Obama Signs Law Giving Himself Armed Guards for Life

President Obama has signed a law that will give himself and all presidents Secret Service protection for life, reversing a law passed during the Clinton administration that gave former presidents a security detail for only 10 years after leaving office.

Armed guards. For life. Meanwhile he is trying to take away guns from the rest of us.

The new law signed on Wednesday also gives former first ladies lifetime security details (unless they divorce their former presidential spouse) and all presidential children a security detail until they are 16-years-old.

The now nullified law passed in the 1994 was originally presented as a way to save millions of dollars to the federal treasury. It was postulated that former presidents would have enough money of their own to hire private security services, as Nixon did when he decided to forego his government-supplied Secret Service details in his post presidential years. The 1994 law was to take effect for all presidents elected after 1997, so of the surviving presidents only George W. Bush and Barack Obama would have been affected.

The new law sailed through both houses of Congress and had massive bi-partisan support.

Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners
Larry King: That Piers Morgan is Awfully Self-Absorbed, Isn't He?
  • jim_m

    The constant refrain from the left of “Rights for me but not for thee” gets tiresome after a while.

  • herddog505

    Some animals are more equal than others.

  • 914

    The most worthless among the few jobs he has ever created.

  • GarandFan

    One wonders WHY this law was even brought up.

    • jim_m

      Certainly, just mandating a “gun free zone” around them would be far safer. Why they want to put themselves at such great risk by allowing firearms anywhere near them is beyond me. Unless of course, the whole gun control thing is just a bunch of BS.

      • herddog505

        True enough. Why, if an airline pilot can conceivably go nuts and start shooting up his plane and passengers, isn’t it COMPLETELY conceivable that a Secret Service agent, armed with a fully automatic weapon (they cause psychosis, you know), could do so as well?

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          I’d say it’s more probable. A pilot has many tasks to occupy his mind, while the agent only has one… and that one tends to foster a professional sort of paranoia.

          (Then again, it’s not paranoia when they’re actually out to get you, is it?)

  • ackwired

    Yeah…We’ve probably come to this point. I’m sure that the number of death threats against Obama far surpasses anything in our history.

    • jim_m

      Citation needed. What with the number of lefties openly fantasizing about the assassination of George W Bush, I highly doubt that obama comes even remotely close.

      Just more lefty projection on your part.

      • ackwired

        Upon further review…we are both wrong. The secret service reports that death threats against Obama were “comparable to that under George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_threats_against_Barack_Obama

        By the way, the psychological defense mechanism, projection, is the denying of one’s own thoughts, attributes, and emotions, and the ascribing of those thoughts, attributes, and emotions to others. Thus one who is practicing projection frequently claims to know the “true” motivation of others.

        • jim_m

          The difference between right and left is not in the desire to control others or punish those who oppose you. That’s called human nature. The difference is that the left lacks any sense of moral restraint to keep themselves from doing so. To say that the left participates in an ends-justifies-the-means behavior is not projection, it is a simple evaluation of their behavior.

          To claim that the left wants to assert their ideology over everyone else is not projection (everyone wants their ideology to win out). The difference is that the left is willing to do whatever is necessary to achieve that end and has no moral compass or fixed set of values that will restrain their activities. When we hear the left calling for suspension of elections and making obama a dictator so he “can just get things done”, this is not projection. When we hear the left saying that the right will do these things it is the left projecting because we see that they advocate just these things for themselves.

          You can go back and look at the left’s criticism of Bush’s policies and in almost every case the objections that they had are fulfilled in obama. The left complains that the right will do X,Y and Z and it doesn’t happen, but when the left comes to power all of a sudden it is they who are using the military to murder Americans.

          • herddog505

            jim_mThe difference is that the left is willing to do whatever is necessary to achieve that end and has no moral compass or fixed set of values that will restrain their activities.

            This is why they hate the Constitution (and the Bible, for that matter).

          • ackwired

            Sounds like you understand the “lefts” true motivations perfectly.

          • jim_m

            That would be left’s, and I only call it like I see it. I see the left making empty charges that Bush will do certain horrible things and then the left goes out and does them. I see the left breaking the law and refusing to step down from office yet demanding that when a conservative does the same thing that they be forced out immediately.

            The left has made it clear what their motives are. Hell they’ve even written their own books about it. Projection is unnecessary.

          • ackwired

            “The left has made it clear what their motives are. Hell they’ve even
            written their own books about it. Projection is unnecessary.”

            “Just more lefty projection on your part.”

            So…which is it?

          • jim_m

            The point was that projection on my part is unnecessary. Projection is a specialty of the left.

            Actually, I recall a study done a couple of years ago where the authors showed that people of liberal ideology had a very difficult time explaining the views of people they disagreed with. The authors claimed that this was because people of left wing ideology could not place themselves in another person’s shoes and see things from another viewpoint. Lefties cannot understand how anyone else thinks so they project their own thinking upon everyone else.

          • ackwired

            Yes. I have seen that also from extremists on both the left and right. I doubt that Freud had any political ideologies in mind when he developed the theory of projection.

          • jim_m

            Knowing Freud as we do now he was probably thinking of sex so your statement isn’t much of an argument.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Gotta admit, I see plenty of screaming and shouting on the left about conservatives being violent – and the only actual violent actions seem to come from liberals.

            Maybe they use it as a defense mechanism – “You’re so hateful and violent it perfectly justifies OUR hate and violence!1!”

          • herddog505

            Oh, lefties are the masters of tu quo que, no question about it.

            Even if they have to make up the nasty stuff that wingers have done to justify their response.

          • ackwired

            Yes, I see that to. But I see it from both extremes. I think it is more a function of extremism than which side the extremist is on.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      I’d doubt it. Probably Lincoln was more hated.

      Anyway – once he’s out of office for a few years I doubt he’ll be much more than a footnote… kind of like a hell of a case of athlete’s foot. Yeah, you ignored a lot of basic stuff, got the grunge, and now you’re going to take a while to cure it..

      • jim_m

        kind of like a hell of a case of athlete’s foot

        More like Herpes. Its lingering effects are likely to be felt for years to come.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          Well, we have kind of been fucked, haven’t we?

          Okay, herpes. And about all you can do is take medicine to prevent another outbreak…

    • herddog505

      Somebody actually shot at Ford. Reagan WAS shot.

      While I make no doubt that people detest Barry, I find it a bit hard to believe that he’s in sooooo much more danger than his predecessors.

      Or is this just another new angle to the historic, unprecedented nature of his reign?

      • ackwired

        You are right. The Secret Service reports that death threats against Obama are comparable to those against Bush II and Clinton. The citation can be found below.

  • Commander_Chico

    GW Bush will need lifetime government protection, with full government resources.

    Private security does not cut it. What you need is called a “security clearance” with full access to the intelligence of the USG, plus law enforcement powers to immediately act on that information. There is also the possibility of “collateral damage” to others in an attempt on the life of a former president. Common sense.

    • herddog505

      Did Truman, Ike, LBJ, Tricky Dick, Ford, Jimmuh, Ronny, et al get this sort of protection? If not, then why not? After all, didn’t they also have their heads stuffed with all sorts of classified information? Were not they, too, subject to death threats and assassination attempts?

      And should we extend this to members of Congress for similar reasons?
      I should say that my guess is that the only reason that this is an issue is that Barry and his gang are busily plotting how they can disarm us even while he makes sure that he’s got some of the best armed security in the world for the rest of his life. Gun free zones for thee, but certainly not for me.

      • Commander_Chico

        Yes, Truman was protected to the end of his life. As was his wife after that. Protecting Bess Truman was known as the most boring detail in the Secret Service. Nancy Reagan is also still protected. As noted, only Nixon paid for his own security.

        It’s not the security clearance of the protected, but that of the protectors I was talking about. Having a security clearance and law enforcement powers is a lot more effective than private security.

        • herddog505

          Yes, you’re right about former presidents getting the protection.

    • jim_m

      GW Bush will need lifetime government protection, with full government resources.

      I’m trying to figure out why this should be unless it is the left that is unhinged and violent. I suppose this is a tacit admission that when the left talks about the right being violent, they are merely projecting their own thinking.

      • Commander_Chico

        I’m trying to figure out why this should be

        Umm, I dunno, maybe the 100,000 plus Iraqis who got killed in that war he started, some families might want revenge?

        • herddog505

          Wait… if you think that Bush is guilty for their deaths (as you seem unquestionably to do), they shouldn’t you be AGAINST him getting government protection from these righteous avengers?

          • Commander_Chico

            No, because the deluded Congress endorsed that madness,. It was a decision we all shared in. That includes responsibility for the US dead and maimed, too.

            Plus, I believe that Bush was a fundamentally decent guy played by the evil Cheney and Rumsfeld. Bush was just a fool and a fuck-up, not evil.

          • herddog505

            Well, I guess that’s something…

          • jim_m

            I believe that Bush was a fundamentally decent guy played by the evil Cheney and Rumsfeld

            You left out the international Jewish conspiracy and the neocons.

        • jim_m

          Probably those 50 million people he gave a chance at freedom.

  • Mark Alejandrino

    Their faces & voices are seen & heard all over the world, not yours, & not everyone would agree with them including terrorist. If you’d ask me, Yes, they deserve a lifetime protection.

    • Oysteria

      In case you’ve missed it all over the web, the biggest complaint about this is the hypocrisy; not whether he needs protection.

  • herddog505

    From the Secret Service website:

    In 1965, Congress authorized the Secret Service (Public Law 89-186) to protect a former president and his/her spouse during their lifetime, unless they decline protection. In 1997, Congress enacted legislation (Public Law 103-329) that limits Secret Service protection for former presidents to 10 years after leaving office. Under this new law, individuals who are in office before January 1, 1997, will continue to receive Secret Service protection for their lifetime. Individuals elected to office after that time will receive protection for 10 years after leaving office. Therefore, President Clinton will be the last president to receive lifetime protection.

    http://www.secretservice.gov/faq.shtml#faq9

    As I wrote elsewhere, the only reason that this is a big deal is that Barry is taking lifetime security while scheming to deny the rest of us the means of self-defense.

  • Brian_R_Allen

    …. Obama Signs Law Giving Himself Armed Guards for Life ….

    Sounds like an invitation.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE