Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us


Libs Terrified Of New ID That Could Be Issued For All, Dividing Nation Into 2 Groups

We need this Now!



Uh Oh! Once again the left in this country is upset at the fact that the rule of law must be enforced if we are to be a sovereign nation.

Hot Air is now reporting that in the near future you might need to provide additional documentation to verify your identity and to establish your legal residency status in order to receive a Real ID compliant identification card. Although in most cases you will probably still be able to get a non-compliant ID.

The non-compliant ID won’t be able to be used to board a plane or to enter federal courthouses among other things. This is part of the 2005 security package passed by Congress after the 9/11 attacks which interestingly enough hasn’t been implemented in 13 years.

Although this is a great idea in this day an age, you will always find a leftist ready to whine about the 13-year-old law. As written by David L Ulin of the Los Angeles Times:

Trending: In Historic 9-0 Decision, Supreme Court Just Shredded Democrats – YUGE!!!!

“I got my driver’s license renewal notice from the DMV the other day. This time, I was informed, I’d have to renew in person, although I could make the process easier by completing my application online. When I tried, however, I got an error message. I could not submit an online application if I wanted a license that was also a Real ID.

If you don’t know about Real ID, you’re not alone. It was mandated in 2005 by Congress after the 9/11 Commission recommended federal standards for identification. But the whole notion of a national-type ID card was derided by civil libertarians and privacy activists — rightly, I’d suggest — as un-American.

Real IDs carry the same information as your old driver’s license, along with a variety of safeguards to make them more difficult to counterfeit. To receive one, however, you must meet a new federal standard proving you are who you say you are and you live where you say you do.

In July 2017, then-Homeland Security director John Kelly announced a 2020 deadline for compliance. “It is a critically important 9/11 Commission recommendation that others have been willing to ignore,” Kelly scolded, “but I will not.”

Just what every Californian needs: More complications at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Here is a list of what I was told to bring to my appointment: an identity document, such as a passport or a certified birth certificate; verification of my SSN in the form of a Social Security card or an income tax return; and proof of California residence — a utility bill, for instance, with my name and address.

As it happens, I have these items, although I’m not thrilled about showing my taxes to the DMV when the president hasn’t done the same to the American people.

But what about those who can’t put their hands on such documents? Passports are expensive: $110 for the application and an additional $35 “execution fee.” And let’s be honest, “identity documents” have everything to do with citizenship and immigration status. (If you weren’t born in the U.S., you have to provide a certificate of naturalization or a green card equivalent.) As for proof of residence, that will be hard to produce for those who can’t afford a stable living situation, who stay with friends or family, or pay weekly or monthly rates at a motel.

There is an option: Get an un-enhanced license. California, along with many other states, still offers licenses that are “non-compliant,” although after October 2020, they won’t be accepted at airports or get you into many federal buildings — courthouses, for example. Over time, who knows who else will demand Real ID. Employers? States that pass voter ID laws?

So, let’s review. As of 2020, if you want to travel within your own country by air, you will have to have Real ID or a passport. If you want an ID that isn’t stamped “Federal limits apply,” you will have to document your legality.

The government expressly claims this isn’t a national identification system, but please: You either will have the proper “papers” or you won’t.

“A federal law that aims to conscript the states into creating a national ID system … is precisely the kind of scheme that the framers expected that federalism would guard against,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the World Privacy Forum argued in 2007 against the first iteration of the law.

Equally troubling is the further development of what we might call a two-tier America, based on immigration status and economic opportunity. Even the Department of Homeland Security acknowledges that noncompliant IDs could be a red flag for discrimination.

“DHS cautions against assuming that possession of a noncompliant card indicates the holder is an undocumented individual,” reads the answer to an FAQ on the agency’s website.

Enter the Fray: First takes on the news of the minute from L.A. Times Opinion »
The issue is particularly relevant in California, where by law more than a million residents who are in the country illegally have already gotten driver’s licenses. This is good policy, enhancing road safety among other benefits. Can anyone question that it will be compromised by IDs that single out citizens and legal immigrants by design?

Not long after the attack on the twin towers, I saw a news report in which a man stood in a security line at LAX and complained about having to show ID at all. “This is America,” he said. No one had the heart to tell him America had changed.

Without Real ID, the U.S. has not experienced another 9/11-scale attack, and terrorism remains (thankfully, fortunately) an abstraction to most of us. If another strike is brewing, IDs will not protect us. The 9/11 hijackers, remember, had passports, and all but one had legal visas that would have allowed them to travel freely in the United States even under Real ID rules.

Real ID won’t make us safer, it will only divide us. “Federal limits apply”? Can there be a redder flag in these dark and distrustful times?”

As you can see in the above editorial, Ulin desperately tried to link the new ID requirements with a host of other divisive social issues. He erroneously claims that they will pit the poor against the rich and minorities against whites, and so on. But since this is the L.A. Times, we all know that what he’s really trying to say is that this will make it harder for illegal aliens to be “normalized” into our society. This program is going to divide the documented from the undocumented, as it should be in any sovereign nation, as it is in Mexico and all other Latin American nations.

It’s obvious that since Ulin is in California he is really after the agenda of the Illegal Alien. Because as a fellow Californian myself I can tell you this state doesn’t care about the poor, if it did our large Democrat majority state government wouldn’t be taxing us to poverty at every turn.


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.


Dem Lawmaker Wants To Make Criminals Out Of People By Making A New ‘Hate Crime’

There seems to be some Constitutional issues with this

Right Wing News



As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service in the world, RWN offers the following information published by DownTrend

Well, I guess this is one way to cut down on the number of black people in jail. A New York State lawmaker is proposing making it a hate crime to call the police on black people. If you think I’m making this up or overreacting to something, check out this headline from The Patch, which says the same:

Calling 911 On Black People May Be Hate Crime Under Proposed Law

And the article backs that headline up:

New Yorkers who call 911 on law-abiding people of color are committing hate crimes and should be prosecuted, according to a state senator who was recently reported to police for campaigning in his own district.

State Senator Jesse Hamilton, who represents Brownsville, Crown Heights and Flatbush, proposed new legislation a week after a self-described Trump fan called police to report him for speaking to constituents in public. It would criminalize 911 calls against people of color without evidence of malice.

“That’s gonna be a hate crime. This pattern of calling the police on black people going about their business and participating in the life of our country has to stop,” said Hamilton.

Try to guess the race and political party of this guy. If you said white and Republican you were way off.

The deal is, there have been a handful of incidents in which white or non-black people have called the police on black people for doing things that were determined not to be a crime. The natural knee-jerk reaction is to make a law for something that isn’t even remotely a problem.

The law however would be a huge problem. If people know they could get slapped with a hate crime charge, they would be reluctant to ever call the police on a black person no matter what kind of heinous crime they appear to be committing. The onus should not be on average citizens to determine the guilt of a person they think is committing a crime. The easiest solution is for 911 operators to weed out the silly calls and not send police when someone reports something that very clearly is not a crime.

I have more than a few questions about this proposed law: Would it still be okay to call the police on white people. I’m assuming yes. Could black people call the police on other black people? How do Asians and Hispanics figure into this law? Oh, and what about illegal aliens who have sanctuary in NY and are above the law? Can they call the police on black people?

There also seems to be some Constitutional issues with this proposed law because it specifically makes it a hate crime to call the police on black people. It would still be a dumb law if it included all people of all races, but making it race-specific like this is a clear violation of equal protection under the law.

The clarification the news gave on this proposed law doesn’t make it seem any less terrible:

Hamilton’s proposal would strengthen current legislation that outlaws false reports by designating racially-motivated 911 calls as hate crimes, especially in instances where the call results in police responding with the preconception that the person might cause a threat. Read More

Continue Reading


Man Found Contracts Showing Obama Was Paying Trump Spy – Obama Tried To Shut Him Up By Stripping Security Clearance

Obama-appointed officials cleaned house



A man named Adam Lovinger lost his security clearances after complaining about the questionable government contract that was awarded to Stefan Halper, who is being touted as an FBI informant whose job was to keep an eye on President Trump’s campaign. Who stripped the clearances, you might ask? It’s being reported that it was Obama-appointed officials who cleaned house and ripped Lovinger’s clearances away, presenting to us quite a concern that involves contracts and clashing forces within the government who either supported Obama then or support Trump now. Either way, it’s a mess.

Lovinger was reportedly complaining about Halper’s contracts back in 2016. He then lost his clearances on May 1, 2017. Lovinger’s lawyer, Sean M. Bigley, then complained to the Pentagon’s senior ethics official, mad that Lovinger’s “higher ups” were basically punishing him with the whole security clearance thing – punishing him for complaining about the deals that were given to Mr. Halper and apparently a “best friend” of Chelsea Clinton, as per the Washington Times.

The Washington Times called this out, as well as numerous other sites who wanted the public to be notified about what was going on behind closed doors. Since John Brennan just lost his security clearances, it was probably just another relative topic to bring up someone else who lost their clearances as well. However the big problem is why they lost their clearances and how it ties back to Obama’s administration, and perhaps even Hillary Clinton on a long stretch. Rather than point fingers at two particular names, it might just be the entire Democratic Party. However it goes, it’s up to the public to absorb the information and make their own decisions.

Anytime these news stories are breaking the headlines, it’s always important to take in all the information and figure out what’s going on. Then share the story with people who would enjoy it. If you’re up for a good bit of government drama, then this is right up your political alley!

Here’s a brief summary that details most of what happened:

“As it turns out, one of the two contractors Mr. Lovinger explicitly warned his ONA superiors about misusing in 2016 was none other than Mr. Halper,” Mr. Bigley wrote in his ethics complaint, which called the contracts “cronyism and corruption.”

Mr. Lovinger filed a whistleblower reprisal complaint in May with the Defense Department inspector general against James Baker, director of the Office of Net Assessment. The complaint also singles out Washington Headquarters Services, a Pentagon support agency that awarded the Halper contracts totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In an internal October 2016 email to higher-ups, Mr. Lovinger wrote of “the moral hazard associated with the Washington Headquarters Services contracting with Stefan Halper,” the complaint said. It said Mr. Baker hired Mr. Halper to “conduct foreign relations,” a job that should be confined to government officials.

“It was a topic of conversation within the office,” Mr. Bigley told The Times. “What is Halper doing, and why is he being paid astronomically more than others similarly situated?”

The Office of Net Assessment conducts analyses of future threats and ways to defeat them.

“Nobody in the office seemed to know what Halper was doing for his money,” Mr. Bigley said. “Adam said Jim Baker, the director, kept Halper’s contracts very close to the vest. And nobody seemed to have any idea what he was doing at the time. He subcontracted out a good chunk of it to other academics. He would compile them all and then collect the balance as his fee as a middleman. That was very unusual.”

Mr. Bigley told The Times that the inspector general’s criminal investigative division has interviewed Mr. Lovinger about Office of Net Assessment contracting.

In all, Mr. Lovinger has four cases pending: whistleblower reprisal, criminal division, an ethics complaint and an appeal on his security clearance revocation.

A spokesman told The Times that the Pentagon would not comment on the case’s merits.

The spokesman said the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudicaitons Facility reviewed Mr. Lovinger’s clearance.

It then “issued a statement of reasons stating why, under [federal guidelines] it would not be clearly consistent with the national interest to continue Mr. Lovinger’s security clearance, and he was provided with the opportunity to respond to the security concerns,” the spokesman said. “After considering all available information, the CAF issued an unfavorable clearance determination and Mr. Lovinger’s clearance was revoked.”

Mr. Bigley said the conflict is that the consolidated authority resides within the Washington Headquarters Services, which is the target of Mr. Lovinger’s complaint.

“The CAF’s entire ‘adjudication’ of this case was orchestrated by corrupt officials at WHS, which was demonstrated numerous times throughout the process,” he said.

To conservatives, Mr. Lovinger is a victim of the “deep state” — Obama loyalists out to harm the Trump administration.

Press reports identified Mr. Halper as a paid FBI confidential human source, whose mission was to make contacts with Trump campaign workers. The FBI was investigating any Trump ties to Moscow at a time when its intelligence officers were hacking Democratic Party computers.”

After lodging his complaints about the Office of Net Assessment’s outside research in general and Mr. Halper specifically, Mr. Lovinger sought an assignment to the Trump White House national security staff in January 2017. He was soon confronted with allegations from Mr. Baker that he failed to follow security rules. Mr. Lovinger denies any wrongdoing.

Mr. Baker was appointed chief of the Office of Net Assessment in 2015 by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, Mr. Obama’s appointee.

The Washington Headquarters Services, which revoked Mr. Lovinger’s clearance, is headed by Barbara Westgate, who was appointed in 2016.

Perhaps the most intriguing narrative in the Lovinger story is the appearance of Mr. Halper, a national security consultant in the U.S. and Britain who is tied to that country’s MI6 spy agency through his business partner.”

Continue Reading

Thanks for sharing!

We'd like to invite you to become a RWN insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend