Your Papers Please? Today's News for October 18th

Daily Mail:

Why residents in some American states may soon need a passport for domestic air travel

They were previously allowed to use mere driving licenses.

But residents of some US states will soon require additional ID, such as passports, if they wish to embark on air travel - even if just domestically.

That's the new procedure on the horizon for people from states that have not yet introduced the standards required by the 2005 Real ID Act, which demands stricter regulations for state-issued IDs.

The states that haven't yet fallen into line each now have a grace period of three months to meet the revised criteria.

This deadline expires on 22 January 2018.

Travellers from states that miss the deadline will risk being detained at airport security and prevented from boarding flights if they don't have a passport or other TSA-approved form of identification, such as a green card, border crossing card or military ID.

This includes both international and domestic journeys.

Have you noticed how the U.S. has become ID obsessed?

Remember the old movies which showed some Soviet soldier demanding papers from civilians? Welcome to the USSA.

Regardless, January should be fun.

In other news...

The Hill:

Obama's DOJ slow-walked probe despite national security concerns

In their recent article in The Hill, John Solomon and Alison Spann reported on the Obama Justice Department's slow-walk investigation of Moscow's bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering "designed to grow Vladimir Putin's atomic energy business inside the United States."

Obama administration figures involved in the 2009-15 investigation include Robert Mueller, James Comey, Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe - all of whom are involved in some fashion in the current investigation of President Donald Trump's alleged collusion with Russia.

Despite extensive information as early as 2009 that Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm and that Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to benefit former President Bill Clinton's charitable foundation, Hillary Clinton's State Department and other government agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment (including Attorney General Eric Holder) unanimously approved the partial sale of the Canadian mining company, Uranium One, to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom in October 2010.

Multiple current and former government officials told The Hill they did not know whether the FBI or DOJ ever alerted committee members to the apparent Russian criminal activity. Likewise, major congressional figures were also kept in the dark.

The New York Times reported the Clinton Foundation bribe from the Russians in April 2015, and yet there was no outrage over it. If the media treated the Obama administration like they do Trump, Obama would have been run out of office or Clinton would have been in jail before she could have even run for office. Instead, the media ignored the story after the initial report.

Finally, in local Georgia news...

CNN:

Georgia GOP gubernatorial hopeful to hold bump fire stock giveaway

Georgia Republican gubernatorial candidate Michael Williams says he will give away a bump fire stock to show "solidarity with gun owners across the nation."

The devices, which are also known as bump stocks and allow semi-automatic weapons to fire at a rapid pace, became the focus of a public debate on gun violence in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, which left 58 people dead. The shooter used bump stocks to increase the carnage, authorities have said.

"The tragedy in Las Vegas broke my heart, but any talk of banning or regulating bump stocks is merely cheap political lip service from career politicians. In reality, the bump stock is the new, shiny object politicians are using to deceive voters into believing they are taking action against gun violence," Williams, a Georgia state senator, said in a statement. "Many firearms experts determined the Las Vegas shooter's use of a bump stock actually prevented more casualties and injuries due to its inconsistency, inaccuracy, and lack of control."

Disclaimer: I am against gun control in any form.

That said, I find this political stunt rather distasteful. Then again, creating legislation during a period of intense emotions is inherently dangerous.