NEW BMV RULES – SHADES OF BEN FRANKLIN’S FEARS

Eight years after 9/11, the public is still surrendering to fear and willing to sacrifice “essential liberty” for a little bit of security.  Promulgated under the guise of protecting unsuspecting Hoosiers from identity theft, new Indiana BMV rules, which demand an expanded array of goodies to prove identity, will go into effect this January 1st.

The rules are a result of the “Real ID Act of 2005” when Congress, under the constant harping and fear-mongering of the Bush administration, implemented the Act to help ferret out terrorists hiding under our beds.  The Act, at that time, established a deadline of May 11, 2008, for all 50 states to come into compliance with its mandates.

And, all 50 states filed for an extension of that deadline and were given until December 31, 2009, to comply.  Interestingly, as of 2009, 23 states have passed resolutions in opposition to the Act, and, Janet Napolitano, Obama’s head of Homeland Security, is a harsh critic of the Act.

But, of course, Indiana’s legislature has fallen lockstep in line with the Act just as it did with the new voter registration requirements.  Under the program called “SecureID”, beginning in 2010, Hoosiers will not be able to renew their license by simply bringing in an old one.   The requirements are as follows:

  • a passport or birth certificate to prove identity,
  • two items to confirm the applicant’s address; a bill, a paycheck, or a voter ID card issued within 60 days of your visit to the license branch, and
  • either their original Social Security card or a W-2 tax form.

Even those who follow the new rules will go home without a new card. Instead, state computers will check the info and photo and if there are no problems a card will be sent in the mail – a background check to get your driver’s license.  How ridiculous.  Your identity can’t be established with all the documents you are required to bring in?  You need a background check?

The states that have opted for a “no-participation” resolution are perfectly free to do so; however, the federal government will make sure the citizens of those states are duly punished by refusing to allow them air travel, entrance into federal buildings, etc.

Indiana has already implemented a facial recognition system where applicants for new licenses or renewals must remove hats and glasses and not smile when having their photos taken.  Hair must be drawn back away from the face. Must be that BMV employees can no longer be trusted with the earth-shattering mission of comparing the human face in front of them with the picture on the driver’s license.

Photo Credit:  Government Technology

_____________________________________________________________

Remind anyone of Orwell’s prophetic novel “1984?”    The Real ID Act of 2005 is nothing more than a march toward a national identification system which Congress has deceptively labeled as necessary to protect us from terrorism.  Indiana has decpetively labled it as necessary to protect us from identity theft.

Privacy is an essential liberty, and we are fast losing – if we haven’t already – all aspects of our privacy. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Advertisements

About Charlotte A. Weybright

I own a home in the historical West Central Neighborhood of Fort Wayne, Indiana. I have four grown sons and nine grandchildren - four grandsons and five granddaughters. I love to work on my home, and I enjoy crafts of all types. But, most of all, I enjoy being involved in political and community issues.
This entry was posted in Congress, Government, Politics, Rights and Liberties and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to NEW BMV RULES – SHADES OF BEN FRANKLIN’S FEARS

  1. Pingback: Subaru Deluxe Car Cover

  2. Judith says:

    I read that we must take proof of all name changes–a trouble for women who have married. It’s especially hard for any who have divorced and remarried. The article in the newspaper stated proof of each name change, and divorce decrees or death certificates of the former spouse must be shown. I hope this is not true.

  3. Norma says:

    Not to worry. Obama doesn’t, so I’m sure he’ll rescind all this stuff and we can go back to not paying any attention to the terrorists under the bed.

  4. Charlotte A. Weybright says:

    Norma:

    Realizing that you are being facetious, I have to ask if you are willing to give up every bit of freedom and privacy to avoid a terrorist attack – which may or may not happen again.

    I am not. The Bush Administration operated on fear and pushing the panic button – you know the yellow and red ones – that is until after he was elected for the second term. Then, what a shocker, the alerts pretty much died down.

    If you would like to live like people did during the McCarthy reign of terror, that is your choice. Personally, I think this country is too great to let slide downhill into the darkness of those days again.

  5. Andy says:

    @ Charlotte –

    I totally agree with your comment. Many in the Bush administration (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Hughes, Rove, etc.) commonly used fear and intimidation to acheive their goals.

    How quickly we forget about the Operation Iraqi Freedom aka: The Invasion of Iraq. Remember the whole hoopla over Sadam Hussein having WMD’s ?? Cheney going on national television and saying Al Queda and Sadam are linked. Or Bush stating in the State of the Union that Sadam “recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa”. Followed up by the whole talk circuit/media blitz by Cheney and Condi to thoroughly fearmonger the American people into believing Sadam had a “smoking gun” in the shape of a “mushroom cloud” ???

    Just a bunch of lies to further incite fear and paranoia into the American people so Bush could invade Iraq.

    And guess what ? The final verdict finds there were no WMD’s and no Iraqi nukes. This doesn’t take away from the fact Sadam was a horrible man – but if we used the criteria of being “bad” as an excuse to go to war, the US would be invading a new country every year ! (North Korea, Burma, Sudan, Iran, etc..) Would this make us SAFER ?? Or would it literally bankrupt us and leave us even more vulnerable ?

  6. Andy:

    You are so right – if we took out every dictator, despot, ruler, etc. who was a horrible person and leader and who dehumanized, tortured, and killed his own people, we would be in at least half the world’s countries.

    I always find it interesting that when I have mentioned this, supporters of the Bush/Cheney fiasco simply change the subject or don’t even give me the courtesy of an answer.

  7. Phil Marx says:

    I don’t know how you got it, or why you chose to post it here, but you have desecrated my privacy and hurt my feelings also by posting my driver’s license here.

    Signed, Avery Sample

    P.S. Just for the record, you should know that photo was taken on a bad hair day!

  8. Phil Marx says:

    On a more serious note, it only recently occurred to me that our government seems to be spending far more time and money on documenting it’s legal citizens than it does with it’s illegal residents. That’s a bit scary.

  9. Iceironman says:

    Gosh, I thought the Bush bashing would end someday. He is, after all, the only politician to use fear as a tactic. I guess until Obama quits blaming Bush for everything, why would you guys. Leaders dont blame or make excuses.

    Rahm Emanuel said: “Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste,”
    I guess that is why we are getting screwed out of TRILLIONS, we own GM, and govt is growing everyday.

    The word crisis has been worn thin with the current admin.

    We have always had to remove headcovers (hats). We have always had to show proof with the items listed.. Which is a bigger privacy violation, forcing healthcare or obtaining an optional drivers licence. I agree with Phil, worry about illegals ID then work on mine.

  10. Iceironman says:

    Do you agree with background checks on guns????

  11. Ice:

    Phil was making a valid point which I think you missed. He was saying we spend too much time documenting legal citizens and not enough on illegal citizens. It seems like he is agreeing with my point.

    And yes, I believe in background checks for guns – a gun is a weapon; a driver’s license is not.

    The Bush bashing continues because Bush is the one who instilled the fear of attacks, day after day, raising alerts on a continuous basis. Again, look at what happened after he was re-elected – the alerts pretty much disappeared. Coincidence? I think not.

    You are incorrect in your statement about what we have had to provide as proof. We never had to show anything to vote. We signed in, and went into the voting booth. We had to provide identity to register – never to vote.

    As to driver’s licenses – I got mine at 16. I had to provide a photo ID and a certificate that I completed driver’s training.

    If you want to live in an Orwellian society, that is your decision. I don’t want to.

    By the way, how is it you loathe big government on so many things yet you are willing to trust them to track you by whatever means they deem necessary? You really do prove my point in that it all depends on what you see as the role of government.

  12. Andy says:

    @Iceironman –

    Since we are only a little over 6 months from Bush and his administration leaving office, I believe Bush and his “legacy” is fair game.

    Funny, Bill Clinton was and still is, used as a punching bag for folks like Limbaugh, O’Reily, Coulter, etc. to this day, but according to you, any kind of criticism of Bush is off limits. Certainly sounds “fair” and “balanced” with absolutely no regard to a “D” or an “R” after a politician’s name to me.

    I agree with you about taking responsibility. You said, “Leaders don’t blame or make excuses.” I feel, Obama has been in office long enough, that the current economy should start to be more of a reflection of his economic policies. I’m wondering how long into a presidency would you consider a President to have “ownership” over events which took place under their watch.

    You can look at other events which took place under a President’s watch and could probably come to a conclusion that someone, somewhere in the administration “dropped the ball” or failed to take responsibility. If you think about it, Bush took office January 20, 2001. Nearly eight months later, 9/11 happened – under his watch.

    What I find interesting is during an 2004 news conference, Bush was asked to name just one of his mistakes after being in office for over 3 years:

    http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthomas/3010576/detail.html

    Priceless excerpts from America’s then Commander In Chief:

    “I don’t want to sound like I’ve made no mistakes. I’m confident I have.” But he said he just wasn’t “as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.”

    “I wish you’d have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it,”

    “I’m sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn’t yet.”

  13. Iceironman says:

    No such thing as an illegal citizen????
    With all of the corruption in the voting system, and considering how important it is, I dont mind showing ID. I have always had to have several forms of ID to get my licence.

    I dont like the idea of a tracking system and facial recognition, but I dont think we are quite there yet???

    I dont want big brother looking after me, same as you, so I would assume you are totaly opposed to a national health plan—as the govt would know everything about you. They would also give the yea or nea on what your life is worth–seem a little Orwellian to me.

    Andy, Bush sure would have liked to have the questions ahead of time like Obama. Evan the press (helen thomas) ragged on Obama for staging questions with prepared responses. I bet Obama would love to take back calling the hardworking, blue collar cops of Cambrige stupid. Instead he sided on the elite liberals side. I bet he wishes he could take back the fact that he visited 57 states. Every townhall meeting is anything but that.

  14. Iceironman says:

    Sorry, just meant to say tracking system is bad. Facial ID is ok with me. The tracking isnt there yet is it?

  15. Ice:

    Better that President Obama made an unplanned and perhaps not too wise comment about police that didn’t cost lives than to stand in front of microphones and say something deadly like “There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring ’em on.” The remark made by Obama pales in comparison to the deadly challenge issued by the former swaggering, cowboy president named Bush.

  16. Ice:

    I am not sure to what you are referring when you mention “illegal citizens.” No one in this post mentioned illegal citizens. Phil mentioned legal citizens and illegal residents – a world of difference. Citizens are legal; residents can be illegal or legal.

  17. Iceironman says:

    Paragraph 1 post 11, you stated illegal citizen.

    Oh I long for the day when we used terms like “dont tread on me”, and bring it on. Bold and brash as that was. That was when men were men and they loved women.

    Do you think Bush saying bring it on made any difference in violence levels??? Do you think people cutting off heads give a crap about rhetoric?? IF you do then you dont get the enemy. So can a company comander in Iraq tell his troops in a speach to fire them up say bring it on???? Bush saying that inspired the troops. Unlike many people in the senate and congress who told them they were raping killing people in cold blood. I know if I were a soldier, Id rather hear bring it on from my comander and chief than that I was terroising women and killing people, and oh yeah, the war is lost.

  18. Ice:

    Excuse me – I misquoted Phil. My mistake.

  19. Andy says:

    @Iceironman –

    The “war” or Invasion of Iraq should have never happened. Remember we were LIED to by Bush and his cronies for attacking Iraq in the first place. In order to maintain at least some integrity and stay focused on the real reason America went to war with Iraq, you have to focus back on the hysteria whipped up by the Bush administration in the months prior to the invasion. Not to belabor the point, but the words “mushroom cloud” and “smoking gun” were repeatedly beat over the heads of the American people for many weeks. Bush and Cheney stoking the flames of fear and hysteria by insinuating Sadam was linked to 9/11 and he wanted to nuke the US dominated the administration’s “news” conferences right up to the invasion.

    Could it be that Sadam was actually just pumping himself up to discourage his hostile neighbors from thinking twice they could actually topple him ? Hans Blix REPEATEDLY stated Sadam had no stockpiles of WMD’s. But Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, etc. were so hell bent on invading Iraq it didn’t matter what the facts were. This was even further evidenced by the outing of former US foreign diplomat Joseph Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame. Ironically enough, the trail of the outing of Valerie Plame found its way right to Mr. Cheney’s office. Apparently, the Bush administration didn’t deal too well with the fact Wilson found no evidence that Sadam was seeking yellowcake in Niger(to use for his non-existent WMD’s). Outing his wife turned out to be a potent jab to intimidate and get back at him.

    And here we are in the middle of 2009. Over 6 years since Bush declared “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED”, the Iraq War continues. American lives are lost, soldiers are wounded, families are torn apart, and some return home with post traumatic stress disorder/night terrors for the rest of their lives here on Earth.

    Was it all worth it ? Do you think the majority of Americans feel safer ? If your son or daughter died on the battle field in Iraq would you ,as a parent, be angry because he or she was initially sent there by the Bush administration to destroy WMDs that were never found ??

    I would be.

  20. Iceironman says:

    How quickley we change history and forget the many resolutions sadam didnt comply with. I would be pissed if my son or daughter died and the people in Washington were saying the war is lost and my son or daughter was raping and killing innocent people. I would be mad if all the dems said the exact same thing as bush at the same time and years earlier, again, selective memory. I suppose with Iran, we shall sit back and take the chance that a mad man will kill my children. Either way, they die. The men and women chose to go to war when they signed up and continue to sign up DURING the war. I would be very proud that my offspring helped free millions of oppressed people. No more body dumps for people with opposing views. I could say my son or daughter facilitated that VOLENTEERALY. I suppose you are out at the court house with your anti Obama sign right now arent you.

    Blame Obama now, we are still in Iraq, he promised we would leave. Afganistan is pumped up with troops.

  21. Andy says:

    @Iceironman-

    Rewriting or changing history is absolutely what is wrong with the Iraqi Invasion. Just like the infamous Obama “birthers” no matter how much evidence, or in this case, lack of evidence (NO WMD’S – NO IRAQI NUKES), some people still want to cling tight to their version of the truth as to why we went to war.

    You said:

    “I would be very proud that my offspring helped free millions of oppressed people.”

    If this was the sole basis for determining whether or not America should have invaded Iraq, me thinks the invasion would have never taken place. How do you think that sales pitch would have gone over with the American people ? If America went to war solely on the basis of helping millions of “oppressed people”, hell we’d be taking on half the planet. Maybe Bush and Co. knew they had to come up with a much, much scarier version to coerice the American people into believing war was the ONLY viable option. I believe Tenet said it best with his “Slam dunk” comment on sealing the deal for war.

    Quite frankly, I’m amazed you still think the Invasion of Iraq was justified.

    Who’s next Iceironman ? According to your previous statement:

    “I suppose with Iran, we shall sit back and take the chance that a mad man will kill my children.”

    You sound like you want to mount up and invade Iran next ? Would this be a wise move to make at this juncture ? Do you not think China and Russia are watching the us (the USA) spin our wheels and burn through billions of dollars freeing oppressed people ? Don’t bother paying any attention to the continual surfacing US military reports that warn:

    The American Military Forcees Are Stretched Too Thin.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/06/us-armed-forces-stretched-thin/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/19/military-poll-us-armed-fo_n_87470.html

    One little bit of information, you might want to consider is this:

    Sometimes war is not the answer.

    Seems simple, but history has shown us again and again it is true. This doesn’t take away from the fact war is sometimes necessary, but for the sake of Iraq, I would beg to differ.

    Again, our country has lost lives, resources and credibility by unnessarily invading Iraq. What did we gain ??? Are we safer ???

    You can continue to cheerlead about Sadam being a “bad” man, who oppressed his own people, as justification for invading Iraq, but I’m not buying it all.

    I saw a bumper sticker a while back which read:

    “WHATS OUR OIL DOING UNDER THEIR SOIL?”

    Think about it.

    Invading Iraq had nothing to do about “freeing” “oppressed” people, and everything to do about the Texas Tea which just happened to be located under Iraq’s soil.

  22. Ice:

    Tell me if you would be willing to send your children to help save the citizens of Darfur, Burma, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, etc. from the ruthless dictators and rulers who butcher and oppress their citizens.

    So if ruthless rulers are our criteria, then let’s get moving so we can save those hundreds of thousands of lives who are in danger of being snuffed out.

  23. Andy says:

    Surprise – Even more fearmongering surfaces during the Bush years:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090820/pl_afp/usattackspoliticsridge

    From the story:

    ” Then defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and attorney general John Ashcroft pushed him to elevate the color-coded threat level, but Ridge refused, according to a summary from his publisher, Thomas Dunne Books.”

    At least Tom Ridge had the decency and integrity to stand up to Rumfeld and Ashcroft.

  24. Iceironman says:

    Any U.N resolutions not followed? Any oil for food scandles that led to other countries not going in?? End of story. And yes, If my children serve, getty up, kick some evil butt, but make sure the hippies dont interfere and bring them home before the job is complete or spit on them..

  25. Ice:

    Time to let go of the hippie thing. You apparently have not done any research on the hippie movement. Hippies were a small movement in comparison to the full anti-war movement. They inherited counterculture values from the 1950s “Beat” generation. The hippies weren’t the first group to express the counterculture values that you hold in disdain. Their mentors were those from the “greatest generation.” Shocker, right?

    I don’t have time to go into the anti-war movement, but you need to research it so you understand it wasn’t hippies who started it – it was a combination of pacifist groups such as Quakers as well as college students.

    End of story – how? Do you support sending troops to save Darfur and Sudan? Simple question.

  26. Andy says:

    @Iceironman-

    End of story ? Regarding what, the Invasion of Iraq ? The Bush years ??

    Apparently not. As Tom Ridge suggests, there definitely is MORE to the story then what we were told and led to believe.

    Let’s see…. conjuring up and hyping a false national security threat for none other than (drum roll please):

    POLITICAL GAIN !

    Fabulous. This ranks right up there with Nixon and the Watergate Scandal. The abuse of power at the highest level of the land.

    The whole outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame is another example of how far the Bush administration would go to silence their critics and obtain their objectives.

    And to think this same administration approved the use of torture, but fails to realize, by doing so, the we (America) gives up what little moral ground it has. Whatever enemies we had in the world, invading Iraq and torturing the enemy combatants, only doubled it.

    I have to wonder what other truths will emerge in the months/years ahead.

    I truly think I witnessed one of the more darker times in our country’s history with the Bush administration.

    So much propaganda and BS was being circulated and “reported” by the FOX news crowd during the last 8 yrs, it was mind blowing.

    If you disagreed OR dared to question the Invasion of Iraq, you were labeled a traitor by some, unpatriotic by others, and told “whether you agree with the decision to go to war or not, you should shut up and support it”.

    I remember the “Rally for America” that was held in Auburn right after the invasion of Iraq took place. FW’s own Matt Kelty helped organize it and among its guests was FOX’s own Glenn Beck. Signs which read: “KICK ASS USA” were held up in the crowd. There is nothing wrong with being patriotic, thankful to be an American, or supporting our troops. What I do have a problem with is the bellicose nationalists. The people who all to often are the first to pound on their chests, wrap themselves in the American flag and talk about America “kicking ass” at the drop of a hat.

    These are the people who deeply concern me, and should concern every American.

    A reasonable and rational person knows that war should always be the option of last resort. In the case of Iraq, there was absolutely no credible evidence that the country presented a “clear and present” danger to the U.S. and “needed” to be invaded ASAP. Again, there are many bad, evil dictators in the world. If America invaded every country we had a disagreement with, it would be disastrous and futile for our own country.

    I believe the Bush administration cried “wolf” in regards to Iraq. And when you cry wolf, and you over exaggerate your claim, people will be less inclined to believe you when the next serious threat occurs.

    In my opinion, the Iraq Invasion presented an opportunity for a small group of people (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove, etc.) who were hell-bent and used every trick they could think of, to send America’s sons and daughters into harms way.

    As much as you would probably like to sweep the Bush years under the rug, his administration and the Iraq War Invasion need to be kept in people’s minds for many, many years to come, in the hope that a similar situation (war) will never happen again.

  27. Iceironman says:

    Andy, any U.N resolutions broken by Iraq??? Any oil for food scandels??? end of story.

  28. Iceironman says:

    The elephant of healthcare is still out there Charlotte, come on, your reps are voting on things that dont exist. Then they blame us for being scared about what doesnt “exist” even though they do not know what “exists” in the bill. Cradle to grave, Even my senator the Great Sherrod Brown said that it is time for govt to compete against health insurance companys. Im real sure that the founders thought govts duty was to “compete” against the businesses of this country both large and small.

  29. Andy says:

    @Iceironman –

    Again, according to you, the Invasion of Iraq is “end of story”.

    You cite Iraq’s failure to comply with UN resolutions as sufficient reason to invade a country.

    Using YOUR logic, I guess it would seem perfectly reasonable and prudent for the United States to also invade the following countries that are currently in violation of UN resolutions:

    TURKEY:

    353 (1974) Turkey
    Calls on nations to respect the sovereignty, independence,
    and territorial integrity of Cyprus and
    for the withdrawal without delay of foreign
    troops from Cyprus.

    1251 (1999) Turkey/Cyprus
    Reiterates call for a substantial reduction
    of foreign troops and reduction
    in military spending.

    ISRAEL:

    904 (1994) Israel
    Calls upon Israel, as the occupying
    power, “to take and implement measures,
    inter alia, confiscation of arms,
    with the aim of preventing illegal acts
    of violence by settlers.”

    1405 (2002) Israel
    Calls for UN inspectors to investigate
    civilian deaths during an Israeli
    assault on the Jenin refugee camp.

    1435 (2002) Israel
    Calls on Israel to withdraw to positions
    of September 2000 and end its military activities in and around
    Ramallah, including the destruction
    of security and civilian infrastructure.

    INDONESIA

    1319 (2000) Indonesia
    Insists that Indonesia “take immediate
    additional steps, in fulfillment of
    its responsibilities, to disarm and disband
    the militia immediately, restore
    law and order in the affected areas of
    West Timor, ensure safety and security
    in the refugee camps and for
    humanitarian workers, and prevent
    incursions into East Timor.”

    But it doesn’t stop there. We (United States) would also be looking at invading:

    India, Croatia, Morocco, Armenia, Sudan, and others.

Comments are closed.