Connect with us

Opinion

No Need for ID!

If you think government ID is not necessary, or is discriminatory, when it comes to voting you’re exhibiting ‘progressive’ politics or the bigotry of low expectations.

Jeff Davidson

Published

on

Two friends of mine, who I will call Carolyn and Samantha recently had an email exchange about COVID vaccine shots. It is a true story that is worth Illuminating here.

Carolyn, a registered Republican and staunch advocate of voter ID, had her shots in March and April, and via email was advising Samantha, a registered Democrat, on what to expect. After describing the procedure and the variety of potential after-effects, Carolyn suggested that Samantha didn’t need to bring any ID to the site on the day of her appointment. 

It Will All Be Fine

Samantha said, “What do you mean? How can I get the shots without showing ID?” Carolyn said, “You don’t really need any ID. Just tell them who you are, where you live, and your age, and it will all be fine.”

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Now Samantha was thoroughly confused. Everything that she knew about the process suggested that one had to show a driver’s license or some other government issued ID. When Carolyn, who had already had her shots, told her that ID was unnecessary, Samantha was skeptical. She wrote back and said, “Are you sure about the no ID requirement? This doesn’t sound feasible or even practical.”

Carolyn again emphasized that ID wasn’t necessary, although it was desirable. You could simply talk to the registration people on site, tell them who you are, and that should be enough.

Samantha finally caught on. She had been an advocate of loose voter ID enforcement. She figured, the more people who vote, the better; never mind if they’re actually qualified to vote, are American citizens, or are following the law.

So, Requiring ID Makes Sense?

Carolyn’s ruse had worked. Samantha realized that not requiring ID to get the COVID shots made no sense, at all. How could anybody prove anything? Did you already have a first shot? Is this your second shot? Are you really who you say you are? 

If you’re beyond a certain age or in a particular profession, you’re likely to be qualified for shots earlier than other people, in many jurisdictions. Without ID there would be complete chaos and no way to track who received what and when. 

So it is everywhere. Everyone who has gotten vaccinated for the coronavirus has had to show a government-issued ID. No ID equals no vaccination.

Likewise, in other endeavors, no ID, no participation. You want to step on board a commercial airliner? Show ID, and your plane ticket or boarding pass, as you’re moving through the Homeland Security checkpoint. Otherwise, you do not pass through, and you miss your flight.

Low Expectations

The people who insist that government ID is not necessary, or is discriminatory, when it comes to voting, because some individuals can’t be expected to obtain such ID, are practicing either ‘progressive’ politics, or the bigotry of low expectations. It’s usually one or the other, and sometimes both.

Surveys indicate that among minority voters, the overwhelming majority insist that obtaining and showing a government-issued ID in the voting process does not represent an undue burden. Indeed, many feel slighted that other people, namely white liberals, presume that minorities don’t have the wherewithal to attain and exhibit a government-issued ID.

Do advocates of ‘no ID needed’ further realize that among all races in America, most agree that maintaining election integrity is more vital than making it simpler to vote? Seeking to reduce potential fraudulent voting helps to ensure that everybody’s lawful vote is properly counted. Requiring ID in this day and age is simply not a discriminatory ploy. 

To forgo the requirement for voter ID is synonymous with voter suppression. An illegal voter can effectively suppress a legal vote by voting for the opposing candidate. 

America, the Backward

You have to wonder, who are the people that have a keen interest in decreasing the odds of having fair and lawful elections? Might they be members of a political party that recognizes it cannot succeed in elections without cheating?

Every other country around the globe requires a government issued ID in order to vote. The United States, once the beacon of democracy, has now tumbled from its high perch. Requiring voter ID, in every U.S. election at every level, will help to restore us to our loftier plain.

Opinion

Biden Mandate Busted Again, This Time in Lone Star State

It was a BRUTAL smackdown at that!

Published

on

From the very moment that Joe Biden began to speak about a federal vaccine mandate, there were concerns about its constitutionality.  You see, this is a nation founded on the ethos of freedom, and there is nothing more authoritarian than forcing a population to undergo unwanted medical procedures.

And, thusly, in the weeks following the Commander in Chief’s declaration, a number of judicial bodies took up the argument, and with devastating results for the White House.

The latest smackdown comes to us from Texas.

A federal judge in Texas Friday blocked the federal government from enforcing President Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal employees, arguing that he didn’t have the authority to do so “with the stroke of a pen and without input from Congress.”

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Biden has pushed several different iterations of vaccine mandates in recent months, including one for large businesses which the Supreme Court blocked and another for healthcare workers which it allowed to go into effect.

There was no beating around the bush, either.

Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Friday ruled against the administration on a separate mandate generally applying to federal employees.

“While vaccines are undoubtedly the best way to avoid serious illness from COVID-19, there is no reason to believe that the public interest cannot be served via less restrictive measures than the mandate, such as masking, social distancing, or part- or full-time remote work,” Brown wrote. “Stopping the spread of COVID-19 will not be achieved by overbroad policies like the federal-worker mandate.”

And, given the narrowest of margins in Congress, there is little doubt that any attempt to ratify this mandate legislatively would fail.

From the very moment that Joe Biden began to speak about a federal vaccine mandate, there were concerns about its constitutionality.  You see, this is a nation founded on the ethos of freedom, and there is nothing more authoritarian than forcing a population to undergo unwanted medical procedures. And, thusly, in the weeks following the Commander in Chief’s declaration, a number of judicial bodies took up the argument, and with devastating results for the White House. The latest smackdown comes to us from Texas. A federal judge in Texas Friday blocked the federal government from enforcing President Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal employees, arguing that he didn’t have the authority to do so “with the stroke of a pen and without input from Congress.” Biden has pushed several different iterations of vaccine mandates in recent months, including one for large businesses which the Supreme Court blocked and another for healthcare workers which it allowed to go into effect. There was no beating around the bush, either. Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Friday ruled against the administration on a separate mandate generally applying to federal employees. “While vaccines are undoubtedly the best way to avoid serious illness from COVID-19, there is no reason to believe that the public interest cannot be served via less restrictive measures than the mandate, such as masking, social distancing, or part- or full-time remote work,” Brown wrote. “Stopping the spread of COVID-19 will not be achieved by overbroad policies like the federal-worker mandate.” And, given the narrowest of margins in Congress, there is little doubt that any attempt to ratify this mandate legislatively would fail.

Continue Reading

News

Fact Checkers Make Exception for Liberal-Leaning News Outfit

Perhaps one of the several other “fact checking” corporations would like to take a stab at it?

Published

on

If there was ever a reason to doubt the authority and authenticity of the mission of the so-called “fact checker” organizations it is this:  There are more than one of them.

You see, if “facts” and “truth” were binary, there wouldn’t be a glut of competing companies out there attempting to sell their services to social media corporations and other media outlets.  We wouldn’t have any disparity whatsoever.  There would be one fact-checking group because, as stated in their creeds, there should be but one set of “facts”.

The entire industry is a bit of a scam, if we’re ready to be that honest with ourselves.  And, if we’re not, there are plenty of examples out there of these companies massaging the narrative in order to maintain their lucrative contracts.

NewsGuard, the establishment “news rating” project that claims to fight untrustworthy media outlets, is cautiously defending NPR as the establishment media outlet continues to claim that U.S. Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonya Sotomayor are at odds over masks, even after a statement from both Justices and Chief Justice John Roberts debunking the story.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

On Tuesday, NPR released a story claiming that Justice Sotomayor had opted to work remotely after Justice Gorsuch refused a request from Chief Justice Roberts that all justices mask up when on the bench.

Later in the day, a Supreme Court source told Fox News that neither Justice Roberts nor Justice Sotomayor had made any such request.

But then:

Despite the total breakdown of the initial story, Newsguard refuses to make any judgments on NPR’s reporting, arguing that the situation is still unfolding.

Prior to the statement from Chief Justice Roberts, Newsguard maintained that the facts of the story were still unclear.

“There are two conflicting reports, one from NPR and one from Fox News, both citing anonymous sources,” said Matt Skibinski, general manager of Newsguard. “It’s hard to say anything definitive about either report without more information.”

But Newsguard cannot hide from this fact:

However, even after all three Justices named in the story – Gorsuch, Sotomayor, and Roberts – made public statements debunking it, while NPR refused to issue a correction, Newsguard maintained that the story was still unfolding.

Perhaps one of the several other “fact checking” corporations would like to take a stab at it?

If there was ever a reason to doubt the authority and authenticity of the mission of the so-called “fact checker” organizations it is this:  There are more than one of them. You see, if “facts” and “truth” were binary, there wouldn’t be a glut of competing companies out there attempting to sell their services to social media corporations and other media outlets.  We wouldn’t have any disparity whatsoever.  There would be one fact-checking group because, as stated in their creeds, there should be but one set of “facts”. The entire industry is a bit of a scam, if we’re ready to be that honest with ourselves.  And, if we’re not, there are plenty of examples out there of these companies massaging the narrative in order to maintain their lucrative contracts. NewsGuard, the establishment “news rating” project that claims to fight untrustworthy media outlets, is cautiously defending NPR as the establishment media outlet continues to claim that U.S. Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonya Sotomayor are at odds over masks, even after a statement from both Justices and Chief Justice John Roberts debunking the story. On Tuesday, NPR released a story claiming that Justice Sotomayor had opted to work remotely after Justice Gorsuch refused a request from Chief Justice Roberts that all justices mask up when on the bench. Later in the day, a Supreme Court source told Fox News that neither Justice Roberts nor Justice Sotomayor had made any such request. But then: Despite the total breakdown of the initial story, Newsguard refuses to make any judgments on NPR’s reporting, arguing that the situation is still unfolding. Prior to the statement from Chief Justice Roberts, Newsguard maintained that the facts of the story were still unclear. “There are two conflicting reports, one from NPR and one from Fox News, both citing…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week