secret service

Here is a link Matt Drudge is pushing right now:

So now the President makes the laws? Well apparently so if you read the article it links to:

Despite launching a gun control agenda that threatens to disarm the American people, President Obama has signed a bill that would afford him armed Secret Service protection for life.

“The legislation, crafted by Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, rolls back a mid-1990s law that imposed a 10-year limit on Secret Service protection for former presidents. Bush would have been the first former commander in chief affected,” reports Yahoo News.

The new bill, which will cost American taxpayers millions of dollars, is a re-instatement of a 1965 law which will see presidents protected for life as well as their children up to age 16.

The irony of Obama seeking to surround himself with armed men for the rest of his life while simultaneously working to disarm the American people via a gun control agenda that is likely to be enforced via executive decree represents the height of hypocrisy.

This article is from the asinine conspiracy crazy Alex Jones site, so needless to say there is serious flaws in it, like the last paragraph I quoted.

Obama did not "seek" for this legislation. It was H.R. 6620, the Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012. The bill was introduced in the Republican lead House by a Republican representative. It passed both the House and Senate on voice votes, meaning it most likely carried a veto-proof majority.

The right would have you believe that Obama will go to any lengths to try and silence dissidence, of course without proof. What they seem to forget is the great lengths the Bush administration went to in order to silence the opposing views. Now the Supreme Court is going to hear one such case:

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether Secret Service agents protecting Vice President Dick Cheney may be sued for violating the free speech rights of a member of the public who made critical remarks about the Bush administration’s war policies.

The case arose from an episode in 2006 at a mall in Beaver Creek, Colo. A Secret Service agent said he heard Steven Howards say into a cellphone that he planned to ask Mr. Cheney “how many kids he’s killed today.” Mr. Howards later approached Mr. Cheney and said the administration’s “policies in Iraq are disgusting.” Mr. Howards then touched Mr. Cheney on the shoulder in a gesture variously described as an open-handed pat, a slap and a strike that caused the vice president’s shoulder to dip.

Confronted by the Secret Service, Mr. Howards denied touching Mr. Cheney and said, “If you don’t want other people sharing their opinions, you should have him avoid public places.” Agents arrested Mr. Howards for assault and turned him over to local authorities. He was charged with harassment under state law, but those charges were later dropped.

This is going to be a really interesting case to watch in a court ruled by ideology. If they rule against Mr. Howards, then they are saying that President Obama can have Secret Service silence those he disagrees with. Will the right accept that from a conservative leaning court?

This is absolutely disgusting:

The Republican Party of Virginia is strongly condemning an e-mail sent by Loudoun County’s GOP committee that shows President Obama as a zombie with part of his skull missing and a bullet through his head.

(Loudon County GOP)

“The disgusting image used today on a mass e-mail has no place in our politics. Ever,’’ said Pat Mullins, chairman of the state party. “The Republican Party of Virginia condemns the image and its use in the strongest possible terms.”

Even more disgusting is the Loudon GOP’s attempt at an apology:

Mark Sell, chairman of the Loudoun County Republican Committee, issued a statement that said:

“The Loudoun County Republican Committee yesterday sent an email to its members that represented a light-hearted attempt to inject satire humor into the Halloween holiday,’’ Sell wrote. Apparently, some individuals have interpreted an image of Barack Obama that appeared within the email as intending to portray the president as a victim of a violent crime. Nothing could be further from the truth, and we deeply and sincerely apologize to the president and anyone who viewed the image if that was the impression that was left. The LCRC deplores any effort to display, suggest or promote violence against the president or any other political figure.”

Way before Sarah Palin ever put out her “locked and loaded” ads, her rhetoric helped increase violence. Here’s a reminder in an article from November 8, 2008:

The Republican vice presidential candidate attracted criticism for accusing Mr Obama of "palling around with terrorists", citing his association with the sixties radical William Ayers.

The attacks provoked a near lynch mob atmosphere at her rallies, with supporters yelling "terrorist" and "kill him" until the McCain campaign ordered her to tone down the rhetoric.

But it has now emerged that her demagogic tone may have unintentionally encouraged white supremacists to go even further.

The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin's attacks.

Michelle Obama, the future First Lady, was so upset that she turned to her friend and campaign adviser Valerie Jarrett and said: "Why would they try to make people hate us?"

This report came out when George Bush was still President, so it wasn’t “Obama’s Secret Service”, but rather the findings of the Secret Service under the former President. It really is troubling that a person who aspires to be a leader of this nation refuses to take any responsibility for the effects of her rhetoric. Palin is quick to claim her first amendment rights, but with those rights come responsibility. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater without legal repercussion just the same way you can’t insinuate violence should be taken against our leaders or any other person. Sarah Palin needs to quickly realize that or she needs to get off the national stage.

Sounds like Judd Gregg is really pushing to expand the size of our federal government in this video clip:

Transcript via Think Progress:

DR. NANCY: So what do you say to the average American who has played by all the rules who can’t have the same health care you have, and you’re one of our elected officials?

GREGG: (laughs) Well, you know, if you work for the government, you’ll get the same health care I have. I mean, I have the same health care as a person who works for the Secret Service, who works for the FBI, or works down at the local federal building.

I just love how he laughs when asked about people who can’t get quality healthcare. I’m sure those people aren’t laughing one bit you inconsiderate prick.

The story of the White House party crashers is apparently the only thing that has happened over the extended weekend if you listen to MSNBC, so let me take a moment and bring up my thoughts.

There is a lot of finger pointing going on with this. Some are blaming the Secret Service, while others point the finger at the White House. The latter is completly obscene, but if the right wants to travel that path then let’s remind them of a man who posed as a reporter for a fake publication and sat in the White House press briefing room for a couple of years under Bush. Jeff Gannon not only sat in the briefing room, but also was in attendance when countless foreign leaders were visiting. Security at these events are much more relaxed than they are during a state dinner.

But I really want to focus on the Secret Service. Yes there was an apparent failure here, but what caused that failure? People seem to be ignoring the fact that President Obama has received more threats than any other president, so the Secret Service is stretched thin trying to keep the President safe as it is. The fact that Obama has been such a big target of threats has become a laughing issue for the right, which it is not. It’s a very serious issue, and one that the Secret Service takes very seriously. Perhaps it’s time to increase the size of the Secret Service.

Then there is the issue of what to do with the couple. Many are calling for criminal charges. I’m sure prosecutors can find something to charge the couple with, but will it stick? The most I can think of charging them with is trespassing and that is a rather minor crime. Instead of being out for blood we should be looking for solutions, like not allowing this to happen again.

Pam Spaulding caught this nasty poll running on Facebook by a third party developer:

The poll has been disabled by Facebook so action has been taken. Hopefully further action will take place in the form of the Secret Service checking out the developer.

UPDATE:

Greg Sargent has posted the following:

The Secret Service is investigating the circumstances surrounding an eye-opening Facebook poll that asked whether Obama should be assassinated, a Secret Service spokesman confirms to us.

“We are taking the appropriate investigative steps,” the spokesman, Ed Donovan, told our reporter, Amanda Erickson. “We are aware of it.”

According to Greg it was the Secret Service that told Facebook to pull that poll.

The award has to go to this guy, who brought a gun to the townhall yesterday:

Matthews did a great job at handling him, but I think it could have gone a little further. For example – we have a right to free speech, but does that mean this guy could yell “I’m going to kill you” to the President and not end up locked in a room with Secret Service? Of course not.

Adding that even some on the right are questioning this guy now.