It’s important to note what the Federal government did, and didn’t do, in regards to the drinking age. They didn’t raise the legal drinking age, the Federal government has no such power to to that. The 21st amendment leaves states free to set their own alcohol laws.
▪️What the National Minimum Drinking Age Act in 1984 did was to withhold 10% of a state’s highway funds (8% after 2012) if they didn’t prohibit those under 21 from “purchasing or publicly possessing alcoholic beverages.”
https://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/the-1984-national-minimum-drinking-age-act
▪️Which basically bullied every state into writing such laws, although states still vary in their “drinking age” laws. Some states don’t prohibit minors from consuming alcohol in private or with family members, or in certain settings, others have a blanket ban and a real “drinking age” of 21.
▪️The layman might confuse these terms and concepts, but this was written by a distinguished lawyer, so he knows the difference (or should know).
▪️Interestingly, most states used to have a drinking age of 21. During the 1960’s with the push to lower voting to 18 (“old enough to fight, old enough to vote”) this changed. Since 18 was now considered an adult, this logically applied to other areas like cigarettes and alcohol, and states lowered the age.
▪️It’s interesting now that 21 is once again being used as the adult age in areas like cigarettes, alcohol, guns, but not for voting (or for the draft).
As with the leftist freak out over “banned books” this is not banning books, it’s still easy to get Harry Potter and bookstores should be able to limit whatever books they want for whatever reason. But not only does it show a double standard, the rationale is far less justifiable than removing certain content from school libraries. At least there the justification was the content of certain books are inappropriate for children, clearly not every book should be available in a school library. Here, there’s no argument about the content they just don’t like the author’s politics!
Because news came out about his letter to the FBI, revealing he was a nutcase. The letter was rambling and incoherent, claiming he was trained by the US military off the books, and that Walz had instructed him to kill Amy Klobuchar so he could run for Senate. None of it made any sense (Walz is not running for Senate) and none of the assassinations made any sense, even in a diabolical way.
Nearly all of his hit list was Democrats (including Walz) and abortion clinics, but he was supposedly working for Walz?! Plus, one of the guys he killed wasn’t even on his list, and others were no longer in office or deceased. None of it makes sense from any coherent angle.
Basically, it appears the guy was mentally ill and neither the left or right can use the incident to push their agendas anymore, so the story was dropped.
This is so dumb. First, this means LA began as Spanish land founded to support Spanish missions (i.e. colonialism). Which contradicts their entire premise. But the reality is that Los Angeles is a quintessential American city.
▪️When the US acquired California in the 1840s, LA was a small town of less than 2,000 people. It was basically nothing. It became large only after the gold rush and the railroads completed in the 1870-80s, which brought thousands of new settlers and a booming commercial center.
▪️But LA had a major issue limiting its growth, no water. It wasn’t until Mulholland found a water source and built an aqueduct down from Northern California that LA had the infrastructure to grow into a major city.
▪️Then, a combination of oil, real estate and the film industry caused it to boom in the early 1900s. Post WWII, industries like aerospace continued its spectacular growth. Calling this “Mexican land” is a brain dead take. Neither the Mexicans, Spanish nor ...
