Is requiring a would-be voter to show photo ID "oppressive"? If it is, then...um...
Over at the blog "American Thinker" Jack Hellner made an interesting observation:
Seems his local housing authority was taking applications for public (i.e. taxpayer-subsidized) housing. And you'll never guess what the housing authority was requiring applicants to provide in order to apply:
Yep, a photo ID.
Wait, Democrats have been screaming for a decade or so that requiring a photo ID was oppressing or disenfranchising to minorities! If requiring a photo ID is actually oppressive, what the hell is the local housing authority--which deals almost entirely with poor minorities--doing requiring minorities to show one?
Good question. Turns out that your emperor's *national* housing authority (HUD) requires it.
This prompted Hellner to wonder if there were other situations where the federal government demanded that a person show a photo ID. And would you believe...
If you want to receive Social Security you have to have a bank account, since SS now requires direct deposit. And the emperor's own government demands that to open a bank account you have to have a photo ID on file--presumably to reduce fraud.
I'm...horrified! Oppression! Raaacists!
Want to take a tour of the White House? The emperor requires a photo ID.
Want to sign up for Medicaid? The emperor requires that you show a photo ID--presumably to reduce fraud.
Want to fly on an airline? The TSA--which in case you've forgotten is controlled by the emperor-- demands that you show a photo ID before it will let you get on a plane.
These requirements clearly show that the federal government and Democrats know that requiring the poor and minorities to show a photo ID isn't remotely "oppressive." So why is it that when a state passes a reasonable law to require a photo ID to vote--to reduce vote fraud--the federal government immediately sues them on the entirely false charge that this "disenfranchises" voters?
The answer is obvious: Democrats want to prevent states from making people prove they're actually eligible to vote because investigation after investigation shows that people who vote multiple times in the same election are overwhelmingly voting for the Democrat candidate. Also, surveys show that illegal immigrants are far more likely to support Democrat positions--so presumably they're motivated to vote Democrat.
For better or worse, today all adults need a photo ID to function in society, so it isn't remotely oppressive to require people to show one to vote. The question is, if Dems are fine with having to show a photo ID for all the things listed above, why does the nation's corrupt, Democrat-packed judicial system keep supporting the Democrats' utterly bullshit claim that requiring would-be voters to show a photo ID to vote is unconstitutional?
Seems his local housing authority was taking applications for public (i.e. taxpayer-subsidized) housing. And you'll never guess what the housing authority was requiring applicants to provide in order to apply:
Yep, a photo ID.
Wait, Democrats have been screaming for a decade or so that requiring a photo ID was oppressing or disenfranchising to minorities! If requiring a photo ID is actually oppressive, what the hell is the local housing authority--which deals almost entirely with poor minorities--doing requiring minorities to show one?
Good question. Turns out that your emperor's *national* housing authority (HUD) requires it.
This prompted Hellner to wonder if there were other situations where the federal government demanded that a person show a photo ID. And would you believe...
If you want to receive Social Security you have to have a bank account, since SS now requires direct deposit. And the emperor's own government demands that to open a bank account you have to have a photo ID on file--presumably to reduce fraud.
I'm...horrified! Oppression! Raaacists!
Want to take a tour of the White House? The emperor requires a photo ID.
Want to sign up for Medicaid? The emperor requires that you show a photo ID--presumably to reduce fraud.
Want to fly on an airline? The TSA--which in case you've forgotten is controlled by the emperor-- demands that you show a photo ID before it will let you get on a plane.
These requirements clearly show that the federal government and Democrats know that requiring the poor and minorities to show a photo ID isn't remotely "oppressive." So why is it that when a state passes a reasonable law to require a photo ID to vote--to reduce vote fraud--the federal government immediately sues them on the entirely false charge that this "disenfranchises" voters?
The answer is obvious: Democrats want to prevent states from making people prove they're actually eligible to vote because investigation after investigation shows that people who vote multiple times in the same election are overwhelmingly voting for the Democrat candidate. Also, surveys show that illegal immigrants are far more likely to support Democrat positions--so presumably they're motivated to vote Democrat.
For better or worse, today all adults need a photo ID to function in society, so it isn't remotely oppressive to require people to show one to vote. The question is, if Dems are fine with having to show a photo ID for all the things listed above, why does the nation's corrupt, Democrat-packed judicial system keep supporting the Democrats' utterly bullshit claim that requiring would-be voters to show a photo ID to vote is unconstitutional?
posted by SF at
12:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home