I am in Arizona to attend a conference (no boycott here) and something quite troubling happened to me. I was asked for my identification. In fact, I was asked for my ID several times within the first hour of being in the state. I was asked for identification when I picked up my rental car and then I was asked for my identification when I checked into the hotel. Fortunately for me I had identification that meets the Arizona requirement to assume I am here legally. I am, of course, an American citizen and would not have been insulted if I had no ID and they checked my immigration status.

It is quite obvious that I do not meet the demographic of an illegal in this part of our country but we cannot single out people based on what they look like because that would be profiling and even though profiling is an important part of police work, it is not allowed unless the government wants to go after conservatives. Then it is OK for them to put out reports that profile certain groups of people and decide that they might be domstic terrorists based on the profile.

That is the only time it is allowed. Nearly all acts of terrorism over the last 20 years or so have been committed by Middle Eastern men between the ages of 18 and 45. Armed with that handy bit of information our government refuses to give closer scrutiny to that group so as not to offend the people most likely to commit terror. Instead the government would rather harass little old ladies. As far as I know, little old ladies have never been involved in terrorist acts here in the US.

I had no problem showing my ID in Arizona. The truth is I am asked for my ID thousands of times a year. I was asked for my ID by TSA today before I was allowed to board the aircraft. If I did not have ID they could have denied me entry or detained me. I am asked for my ID when I travel, cash a check, use a credit card, when I got my license, when I took my nursing license exam and my specialty certification exam, my EMT exam, and I was asked to show my ID when I applied for (and when I renewed) my passport. I was even asked for ID when I opened a bank account and the information collected was shared with DHS. If I did not do things right I would have suffered the consequences. Illegals, on the other hand are not suffering enough yet because they keep coming here.

Those are perfectly OK in the eyes of our government and if I did not have ID the government would be OK with anything negative that happened as a result of not having the ID. Arizona asked me for ID and I would have been refused my car and my hotel room without it.

But ask certain other groups for ID and then have consequences for anyone who does not have it and all hell breaks loose.

Only in the backwards world of progressives can the government side with illegals and another country against a state for actually upholding the law and at the same time ignore sanctuary cities who by definition break the law and encourage others to do so.

How does the left justify this?

As for you Arizona, I was happy to provide my ID and did not consider it profiling, racial or otherwise. I considered it following the rules…

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

For the longest time Republicans have been trying to pass laws that require people to show an identification card prior to being allowed to vote. This has met with resistance from the ACLU and the Democratic Party, both of whom state that an ID requirement will make it harder for people to vote. The claim is that the poor and the elderly are not likely to have a driver’s license so they would not be able to vote. This is hogwash because there are many forms of identification that may be used.

Many states offer an identification card from the motor vehicle administration. It is a state provided ID and may be used for voting. The argument goes that the elderly and the poor, particularly minorities, do not have these IDs and they have no means to get them. Again, this is hogwash. First of all very few people are without an ID. People need them to board planes, to cash checks and to get into some state and federal buildings. People who get welfare or have food stamps have to provide ID to use those hand outs so trust me, they have an ID. Those who are complaining because they do not have one would certainly get one if the government said they would give $100 dollar bills to people with an ID. Ids are not hard to get and most people have them. Those poor minorities that the Democrats cry about need ID to cash welfare checks (or to open a bank account for the direct deposit).

The real reason that Democrats and the ACLU oppose IDs to vote is because requiring an ID reduces the amount of fraud that takes place. People cannot vote as another person because they must have a photo ID. ID requirements mean that dead Democrats will no longer be allowed to vote and which will be a novelty for cities like Chicago and Baltimore.

The ACLU and the Democrats oppose this because removing the ability to cheat drastically reduces the chance that liberals win office.

Today, the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s law requiring voters to show photo IDs at the polls. This is a common sense rule and does not conflict with the Constitution but the liberal idiots on the court were, of course, against the whole idea. Justice Souter wrote:

“Indiana’s ‘Voter ID Law’ threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting right of tens of thousands of the State’s citizens,” wrote Souter, who predicted that “a significant percentage of those individuals are likely to be deterred from voting.” The Hill

He is, of course, wrong. I have already pointed out how the arguments against are wrong. I would also point out that these very liberals who say that we are imposing non trivial burdens on the voting rights of citizens have no objection to imposing non trivial burdens on the rights of people to keep and bear arms. If a person must show an ID to buy a gun and then go through a background check and this is seen as reasonable then why is it unreasonable to expect a person to show ID to vote?

I would like Justice Souter to explain this but he is preoccupied with his bout of rectal-cranial inversion.

What do you need an ID to do in this country?

1. Apply for a passport
2. Board an airplane
3. Enter a federal building
4. Open a bank account
5. Buy alcohol
6. Buy tobacco
7. Cash a check

Certainly voting is more important than any of these things. Certainly our system of voting is important enough to be safeguarded from illegal activity.

The next important step will be for us to require proof of citizenship before one is allowed to register to vote. We have to prove it to get a job (which makes me wonder how so many ILLEGALS slip through the cracks) so proof of citizenship to register to vote only makes sense. The law says only citizens may vote so why not have a way of proving they are the only ones doing it?

One step at a time. This is the first and it is a good one.