Disenfranchised? OK, let's play it out ...

OK, so it's unconstitutional (or so say liberal judges) to expect voters to prove who they are by showing identification? Funny how the Libs constantly whine about election fraud ... even two months before an election ... yet they're against having people prove who they are in a manner that's standard in every other facet of life. It's obvious why they're against this (to those who possess common sense, anyway), but their reasoning revolves around the disenfranchisement of poor voters and minority voters.

Pardon me for being ignorant of the fact that the poor and minorities don't have driver's licenses or photo IDs. I could swear I have seen blacks and Hispanics driving cars at least once or twice in my life. And while I've never collected welfare or any other similar government subsidy, I would have at least hoped that those who do so have to prove who they are somewhere along the way.

But since requiring people to show an ID before voting is unconstitutional, I'll be notifying the ACLU and Lib lawyers the next time:

I'm pulled over by the police and asked to show an ID.

Or asked to show an ID when writing a check or using a credit card.

Or purchase car insurance.

Or apply for a loan or credit or to open a bank account.

Or have a real estate agent take me to look at a house or a rental agent take me into an apartment.

Or purchase an airline ticket and then again to board the airplane.

Or apply for a library card.

Or enter a bar.

Or apply for a job (most that Americans will do, anyway)

I'm sure there are a dozen or so instances I'm overlooking, because they've become so standard in daily life. But not anymore! Heck, I don't think I'll even go to the time and expense of renewing my driver's license next time it expires, because surely forcing someone to pay for something for which its use is unconstititional would also be unconstitutional..

Right?

(Imported from Oct. 30, 2006)