BCT Editorial – 2/26/08

This page was last updated on February 26, 2008.

The real danger; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 26, 2008.

The editorial’s subtitle is “In the name of fighting terrorism, we could destroy our democracy.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“When state Reps. Samuel Rohrer and Babette Josephs agree on something, attention must be paid.

“Rohrer is a Berks County Republican who is one of the most conservative members of the state House. Josephs is a liberal Democrat from Philadelphia. Yet they have teamed up in an attempt to bar implementation of the federal Real ID program in Pennsylvania.”

[RWC] If Mr. Rohrer really is “one of the most conservative members of the state House,” that supports my position that the PA Republican Party has moved to the left. See a letter I wrote to Mr. Rohrer in 2004 to see what I mean.

“The Real ID Act was approved as part of a defense bill in 2005. Significantly, no public hearings were held. The Associated Press reported it requires states to meet a national standard for driver’s licenses. States must verify birth certificates, Social Security numbers or passports presented as identification to obtain licenses.”

[RWC] Whether intentionally or out of ignorance, the editorial failed to note the Real ID Act applies only if a state wants its driver licenses or other state-issued ID cards to be accepted as ID for federal purposes. For example, if PA wants its citizens to be able to use their driver licenses for ID to board an airplane, enter a federal building, etc. (security tasks handled by the feds), the ID must meet federal requirements. Otherwise, the feds can’t dictate driver license rules.

As far as the Real ID requirements, these are pretty basic and should have been a Pennsylvania requirement a long time ago if for no other purpose than to verify a person is who he says he is when he votes.

“They also must link their record-keeping systems together.

“The fear is that Real ID will lead to national identification cards, and that concern is not misguided. Rohrer opposes Real ID because the Constitution does not give Congress authority to implement anything like it. He called it ‘a terribly invasive new government tracking system.’

[RWC] I wish someone would explain the problem with “national identification cards.” The Socialist Security card is already a “national identification card;” it just doesn’t have a picture. I don’t know if the Constitution allows them, but I have no problem with them if it does.

Regarding Mr. Rohrer’s comment that the Constitution doesn’t allow Real ID, I believe he’s wrong. If you accept the logical proposition that the feds can determine the ID required to enter federal property, receive benefits from federal programs, etc., then the Real ID Act would seem perfectly constitutional. Remember, the Real ID Act only specifies requirements for federal use. If a state wants to accept a crayon drawing as ID solely for state purposes, the feds can’t do anything about it.

“In a similar vein, Josephs objects to the volume of personal information that would be collected. Josephs also raises another important concern — its cost, which has been estimated at $11 billion. Real ID could very well turn into another underfunded federal mandate.”

[RWC] Forget everything else you read in this editorial about objecting to the Real ID Act. The real issue is money. The Times and Reps. Josephs and Rohrer just want federal taxpayers to pay for what the states should have been doing all along.

“Rohrer and Josephs are not alone. Their bill has 68 sponsors, and 21 states have gone on record in opposing Real ID, which would take effect in 2011. Seven of them have gone so far as to enact laws banning implementation of Real ID.

“Real ID is part of a disturbing trend. Slowly but surely and under the guise of countering terrorism, our privacy is being stripped away.”

[RWC] To have any credibility on the privacy issue, the Times and Reps. Josephs and Rohrer need to convince us they want to see income taxes eliminated and they oppose socialized healthcare. Why? What greater invasion of privacy is there than the financial “full body cavity search” we go through every year when we must detail every aspect of our finances for multiple levels of government (incomes taxes, property taxes, etc.)? The only greater invasion of privacy may be the access to our healthcare records required by socialized healthcare programs like Medicaid, Medicare, SCHIP, et cetera.

“Americans should heed the words of Adm. William J. Crowe, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1985 to 1989, as he was quoted in ‘The Edge of Disaster’ by Stephen Flynn.

“‘These terrorists cannot destroy us,’ Crowe told Flynn in 2002. ‘We are a country of nearly three hundred million people with an infrastructure spread across a nation that has the fourth largest land mass in the world. This is not thermonuclear war we are facing. The real danger lies not with what terrorists can do to us but what we can to do ourselves when we are spooked.’

“Crowe is absolutely right. We must not allow ourselves to be terrorized into giving up basic rights. To paraphrase a famous quote from the Vietnam War, we could end up destroying democracy in America in a misguided attempt to save it.”

[RWC] Do libs intend to relive the Vietnam War until they die?