1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them; and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure,
the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy,
its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
— Winston Churchill
Subject: Repeal the REAL ID Act
Please don’t try to fix the REAL ID Act. Please, just repeal it.
Seven years ago, the Senate passed the REAL ID Act.
It passed only because it was attached to a bill authorizing war spending and tsunami relief.
I’m thankful that it hasn’t yet been fully implemented. But REAL ID, or some other form of a national ID system, is still possible.
The only real way to prevent a national ID is to repeal REAL ID and order the Administration to stop devising similar programs.
You MUST do this, for these reasons:
1. There is zero Constitutional authority for the federal government to either regulate state ID cards or impose a national identification system.
2. REAL ID would put my personal information into a federal database, making it MORE vulnerable to hacking and theft.
3. When fully implemented nationwide, I wouldn’t be able to board a plane without a REAL ID card – even though the Constitution protects my right to travel across state lines.
4. REAL ID imposes unconstitutional, unfunded mandates on the states. That’s why, in large part, 25 of them are resisting. This makes REAL ID unworkable and futile.
5. REAL ID creates obstacles to the elderly, poor, divorced women, and others who may have trouble finding all the required documents to “prove” their identity.
6. REAL ID would NOT have prevented 9/11! All but two of the 9/11 hijackers were in the U.S. legally and could have obtained a REAL ID card, and ALL of them had a passport allowing them to fly. (http://tinyurl.com/8xllv7q)
7. If fully implemented, REAL ID will soon be mandatory in order to make a living. One Presidential candidate is already proposing we all need one. And we all know that such an ID will eventually contain tracking technology.
Instead of stopping terrorism or illegal immigration, REAL ID only makes life more difficult for innocent Americans.
Respect your oath of office. Use common sense. Respect human dignity and freedom.
REPEAL REAL ID, and stop every other national ID program.
Subject: Hands off the Internet!
As a constituent, I insist that you oppose any attempts to undermine Internet freedom.
I oppose CISPA, the supposed “cybersecurity” bill that actually empowers the Megastate to grab my personal information for reasons that have nothing to do with cybersecurity.
It’s a backdoor run around the Fourth Amendment. In your heart, you know that.
And the Lieberman-Collins bill could make it even worse. I would authorize unelected bureaucrats to impose regulatory mandates on private firms.
That provokes questions…
* Do you really believe that regulators will know more than each company’s own engineers about the cyber threats those outfits face?
* Doesn’t regulation impose compliance costs that an enterprise might otherwise spend on innovative cybersecurity solutions?
* Each company has an interest in protecting itself from cyber threats, doesn’t it? Why then, is regulation necessary?
Regulation means inflexible, one-size-fits-all rules.
And it often means lost jobs.
Competition, however, promotes safety, quality, and innovation. Companies would create better cybersecurity defenses at lower cost over time.
It is possible that current federal law is outdated. It’s also possible that current law ties the hands of both private firms and governments to protect themselves from cyber attacks. If so, follow Julian Sanchez’s advice: allow narrowly-tailored information sharing that addresses cybersecurity threats only, yet protects my privacy. (http://bit.ly/JYtXKv)
Neither CISPA nor Lieberman-Collins achieves this. Instead, they go in opposite directions.
Oppose both! And know that your vote is a Constitutional matter. Make the wrong choice, and I will tell others of your contempt for the Fourth Amendment and hostility toward job creation.
I will be watching what you do.