National ID card is almost here!!!

[kingiii64]

One more vestige of freedom and anonymity taken away from the US public . Did anyone here already know of this? Is this not a concern of anyones?

I have already had to go through this once when I first came back to the US from being in Japan for 16 years. When I applied for my US driver's license, I was initially denied due to an outstanding unpaid ticket that was on my record in a state that I have never been during a time that I was not in the US. It ended up being cheaper for me to pay the ticket and get my license than to fight it.

Expect a Bureaucratic Nightmare when You Renew Your Driver's License

Back in 2005, our Congressional kleptocrats snuck an obscure provision into a military spending bill that, in effect, creates the first national ID card in U.S. history.

The "REAL ID" Act imposes security, authentication, and issuance standards for American state driver's licenses and state ID cards. But as I pointed out in a previous blog entry, the most threatening aspect of the Real ID initiative is its creation of 50 inter-connected state databases to include details on nearly 250 million licensed drivers. Each state must provide electronic access to all other states to information contained in its motor vehicle database.

While no state has yet to comply with the Real ID Act's security and authentication standards, this database, or at least a part of it, is already up and running. Before renewing your driver's license, your state Motor Vehicles Department must now check your driving record in all 50 states. If you have an outstanding violation in any other state—even an unpaid speeding ticket from decades ago—you won't get your new license. And, you may have to negotiate a bureaucratic labyrinth worthy of a Kafka novel to resolve the problem.

I recently read in Liberty magazine about the experiences of Jim Walsh, a resident of the state of Washington, when he tried to renew his driver's license. He couldn't, because computer records from Massachusetts revealed a 20-year-old unpaid speeding ticket. In fact, Jim had paid the ticket, but he couldn't produce a canceled check from 1988.

Here's what he's had to go through so far to get the problem resolved.

First, Jim called the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (MRMV) to see if their records indicated that, in fact, the ticket had never been paid. After waiting for 90 minutes on hold, a rude clerk confirmed that unfortunate "fact." Nor could the clerk accept a second payment. He would have to send in another check to the county court that issued the ticket.

Next, Jim contacted the appropriate county court in Massachusetts. A clerk helpfully provided instructions on how to pay the ticket a second time. After receiving Jim's duplicate payment, the county court sent a payment confirmation to the MRMV.

Now it was time to call the MRMV again. After another extended period on hold, another rude clerk told Jim that the payment confirmation didn't match the required Department of Homeland Security format. To have the payment acknowledged in the required format, Jim would have to produce a court order issued by a judge in the county where the ticket was issued.

It was time for another call to the county clerk. It would be no problem to request a judge to issue the court order. However, Jim would need to make a personal appearance before a judge to request the court order. Since Massachusetts is 2,500 miles from the state of Washington, this would require an overnight trip and several hundred dollars in travel expenses.

When Liberty published this article, Jim still hadn't been able to renew his driver's license. The court clerk in Massachusetts suggested that it might be possible for Jim to hire a local attorney in lieu of a court order to satisfy the MRMV. The attorney could present the MRMV with a sworn statement that the receipt from the county, in fact, represented proof of payment. It might also be possible to take the receipt marked "paid" to the Washington Department of Motor Vehicles to see if it would be possible to bypass the Real ID database.

But there were no guarantees. Jim's ability to operate a motor vehicle legally rests in the hands of unaccountable bureaucrats. (I've yet to hear back from Liberty as to whether Jim's heroic efforts were, in fact, successful.)

Benjamin Franklin warned us more than two centuries ago that, ""He who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither security nor liberty." As I've written previously, there's no indication any national ID initiative has ever improved security. And, as this sordid tale of bureaucracy run amok illustrates, it's already thwarting our shrinking liberty.

Copyright © 2008 by Mark Nestmann

[Cat slave]

If it will curb the illegal aliens I dont have a problem with it. The government
already has access to our vital information and knows everything about us
anyway. I dont have a problem with it and view a valid SS card# as our
present id!!!!

If they have nothing better to do than watch me than go for it....they wont
have enough to do.

[kingiii64]

If it will curb the illegal aliens I dont have a problem with it. The government
already has access to our vital information and knows everything about us
anyway. I dont have a problem with it and view a valid SS card# as our
present id!!!!

If they have nothing better to do than watch me than go for it....they wont
have enough to do.

Illegal aliens can be curbed by heavily penalizing the companies that hire them; Not making the Country more draconian than it has already gotten. Many people seem to feel so happy about losing the very things that made this country great giving the excuse that that loss of freedom somehow is compensated by a minor positive effect it may have....

[SeedyROM]

Sounds like someone has the same name as you, poor record keeping and bureacratic incompetency no doubt.

A national ID card will aid law enforcement in the long run but the irony is that all databases are accessable and interconnected now. Police use the FBI and NCIC databases which have been interconnected for years. Employers can access these files through 3rd party vendors as well.
This is Big Government pork barrel spending.

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/is/ncic.htm
Categories of individuals covered by the system: A. Wanted Persons,
5 and 6."
I. Interstate Identification Index File: A cooperative Federal-state
program for the interstate exchange of criminal history record
information for the purpose of facilitating the interstate exchange of
such information among criminal justice agencies. Described in "

[petetree]

Okay, first let me say, that, at this point, I have not formulated an opinion on national ID cards...What I do know is that it will make life much easier (and much less expensive) for people in the northern (and I assume southern as well)"boarder" states that like to travel over the boarder for recreational purposes (you know going to Montreal to the strip cubs, or to Tiajuana for a dose of the clap, etc...)on any regular basis (as compared to a full blown passport of coarse). On that vein, I see nothing wrong with them...But I'm still thinkin' on it...

[Smurf-Herder]

I don't have a problem at all with a national ID card.

But what I do have extemely serious concerns with is the proposed insertion of an RFID chip. Now that aspect of the ID card can have serious consequences in the future.

[Cat slave]

Illegal aliens can be curbed by heavily penalizing the companies that hire them; Not making the Country more draconian than it has already gotten. Many people seem to feel so happy about losing the very things that made this country great giving the excuse that that loss of freedom somehow is compensated by a minor positive effect it may have....

Do you seriously think the government has any question whatsoever about
you or me or anyone else? That they are not able to capture every key
stroke? They already know everything about everyone....but the illegals and
that is not beneficial at this time as they are serving another purpose.

True, the solution to illegals does lie with law enforcement and e verify. But
this isnt happening, so an id card might help.

Its not like we dont already have a "number". We do. Its called a SS number.

[Cat slave]

I don't have a problem at all with a national ID card.

But what I do have extemely serious concerns with is the proposed insertion of an RFID chip. Now that aspect of the ID card can have serious consequences in the future.

Do you mean as in health records that can be used by insurance companies to
screen policy holders????

[kingiii64]

Do you mean as in health records that can be used by insurance companies to
screen policy holders????

We have all already experienced the gradual utilization (illegal at that) of our social security numbers for various purposes. As technology increases, more and more data will be easily accessible. RFID will include more and more unbeknownst to the public who are caught up in whether a Democrat or Republican is silently raping them.

Yes, eventually all personal information will be subject to scrutiny of the people who have enough financial (lobby) clout. Our lives will be under scrutiny regarding every thing we doand what our DNA says about us. Insurance claims will be rejected if your lifestyle (or potentially DNA)says about your risk percentage vs. revenue potential. If your lifestyle reveals any of the actions prohibited in the small fine print on everything that you now sign, you may also be discriminated against.

...all the while people along the way will have been saying that unless you have something to hide, there is nothing to worry about in your loss of freedom or privacy. It is OK because it is protecting us from the unseen enemy!!....

The people that fail to see the patterns of past abuses will never learn. They can unfortunately only see what is so finely imprinted in their mind by the mainstream media.

The laws will be passed; some websites like this one will bitch about it a little and let it drift if someone we don't like starts the discussion. All-in all we won't change a thing because it is not important enough for us to take individual action.

[SeedyROM]

Do you mean as in health records that can be used by insurance companies to
screen policy holders????

Cat check out the Medical Records Bureau, you can request a free copy of your personal record for free. Doctors, hospitals and insurance companies share all the data. You may already know about this. The MIB group also sells the data to law enforcement to reduce fraud and catch criminals falsifying claims. There is another company that compiles auto insurance data. Imagine all these records merged together one day along with online surfing records!

With a RFID chip anyone could read your file by scanning the ID card. So there will always be a black market for personal and financial data. There's talk of an implantable chip as well.

http://www.mib.com/html/request_your_record.html
What does MIB do?

MIB maintains a database for Members to exchange confidential information of underwriting significance when an individual applies for life, health, disability income, long-term care or critical illness insurance. This information is maintained and safeguarded in a coded format that is accessible only to authorized personnel of a Member company to which you have applied for insurance and have authorized the company to use MIB as an information source.

Why is this important?

MIB's primary purpose is to protect our Member companies from proposed insureds who knowingly or unknowingly omit information about their insurability on their applications. When a person applies for an individually underwritten insurance policy, he or she is asked a number of questions that help to classify him or her as an insurance risk. In the case where an applicant either forgets to answer a question correctly or knowingly omits information on the application, MIB provides an alert to the company where the person has applied for insurance regarding information that may be relevant in the risk assessment process. MIB saves its Member companies an estimated $1 billion annually by enabling them to avoid fraudulent insurance applications and early claims. These savings are potentially passed down to insurance buying consumers in the form of lower premiums (and higher dividends payable by mutual companies).

[Smurf-Herder]

Do you mean as in health records that can be used by insurance companies to
screen policy holders????


As in a Radio Frequency Identification chip. Having access to all databanks through the card; without the card ever having to leave your wallet.

In other words, you could just walk past a register in a store with your scanned items and the store computer would use the card with the chip, still in your pocket, to access your bank account and withdraw your payment.

When you pass a security checkpoint, the security equipment would pick up your ID on the chip and access everything about you from various computer databases, to verify you're not a security risk.

And with a GPS feature, you could also be located anywhere on the planet by satellite.

And there is also the real possibility of your RFID chip card being hacked.

Understand how serious the possibilities could be?

I think the idea of a card is great. But those who talk of including an RFID chip are opening up a whole new can of worms.

[Cat slave]

As in a Radio Frequency Identification chip. Having access to all databanks through the card; without the card ever having to leave your wallet.

In other words, you could just walk past a register in a store with your scanned items and the store computer would use the card with the chip, still in your pocket, to access your bank account and withdraw your payment.

When you pass a security checkpoint, the security equipment would pick up your ID on the chip and access everything about you from various computer databases, to verify you're not a security risk.

And with a GPS feature, you could also be located anywhere on the planet by satellite.

And there is also the real possibility of your RFID chip card being hacked.

Understand how serious the possibilities could be?

I think the idea of a card is great. But those who talk of including an RFID chip are opening up a whole new can of worms.


~~~shudder~~~I get it now!

[PhoneMistress]

A social security card is NOT a pseudo-national identification card.

Unlike the new passports and some state drivers’ licenses it does not have an RFID chip to pinpoint your position on the globe, it doesn’t contain the details of your health information e.g. x-rays, scans, blood labs, doctor’s notes which MIB does not have. A social security card is to determine what benefits you paid into the Social Security program and nothing else. Over the last decade laws have been passed requiring the removal of the numbers from hospital reports, drivers’ licenses, education records and business accounts.

We are a free nation and as citizens we are not required to maintain “papers” to move within the country or to conduct business with other citizens or government agencies. Today I completed work with DHHS and the DOJ and not once did I need to pull out my social security card. Earlier this week when I entered a federal court at the security checkpoint I presented my passport to identify myself. And you don’t need a social security card to get a passport or driver’s license.

The concept of a national security card is in my opinion wholly unAmerican and further proof of how far afield we have gone.

[kingiii64]

In Hawaii you are required to have a Social Secutiry number in order to get a driver's license. Of course this is not the original purpose of your SSN nor should it be a requirement, however it is just the same.

Identification
A first-time applicant will need to present two forms of identifying documents. One must show evidence of your legal age and name. The other must confirm that you have a Social Security number.



A social security card is NOT a pseudo-national identification card.

Unlike the new passports and some state drivers’ licenses it does not have an RFID chip to pinpoint your position on the globe, it doesn’t contain the details of your health information e.g. x-rays, scans, blood labs, doctor’s notes which MIB does not have. A social security card is to determine what benefits you paid into the Social Security program and nothing else. Over the last decade laws have been passed requiring the removal of the numbers from hospital reports, drivers’ licenses, education records and business accounts.

We are a free nation and as citizens we are not required to maintain “papers” to move within the country or to conduct business with other citizens or government agencies. Today I completed work with DHHS and the DOJ and not once did I need to pull out my social security card. Earlier this week when I entered a federal court at the security checkpoint I presented my passport to identify myself. And you don’t need a social security card to get a passport or driver’s license.

The concept of a national security card is in my opinion wholly unAmerican and further proof of how far afield we have gone.

[PhoneMistress]

I stand corrected.

In 1996 the NCSL requested that state governments work in tandem with the Federal government to remove the requirement to produce a social security number for drivers' license numbers. Apparently Hawaii has not and they should have...yesterday.

[Smurf-Herder]

Security and Privacy Issues Associated With Federal RFID-Enabled Documents
(from the Center for Democracy and Technology)

(1) U.S. Government Should Abandon Insecure RFID-Enabled Border Crossing Documents

In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the 9/11 Commission identified the security of U.S. land borders as a critical area for improvement. The federal government responded with the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), a set of ID specifications for border crossings. Beginning June 1, 2009, anyone seeking to enter the U.S. by land or sea must present a passport or other "WHTI-compliant" document.

In order to accommodate U.S. citizens without a passport, the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have developed two new alternative ID cards: the passport card and the Enhanced Driver's License (EDL). Both of these cards carry a long-range radio frequency identification (RFID) chip that presents a privacy nightmare for American citizens.

These insecure chips, containing traveler data, could be read from long distances by anyone, without the cardholder's knowledge or consent, and could be used to track and profile the movements and activities of innocent Americans. Moreover, access to a traveler's "unique ID number" could be used to further access sensitive personal information held by the government under WHTI. These privacy costs would be borne without any proven benefit to national security or border operations.

The choice of RFID technology for these new ID cards was made without proper evaluation of the privacy implications or efficiency benefits, and other technologies offering greater privacy protections apparently were not considered. The Departments turned a deaf ear to warnings and opposition expressed by Congress and DHS' own Inspector General, as well as in thousands of public comments. Indeed, as Senator Patrick Leahy observed, DHS has behaved "like a skydiver who jumps first and tries to pack his parachute on the way down."

CDT takes no position on the new identification requirements at the border generally, but any such requirements must be implemented with the proper technological and procedural safeguards to protect Americans' privacy.

(2) Government Moves Ahead Despite Privacy Warnings

In 2004, Congress sought to implement recommendations of the 9/11 Commission with the passage of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which led DHS and the State Department to develop WHTI. Under the initiative, the practice of accepting oral declarations of citizenship from travelers reentering the U.S. from Canada, Mexico, or the Caribbean was phased out in January 2008, and only WHTI-compliant documents (i.e. passports, passport cards, EDLs, and certain other Trusted Traveler ID cards) will be accepted as proof of citizenship beginning in June 2009. While an express goal of Congress' was to secure the border while also facilitating cross-border travel, it is important to note that Congress did not mandate the creation of the passport card or EDL, nor did it require the use of long-range RFID technology that poses significant privacy risks to Americans.

RFID refers to a set of technological standards that allow communication between small data storage devices (RFID chips) and radio emitters that read the data (RFID readers). However, there are crucial differences between different RFID standards and applications, and it is here where the technological choices made by the State Department and DHS put privacy in jeopardy on a massive scale.

The RFID-enabled "electronic passports" issued by the State Department take a variety of reasonable precautions to protect privacy: Sensitive data is encrypted to prevent unauthorized access; the booklet itself contains RF blocking material to prevent any access when the booklet is closed; and the particular RFID standard used is designed to only allow access at distances of under approximately three inches. In contrast, the State Department and DHS are mandating "vicinity" RFID in both the passport card and EDL, using the interoperable "Generation 2"standard and no encryption. Each card would carry the holder's unique ID number (UID), which would then be tied to other personal information in new government databases at both the state and federal levels. Under this system, anyone with an off-the-shelf RFID reader would be able to access someone's UID from distances of 30 feet or more and use it to track the cardholder or uncover more personal information through data breach or insider fraud.

DHS has some limited experience with RFID-enabled IDs through its Trusted Traveler programs, Whereas certain Trusted Traveler programs for pre-approved travelers and commercial truck drivers already involve RFID-enabled ID cards, they use a slightly more privacy-protective "Generation 1" standard. But DHS and the State Department have chosen "Generation 2 long-range RFID, ignoring the conclusion of its own Inspector General who noted, in reviewing CBP's Trusted Traveler programs, that "[a]dditional security controls [such as encryption] would be required if CBP . . . migrates to universally readable Generation 2 (Gen2) products."

In the push to implement "vicinity" RFID technology, both DHS and the State Department engaged in serious procedural missteps. DHS did not conduct a privacy impact assessment (PIA) on the proposed EDL program, instead deferring to a PIA on the use of RFID generally; and the State Department did not conduct a PIA on the passport card program. And while DHS solicited comments on the EDL program in its proposed regulations pursuant to the REAL ID Act, it did not issue final rules to govern the EDL program and ensure Americans' privacy would be protected.. Similarly, the State Department solicited comments on the use of long-range RFID in the passport card, but ignored thousands of comments opposing the technology choice. The State Department also issued a request for proposals for the RFID-enabled passport card in spring 2007, half a year before the public comment period closed; the State Department clearly had no intention of considering input from the public, and offered a comment period as a formality.

Congress has also expressed deep misgivings about both Departments' handling of the technology selection process. After finding out that the passport card would use "vicinity" RFID technology, Congress mandated a privacy certification by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). A May 2007 letter from NIST made evident that the agencies were already committed to their technology choice, no thorough evaluation was done and the program was rubber-stamped by NIST. In August 2007, Congress amended the IRTPA a second time to require an EDL pilot program to select a technology "based on individual privacy considerations" but DHS has not altered its position.

(3) Alleged Benefits Do Not Outweigh the Privacy Risks

The DHS Data Privacy & Integrity Advisory Committee cautions against the use of RFID for identifying people given its inherent privacy risks, and yet its own agency has plowed ahead with the choice of "vicinity" RFID without meaningful privacy protections. The current card designs for the passport card and EDL leave the unique ID number unencrypted, making it easily available to anyone with an RFID reader.

The issuing agencies defend the lack of encryption by stating that WHTI-compliant documents will not contain any personally identifiable information. This ignores the fact that the ID number itself contained on the chip will become a piece of personal information; and large amounts of other cardholder data can be easily connected to the unique ID number, whether through visual inspection of the card or the breach of one of the many databases that will link the UID to a wealth of personal information. Such outcomes become more likely under the proposed system, where the databases for EDLs will be kept at the state level, requiring unnecessary duplication and sharing of data with the federal government that will create new opportunities for data breach or insider fraud.

The cautionary tale of the Social Security Number shows what can happen when a new unique identifier is introduced. Despite its limited original purpose, the SSN fell victim to "mission creep" in both government and private use, and has since become associated with vast quantities of private medical, financial, and employment data. That one number is now sufficient to unlock so much other valuable information, and, despite Congressional efforts to limit its use, the SSN has become what the FTC calls "the most valuable commodity for an identity thief." It is easy to imagine an unencrypted, openly readable UID on a WHTI-compliant card following the same trajectory and becoming a new favorite target for identity thieves.

Currently, DHS plans to charge 50 different state agencies, each operating under different regulations and standards, with maintaining citizenship data for EDL holders and giving CBP direct access to these databases. The government has a poor track record of protecting sensitive data, and the risks are even greater with this sort of unmanageable data proliferation. The best way to mitigate the dangers of creating new databases filled with personal information is to observe simple privacy best practices of limited access and data minimization. Opportunities for mismanagement, breach, and insider fraud will be far fewer if the information is maintained by the State Department under a single set of standards and "firewalled" from state motor vehicle databases.

DHS has responded to demands that it offer more substantive privacy protections by offering a storage "sleeve" to shield cards with "vicinity" RFID chips from unauthorized readers. However, this not only inappropriately places the burden of privacy protection on travelers, but it will provide no protection during intentional transactions. Each time a cardholder removes a passport card or EDL from its sleeve to present identification, whether at a store, a movie theatre, or a border crossing, it will be exposed to any reader within a wide area. Rather than being a substantive security measure, this sleeve is merely proof that DHS and the State Department recognize the threat their plan poses to cardholders' privacy.

It is unclear whether the use of long-range RFID will even provide the desired operational benefits. Using scanners to pre-position traveler data for inspection can only improve efficiency in the absence of other limiting factors. CBP agents will still need to scan passport booklets and Trusted Traveler IDs by hand, and face-to-face agent screenings may be slow enough to eliminate efficiency gains from long-range scanners. A GAO feasibility study also found that RFID chips produced poor read rates, and any significant error rate would further cut down on efficiency gains. The important thing is that we don't know, because DHS and the State Department have failed to conduct (or at least release) any speed tests or comparative evaluations of different, more privacy-protective technologies. Rather than verify the benefits of the RFID technology through testing, they have merely speculated about its impact, and thus could compromise the privacy of millions of American travelers with nothing to show for it.

(4) Still Time to Change Policy and Adopt Privacy Protecting Technology

There is still time for Congress and the public to act and to force the State Department and DHS to reconsider the choice of "vicinity" RFID. Only one state, Washington, has begun issuing EDLs, with Vermont planning to issue them beginning in late 2008. The State Department and DHS began issuing passport cards on July 22, 2008, but the requirement of WHTI-compliant documents at U.S. borders is not scheduled to take effect until June 1, 2009.

The choice of the most insecure RFID technology for both cards was made prematurely, without an assessment of costs and benefits or attention to the concerns of Congress and the public. DHS and the State Department have failed to establish that the use of insecure long-range RFID is either operationally or technologically necessary. At the very least, we must demand an honest assessment of the privacy risks associated with putting this technology in the hands of so many Americans and stockpiling sensitive data in new databases. Both Departments clearly know of these privacy concerns, as evidenced by the protections incorporated into the design of the RFID-enabled passport booklet. They have yet to explain why they cannot extend similar measures to the proposed passport card and EDL formats

http://cdt.org/publications/policyposts/2008/11

[SeedyROM]

So I guess there's no getting around the passport requirements unless they change the policy, great. I guess we'll need a copper box to store passports in so the signals will be blocked. If this technology hits ID's signal proof wallets and pocket books will be in vogue. Or a good demagnatizer. This Big Brother crap comes from Republican lapdoggies. Good thing Dems are privacy advocates.

[Smurf-Herder]

So I guess there's no getting around the passport requirements unless they change the policy, great. I guess we'll need a copper box to store passports in so the signals will be blocked. If this technology hits ID's signal proof wallets and pocket books will be in vogue. Or a good demagnatizer. This Big Brother crap comes from Republican lapdoggies. Good thing Dems are privacy advocates.

Where's the Democrat Congress and Senate on this?

They're playing impeachment games, blocking energy bills, apologizing for slavery and they established Nation Cowboy Day. The RFID chip has been an issue for over a year now, but virtually nothing in the MSM about it, or anybody in Washington saying a word on it.

[Cat slave]

Where's the Democrat Congress and Senate on this?

They're playing impeachment games, blocking energy bills, apologizing for slavery and they established Nation Cowboy Day. The RFID chip has been an issue for over a year now, but virtually nothing in the MSM about it, or anybody in Washington saying a word on it.


Yeah, Marsha Blackburn and a handful of Pub senators are still in WA insisting
that the rest of their peers return and attend to the countrys business. And,
what do they get? The lights turned off, and reporters thrown out of the
capitol. Anyone seeing any of this? Hurray for camera phones. This should
show even the most blinded and die hard librul that something is very wrong
with those they would lay down their lives for......along with their votes.:disbelief:

[Smurf-Herder]

Yeah, Marsha Blackburn and a handful of Pub senators are still in WA insisting
that the rest of their peers return and attend to the countrys business. And,
what do they get? The lights turned off, and reporters thrown out of the
capitol. Anyone seeing any of this? Hurray for camera phones. This should
show even the most blinded and die hard librul that something is very wrong
with those they would lay down their lives for......along with their votes.:disbelief:

Yeah, I've been following it in the news. BTW, It's Congress, not the Senate.

Pelosi is a mean bitch. She just wants to drag this out until after the election.

[PhoneMistress]

BTW, It's Congress, not the Senate.

You mean House. Pelosi is the Speaker of the House.

Congress consists of both the House and the Senate.


Yeah, Marsha Blackburn and a handful of Pub senators are still in WA insisting
that the rest of their peers return and attend to the countrys business. And,
what do they get? The lights turned off, and reporters thrown out of the
capitol. Anyone seeing any of this? Hurray for camera phones. This should
show even the most blinded and die hard librul that something is very wrong
with those they would lay down their lives for......along with their votes.

It’s a sham. The President said this was a stunt on the part of the Republicans. Every one of those representatives voted to adjourn and go on vacation. Did they flip-flop?

What is disgusting is that these same individuals, fake-Republicans, turned on the President calling him ‘Beijing Bush’ for refusing to convene a special session and then when the oil speculators started selling short claimed a victory for the decline in the price of oil.

[Smurf-Herder]

You mean House. Pelosi is the Speaker of the House.

Congress consists of both the House and the Senate.

You don't have to correct me. I already know that. But most people think in terms of "Senators" and "Congressmen".



It’s a sham. The President said this was a stunt on the part of the Republicans. Every one of those representatives voted to adjourn and go on vacation. Did they flip-flop?

What is disgusting is that these same individuals, fake-Republicans, turned on the President calling him ‘Beijing Bush’ for refusing to convene a special session and then when the oil speculators started selling short claimed a victory for the decline in the price of oil.


No. It was a stunt on the part of Pelosi. You need to hear the audio of the screaming that went on when an adjournment vote was called. Every one of them DID NOT vote for adjournment. Speaches and debate was planned; and she ended the session at 11:30 am, to not allow the Republicans to be seen on C-Span, with the speaches and statements they had given a list of ahead of time. She violated standard procedures.

[Moby]

Pelosi is a mean bitch.
If she looked liked Newt would you still use the word "Bitch"? Is she was a republican would you see such an attitude as a bad thing?

[SeedyROM]

Where's the Democrat Congress and Senate on this?

They're playing impeachment games, blocking energy bills, apologizing for slavery and they established Nation Cowboy Day. The RFID chip has been an issue for over a year now, but virtually nothing in the MSM about it, or anybody in Washington saying a word on it.

Dems and Reps are wasting time with the usual nonsense. I wonder if RFID has a Hold placed on the Bill. Any Senator can hold a Bill for as long as they live if they feel the Bill is not good for the USA. When a Bill dies down, that's good news most of the time. The bads news is, the nutjobs who want RFID will try to find a way to sneak in legislation as a ryder on a Bill to important to pass up.

[SeedyROM]

You mean House. Pelosi is the Speaker of the House.

Congress consists of both the House and the Senate.




It’s a sham. The President said this was a stunt on the part of the Republicans. Every one of those representatives voted to adjourn and go on vacation. Did they flip-flop?

What is disgusting is that these same individuals, fake-Republicans, turned on the President calling him ‘Beijing Bush’ for refusing to convene a special session and then when the oil speculators started selling short claimed a victory for the decline in the price of oil.


It would have been nice if Reps had not thrown citizens under the bus with drilling rights attached to Bills designed to control and investigate speculators. Reps threw in the legislation for thier oil buddies. I say drill in a better controlled manner but don't let the Reps hold us for ransome at the pumps.

[PhoneMistress]

You don't have to correct me. I already know that. But most people think in terms of "Senators" and "Congressmen".

I don't. They are Representatives and Senators.

No. It was a stunt on the part of Pelosi. You need to hear the audio of the screaming that went on when an adjournment vote was called. Every one of them DID NOT vote for adjournment. Speaches and debate was planned; and she ended the session at 11:30 am, to not allow the Republicans to be seen on C-Span, with the speaches and statements they had given a list of ahead of time. She violated standard procedures.

I apologize. I meant to say the House voted 213-197 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll566.xml) to adjourn. It's hardly a stunt. What I do find circumspect is the losing representatives insisting to conduct business without the rest of the House. That shows a lack of appreciation for the rules. Their theatrics, 'Beijing Bush' comments and magical powers to lower oil prices from a dark empty House chamber aside.

:tired:

[Smurf-Herder]

I don't. They are Representatives and Senators.



I apologize. I meant to say the House voted 213-197 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll566.xml) to adjourn. It's hardly a stunt. What I do find circumspect is the losing representatives insisting to conduct business without the rest of the House. That shows a lack of appreciation for the rules. Their theatrics, 'Beijing Bush' comments and magical powers to lower oil prices from a dark empty House chamber aside.

:tired:

It wasn't scheduled House Business. It was scheduled after-business comments and speeches, normally done every single day, normally taped by C-Span; which Pelosi refused to allow.

[Smurf-Herder]

It would have been nice if Reps had not thrown citizens under the bus with drilling rights attached to Bills designed to control and investigate speculators. Reps threw in the legislation for thier oil buddies. I say drill in a better controlled manner but don't let the Reps hold us for ransome at the pumps.

You got the actual text of that legislation somewhere?

I heard it was the other way around.

The bill was written in a way that prohibited new oil drilling off the coast; and the Democrats refused to allow an ammendment that removed that clause. So it was the Democrats who made it impossible for the Republicans to vote in favor of the bill, in it's present state.

A gimmick to make the Republicans look like they didn't want to deal with the speculators.

[SeedyROM]

You got the actual text of that legislation somewhere?

I heard it was the other way around.
The bill was written in a way that prohibited new oil drilling off the coast; and the Democrats refused to allow an ammendment that removed that clause. So it was the Democrats who made it impossible for the Republicans to vote in favor of the bill, in it's present state.

A gimmick to make the Republicans look like they didn't want to deal with the speculators.

This is the typical offense defense strategy, both sides are equally good at stalling to push through Bills the other side does not want. The irony is Obama now wants limited drilling so Pelosi and Dems are on the wrong side of offshore drilling. Senate Dems follow Pelosi in lockstep at times. I guess after the break we'll see if they flip flop to side with Obama. They need to get it together! The drilling Bill could have been a separate Bill but no they slide in the ryder and everyone walked away. I blame Reps more than Dems because the merits of the original Bill were designed to help Americans and Reps knew the offshore crap would not work, they've been battling this for years.


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/energy-speculation-bill-fails-to-advance-2008-07-25.html
The Senate failed to advance legislation targeting oil speculators after Republicans and Democrats remained at an impasse on adding an expansion of offshore drilling to the bill.

The chamber voted 50-43 — well short of the 60 votes needed to limit debate on the measure that would have addressed manipulation in the oil futures markets, primarily by adding more regulators at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Democrats had said the bill was the logical first step towards solving high gas prices since speculation was a large part of the problem.

GOP senators wanted to add language that would expand offshore drilling and pledged to block floor action unless they received a chance to amend the Democratic bill. Democratic leaders said they wanted to limit amendments for practical reasons — the chamber expects to adjourn in August — and because Republicans’ real goal was to protect oil companies.

“Let’s strip it all away and say what this is about: They believe they have a winning hand,” said Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “They believe ‘Drill now’ is the winning message to take into November. They want that message to continue to be hammered away… Of course, at the end of the day, nothing happens under that strategy.


The Congrssional equivelent of a threat to ransome Americans. Why Stay till both sides come up with a solution? Crooks on both sides can't get along.

GOP leaders have pledged to block movement onto any other issues besides energy.

“The Republicans just voted to stay on $4 gasoline until we come up with a solution,” said Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) “The point is to try to stay on it and see if we can make some substantial progress on finding more oil and gas and using less oil and gas, which is the way you lower price if you believe in the law of supply and demand.”


Democrats needed 60 votes to clear a parliamentary hurdle and bring their oil speculation bill to a final vote. They got only 50, as 43 Republicans held out for a separate vote on an amendment to allow offshore drilling on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Democrats have refused to give them the opportunity, in both the Senate and the House.