Michelle Obama requires photo ID and SS number for book signing

Why would anyone even want to buy her book (that she probably didn't even write)? And even if you did buy the book, why would anyone want her signature?

reply to post by captaintyinknots


If it too hot get out of the kitchen, can't she wait till they are out of the white house to try to clean up $$$$ and who really cares what she has to say now that she is finally proud to be an American

That tell me she is scared for her life because of what her husband has done!

A person is checked for weapons by SS. An agent is standing right at the table where the book is received. She is protected.

If they are getting ID then they are going to check the person because it is not required to keep her secure at the moment. If the ID is taken in advance they still have to check the person for weapons, etc, at the actual time of the meet.

It doesn't seem to make sense unless there is more to it then just a book signing security. I suppose it could be just government over kill and waste of money.

Originally posted by seabag

On Friday, June 8th, those wishing to attend the event must purchase a copy of the First Lady's book at the location and leave it at the store, according to the employee.

Wait, what? You can't leave the shop with the book YOU paid for? That can't be to stop people coming in several times and sticking them on eBay - they could just keep a list of the names/numbers coming in, since they're asking for them to begin with

So I can just file a FOIA to obtain this list of names? We did pay for it to be compiled. No?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Its not about finding out whether or not the people are "legal". It is about protecting the First Lady.

People just keep on trying to make something out of nothing.

And for the record, this entire thread should be pulled down as political trolling.

Isn't it even more important to protect the integrity of the voting process? Yet the Democrats won't even consider a voter ID to do so.

/TOA

Originally posted by PolyATS
So I can just file a FOIA to obtain this list of names? We did pay for it to be compiled. No?

The gov will probably say it is not an official function so no info. If you sign up and give an email addr though, you will most likely get spammed for the next few years.

At some point, the list will get hacked and published. That saves the waiting time on FOIA requests.

reply to post by seabag


Was this so that they would then have access to her and she would personally sign the book in their presence? If so than hell yeah get ID. You dont just make the first lady of the nation accessable by anyone who has a whim. What stops a person from pretending they want an autograph and then cause harm to her?
ANyone who thinks this is racially motivated is absolutly nuts. No ifs ands or buts about it. Its about security and security only. Why is this even a thread ?

don't want any 'illegals' crossing the line - ok to come across the border, tho.

reply to post by seabag


Yup, that's pretty good you have to have a background check to get a book signed by queen michael but something important like voter ID to make sure your a LEGAL voter is wrong? Somethings deffinately wrong with this picture.

If I want an autograph from a sasquatch I'll just go find one in the woods, thank you. No ID required.

reply to post by seabag


What a pathetic display of ignorance. No Flags, No Stars, Pity is the only thing you'll get from this ATS poster.

The only hypocrisy being displayed here is the posting of this thread on a site who's motto is; "Deny Ignorance."

There is no hypocrisy being displayed by the First Lady and for you to make that accusation is nothing more than political trolling at it's worst.

Voting is a RIGHT guaranteed by the constitution. Getting your book signed by the First Lady on the other hand, is not a right, its a privilege. This is nothing more than normal protocol put in place by the Secret Service to insure the security of the First Lady during this event.

Unless the government is going to provide those photo IDs, (that you so staunchly advocate for) at no cost and/or inconvenience to the voter, then it is a poll tax, plain & simple. Now, I wonder what it would cost the taxpayers to produce those IDs? Not to mention the cost of training for election precinct officials to detect fake IDs. (I had at least 4 fake IDs back when I was a teenager)

Now, do you want to know what would solve the nonexistent problem of voter fraud that seems to trouble you so much? And do so in a manner that's both cheap and non-intrusive, not to mention legal?

How about we just get voters to stick their finger in the purple dye bottle just like they did in Iraq? If it was good enough for them, then why not US? Sometimes the best solutions are the simplest.

Originally posted by windword
I'm thinking that this is a Secret Service vetting of people who are invited to meet the 1st lady, nothing more.

That's your problem...you're thinking...try again without "thinking" and you can see how crazy it is that the Secret Service would require identification for those meeting the First Lady of the United States.

Easy fix to this problem, don't go to the book signing. If she was ignored in droves because people didn't want to be ID'd and vetted, that would be the end of it.

Originally posted by The Old American

Isn't it even more important to protect the integrity of the voting process? Yet the Democrats won't even consider a voter ID to do so.

/TOA

The integrity of the voting process is not at risk...when every and any rational statistics or investigations are examined...but voter suppression in the guise of "voter integrity measures" is in fact occuring and it is not strange coincidence that it is occuring battlegropund states.

Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by seabag

 

I think that the White House is just taking security measures to protect Mrs. Obama...nothing more...nothing less.

Are they saying Mooochelle is more important than the vote where our Republic is concerned? I think our Republic is more important that any one person or "First Family."

The ID check is not for signing the book. Why do people have to blow things totally out of proportion with reality, do you enjoy it? It is for her personal protection. These people are going to be in a room with her and she will be very close to them. With the idiots that are out there today, I do not blame her a bit. If you do not like the rules, just buy it on Amazon if you want it.

Originally posted by Flatfish
Voting is a RIGHT guaranteed by the constitution. Getting your book signed by the First Lady on the other hand, is not a right, its a privilege. This is nothing more than normal protocol put in place by the Secret Service to insure the security of the First Lady during this event.

Not to split hairs because the thread premise is quite funny, but could you show me were the United States of America Constitution guarantees the "RIGHT" to vote? Voting isn't a Federal function thus doesn't pertain to the Federal government save the amendments that ensure equal access (women's right to vote shall not be abridged; race, color, creed, etc; age; et, al). There are also Federal regulations and laws that protect your rights pertaining to voting, just not to vote. Other than that, the "Right" to vote is deferred to the States and the People respectively via the 10th Amendment.

If your respective state doesn't say anything, than it is deferred exclusively to the People via the 9th and 10th Amendment.

Again, not trying to split hairs but elections and voting are State issues and if a State wants to require an ID, than it is up to its People to decide; not the Federal Governments'.

ETA:
I can see why people may be up in arms about the restricted access to the First Lady. In all honesty, no one man should be deemed to be a bigger State "asset" over any other citizen of the United States. Protection is understood, but the walls that presidents (yes, all of them) created with the Secret Service promote the Office of the President to be so exclusionary and smacks of anything but a free and open society.

Originally posted by sonnny1


And still the question remains. Why isnt she not up in arms,when her own Husband,didnt require ID'S for his bid,in his election?

WHY are you side stepping the question?

Thats sad also.....

Not sidestepping it whatsoever, its simply a empty question. You are assuming he never showed it to anyone before he ran. ASSUMING.