To whom it may concern.

Contact your State Legislators and urge them to press for a State Issued Photo I.D. carry requirement.

I can speak only for California here, but those of you who are in other States might want to consider this as well.

Currently, in the State of California, our DMV issues State Photo I.D. cards, either as a California Driver's Licenses or as a California Identification Cards. These I.D's have a recent Photo, biometric data including a “fingerprint”, and a magnetic strip on the back that can be linked to a DMV database. When you apply for a new I.D. you are required to show a Certified Copy of your Birth Certificate and proof of California residence, as well as  provide the original biometric data including a “fingerprint”. When you renew, a new Photo is usually taken and your "Fingerprint" is scanned again.

A very short passage in the CVC alludes to the effect that all adult California residents are expected to obtain one of these two cards, but there is only a direct provision that all persons operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway in the State of California Carry a Valid California Driver's License, or an out-of-State equivalent. There is no direct provision that all California residents shall carry one or the other at all times.

It would seem as common sense that all adult persons would need one simply to do day-to-day business, but this is apparently not the case.

Contact your State Legislators and urge them to enact a State Issued Photo I.D. Carry Requirement!

I can hear the Libertarians out there already riling against this idea. "You are trying to take away another one of our liberties!"

But I ask you this, if you were in a war-zone, which California virtually is, would you be more comforted if that trooper who just jumped into your foxhole next to you was in the Same Uniform you were wearing or in street clothes, or even a totally different uniform? Why do you think closed association groups have secretive ways that only the members know? Do you not already stand prepared to prove ownership of your properties? How can you do this without valid I.D. even if you are not "operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway"? If someone were to challenge your home ownership, would you not be able to provide ownership documentation AND to show that YOU are the Entitled holder of that documentation?

Why, then, is it not appropriate to require that All Legal Adult California Residents, or Legal Adult Residents of any other U.S. State, have AND be prepared to produce, on the spot when stopped by Law Enforcement for a suspected infraction, Valid, and Verifiable, State Issued Photo I.D. The I.D. Card is a hard copy and the Magnetic strip on the back, or simply the number, can be used to verify this hard copy against the database stored by your local DMV. Granted, this is not proof against forgery, but it does come quite close. And, if that DMV database is corrupted, we have much larger problems.

Legal resident Aliens could be issued similar type I.D.'s, but on a provisional basis and keyed to the specific limitations and provisions of their Federally Issued Visa.

Contact your State Legislators and urge them, strongly, to make this a Statute.

ALL Adult, Name your U.S. State, Residents, 18 years of age and older, SHALL have in their possession a Valid State Issued Photo I.D./D.L.

In All cases where a Law Enforcement Officer stops any person for an infraction, the nature of that infraction shall be stated prior to further process.

THEN:

All persons, when stopped by a Law Enforcement Officer for a suspected infraction, shall produce Valid State Issued Photo I.D., or an Out-of-State equivalent.

Minors, and persons determined not to be competent, when stopped by Law Enforcement for a suspected infraction, shall produce a responsible adult blood relative, or Legal Guardian, with the appropriate State Issued Photo I.D., or Out-of-State equivalent.

Failure by ANY person to provide proper and Valid State Issued Photo I.D., or a Verifiable Out-of-State equivalent, when stopped by a Law Enforcement Officer for suspicion of an unrelated infraction, shall be reasonable cause for immediate detention of the suspected person until their I.D. has been confirmed or further action is deemed to be necessary.

Unidentifiable Persons Shall Not be denied Legal Representation, but they shall not be released from detention until, at the very least, their Identity has been verifiably established.

Persons who remain unknown for 72 hours, after they have first met with Legal Representation, shall be referred to Homeland Security for further Processing.

Read this over!

Think about it!

ALL Comments Are Welcomed.

The other day there was a member of this site who posted regularly and often, "RAISING UP A STANDARD."

This member has inexplicably disappeared from the site.

All Blog Posts and All comments.

What Happened?

Anyone got a clue?

Two State assembly seats are up got grabs in California.

District 17 and District 28.

Filing apparently closes Monday. 03 January 2011.

Here is a link to the article if you are interested.

http://www.examiner.com/democrat-in-los-angeles/san-bernardino-county-to-have-special-primary-election-february

A PLAY ON WORDS

Just playing around here, but:

Have you ever noticed how some people say PIN Number, or VIN Number, and things like that?

Have you done so yourself?

Consider what is being said.

PIN is an acronym for Personal Identification Number, therefore PIN Number is in fact the Number of your PIN or your Personal Identification Number's NUMBER. For myself that would usually be 1 as I usually employ only a single PIN for any particular given purpose.

The same would hold true for your Vehicle or Vessel when using the acronym VIN. Most vehicles and vessels also have only one identifying number so the number of that number should always be 1, regardless what the VIN actually is.

I bring this up because there is a great deal in the NEWS about the current START “TREATY”.

START, in this case means ST ratigic A rms R eduction T reaty. Does this mean that everyone is talking about a Treaty on the proposed Treaty? Frankly, I am not even certain myself just what that would mean, but I do doubt that this is the case. Should this not be referred to as the STAR Treaty? Or simply START?

I also play the same game with Nuclear and NewCUElar.

Among other things, a CUE is a clue or hint.

I have never concerned myself with fear of NewCUElar weapons as they are figmentary and born only of the imaginations of the New CUELESS.

Whenever any State or other Public official, some stupid actor, or worse, some reporter goes public and says NuCUElar, I immediately classify them as a fool. And, yes that does go for Bush the second.

On the other hand, Nuclear weapons, those actually capable of massive destruction from the detonation of fissionable Nuclear materials, are a real concern.

We need our officials to concern themselves with real concerns, not treaties about treaties or imaginary weapons.

But, like I said at the start, I am only playing around here.

All Y’all have a Good Christmas and may we all enjoy a Happier New Year.

Banning the Nativity scene.

info needed

My first suggestion would be to blanket freeze ALL Federal disbursements, including ALL Social Security and Public Assistance spending, at 2010 levels. No increases in per capita spending for anything unless human life is directly threatened. Then maintain that level of spending until the tax base catches up and exceeds it slightly.

Next would be a 10% force reduction in ALL Federal employment categories exclusive of Military and Law Enforcement. This could be accomplished by attrition and may take some time.

Next would be a 2% - 5% payroll reduction through salary reduction for ALL Federal employees receiving more than $75,000.00 annually.

There seems to have been some talk about increasing the retirement age. This sounds good on the face of it, but taking forty years to accomplish seems a little pointless. I would propose, instead, that the retirement age start being adjusted immediately.

Those who are currently within two years of retirement remain on schedule. 64 and above, retirement age remains stable.

Those who are currently more than two years from retirement need to wait an extra year. 62-63, retirement age becomes 66.

More than four years from retirement currently wait an additional extra year. 60-61, retirement age becomes 67.

More than six years from retirement currently wait another additional year. 58-59, retirement age becomes 68.

Eight years from retirement currently, add another year. 56-57, retirement age becomes 69.

Those who are currently ten years or more from retirement age would then become eligible for retirement at 70 years of age. 55 years of age and under, retirement age becomes 70.

Also require that ALL Federal employees contribute at least ten percent of their salary to their own retirement account and contribute significantly, at least fifty percent of the cost, to their healthcare insurance and include these as part of their total compensation package. Then limit maximum retirement disbursement to about 100% of the final annual salary earned by the retiree plus paid healthcare. Persons who are employed by the Federal Government are PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, they are supposed to work FOR the Citizens of the United States of America; their compensation should be directly dependent upon the ABILITY of the U.S. Taxpayer to support them; PUBLIC SERVANTS should not be allowed to demand more when our Nation is already so deeply in debt just because they want it.

Next would be to mandate Employment Eligibility Verification, E-Verify, for all Public AND Private sector employers. Back this up with very strict enforcement and penalties stiff enough to fund the program directly and help to defray the costs associated with unemployment and joblessness. There are about 15 Million+ U.S. Citizens who are out of work but want employment. There are also about 12-20 Million+ Undocumented Foreign Nationals living and working illegally inside the United States. What would be the effect if those Undocumented Foreign Nationals were unable to seek or find employment within the United States? At least a third of those U.S. Citizens who now want work but cannot find it should be able to find jobs. This would remove them from the rolls of tax consumers and create Taxpayers thus broadening the Tax Base. Deny all non-emergency public assistance funds to Undocumented Foreign Nationals who are within the United States illegally and then limit access to any emergency funding to the control and stabilization of the immediate life threatening circumstance only.

Please note that this is not an immigration policy, it just acknowledges that only those who are U.S. Citizens, Natural or Naturalized, Documented Foreign Nationals legally within the United States, and Legal Resident Aliens are entitled to recognized legal status within the United States of America.

Finally, we must recognize that energy is needed to do things. Limiting access to that energy simply limits productivity. The United States could become energy independent if we really wanted to. Oil, Coal, and Natural gas are the current standards, and yes they are dirty. We have the Natural Reserves here inside the United States to allow ourselves to become energy independent if we would only make use of them. Instead, we artificially limit the supply and thus create an inflated market while also retarding the ability of that market to produce. Unfettering the energy producers here inside the United States while requiring even stricter standards would probably result in more overall productivity. If I could produce twice as much product but had to spend 25% of my profits to make it non-polluting, I would still see a 50% net increase in productivity while rendering a cleaner product.

And then there is still Nuclear. If we were to concentrate on short-term containment of waste, 50 to 100 years, while allowing the advancement of the science, we could probably find better means of producing Nuclear power while improving the containment issues as well in the mean time.

Again, improving energy access could only act as a shot in the arm for our economy. Mining those resources here at home would also create an additional source of revenue as much of the land I am referring to is currently Federally administered, The U.S. Government could administer leasing out of the land for exploitation and then use the fees and royalties to offset Federal expenses and reduce the National Debt.

I have hit on only four major topics here, the cost of the Federal Government to carry out day to day operations, the cost of entitlements, the cost of supporting Undocumented Foreign Nationals who have no right to be within the United States and their impact on our domestic jobs market, and energy issues. I honestly believe that these factors have a significant impact on the continuing fiscal viability of the United States of America.

A Forty-Year Plan is next to useless, especially when it seems to only amount to about $100B per year. The United States needs swift and decisive action. Yes, we must proceed with caution, but inaction and over cautious slowness of action will be worse. The DEBT CRISIS is NOW; we do not have a luxury of time to face this crisis. So far as I can tell, the plans circulated so far barely even address a portion of the current interest on our current National Debt.

Currently, our Federal Government is behaving like a very spoiled BRAT who goes out and purchases something they know they cannot afford then demands more money in order to pay for it, regardless of whether that money is available or not.

That BRAT needs to be spanked!

Thank You

Douglas J. Howard

Dream Act? How about Nightmare Scenario?

It seems funny, well odd anyway, that nobody seems to recall that there was a huge, and quite controversial at the time, Immigration Reform in 1986. The Undocumented Foreign Nationals ( I REFUSE TO REFER TO THEM AS IMMIGRANTS IN ANY MANNER WHENEVER AVOIDABLE ) who were then illegally living and working inside the United States were granted amnesty if they met certain, very minimal prerequisites.

In return, there was to be a significant strengthening of our border controls and a concerted effort to prevent new Undocumented Foreign Nationals from sneaking into our Country illegally or being employable, or able to reside here comfortably if they were to do so.

Well, the Undocumented Foreign Nationals, about three or four Million of them when there were only supposed to be about two Million, got their U.S. Citizenship, but nothing much seems to have ever been done to stem the cause of the problem.

Now the claim is that there are another twelve to twenty Million Undocumented Foreign Nationals that have since managed to invade our Nation. If that is comparable to the 1986 estimate, could we actually be looking at more like
twenty to thirty Million Undocumented Foreign Nationals living and working illegally inside the United States, OR MORE?

This Dream Act is not a dream but much more like a Nightmare.

Let us insist that the Law(makers?) who want this “DREAM Act” legislation first spend the next twenty or thirty years living up to the enforcement portion of the bargain that was agreed to in 1986.

The Undocumented Foreign Nationals who were living and working illegally within the United States have already gotten their part of the comprehensive reform, Amnesty in 1986.

Now, it is time for the Citizens of The United States to be provided with the other half of the bargain, Enforcement of our Immigration Laws and expulsion of the Undocumented Foreign INVADERS.

We have an unemployment problem here in the United States. There are about 15 Million U.S. Citizens who want, but cannot find, work. What would happen if the Undocumented Foreign Nationals now living and working illegally inside the United States were to suddenly become unemployable? Would that not open up several million jobs for U.S. Citizens who want and DESERVE them?

What would that do for our economy? Several million U.S. Citizens working and paying taxes instead of living on taxpayer provided funds. Several million Undocumented Foreign Nationals no longer having access to those same taxpayer provided funds. Would that not put a major dent in the Federal Deficit? Maybe even help to reduce the National DEBT?

Quisling was only one lawmaker in the 1930's in Holland. Look what he did. How many Quislings do we now have in similar positions here in the United States?