I’ve pointed this out a couple of times already – but here it is once again.
‘Tan tax’ discussions include allegations of reverse racism
The case can seem deceptively simple: Since patrons of tanning salons are almost exclusively white, the tax will be almost entirely paid by white people and, therefore, violates their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
But does the argument have any merit? Not remotely said Randall Kennedy, a professor at Harvard Law School specializing in racial conflict and law.
“There is no constitutional problem at all, because a plaintiff would have to show that the government intended to disadvantage a particular group, not simply that the group is disadvantaged in effect,” he said.
The plaintiff would have to show that the government intended to disadvantage a particular group? Please with this idiot in the White House how hard would that be to do? He already has a proven history of racial behavior (read his book – then wash your hands), listen to him in regards to the Cambridge Police that “acted stupidly” according to Obama, check with Eric Holder and dropping the charges against the New Black Panthers, listen to his rhetoric against Arizona and then you tell me Obama doesn’t have a anti-cracker agenda because he thinks they are to Ritz. Now Holder what’s to look at the conviction of the police officer in Oakland to see if the DOJ can prosecute him for civil rights violations but Holder say nothing about the largely minority rioters and looters.
It went on…
What would it take to prove that President Obama or members of Congress intended to discriminate against white people when they included the tan tax in the health-care law? There would have to be some record of direct or indirect comments by the officials involved, Kennedy said. Or there would have to be no possible alternate reason for adopting the tan tax.
But the levy’s supporters argued from the start that it had a dual purpose: to raise funds to cover some of the cost of extending health coverage to the uninsured and to discourage a habit that scientific studies have linked with increased risk of cancer.
“To say that this health rationale was a mere pretext for wanting to stick it to white people is completely implausible,” Kennedy said.
Then let’s levy a tax on menthol cigarettes, blunts, jheri curl and 24″ spinners… after all whites can buy these too so there is a remote chance some saltine crackers would pay this tax also and clearly it wouldn’t be aimed at one race, but God help you if you put a tax on do-rags… no Footlocker would be safe.
Seriously, Obama is beginning to rival Woodrow Wilson in racial divide.
