Why Do We Have Selective ID Requirements?
Mar 16, 2012 Political
This video demonstrates the lunacy of claiming voter ID laws keep the poor from voting. It also clearly shows why Democrats oppose such laws. Remember, the lie about the poor (or minorities) not having IDs is the red herring. The real reason is to keep Democrats in power by allowing those who are not allowed to vote to do so. The state has no problem asking for ID for many other things.
In this video we see people going to the polls and using the names of dead people. They are allowed to vote and are told they do not need ID even though many of them ask if they should show one. The people never voted. They said they wanted to go get their IDs and left probably to avoid breaking the law. Democrats love dead voters. And they are not the only ones. One could use the name of any registered voter and vote in that person’s name as demonstrated.
Then the video has the same people trying to buy an alcoholic beverage and being asked for ID. They go into great lengths to express they are too poor to afford an ID and don’t have one and that the poor are being discriminated against with regard to alcohol purchases.
Another portion shows the same person trying to get a hotel room without an ID. The same rant is used but the person is denied.
In this video the people are told they need an ID to get an alcoholic beverage or a hotel room and they are denied because they lack an ID.
In neither case are they breaking the law.
But, when they go to vote they are told they do not need an ID and then proceed to demonstrate how easy it would be to break the law and cast illegal votes.
This is why we need voter ID. And the poor (and minorities) can get IDs. How else do they get hotel rooms or booze (or tobacco products)? Tobacco and alcohol use is higher among the poor (and minorities). How is that so if they don’t have IDs?
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: alcohol, dead people voting, hotels, lies, minorities, poor, voter id
And More Maryland Foolishness
Jan 6, 2011 Political
Or, “Johns Hopkins University Professors Who Show Themselves As Fools.”
Maryland, like most governments today, wants more cash. They honestly don’t give a damn from where it comes, they just want more to spend. As government, they feel it is their right to continue to spend money and don’t understand the concept of “recession.” And also, apparently “economics” — including an apparent supporter of huge bloated government, one David Jernigan, a “professor” at Johns Hopkins. Hopefully a medical professor or something, and not one teaching basic math or economics.
You see, Mr. Jernigan supports raising the tax on alcohol. Why? Well, we may never know, but if he is like most professors, its because he believes that government is perfect and only government knows how to spend money, so the more money that government takes from working people to give to him (salary & “research”), the better. But that’s not what he says. Instead, he actually makes the claim that raising taxes on alcohol “is a win-win for the state. They provide much needed revenue, and reduce alcohol consumption and related problems”
Mr. Jernigan needs to learn some basic economics. Then again, he may already know this and not care. Either way, attention class, here comes the lesson:
Statement: You cannot raise taxes on an item and both increase revenue and reduce consumption. Those are opposite actions in the real world.
For example: Let’s say I sell 20 drinks at $3.64 each. With a tax of 10%, that’s a total of $4.00 for each drink, or 36 cents tax on each drink. The total revenue to the state in that case is 0.36 x 20, or $7.20. Now the state decides to increase the tax and add an additional 10 cents on each drink. When the price of an item increases in this economy, in general, the number sold will decrease. That part of Mr. Jernigan’s statement is correct. Let’s say the decrease in consumption is 25% — enough to be significant enough to meet Mr. Jernigan’s claim to reduce alcohol consumption. That means I will now only sell 15 drinks. As a seller, I cannot reduce my prices. Therefore, the price of the drink is still $4.00. Now add to that the 10 cents additional tax, and now each drink sells for $4.10. I still get $3.64, and now the state gets 46 cents. But I’ve only sold 15 drinks now, so the total to the state is only 15 x 0.46, or $6.90.
When you raise the taxes on an item, you will sell a smaller amount — but in this case that will result in a lower amount of revenue to the state.
Of course, in all likelihood, this action will result in an increase to the state because it will NOT result in a decrease of drinking. Instead, it will result in people needing to spend more money, so they will have to receive more through working, government handouts, or theft. Either way, the results Mr. Jernigan proposes are impossible.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
A Party Of One
Oct 31, 2009 Political
Apparently that is as many as you need to get minority legislation passed in favor of yourself, so you can feel entitled and good about yourself, and as I understand it, this is necessary to life- it’s probably a “right”, right? I mean, if feeling good about yourself isn’t a right, it should be, because we are a minority, and we are entitled.
What bullcrap- nowadays, we have been hijacked by a plethora of “minorities” or “oppressed” peoples, each with their own litany of complaints and demands, like a spoiled child who needs his backside warmed to remind him that he is NOT the center of the universe.
This used to be the country where the majority ruled- because it makes sense to go in the direction that the most people are headed. But we are compassionate people. We have, in the past, accommodated others who might not be of the same faith (other than Christian), of the same dietary needs, people who are, let’s face it, the minority. These are people who make the tapestry that is America much richer for their contributions.
But in recent times- say the last twenty- five years or so, we have bent over backwards to assist others in assimilation into this society, with the aim that they would begin to conform more to the majority in behavior.
Instead, we have begat a segment of society that does not care to assimilate, and doesn’t want to compromise, as if it is they, and not us , who are in the majority. What arrogance on their part. Here’s an example:
The lovely-looking restaurant and bar The Breslin begins lunch service tomorrow, and co-owner Ken Friedman (The Spotted Pig) is planning on serving alcohol despite objections from the Masjid Ar-Rahman mosque across the street. Earlier this month the mosque’s leaders called a meeting with Friedman at The Ace Hotel, where The Breslin is located, and asked, “Can you move the bar?” Friedman’s response makes us want to hurry over to The Breslin right now for a dram of Laphroaig to show our support (and drown out the voices):
I said, “This is the United States of America and we’ll do whatever the f*ck we want.” He said the mosque had suggested it couldn’t control the behavior of “a few bad eggs”; i.e., we could get a brick through our window.
gothamist.com
These muslims sincerely believe that our citizens should conform to their standards- what gross stupidity on their part, but it does illustrate how horribly skewed our society has become when these types of “entitled” spoiled brats actually think they can do this. Our compassion at this point begins to dry up when confronted by supercilious attitudes such as these.
Friedman notified police of the threat, but just to show he’s not a hard-hearted man, that it’s not all dollars and cents, he agreed to put a curtain over the windows so devout Muslims wouldn’t be corrupted by the sight of infidel inebriation. But the curtain hasn’t arrived yet, so over the weekend he actually taped paper over the windows to hide a gay wedding. A volunteer at the mosque says city law forbids serving liquor within 200 feet of a place of worship and that “not more than 200 feet is between the mosque and the bar.”
But Ace Hotel developer Andrew Zobler tells The Observer, “The law is clear that in order for that to apply it has to be an exclusively dedicated house of worship, and at their space they have both residences and a restaurant, so basically, because of those uses the law allowed there to be a bar within 200 feet. Everyone was aware of that when the liquor license was granted.” And Friedman adds, “They can threaten, but they can’t really stop us.” Yeah, heh, what are these devout, pissed-off Muslims gonna do?
gothamist.com
What are they going to do indeed? One never knows, but the greater question is who the hell do they think they are? Granted, I would never think of wandering into their mosque sipping a bottle of Bushmills Black label (although I have heard that it is a rather out of this world experience when you sip enough), because I do care somewhat about their sensibilities- at least enough to be polite, but when spoiled people try and dictate their whims to the majority, they begin to act like children in need of discipline, or worse, like liberals.
The solution to either is the same- slap the snot out of them- it will set them on the road to sanity, and in twenty years or so, after they have grown, they will thank you for that guidance.
And perhaps they will have a mature outlook with which they deal with people.
And, for God’s sake not whine so much about non existent “rights”.
If you want rights, look in the Constitution.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: alcohol, constitution, entitled brats, Muslims, rights
Will Obama Legalize Marijuana?
Dec 24, 2008 Political
Esquire has an article indicating that Barack Obama might legalize marijuana. This is big news for the bong toting left and a major concern among the youth in this country. On his transparent and open ask Obama site (the one where all questions about the Illinois scandal were deleted) the youth asked about legalizing the potent vegetation. The answer was that Obama is opposed to legalizing the drug which surprises me considering how much he enjoyed using it as a young man. He has indicated that he wants to decriminalize it but that is a matter of how to treat people from a legal standpoint.
I am not actually opposed to legalizing marijuana as a matter of principle. I have never used it and would not if it were legal but I find no difference between the effects of marijuana and the effects of alcohol. As a matter of health marijuana is far more harmful in a shorter period especially to the brain and lungs but alcohol is destructive to the liver and brain over the long term. Long term marijuana use has also been shown to cause mental health problems. Any drug that is abused will present a problem.
Legalizing marijuana and allowing the government to heavily tax it will bring a great deal of revenue to the treasury. If we could get politicians to use it wisely then it would be beneficial to the economy. I am sure there would be many jobs opened if farmers could grow marijuana and I bet we would have enough Americans willing to work the jobs that illegals would not have to pick weed.
There are quite a few problems that would need to be addressed. What kind of quality control would be involved in the process of growing and preparing the stuff for use? Where would it be sold and how could we control it so that it is not sold or redistributed to minors? What security measures would be required at farms to keep stoners from stealing the crop? Would Americans be able to grow their own and how much?
If we end up legalizing the drug it should be expensive and heavily taxed (revenues that will be lost if people can grow their own) so that it will not be easily available. There should be draconian penalties for those who do anything illegal with it like driving under the influence or distributing it to minors. People who are caught growing their own (or more than is allowed) should have to pay an amount equal to the taxes on whatever quantity they produce plus a substantial fine. Those who engage in illegal trafficking should receive jail time. Employers should be able to dictate whether their employees may use the substance regardless of when. In other words, airlines, the military, police departments and such can say their employees are not allowed to use marijuana.
There are many problems that are associated with legalizing marijuana but careful and thoughtful legislation (something Congress knows nothing about) could remedy those problems. Many problems will be difficult to address. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the psychoactive component of marijuana and it is fat soluble so it stays in the body for quite some time. THC is present long after the effect of marijuana has passed so people who are tested will come back positive even if they have not used it for a while. If a bus driver (or some guy in a car) has an accident and is tested he will be positive and the level might be high depending upon when he last used. How could anyone tell if he was high at the time of the accident? This is a major issue that will fill the courts with lawsuits. If that bus drive was not high but tested positive after the accident and people are injured or killed then it is a safe bet there will be plenty of lawsuits. Many employers test employees after a work related accident. If the person is positive (for any drug) they are usually terminated. How will this be resolved if marijuana is legal?
There are also issues of health. What are the long term health effects of marijuana use? Decreased brain function, lack of energy and lack of motivation are common in long term use as are severe lung ailments and brain dysfunction. If only those who use it illegally now continued then the demand on the health care system would not change but assuming that more people would use it if it were legal, how will the increase effect the health care system?
These and any number of other issues need to be addressed before we can legalize the drug. I am personally not opposed to it because I think we can tax it and make money and because it is, in my mind, not very different from the use of alcohol. I would not use it but as long as the issues are addressed I see no reason why others should not be able to if they so desire. However, I would not lose sleep if they never made it legal.
I am a bit concerned because there will be even more bong toting, Kos reading, Kool Aid drinking liberals getting stoned and I don’t know how many more of them the welfare system will support. Besides, we are now dealing with the burnt out liberals of the 60s and I don’t know if we need even more of them around in 20 or 30 years.
There is one other condition that needs to be met before we ever legalize the drug. Every state in the union must become a shall issue state for people who want to carry a firearm (those legally allowed) and that includes every jurisdiction in each state. If we make it legal to use a drug that is not addressed in the Constitution then we need to ensure the citizens in this country are allowed to freely exercise a right that is clearly enumerated in it.
Come to think of it, we need to do that whether marijuana is legalized of not.
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.
Tags: alcohol, drug abuse, drugs, marijuana, Obama, pot, Second Amendment, stoner, weed