Qui Tam, when I said, “let’s stipulate,” I was trying to say let me say for the sake of argument that the two points that I stipulated were true. That is, even though I don’t think they are true, let’s accept them as true and move on to the central argument that Dr. Swickard posed, and to my tangential argument that followed. 

Dr. Swickard argues: “Government in New Mexico must be clear as to the certainty of identification required in each situation, including if we must always have identification with us. That is the core issue our leaders must solve first. Any dialog about photo ID is wasted without understanding the certainty requirements for identification.”

Dr. Swickard further remarks on the inconvenience of carrying your papers and the indignity of being asked for them. I agree with Dr. Swickard.

My tangential argument is that if we are going to this trouble to verify who can and cannot vote, then why don’t we use the same ID to actually catch the nefarious characters who would lie about being eligible to vote? The terrorists are not going to stuff the ballot box. The unscrupulous employer is not going to entice the foreigner to leave his homeland because he seeks his vote. My central question remains: If a Voter ID, why not a National ID? It is obvious that I am opposed to the Voter ID, but I am willing to accept it if we have the National ID that might actually accomplish ballot integrity, but which, I think, would be more effective than a billion dollar border fence in actually keeping undocumented works out of the work place and which might also hinder the foreign terrorist.

My opinion is that the claims of Voter Fraud, and the complaints about New Mexico Drivers’ Licenses being collected by terrorists, are red herrings. My argument is that if a Voter ID was able to discern between friend and foe (the certainty question posed by Dr. Swickard), then would not that same ID be better employed finding the real bad guys who, I do not think, hang out at the voting booth.

Redundantly, Michael J. Flynn 

“…it took you more words than usual to spin my comment.”
 
Translation: Qui Tamese for, “I don’t want to actually dig out legitimate evidence relevant to the actual discussion, so I’m going to reply with another back-handed personal attack disguised as martyrdom and a link to yet another story that has nothing to do with the conversation.”
 
Seriously, what does birth of an American citizen (Anwar al-Awlaki) in Las Cruces forty years ago (and his departure from this state thirty-four years ago) have to do with our current driver’s license laws and voter identification of non-citizens that – despite evidence to the contrary – you still claim are voting here in quantity?

Wow IcarusPhoenix – it took you more words than usual to spin my comment. Don’t panic.

The caption under the photogragh in this article speaks volumes:

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=21621&pageid=&pagename

Qui Tam:
 
I merely asked a simple, non-personal, legitimate question about your statement – specifically, I asked you to support your statement with evidence, and you instead responded with further hyperbole and a personal attack.  For reasons passing understanding, you take every disagreement with your opinion as a personal attack, and tend to respond by calling the offending commenters liars, questioning their integrity, insisting that their disagreement with you is a defense of criminal activity (including on occasion things that aren’t actually illegal), and otherwise avoiding answering perfectly legitimate questions; indeed, even when claiming you’re being what you apparently consider “respectful” (as with your response to Mr. Flynn), you still lead with a personal attack (as in the very first line of the same reply)  When you then did post what I can only assume was your idea of evidence, you provided us with a year-and-a-half old link to a long-debunked conspiracy theory on an anti-Islamic website, a six-year old also-long-debunked story on the website of a notoriously conspiracy-obsessed ultra-right-wing PAC that they culled from two notoriously propaganda-riddled conservative “news” sites, and a whopping one actual news story that merely mentions an increase in border security over issues that no one here is denying.  How exactly is asking you to, for once, provide us with facts constitute a personal attack?
 
Mr. Flynn:
 
It’s those “long, long lines to have their papers checked” that I think is the biggest concern; there is great potential to abuse the system.  Just look at what Governor Walker did in Wisconsin, passing a restrictive voter identification law and then closing the MVDs in Democratic areas.

Respect law enforcement’s efforts, endeavor to keep our homeland secure:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/06/congresswoman-hizballah-jihadists-colluding-with-drug-cartels-on-mexican-border.html

http://www.alipac.us/article886.html

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S2419209.shtml?cat=500

Meanwhile, our legal Senior citizens are strip searched at airline boarding stations while New Mexico issues licenses to individuals are are literally in the act of commiting a crime.

Got reality?

Mick, I will respectfully reply. As to your stipulations, which I find hard to accept as genuine in regard to their intellectual honesty, one is too many and leaves a diminished overall security level adding to a work load that is already overburdened. As for the National ID, the idea of it’s inplimentation doesn’t bother me because I have nothing to worry about and I feel we all are already in a master government database of sorts anyway. My social security number is a form national id, if it’s needed for my financial background why not everything else? I think it is a fact that a national id would also make my life easier on a number of levels.

IcarusPhoenix – you take debate to such a far too personal level that your comments can hardly be taken seriously or into consideration. I will note that your incessant defense of illegal activity seems questionable and a bit creepy. 

qofdisks

I agree with everything that you said.

The question then remains; why insult voters?

Who would pay for this? Who would make sure that the good old boys didn’t get to waltz through the line, while the not so good old boys had to wait in long, long, long lines while their papers were checked.

Isn’t that how literacy checks used to work back in the Jim Crow days? (I am a Mississippi State Graduate and I have been a registered voter in Georgia, Mississippi and Florida.)

So, is this Voter ID thing just a ruse to suppress the vote?

As ever, Michael J. Flynn

Mick, why not a national ID?  Well, the application ($) for it would require an 18 page form asking every intrusive question you can imagine plus a DNA sample and a hair sample for drug test.  You would have to hire an attorney ($) just to fill it out to avoid indefinite detention. God help you if you lose it. Once the form is submitted, your status is set in concrete because changing ($) anything would require moving bureaucratic heaven and earth. Imagine the lead time on the card once your form is submitted. Would it require a follow up investigation ($) like a security clearance? If there is the slightest discrepancy in even a minuscule number of the forms, we will have people like QT jumping up and down screaming, “FRAUD”.  Where does the verification ($) end? 

Qui Tam et alii,

Let’s stipulate to the argument that terrorists flock to New Mexico to get their New Mexico Drivers’ Licenses.

Let’s further stipulate that dead people, terrorists, and others also vote illegally in large numbers in New Mexico Elections.

(I don’t agree with either stipulation, but let’s say that it is so.)

Isn’t that an even better argument for a National ID? Wouldn’t these rascals be caught when the try to get jobs, when they try to buy material for their weapons of mass destruction, when they try to buy property in which to house their radical houses of worship?

So, let’s boil this down to the very basic question: If a Voter ID, why not a National ID?

As ever, Michael J. Flynn

Qui Tam:
 
I was unaware that committing the crime of simply crossing the border without proper documentation, usually to find work, “endanger(s) the citizenry”.  Are you perhaps incapable of providing us with documented evidence, and only gave the knee-jerk sarcastic response because you still feel like your opinion is the same as fact?

IcarusPhoenix – when issuing a license to someone who is committing a crime doesn’t endanger the citizenry let us know.

New Mexico has made it increasingly more difficult for law enforcement agencies around the Nation. It is one thing to get off on allowing a certain segment of the State’s citizenry to be above the law and to have a inept Attorney General and incessantly criminal pool of Judges but it is quite another to spread the infection.

New Mexico’s current driver’s license laws endanger the entire Nation.
 
And your evidence for this all-encompassing hyperbole-ridden statement is…?

Mick, why bother with a card?  We could just micro-chip everybody at birth.  The chip would be capable of wireless download of every location you have ever been, recorded everything you have said or seen,  what you have ingested, your physical conditions and brain chemistry.  Why not?  We already can chip our pets and we do chip all our products. Each person can be scanned upon entry into every public building including courts, schools, stores and churches.  Money would be obsolete as your “worth” is tabulated by the number of credits assigned by the bank to your chip for your provisions.  Anyone caught un-chipped attempting to conduct a transaction of any kind will be indefinitely detained by the for profit prison industrial complex where they will receive an inmate chip. Each chip would have a serial number associated with it proceeded by the prefix, 666.

New Mexico’s current driver’s license laws endanger the entire Nation.

As I have often stated, I am ready to accept the concept of a Voter ID if at the same time we will have a National ID, which could be one and the same item. A tamper-proof document with biometric correlation. This would satisfy the certainty requirement.

Who doesn’t already carry a driver’s license? Well, apparently a lot of people, but, with the National ID, we could do like we do now for your driver’s license. If you do not have it when you ought to, like at a traffic stop, you get a ticket, which is often forgiven when you later produce your license. As to voting, we could continue the Provisional Vote. If you didn’t have your ID with you, then you could cast your Provisional Ballot, and then later come up with your ID. Of course, with biometric correlation, this should not be necessary since biometric readers could be at voting places (and in the Work Place).

If we are going to insult citizens as they vote by demanding a Voter ID card, then let’s impose the same requirement in the Work Place, at Casinos, at Bars, at Banks. If it’s such a simple thing, then why not? The National ID would verify that you were legal to work, that you had a solid enough financial statement to be able to gamble, that you were not a problem drinker, and that your bank account was sound. By the way, most credit agencies can already figure that out with the data they collect. A good private eye can get the rest from public records.

Of course it would be expensive at first. But, if we want to prove that we are not really trying to suppress the vote by adding more inconvenience and difficulty to what should be a pretty quick process, then let’s do the same thing in the Work Place and elsewhere. I’ve already heard the one about we have to insure that not a single fraudulent vote is cast. I’m for that, but how about not a single employer being able to exploit us all by exploiting the undocumented immigrants?

Actually, in my Work Place, I have a photo ID presented at all times for which I had to first provide my finger print, birth certificate, and life history.

So, biometric ID for everybody and no Voter ID without a National ID.

As ever, Michael J. Flynn