I can and will only speak and write for myself. If others take a liking to what I’ve shared then…thank you so much! If there are any people out there who don’t take a liking to what I share then…please evaluate the content and place words in their proper context. Most of all don’t forget about critical thinking as well as critical reading. Now then let’s move on.
I am apparently NOT the only person in America or on the earth for that matter who finds matters pursuant to freedom of speech getting not only twitchy, rude, and as some say – racist – over the word incompetent. Meaning of course, lacking the skills, qualities, or ability to do something properly; or being useless, inept, lacking the required ability to get something done.
How any reasonable person can possibly put the word incompetent and anyone who uses it is a racist is beyond me. Of course I saw the original spewing of the talking heads discussing how it was construed as being “a racially insensitive comment…that a person who just happened to be around 50 percent or less black or African” or whatever is in use today if you are following.
The point being that we believe that various and sundry factions of the American society are taking matters just a little too far, therefore as kind as can be, time to back-off for a while.
Seriously what is there remotely a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment when it comes to having a brand new form of identification with photo and all? We of course mean you want a driver’s license don’t you? So where is the racial profiling, voting disenfranchisement in existence with all of the grumbling? Oh I get it now…it’s not about the driver’s license at all – it’s just about the voting I.D. card that has the Department of Justice suing the several states.
When thinking about the XIV Amendment one should immediately think within the realms of the Equal Protection clause as well as the Separate but Equal and Due Process clauses that the Amendment is best suited. If anyone out there — reading has any questions think on this for a while — try and have some fun with it.
Federal law requires an ID for the purchase of the following:
Alcohols, cigarettes, lottery ticket, spray paint firearms, including a BB gun or pellet rifle (Guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment) Ammunition, including BB’s and pellets. Decongestants, applying for food stamps, or any public assistance funded by the federal government. Applying for Social Security, applying for unemployment insurance, or registering for Selective Service when a person turns 18.
In Washington D.C. an ID is required when you request free sand bags if there’s an imminent flood approaching.
ID is also required for: (Have fun with this part, I sure did!)
Taking a White House Tour, Michelle Obama required photo identification for those attending her book signing. In Chicago, photo identification required buying high grade cleaners (like you buy at a hardware store) and you have to sign a log book and date it. Securing a Post Office box, registration for college, photo identification required to work in a hospital, photo identification is required to pawn property, photo identification is required to rent an apartment, rent a car, and to rent equipment. Applying for a permit for a public event, i.e. a ‘protest rally’ a Driver’s license, applying for a federal job, a Passport, Airline travel, and to cash a check. Speaking of travel, to buy traveler’s checks, adopt a pet, apply for a loan or to open a bank account, acquire a Marriage License, apply for a mortgage, close on a home purchase, apply for a building permit, serve on a jury, cash transactions exceeding $5000 and to cash deposit into a savings or checking account if the amount exceeds 10K, prescription medication, and to purchase a motor vehicle.
Over the counter medication containing pseudonephedrine, doctor visit (according to Obama, a doctor and medicine is now a ‘right’), Emergency room visit, Amtrak trains, bulk purchase of fertilizer, any product containing nicotine (patch, gum, etc), Hunting License, Public housing assistance, food stamps.
The list can easily exceed 200 instances where photo identification is required when state and local laws are considered.
In Wisconsin during the recall efforts against Scott Walker, the Democrat Party issued the following:
“We are taking extra security measures to insure the safety of the petitions. Therefore, presentation of a Photo ID is required.”
If the logic against voter identification requirements is that such laws disenfranchises a segment of the population then the above identification requirements disenfranchises the rest of the population, right?
The truth is, it’s difficult at best to function in today’s society without a photo ID. Why not start here with comprehensive immigration reform?