TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:<SNIP>
fringe nutburgers
<SNIP>

You sir, are an eloquent man.

longtooth wrote:

RoadRunnerTR21 wrote:Maybe Obama slipped this new directive because he will fear for his life from this point on. After all he will go back to the "safe" streets of Chicago at some point after he leaves office.

My Oppinion

1. He is not intending to leave office.
2. He alread has food tasters I understand.

#2 i heard as well that he would eat at an event that had real nice lobsters..because his taster was not there...but it could be a rumor

lifetime protection. is crazy
but there are enough fruit cakes out there to try to expire a former pres,

TAM,

I agree that the Ex President's should be given lifetime protection. But it is worth mentioning that Richard Nixon gave up his Secret Service protection in 1985: "...he became the first former President voluntarily to give up lifetime Secret Service protection, saving taxpayers $3 million a year." From http://nixonfoundation.org/president-richard-nixon/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I could support an income qualification for their protection and require them to reimburse the cost, or part thereof, if they can afford it. Maybe have the reimbursement start the tenth year after leaving office.

Ron

Do these Democrat idiots want an armed conflict??? Sure seems that way!

TexasGal wrote:I certainly can not argue that, but it seems to me they have a pretty nice retirement package as it is. What's wrong with hiring his own bodyguards after 10 years? Its more protection than he wants citizens to have.

Exactly. He CHOSE to run for President. He knew the risks --which I suspect are highly overestimated for a ex-President anyway. Once he's a private citizen he should have no more privileges or power than any other private citizen. He wants security he should provide for it out of his own pocket, as the rest of us have to do. And he should absolutely be prohibited from having any bodyguards with any weapons he wants to deny the rest of us.

rtschl wrote:TAM,

I agree that the Ex President's should be given lifetime protection. But it is worth mentioning that Richard Nixon gave up his Secret Service protection in 1985: "...he became the first former President voluntarily to give up lifetime Secret Service protection, saving taxpayers $3 million a year." From http://nixonfoundation.org/president-richard-nixon/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I could support an income qualification for their protection and require them to reimburse the cost, or part thereof, if they can afford it. Maybe have the reimbursement start the tenth year after leaving office.

Ron

Come on....."income qualification"? All these guys get super-rich from being president. Clinton spent what, something like 5 or 6 million dollars on his daughter's wedding? We've got a corrupt moneyed aristocracy now.....there are no more Truman's. These days these criminals leave office with the promise of loot beyond the wildest dreams of any former King or Potentate. Using taxpayer money to protect these looters and destroyers should be a crime. They can pay for it themselves or do without, like their subjects.

TexasGal wrote:The Colorado law would grant peace officer status to any member of any branch of the Secret Service to be able to arrest whom they believe to be breaking state law(supposedly those stiff necked Sheriffs). It seems to me this is being put in place for abuse by the Executive branch of the Government.
The post above that lists the duties of the Secret Service mentions they protect former Presidents for 10 years. Not Obama and Bush. Obama recently quietly signed into law a new directive--he gets a lifetime of Secret Service protection. I guess he added Bush on so the law would get put through without fanfare. I saw only one announcement of it on the evening news.
I'm guessing he plans to continue annoying a lot of people whom he feels he will need to fear for as long as he lives. I can't imagine what a lifetime of protection by these guys will cost the taxpayer.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/10/obama ... rotection/

Ok, time out...

Where is the crime???

If a local County Sheriff, elected to that office by the constituency, decides, and has a consensus from that body, that a Federal law is un-Constitutional, and decided to NOT enforce it...Where is the crime in that??? What could be the punishment??? To have a law that has to be enforced there has to be a penalty/punishment to structure a sentence for that crime...So far, I do not see a penalty/punishment for not enforcing a Federal law which is determined at the local level to be un-Constitutional...

Look at it this way...If the Federal government passes a law that forces a woman to "seek" an abortion for every other conception/pregnancy because of some arbitrary social need (good of the people kind of thing)...Who is going to enforce that, and would that be a Constitutional law??? There is no way this would be enforced!!!

Somewhere a line in the sand needs to be clearly defined, the powers the Federal government is trying to force over on us is increasing expotentially every single day, and it is getting to a point of critical mass...These Feds are rolling the dice every single chance they get to see if they can push us to the breaking point of either total capitulation to their un-Constitutional pursuits, or we beat them at their own game of brinkmanship...

Of course if we can beat back those folks at the ballot box, that would be the ideal situation...I do not believe they fear the ballot box anymore...I think we need to renew our efforts and call them on their assumptions...

Obviously I agree with these elected Sheriffs who have thought beyond the political ramifications of their decisions, and we need to back them up...that IS our duty...Otherwise, we might as well go ahead and capitulate, turn in our firearms and submit totally to be ruled by these people...No need to fight this anymore...

I mean really folks...Is this such a hard decision to make???

Maybe I'm wrong...Some may believe I am still lookig to pick a fight...Far from it, I'm just calling their bluff...They are the ones fomenting this situation...I'm doing nothing, not breaking any laws, I am only a citizen of this country (hopefully not the only one) that recognizes the risk these temporary residents of thes political offices that are steering on such a destructive course...

I'd kinda like it if we steered to some fair winds and following seas...