Category — Pennsylvania

Visiting our families in Pennsylvania brought home just how little Barack Obama knows about small towns. They’re not bitter impoverished people clinging to racism, religion, and guns for solace. It’s not a place that can be dismissively referred to as “fly over” country like many liberal elites do.

It is populated by patriotic, God fearing people who love their families and neighbors. This was perfectly illustrated today by a local town. It held a chicken dinner for a cancer victim. A good old fashioned neighbor helping neighbor event that sold out in less than an hour. There aren’t any Whole Foods selling arugula to make an out of touch elite like Barack Obama happy, but it’s a place to love and respect none the less.

The media regurgitates Obama scripts on queue. For example, racist white people cost him Pennsylvania:

Obama’s crossover appeal didn’t seem to work so well in Pennsylvania, where he lost a significant portion of working-class whites and Catholic voters to rival Clinton.

Any credible analysis starts and ends with Obama calling small town Pennsylvanians racist gun totting Jesus freaks. Obama ceded PA to Clinton with those stupid, bigoted remarks.

If Barack has a wider race problem, it’s a self-inflicted wound. His mentor preaches racial intolerance from the pulpit. He called his grandmother a “typical white person” and said racism was bred into her. His wife isn’t proud of our country, and Obama is still hedging on the Wright issue:

“He went through experiences I never went through. I am the beneficiary of the civil rights movement,” said Obama.

Way to demonstrate backbone and leadership, Barack. Who in their right mind thinks the man who can’t take on a racist preacher can lead the free world?

Have WHAT in common?   Okay, you can peek….

In a study involving Dutch, American and Kurdish students, psychologists in the Netherlands found that the cliche is, in fact, true.  Young Amercans told the researchers that the qualities they would find unappealing in a potential mate included low intelligence and physical unattractiveness.  But they said their parents would object to a mate who was of a different ethnicity, was poor or lacked a good family background….The responses of Dutch and Kurdish student were similar.

The study was done at diploma windmill, the University of Groningen, by Abraham Buunk, Justin Park and Shelli Dubbs.  Coincidentally,  these names are very common in the hills of Pennsylvania (what are the odds?),  according to a Barack Obama strategist on promise of anonymity.  The strategist even described the rare double-hit phenomenon of name assignment, which occurs with names like Buunk-Bob Abraham, Billy-Park Justin and Shelli-May Dubbs.    Links provided by the Obama campaign.

The researchers went on to speculate that generational friction over mate-selection had some tenuous connection to social standing and genetic fitness, without any data to support their conclusion.  Genetic fitness for females, as secondary sexual characteristics, would also include huge hips, high testosterone levels, loud trumpeting voices as locating devices,  and broad asymmetrical faces,  like Hillary Clinton, Rosie O’Donnell and the Garafalo cow.  

They said something about it being evolutionary, too.  Go figure.  If low intelligence and physical unattractiveness are selected out,  what explains O’Donnell and the Garafalo cow.

Obama on small-town PA: Clinging religion, guns, xenophobia

Mayhill Fowler has more from Obama’s remarks at a San Francisco fundraiser Sunday, and they include an attempt to explain the resentment in small-town Pennsylvania that won’t be appreciated by some of the people whose votes Obama’s seeking:  [snip]

‘And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations’…

This is the BObama that is, not the polished suit on the stump.

BIG NEWS! Whatshisname - the guy with the Chris Dodd wattle - endorses Obama. Now if Obama gets John Mellencamp, Gary Hart, Gary Coleman, Carrot Top and David Soul, he’s packing for Pennsylvania Avenue!

BIGGER NEWS! Kerry found bigger loser than himself, and chose said loser as running mate in 2004. (There’s a management principle that describes this personality disorder.)

According to Michael Crowley of The New Republic, Bob Shrum, Kerry’s campaign manager will report in a forthcoming book that Kerry had qualms about choosing Edwards as his presidential running mate in 2004, and became “even queasier”after Edwards said he was going to share a story with Kerry that he’d never told anyone else. The story was that after Edwards’ son, Wade, had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home and hugged his body, and promised that he would do all he could to make life better for people.

Trouble is, he told Kerry the same story a year or two earlier, with the same preface that he never told anyone the story before.

In June of this year the farm bill moving through Congress gave the House and Senate a chance to cut farm subsidies.

The Sugar Racket

[snip] Congress has provided a sweet deal for sugar growers since it imposed import tariffs on sugar in 1789. Controls on domestic sugar production date back to the Jones-Costigan Act of 1934.

[snip] By reforming sugar policies, they could cut food costs for average families, make U.S. manufacturing more competitive, and end unfair benefits for a small group of wealthy sugar barons.

Components of the Sugar Program
The purpose of U.S. sugar policies is to keep domestic prices artificially high. In recent decades, U.S. sugar prices have been typically two or more times higher than prices on world markets.[snip]

Guaranteed Prices.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture runs a complex loan program to support sugar prices. The USDA makes loans to sugar processors, who use their sugar as collateral. In return, processors agree to pay sugar growers certain minimum prices. If the market price of sugar rises, processors can sell their product on the market and pay back the loan. If the market price falls, processors can forfeit their sugar to the government and not repay their loans. The effect is to guarantee prices for both processors and growers. Sometimes other techniques are used to prop up prices, such as paying producers to discard their current inventories.

Trade Restrictions.
[snip] The government applies a two-tiered system of “tariff rate quotas” to limit imports. A lower “in-quota” tariff rate is for imports within a set quota volume. A higher “over-quota” rate applies to imports in excess of the quota. [snip]

Production Quotas.
In addition to controlling sugar imports, the government imposes quotas, or “marketing allotments,” on U.S. production. Each year, the USDA decides what total U.S. sugar production ought to be and then allots it 54.35 percent to beet sugar and 45.65 percent to cane sugar. [snip]
In sum, the sugar industry is a cartel that is centrally planned from Washington.

Effects of the Sugar Program
The taxpayer cost of sugar subsidies is expected to be $1.4 billion over the next decade. More important, federal sugar policies burden American consumers by creating high prices for sugar and for products that contain sugar. The Government Accountability Office estimated that federal sugar policies impose costs on sugar consumers of $1.9 billion annually.

Last year the U.S. Department of Commerce studied the economic effects of federal sugar policies and released a damning report that had five key findings:

• Employment in U.S. food businesses that use substantial amounts of sugar is declining.
• For each sugar-growing and sugar-harvesting job saved by current sugar policies, nearly three confectionary manufacturing jobs are lost.
• Sugar costs are a major reason why some U.S. sugar-using businesses are relocating their factories abroad.
• Numerous food companies have relocated to Canada, where sugar prices are less than half of U.S. prices, and Mexico, where prices are two-thirds as high.
• Imports of food products that contain sugar are growing rapidly because it is not competitive to manufacture those items in the United States.

[snip] Chicago, once the nation’s candy-manufacturing capital, has been hit hard with thousands of lost jobs. Candymaker Fannie May closed its factory in 2004, and Brach’s moved its candy production to Mexico in 2004 blaming high sugar prices. Kraft moved its 600-worker LifeSavers factory from Michigan to Canada in 2002 to access low-cost sugar. Hershey Foods closed plants in Pennsylvania, Colorado, and California and relocated them to Canada.

Sugar policies also cause environmental damage. Large areas of the Florida Everglades have been converted to cane sugar production because of federal protections and subsidies. Sugar production damages the Everglades by land drainage, habitat destruction, and the run-off of chemicals in the fertilizers used by sugar growers.

Conclusions
Given the negative economic and environmental effects of U.S. sugar programs, why do they persist? Because Congress often decides to confer benefits on a favored few at the expense of the general public. In this case, the favored few really are few—about 42 percent of all sugar program benefits go to just 1 percent of sugar growers. [snip]

The Washington Post lamented the political corruption caused by the federal “sugar racket.” More than that, sugar policies are a textbook case of economic damage done by big government intervention in the marketplace. [snip]

In winning the House last year, Democrats portrayed themselves as reformers willing to take on special interests for the benefit of average families. They also promised to run the most ethical Congress in history.

This one small sample of the damage done by congress to the economy is an ice cube to an iceberg. Large corporations such as ADM, Union Pacific, (yup, they farm just enough to collect the loot) among others receive the majority of what we think is going to Ma and Pa Kettle.

The price of wheat, corn, rice, soybeans and other grains are at all time highs. Ethanol use as a fuel raised corn so high that most production is going to fuel, not food. Milk price per hundredweight escalate yet we are subsidizing large and small farms for the production.

All this is a tax on your food, paid before the harvest. Meat and poultry prices shoot up as the outlay for feed climbs. Add the expense of shipping as fuel-operating costs rises; add the middlemen’s appropriation plus the retailer’s revenues to the subsidies for your costs.

Congress takes care of their donors, quite well and they will damn the public to enrich their coffers. The GOP punted on this in 1996 and 2000. So, don’t hold your politicians harmless. Very few of them are untainted. Perhaps the following will help with your ideas of how good the Democrats are.

Farm bill expanding subsides, food stamps passes Senate

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Senate on Friday approved a $286 billion farm bill with an election-year expansion of subsidies for growers and food stamps for the poor.

The bill, passed on a 79-14 vote, expands subsidies for wheat, barley, oat, soybeans and several other crops and creates new grants for vegetable and fruit growers.

It also increases loan rates for sugar producers, extends dairy programs and provides more dollars for renewable energy and conservation programs to protect environmentally sensitive farmland over the next five years.

Enjoy dinner.

Non-believing US voters feel demonized

One presidential hopeful is a preacher, another proudly Mormon, and most openly tout their Christianity. In an arena where faith can make or break a politician, the one in 10 Americans who profess no religion feel left in the cold.

“They’re very disconcerted,” said Darren Sherkat, an atheist sociology professor specializing in religion at Southern Illinois University. [snip]

I’m sure this gentleman has a solid religious background from which to expand his knowledge of faith and beliefs.

Ian Thomas, 25, got involved in political campaigning as a student and in 2005 ran for a place on the school board in his local district in Pennsylvania.

Days before the vote, a county council member emailed local community groups disparaging Thomas for having an atheist bumper sticker on his car, and for writing a letter about atheism to a local newspaper.

“They are entitled to their beliefs and free speech but it doesn’t make a sound foundation for elected officials who makes our laws … to promote an Atheist that we know anything about,” read the ungrammatical email, shown to AFP. [snip]

But they are also “the least tolerated group by conventional standards of religious toleration in the US,” Sherkat said. [snip]

One might say the sins of their “religion” are visited upon them; who believes the Missouri Synod or the Archdioceses of NY and DC sued to remove “In God We Trust” from coinage. Or wishes to eradicate the word God from general use. Why do they want “religious toleration” since they reject religion

“Legally, there is no religious test for office, but culturally there obviously is,” he said, as polls showed Republican Mike Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, surging ahead in key early nominating states. [snip]

More than one in 10 US adults have no religious affiliation, according to the census figures.

Having no religious affiliation does not default to atheism or agnosticism.

But a Gallup poll in February found more than half of voters would not back an otherwise well-qualified candidate from their favored party if that person was an atheist. [snip]

“The fair question would be to ask … will you impose your theology on civil law?”

And another fair question is, from what body of law was civil law derived? Heh?

“There is no candidate that an atheist would vote for … other than maybe Ron Paul,” Shermer said, naming a Tennessee lawmaker, a long-shot Republican contender.

“He’s a libertarian who feels absoutely (for) separation of church and state.”

“Many of the candidates would be acceptable to me regardless of their religious faith,” Stark told AFP. “Jimmy Carter (who became president in 1977) was perhaps the most personally strident conservative Christian — and I think he did a wonderful job.”

That last statement about sums it up; what further proof of the absence of reason is necessary, except that Ron Paul is from Texas.

 36 million drivers would flunk drivers tests

 Is it just your imagination, or do many of your fellow motorists lack even a rudimentary grasp of traffic laws?

Well, if a test administered by GMAC Insurance is any indication, one in six people cruising our highways and byways — roughly 36 million licensed drivers — would flunk their driver’s test if they had to take it today. Not only that, but based on the 2007 GMAC Insurance National Drivers Test data the state with the most road-going dummies is New York, while the most knowledgeable ones are out West to Idaho. [snip]

Also of interest from the GMAC Insurance test:

• Drivers 35 and older were more likely to pass
• Illinois, Georgia, Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Massachusetts were the least knowledgeable states overall, with average scores under 75 percent
• Fifty-five percent of the respondents didn’t know how many feet before making a left or right to signal. [snip]

The following state rankings were released for the 2007 GMAC Insurance National Drivers Test:

• 1. Idaho.
• 2. Alaska
• 21.Vermont
• 36. Maine
• 37. New Hampshire
• 40. Connecticut
• 46. Pennsylvania
• 47. Rhode Island
• 48. Massachusetts
• 48. New Jersey
• 51. New York

After analyzing the article, before glancing at the list, I thought population was the key. That would place Wyoming first and Vermont second. Not so.

Perhaps, I reflected, the political belief system of the states held a clue. That appears to work for the bottom states, but didn’t vindicate Wisconsin at 4, Washington at 6, Oregon at 9 or Iowa at 10.

Given that the 2007 failure rate doubled to 18% from 2006, a reason exists. Combining both posits advances one conclusion.

I’ll let the reader ponder the possibilities for others.

Sexual Misconduct Plagues US Schools

The young teacher hung his head, avoiding eye contact. Yes, he had touched a fifth-grader’s breast during recess. “I guess it was just lust of the flesh,” he told his boss.

That got Gary C. Lindsey fired from his first teaching job in Oelwein, Iowa. But it didn’t end his career. He taught for decades in Illinois and Iowa, fending off at least a half-dozen more abuse accusations.

When he finally surrendered his teaching license in 2004 - 40 years after that first little girl came forward - it wasn’t a principal or a state agency that ended his career. It was one persistent victim and her parents.

Lindsey’s case is just a small example of a widespread problem in American schools: sexual misconduct by the very teachers who are supposed to be nurturing the nation’s children. [snip]

An Associated Press investigation found more than 2,500 cases over five years in which educators were punished for actions from bizarre to sadistic.

There are 3 million public school teachers nationwide, most devoted to their work. Yet the number of abusive educators - nearly three for every school day - speaks to a much larger problem in a system that is stacked against victims. [snip]

Vermont has this problem just as other states do. All of the possible mixes have occurred.

According to this article, that’s slightly more than 500 a year. Called improper contact (don’t you love how correct that sounds) by “the wish to not offend” liberal structure, none of the actual deeds have reality. No molestation, sodomy, rape, or abuse takes place, just improper contact.

As one may see after reading the text, the victims’ anxiety, terror or self-deprecation is thrust aside when the professional is a well liked member of the faculty or staff.

Heather Kline was 12, a girl with a broad smile and blond hair pulled back tight. Teacher Troy Mansfield had cultivated her since she was in his third-grade class.

“Kids, like, idolized me because they thought I was, like, cool because he paid more attention to me,” says Kline, now 18, sitting at her mother’s kitchen table, sorting through a file of old poems and cards from Mansfield. “I was just like really comfortable. I could tell him anything.”

He never pushed her, just raised the stakes, bit by bit - a comment about how good she looked, a gift, a hug. She was sure she was in love.

By winter of seventh grade, he was sneaking her off in his car for an hour of sex, dropping in on her weekly baby-sitting duties, e-mailing about what clothes she should wear, about his sexual fantasies, about marriage and children.

Mansfield finally got caught by the girl’s mother, and his own words convicted him. [snip]

Victims also face consequences when teachers are punished.

In Pennsylvania, after news of teacher Troy Mansfield’s arrest hit, girls called Kline, his 12-year-old victim, a “slut” to her face. A teacher called her a “vixen.” Friends stopped talking to her. Kids no longer sat with her at lunch.
Her abuser, meanwhile, had been a popular teacher and football coach.

So, between rumors that she was pregnant or doing drugs and her own panic attacks and depression, Kline bounced between schools. At 16, she ran away to Nashville.

“I didn’t have my childhood,” says Kline, who’s back home now, working at a grocery cash register and hoping to get her GED so she can go to nursing school. “He had me so matured at so young.

Today’s parents have so much to do; there is no time to go with the kids. So drop them off at the mall, let them pal around with no one to say no. From nannies to au pairs, then the latchkey life with the computer as a companion, MySpace and Face Book giving guidance. For the parents, a social calamity is missing a nail appointment. Worse yet is missing a spinning class or being late for the Latte Club sip off.

When something untoward occurs, the powers wring hands and let us know how terrible the occurrence weighs on society. “Get them therapy” so they avoid depression, call in the grief counselors; show great liberal concern, all after the fact.

Providing a little bit of caring before the attack, may forestall the need for a youngster to look for approval in unsafe ways, from persons a child believes they can trust.

Perhaps Justice Ruth Ginsburg has the answer. She likes the answer found in Danish law; children at age twelve reach majority for all purposes except for contractual obligations.

Very liberal, it removes the criminal sanction; hey kids, no guilt and repercussions, act as you like.

This is how our justices think? Cashman up here did.

Oink! Oink! Senate Republicans still slobbering over earmarks

WASHINGTON (News) - Democrats might want to keep in mind the old rule in politics that you never stop an opponent while he’s committing suicide. They are about to have the distinct pleasure of watching a slew of Senate Republicans jump off a political cliff. [snip]

Take for example the roll call vote on Sen. Jim DeMint’s amendment to kill a provision in the Senate Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations bill directing $2 million to three construction projects for a college in Harlem.

The South Carolina Republican’s amendment would have struck the provision first inserted in the legislation by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. All three projects are named for Rangel.

But when it came time to vote on this crude effort by Rangel to use tax dollars to promote himself, it was preserved on a 61-34 vote. Two Democrats — Sen. Evan Bayh, Ind., and Sen. Russ Feingold, Wis. — voted for the DeMint amendment…[snip]

16 GOP Senators voted for the pork: Alexander—Tennessee, Bond—Missouri, Cochran and Lott—Mississippi, Collins—Maine, Craig—Idaho, Domenici–New Mexico, Hagel–Nebraska, Hatch–Utah, Lugar–Indiana, Murkowski and Stevens–Alaska, Shelby–Alabama, Specter–Pennsylvania, Voinovich—Ohio, and Warner–Virginia.

No New England Donk Senator voted no; they spend everything and would print more money if they could get away with it.

Sanders-VT votes for all government spending, at least he is truthful about it. He a communist, prefers the tern Progressive, who wants government running everything. Leahy-VT on the other hand, says he wants a democratic form of government, but votes like Sanders every chance he gets.

Four of the 16 GOP senators are leaving the senate: Craig, Domenici, Hagel and Lugar. Craig’s seat will be filled by a Conservative. Domenici is a toss up. Hagel and Lugar found they would not get past a primary, so ta-ta.

Collins has a fight; MoveOn has targeted her re-election. Any change with Collins seat would be cosmetic. She is as liberal as Leahy is.

Unless there is a big change in the philosophical makeup of who’s running, expect more of the same. If the above gang of RINO’s quit, the GOP picks up a different look and clout.

While you’re here, say hello to Juan. They are voting tomorrow to let him and his extended family have amnesty. Why he may even move in next door and diversify your neighborhood, overnight!

1,776 earmarks in the House defense bill

Porkbusters.org posted this list of earmark requests in 2007 defense spending bill.

[snip] Rep. C. W. Bill Young (R-Fla.), who chaired the subcommittee last year and previously chaired the full committee, tops the list with 59 projects. Rep. John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who chairs the subcommittee that oversees defense spending, came in second with 46. [snip]

Whatever your take on lawmaker-requested projects, this new era of disclosure sure gives everyone plenty of paper to pore over.

Rep. Peter Welch (D-Sap) oinked the House Defense bill for a measly 4 earmarks. He doesn’t seem to be working very hard for Vermont.

On the other hand, given the population of the state, the per capita amount might be greater than the other 49 states. Imagine, South Dakota and Kansas fronting all this loot to be squandered on some feel good project like a park bench. 

I remember Welch, during electioneering stops saying, “We need Change.” Peter, this is not the type of change we need.

The Obama campaign should consider shaking up its focus groups. The group receptive to sex education for kindergarteners needs a house cleaning:

“‘Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners,’” said Obama mimicking Keyes’ distinctive style of speech. “Which — I didn’t know what to tell him (laughter).”

“But it’s the right thing to do,” Obama continued, “to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools.”

Obama is either an empty suit, or his drug use rewired his synapses. Who, in their right mind, thinks children that far from puberty are ready for any kind of sex education? Apparently, it’s never too early for kids to learn how to put a condom on a banana.

And assuming Barack’s brain still functions properly, what politician isn’t smart enough to run from this issue like Superman from kryptonite? Obama is running for president, not the Illinois Legislature. Yes, as the Democrat, he’ll win California, but does this help him in Ohio and Pennsylvania? Doing the electoral math here doesn’t require a Harvard JD either.

Mr. Obama continues to explain the idea and provide a rationale:

…’Nobody’s suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,’ Obama said. ‘If they ask a teacher ‘where do babies come from,’ that providing information that the fact is that it’s not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing….

It’s just another parental responsibility the nanny state can do better. Politicians, like Obama, are saving our children from scarring childhood fibs. Maybe we should add debunking the Easter Bunny and Santa to the list too. The state has a compelling interest in nipping these childhood lies in the bud at the earliest possible age, so let’s put CD players with state approved messages in bassinets when kids are born. No worries though because the messages will be “age-appropriate”, so Jackie Collins novels are strictly off the list.

Obama is making Hillary look moderate. He scares me a lot more than she does.

He voted AYE along with a bunch of House RINO’s.

What’s in your wallet?

What’s a paltry one million dollars to a member of Congress?

Well, apparently not enough to know if an organization about to receive that big block of cash actually exists.

Republican Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona, the fiscal crusader who’s never met an earmark he likes, questioned Democratic Rep. Peter J. Visclosky of Indiana on the House floor Tuesday about whether the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure actually exists - since, hey, it’s getting like a million bucks or something.

Visclosky, who chairs the spending subcommittee responsible for the project, had to admit that, well, he didn’t have a clue. After a lengthy back-and-forth, Flake, complaining that his staff couldn’t find a website for the center, asked Visclosky, “Does the center currently exist?”
“At this time, I do not know,” the Indiana Democrat replied. “But if it does not exist, the monies could not go to it.”

And who could possibly be the sponsor of such an earmark? Yes, you guessed it, the man Republicans love to hate, Pennsylvania Democrat John P. Murtha. (emphasis mine)

Despite the money’s uncertain destination, the House rejected Flake’s measure to strike the funds, 326-98. And the Visclosky bill also sailed through, 312-112.

As I said, what’s one million dollars to a member of Congress?

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 641- see how your critter voted. The article had no links to this roll call vote. Can’t have that, can we.

With no budget agreement in sight, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell is threatening to furlough 24,000 state workers. Essential state services, like the state police, will continue operating throughout the budget battle. And although the governor thinks he’s pressuring Republicans to increase spending, didn’t he just identify 24,000 nonessential jobs? Far from needing a spending increase, Governor Rendell should review those positions and agencies with an eye to culling some fat.

In fact, all levels of government should conduct this kind of review. Let them slash their budget by 50%, identify the essential services, and reexamine everything that didn’t make the cut. But this will never happen because adding employees or benefit recipients is good for business.

And that my friends is why I never vote for overrides or tax increases.  There’s simply too much waste and no effort to contain it.

The Soviet Union had a national ID card; they called an internal passport. Making it a requirement sets up the citizenry for control by a secret police.

[snip] Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts has reintroduced his immigration bill (along with Senator Specter of Pennsylvania). The new bill, S. 1639, contains…[snip]

NATIONAL ID CARD POSES DANGERS FOR GUN OWNERS What the National ID Card requirement will do, instead, is to give an Attorney General (such as, for instance, former Attorney General Janet Reno) the unfettered discretion to make it dramatically more difficult and time consuming to get a driver’s license. This would apply equally to new applicants and to Americans who have had their drivers’ licenses for fifty years.

Thus, if an anti-gun administration determined that members of the militia constituted a threat to national security — and placed them on one of its “watch lists” — many gun owners could soon lose the ability to travel, open a bank account, drive, check into a hotel, cash a check, get a job, or PURCHASE A GUN from a dealer.

Seniors who could not locate their fifty-year-old Social Security cards or birth certificates (or persons who had had those documents lost or stolen) could face the same fate.

The law would also allow the federal government to determine the information which must be digitally encoded on the license. Therefore, an anti-gun administration could theoretically require that your license contain information about your concealed carry status. This will make it, to say the least, “interesting” when you are traveling in parts of the country which are antagonistic to gun rights.

Further, all of this personal information on you will be available nationally and internationally on a computer database LEGALLY accessible to millions of people… and illegally accessible to virtually anyone.

The good news is that a single non-compliant state — such as Montana — is probably enough to destroy the entire National ID Card system. But the immigration bill increases the consequences for a state like Montana by threatening to deny every citizen the opportunity to find a job.

IMMIGRATION BILL THREATENS JOBS AND GUNS

Here’s how. S. 1639 will require all private sector employees to be screened by an “electronic employee eligibility verification system” (Section 1(a)(5)(A)). And Title III of the bill stipulates that no employer will be able to hire you unless you possess identification that amounts to a National ID card.

Get the picture? No National ID card… no job.

The fact that section 302(c)(6) asserts that the required identification is not a “national identification card” is more a testimony to the lack of honesty of the supporters than it is to the actuality of federal requirements under the 2005 REAL ID Act. (We have seen these promises before. Remember when Social Security Cards used to explicitly state the number and card were never to be used for identification purposes?)

So Congress is threatening to retaliate against Montana, Washington, New Hampshire, South Carolina or any other state which has the temerity to resist its will. That’s why the Baucus amendment is so important. A vote for the Baucus amendment is a vote for privacy — especially the privacy of gun owners.

For those who don’t care to get an ID card, you can become a “Running Man.”