24%—were fleeing oppression in China. As it turns out, Beijing is rather less humane than the U.S. to those it considers illegal immigrants. North Korean refugees caught inside China, many starving and in search only of food, are repatriated forcibly and face time in brutal prison camps and sometimes death for their attempted emigration.

That the Obama administration cannot distinguish the reasonable Arizona law from the acts of merciless dictators indicates affliction by what Ronald Reagan’s ambassador to the U.N., Jeanne Kirkpatrick, labeled “Blame America First.” That phrase still aptly describes the condition of those who believe the worst of our nation while overlooking the very real sins of our adversaries. Unfortunately, these people now dominate the highest levels of our government and foreign policy elite.

Aside from the repugnance of morally equating the Arizona law with what China does to people, this is also an ineffective approach to diplomacy and advancing human rights. It is naive to believe that preemptive self-criticism will lead to concessions from a counter-party in negotiations. There is no historical instance where ‘blaming America first’ prompted a repressive government to make verbal or real concessions on human rights in return. Authoritarians are more likely to see this instead as U.S. weakness and view it as an indication they can continue their misconduct without consequence or even a public rebuke. That is quite likely the lesson Chinese diplomats took back to Beijing after their agreeable encounter with Mr. Posner.

Finally, it is not the job of federal officials to criticize, before foreign parties, the laws passed by the states. The State Department is supposed to act as an advocate of American interests, not a Washington-based repository of elitists that is embarrassed by the citizens it is supposed to represent. The Department’s opinion on domestic matters is required in precisely no instance.
Mr. Posner and his boss in the White House owe an apology to the people of Arizona—and to the citizens of the compassionate, generous and humane country they purport to represent.

Christian Whiton was a State Department official in the George W. Bush administration and served as deputy special envoy for human rights in North Korea. He is a principal at DC International Advisory.

Sunday, May 16, 2010

You Have The Right... know what rights you have.

You have the right to remain silent (Fifth Amendment to the Constitution).
You have the right to an attorney (Sixth Amendment to the Constitution) prior to or during any questioning.

Read this article by Charles Krauthammer. Its interesting, I think that Krauthammer is suggesting that Holder is saying this so that the next time we catch a terrorist alive, the administration won't look like the are bungling it.

They are talking about the fact that the Supreme Court has recognized that Miranda Warnings don't have to be given if the questioning has the possibility to immediately save lives. In a landmark case, the bad guy was caught after a chase. He didn't have the gun on him. A cop asked him where the gun was, because the bad guy had thrown it while running through the neighborhood. He told the cop where he threw it, they found it, and it was used as evidence against him. The Court ruled that the danger of leaving that gun laying around in a neighborhood where a child might find it, outweighed the bad guys right against self-incrimination. Krauthammer, and now Holder are arguing that the ability to stop a possible terrorists inside the U.S. trying to kill Americans, just might outweigh the terrorist's right against self-incrimination.

But I chose to blog about this to explain something that infrequently gets mentioned. Krauthammer touched on it when he said, "The fact that the Times Square bomber did talk after he was Mirandized is blind luck." Catching somebody in the act, or later on, and getting them to talk is a skill. Getting them to talk post-Miranda is an art.

There are literally hundreds of scenarios an agent or cop in the street could find themselves in when questioning somebody. But mostly it comes down to this: If the person is in custody, and you going to ask him questions - he has to be read his Miranda Warnings.

If a terrorist is caught trying to kill people. If that person is going to face charges in a U.S. Court, his statements and admissions CAN'T be used against him if he was not told about the rights our Constitution guarantees. However, you can use witness statements, you can you video evidence, you can use any and all evidence collected at the crime scene, you can use forensic accounting evidence (the paper trail), you can use it all - just not his statements.

OR, you could get everything without Miranda, then go back and re-interview him, and start off with Miranda Warnings. This is such a SMALL issue, and one that should not make headlines.

In 2010, 44 years after the creation of Miranda Warnings, millions of television shows, movies, etc., later - do you think we really have to continue to argue as to whether a person knew their rights. Courts have already said that due to the public campaigns against drunk driving, that a person is presumed to know it is against the law. I think they should say the same about Miranda.

What should make headlines is that the attempted Times Square bombing, the Underwear Bomber, the Shoe Bomber - were FAILURES! Only because of mistakes by the bad guys did we catch them.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Busy at Work...

...and I found this snippet from a (right-wing hacks) article:

"Palin, the Republicans' 2008 vice presidential nominee, used a speech to the Susan B. Anthony List to remind activists why they rallied behind the Republican ticket and why they should work to stop Obama's agenda.

She said Obama is "the most pro-abortion president ever to occupy the White House" and asserted that the health care law would fund abortions.

In fact, Obama's health care law would not allow federal dollars to pay for elective abortions. Roman Catholic hospitals and organizations of Catholic nuns backed the measure. U.S. Catholic bishops and major anti-abortion groups opposed it, arguing that federal dollars could end up paying for abortions."

"In fact.." - so the author has confirmed this is 'a fact' - and then says that Roman Catholic hospitals and organizations of Catholic nuns backed the measure. Is "the measure" the health care bill? Because the very next sentence is that the U.S. Catholic bishops opposed it. I'll have to check my Catholic Church Organizational chart...but I'm pretty derned sure the Bishops outrank the nuns and the hospitals.

But I point for posting is that an AP reporter wrote "In fact..." and then wrote their own opinion, not using citations, or language from the "measure" which is actually a "law" to show to the reader why it is in fact, a fact.

In fact, all AP writers are idiots. Several people sitting near me agree. However, some others in the hallway said that it is an overstatement, not 'all' are, just the ones who claim to know 'facts.'

In fact, who pays that person to write for a living?

Tuesday, May 11, 2010


...file this under the "51% of all turns are right turns" headline.

There was a PSA on the other day that said, "Every day in America, approximately 2,000 children are reported missing." I have heard this statistic before, and I was thinking: 2,000 kids, 50 states. Ohio has roughly 4% if the population. So on average, 80 kids are reported missing every day. You would think that I would hear about at least, I don't know, ONE OF THEM!

I looked at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) website. They published the statistic. Apparently, there is a little more to it. 800,000 kids are reported missing each year. Narrow it down a little further. 115 kids in America each year are taken by a stranger and not returned. That's a little more like it. The rest can be filed under custody disputes, at a friends house, family members taking kids, runaways etc. Some of them are still very serious, and require law enforcement intervention. But my point is that kids are being picked up at every park, in every city in America.

I still think every dollar spent, every database, every program should be continued and every lead pursued - because 115 is way too many, and if we weren't doing everything we can, that number can go up.

But it makes me feel a little safer putting my kids on the school bus every morning.

Monday, May 10, 2010

Papers Please...

...excerpted from AOL News (your leader in crappy news stories):

After becoming one of only 10 states to issue a new kind of driver's license with beefed-up security features, Nevada became the first to stop issuing them -- a move that has delighted privacy advocates and outraged the governor.

"Nobody wanted this [license]," Rebecca Gasca, public advocate for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, told AOL News. "There were diverse groups speaking out against Real ID because of the privacy implications, because of the threat to due process, because of the exorbitant costs. ... It would create a de facto national ID card with national standards and national requirements."

Nevada had issued the new licenses under the Real ID Act, a federal law passed in 2005 to tighten security on state-issued identifications in the wake of revelations that several 9/11 hijackers had legitimate driver's licenses. In the Silver State, the change meant that the Department of Motor Vehicles would require two forms of identification as well as proof of Nevada residency in order to issue a Real ID-compliant license, which features additional anti-counterfeiting elements and a gold star.

Opponents of the measure fear it will lead to a national, government-owned database of personal information accessible to all sorts of agencies that otherwise would need to get court orders. Yet Real ID supporters insist these fears are unfounded.

"The federal government already has our Social Security numbers, they don't need anything more," Gibbons spokesman Daniel Burns told AOL News. "They can get everything they want with that. The notion of DHS creating a second database -- why would that be necessary? The IRS already has that. ... People are acting like it's some sort of Big Brother thing when it's not."

"It's an intrusion on people's privacy," said Wagner, whose party is the third-largest in the state, with 60,000 registered voters. "It wouldn't stop any terrorists or anything that's happened so far. But the next thing they'll do is put an RFID chip in it and know where we are at all times."

Such talk drives the governor crazy because it's so far afield from what the Real ID Act -- and Nevada's implementation of it -- actually does, Burns said.

"The black-helicopter people with the tinfoil hats, they influence a lot of people, including legislators, and meanwhile we're wasting money, we're less safe and we're less sure that Nevada's tax money is being spend on Nevadans," Burns said. "The people who are fearmongers can be very loud and talk to large groups of people via e-mails and blogs. Enough people have been persuaded that this is a scary thing, and that's tragic because it would make the nation safer."

Biased Comments (excerpted from common sense):
1) There is NO difference in the computer database with the new licenses.
2) Without the new ID, one Proof-of Identity is needed. Who only has one = illegal aliens who bought them.
3) Many drug dealers have licenses from Nevada, Ohio, Virginia and New York - where there are loopholes. The federal law sought to close those loopholes after they were discovered after 9/11.
4) Why would the reporter, who pointed those out, not question the ACLU about that?
5) The Governor of Nevada gets it. "...people with the tinfoil hats..." if you don't know what that is, go on a ride-along with a cop, 50% chance of meeting one.

To combat what Burns called misinformation, a "myths, facts and answers" site was posted last week on the Nevada DMV's website. Among the entries:

Myth: The new [Real ID-compliant] license is a de facto national ID card. Fact: ... Nevada's standards for identification met the Real ID Act's requirements long before the Real ID Act was passed. The only change is that to get the new Nevada driver's license, the documents used to prove identity are electronically verified. It is still a Nevada driver's license and the documents required to prove identification ... are the same documents the DMV has been requiring for years.

Myth: The Real ID Act calls for a national database of driver information. Fact: IT DOES NOT. There is no national database linked to the Real ID Act. Ironically, banks and credit agencies have far more information on individuals than any DMV does.

Myth: The new driver's licenses will not stop terrorism. Fact: It's not a complete solution but it is a piece of the puzzle. It's certainly easier to catch terrorists if they are required to prove their identity. The Real ID Act also enhances protections against identity theft and a whole range of crimes such as welfare fraud. It enables states to enforce the "one driver, one license" concept by verifying whether a motorist holds licenses in multiple states.