Doc's Talk: Chutzpah! Obama Requires MI High School Seniors Have Papers to Shake His Hand

Sunday, May 23, 2010

Chutzpah! Obama Requires MI High School Seniors Have Papers to Shake His Hand

Seniors are being asked to provide their birthdates, Social Security numbers, and citizen status to the Secret Service so background checks could be performed."

May 22, 2010
by Pam Meister

A friend sent me a little something he saw on Neal Boortz’s site, and I couldn’t help but wonder at the chutzpah of Barack Obama, his administration, and their supporters in Congress and the media.

In fact, chutzpah doesn’t even begin to describe the hypocrisy encapsulated in this little tidbit.

President Obama is planning on attending the graduating ceremony of Kalamazoo Central High School in Kalamazoo, Michigan, next month. He intends to shake the hand of every graduating senior. No big deal; politicians love this sort of “mingling with the commoner” PR moment. But there’s a catch for those seniors who want the honor of pressing flesh with The One:

Seniors are being asked to provide their birthdates, Social Security numbers and citizen status to the Secret Service so background checks could be performed.

Huh.

What about those Kalamazoo Central High School seniors who might be in our nation illegally? What if they don’t have Social Security numbers and cannot prove their citizenship status? Will the Secret Service give them a pass?

Doubtful. But Obama himself has criticized the state of Arizona for passing a law that would enable law enforcement officers to inquire about the citizenship or green card status of individuals who are stopped for a lawful reason. Yes, despite what media shills are saying, cops can’t just grab you and ask: “Are you a citizen or a green card holder?” The statute states:

For any lawful stop, detention, or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.

Obama called this law “misguided” and ordered his Justice Department to investigate to see whether the law violates civil rights. Interestingly enough, Justice Department head Eric Holder hasn’t had time to read the law yet. Neither has Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano. They are too busy criticizing it.

Even more galling was the reception given to Mexican President Felipe Calderon during a speech he gave at a joint session of Congress this week. He not only bashed the Arizona law, calling it a “terrible idea” that will involve racial profiling against Hispanics, but also called for the U.S. to reinstate an assault weapons ban (somehow he blames the uptick in violence in Mexico on U.S. drug demand and U.S. gun laws).

Meanwhile, after calling us a bunch of bigots for asking for “papers,” Calderon told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer how strict Mexicans are regarding illegals in their own country:

BLITZER: So if people want to come from Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador or Nicaragua, they want to just come into Mexico, they can just walk in?

CALDERON: No. They need to fulfill a form. They need to establish their right name. We analyze if they have not a criminal precedent. And they coming into Mexico. Actually …

BLITZER: Do Mexican police go around asking for papers of people they suspect are illegal immigrants?

CALDERON: Of course. Of course, in the border, we are asking the people, who are you?

And if they explain …

BLITZER: At the border, I understand, when they come in.

CALDERON: Yes.

BLITZER: But once they’re in …

CALDERON: But not — but not in — if — once they are inside the — inside the country, what the Mexican police do is, of course, enforce the law. But by any means, immigration is a crime anymore in Mexico.

BLITZER: Immigration is not a crime, you’re saying?

CALDERON: It’s not a crime.

BLITZER: So in other words, if somebody sneaks in from Nicaragua or some other country in Central America, through the southern border of Mexico, they wind up in Mexico, they can go get a job …

CALDERON: No, no.

BLITZER: They can work.

CALDERON: If — if somebody do that without permission, we send back — we send back them.

BLITZER: You find them and you send them back?

CALDERON: Yes. However, especially with the people of Guatemala, we are providing a new system in which any single citizen from Guatemala could be able to visit any single border (INAUDIBLE) in the south. And even with all the requirements, he can or she can visit any parts of Mexico.

So he’s saying it’s no longer a crime to be an illegal alien in Mexico (not so true), but the authorities can still ask you for your “papers” even when you aren’t caught in the act of committing a crime, and if they find you don’t have “permission” to be there, they can “send you back.” But in America, that sort of thing is called “racial profiling.” Gotcha.

I guess I can understand why Calderon is upset. Mexico looks upon the U.S. as a pressure valve. As long as there’s a place for the poor, huddled masses to go to get work so they can send money back to the poor, huddled masses back home and further boost Mexico’s failing economy, the nation continues to hobble along. To quote the guys over at HillBuzz: “Mexico should be humiliated that, as a country, it’s so terrible people risk their lives swimming rivers, crossing deserts, and breaking the law to leave.”

But if that pressure valve were to be suddenly cut off, what would happen? I shudder to think.

The federal government dropped the ball on our border a long time ago. Arizona is doing what it must to protect its citizens because the feds refuse to do it. According to recent polls, 60 percent of Americans think local law enforcement should be allowed to inquire about legal status; 65 percent believe states have the right to make their own immigration laws; and according to a poll conducted by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, 64 percent support the Arizona law (to the utter astonishment of Chuck Todd).

Where is the international outcry when nations like Italy enforce their own tough policies against illegal immigrants, forcing women and newborn babies back onto their boat and sending them back to Tripoli?

And back to Michigan: will Kalamazoo Central High School seniors who cannot provide the proper documentation to the Secret Service have their civil rights violated if they don’t get to shake hands with the great uniter, Barack Obama?

To paraphrase Obama’s own joke at the White House Correspondents’ dinner: “We all know what happens in Arizona my presence when you don’t have ID … adios, amigos!”

Pam Meister is the editor for Family Security Matters and a contributor to Big Hollywood. Her work can also be seen at American Thinker. The views expressed here are her own.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/chutzpah-obama-requires-mi-high-school-seniors-have-papers-to-shake-his-hand/

1 comment:

Nurit said...: Like Peter Beinart, many American Jews can be simply called unJews. Also keep in mind that local Israeli brand of unJews exists, joined as formal "partner", the most vicious enemies of Israel and Jews. The worldwide web of unJews have joined the Arabs, the Moslems, the anti-Israel, the anti-Semites and all other Israel nemesis in their ongoing efforts to undo the Jewish state.
Long ago the unJews joined the un-Americans, which I believe is a suicidal move jut like in the 1930's. But then again, that is apparently a genetic Jewish trait. Part of this genetic Jewish flaw is the core reason for the unJew insane activities.
I have no idea if the following is known to the reader but these points, the American unJews support, make their behavior totally insane:
A) The US is in the process of or has already sent 5 aircraft carriers and supporting flotillas to be stationed near Iran. They are NOT THERE TO "PRESSURE IRAN" but a coordinated act with Russia and Iran to prevent an Israeli strike.
B) Russia has trained and now will deliver the Russian S-300 A/A system to Iran with the US blessing, opening a serious hole in Israel's security.
Regardless of all the idiotic dances between Soetoro-Obama and his cohorts and USA J-Rats-unJews, and other local Israeli brand who joined in the dances, we must be clear and understand that the present USA administration is inimical toward Israel to the extreme thus plans accordingly.
Rahm Emanuel attempt to making nice to Jews is nothing but smoke screen to hide the implacable enmity of this Administration toward Israel and its contempt for Jews. And many Jews, including many Israelis, will fall for the making nice overtures in their desperation to be loved by the world and be “accepted” by America. Israel has to act on its own and soonest.; 11:35 PM

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk