ID = Intimidation?

Last week as part of my trip to Disney World, I had to go through Airport Security three times. Each time, TSA officers attempted to intimidate me from flying. From my observations it appeared that this attempted intimidation was not limited only to me, but appeared to be directed at everyone planning to fly. Unfortunately, the mainstream media seems uninterested in this widespread conspiracy to restrict our constitutional right to travel. What form did this intimidation take? Before I was allowed to fly, I HAD TO SHOW A PICTURE ID!!! Someone call the ACLU. Call Hillary Clinton. Call Al Sharpton. No Justice! No Peace!

Am I being silly? Of course. But no sillier than the critics of yesterdays Supreme Court ruling in the combined cases of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 07-21, and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, 07-25. The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision ruled that Indiana may require a photo ID to vote. Hillary Clinton said the following about the decision:

Most of the fraud that we have seen in the last several years had nothing to do with voters showing up and not having the right identification. It had a lot to do with a concerted effort to deny people the right to vote, to not count votes, to intimidate people from showing up to vote.

How is requiring ID intimidating? It reminds me of the outrage in NYC when the Giuliani administration began requiring welfare recipients to be fingerprinted. The critics claim this was an attempt to “stigmatize” welfare recipients since criminals are fingerprinted. Of course aspiring lawyers taking the bar exam are fingerprinted. As are all licensed teachers. Requiring photo ID or fingerprints have nothing to do with intimidation or stigma. They are simply ways to be sure people are who they say are. Just for the record, when the fingerprinting requirement went into effect in NYC, half of the people receiving welfare never showed up and dropped off the rolls. Intimi8dation or fraud?