Obama signs law giving himself, Bush lifetime Secret Service guard

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
#1
Former presidents have to give up rides on Air Force One. But now they don't have to give up being shadowed by the armed-and-earpieced bodyguards of the Secret Service.

President Barack Obama on Thursday signed into a law a measure giving him, George W. Bush and future former presidents and their spouses lifetime Secret Service protection, the White House announced.

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.

At the time, lawmakers who supported the measure said it would save the government millions of dollars. They also argued that former presidents could hire private security firms (as Richard Nixon did after he decided to forgo Secret Service protection in 1985).

The bill had sailed through Congress with bipartisan support—it cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote in early December, and then it zipped through the Senate unopposed. The law also provides protection for former presidents’ kids until age 16. But “protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event of remarriage.”

The Secret Service started protecting presidents in 1901 after the assassination of William McKinley. In 1965, Congress passed a law authorizing the agency, which is now a part of the Department of Homeland Security, to protect former presidents for life.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3
 

Ballbuster1

In The Danger Zone...
Wackbag Staff
#2
This is what you get when he's not worried about re election.
Nigga gonna spend that cash. He gots his nah.
 

mascan42

Registered User
#3
Didn't they already have lifetime SS protection for themselves and their families? Or was that Nic Cage movie just full of shit?
 

gleet

What's black and white and red all over?
#4
"I need guns protecting my ass for the rest of my life. You little people... not so much."
 

Ballbuster1

In The Danger Zone...
Wackbag Staff
#5
Didn't they already have lifetime SS protection for themselves and their families? Or was that Nic Cage movie just full of shit?
They addressed that in the article:
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.

At the time, lawmakers who supported the measure said it would save the government millions of dollars. They also argued that former presidents could hire private security firms (as Richard Nixon did after he decided to forgo Secret Service protection in 1985).
Obviously he has no concerns about wasting millions
of tax payer dollars to protect his ass.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
#6
I think he should only have unarmed protection. There are already too many guns being used to protect civilians.
 

NuttyJim

Registered User
#8
Every President after Clinton (Clinton's were last to get lifetime protection) would receive protection for 10 years (including First Ladies excluding instances of divorce) but a sitting President can always extend that protection given certain circumstances. Children get it up until 18 years of age but again that can be extended. Former VPs generally only receive it for like 6 months to a year after end of office (again depends on circumstances).
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
#9
Every President after Clinton (Clinton's were last to get lifetime protection) would receive protection for 10 years (including First Ladies excluding instances of divorce)
So Hillary gets Secret Service protection AND armed military protection from being in the State Department? Must be nice having all that protection, especialLy when traveling in savage Muslim countries...
 
#10
I honestly have no problem with this. It's at least something within the scope of government.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
#11
I think he should only have unarmed protection. There are already too many guns being used to protect civilians.
I agree, there should be a gun free zone around all the "important" people to make them safer.
 

Ballbuster1

In The Danger Zone...
Wackbag Staff
#12
I honestly have no problem with this. It's at least something within the scope of government.
I do because of the idea that the budget and cuts are a big
point of discussion now. When spending is already out of
control, why add even more to the pile when you're trying
to reign in spending? This is just more hypocrisy from the
same guy that promised he would be different. This country
will never dig out of it's hole because nobody gives a shit
about being in it in the 1st place.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
#13
I honestly have no problem with this. It's at least something within the scope of government.

Everyone (you, not me) must sacrifice something for the greater good. I guess him having life time security is a part of the greater good.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
#17
I hope the terrorists get you, bitch.
"My fellow Americans,

It is with a heavy heart that I inform you that the now-former First Lady, my ex-wife, was found dead on the White House lawn after disappearing for several days. A preliminary investigation has revealed that she was most likely shot execution-style last night at exactly 7:48 pm EST with a standard-issue NSA weapon. Because of that, we must assume that the NSA has been infiltrated by a Russian spy. However, this spy was most likely acting alone and for personal reasons. We know this because semen was found in her throat, indicating that she had been angrily mouth-raped shortly before her death. We can only assume that her assailant was berating her for being a lying, blood-sucking bitch while he attacked her.

Naturally, many will ask why the Secret Service didn't do anything to stop this. Unfortunately, Secret Service protection doesn't extend to ex-wives. As a result, no one was around to do anything to help her. It's a tragedy and I would like to address that issue, but my hands are regrettably tied.

At this time, all we can do is jump headfirst into the healing process. The former First Lady wouldn't want anyone to mourn her passing for any length of time -- not even a second. Let us fondly look back on her life and character. Let us remember what a great mother she was. She was a truly amazing mom. She was so good at parenting that it's as though she thought she could do it all by herself. That it would be... better... that way. It was like she thought she didn't need a powerful man in her life. Tragically, I guess that turned out not to be the case, didn't it?

Now, in the spirit of moving on, I would like to announce a memorial barbecue on the White House lawn tonight. She would've wanted it that way. In fact, I'm sure she wouldn't want people to make themselves sad by mentioning her or by speaking her name or by even acknowledging that she had ever existed. Honey, we love you and you will be missed.

Goodnight, Nation."
 

LiddyRules

The 9/11 Moon Landings Were An Outside Job
#18
I like the idea of an ex-President losing his secret service protection to his ex-wife in a divorce.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
#19
I like the idea of an ex-President losing his secret service protection to his ex-wife in a divorce.
"I hereby order that custody of special agents Smith, Williamson, and Lopez be shared by the litigants on a weekend-weekday basis."
 
#20
I do because of the idea that the budget and cuts are a big
point of discussion now. When spending is already out of
control, why add even more to the pile when you're trying
to reign in spending? This is just more hypocrisy from the
same guy that promised he would be different. This country
will never dig out of it's hole because nobody gives a shit
about being in it in the 1st place.
I don't disagree with you in principle, but cut the money elsewhere. It's like when people only want to cut military budgets to save money. Stop giving parasites money to breed and vote democrat and you'll have plenty of money to protect former presidents.

I wouldn't lose a second of sleep if presidents lost protection the day they left office, but it's a benefit of the job, and within the scope of what government is supposed to do.

Besides, the last thing we need is Obama being martyred.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
#21
I don't disagree with you in principle, but cut the money elsewhere. It's like when people only want to cut military budgets to save money. Stop giving parasites money to breed and vote democrat and you'll have plenty of money to protect former presidents.

I wouldn't lose a second of sleep if presidents lost protection the day they left office, but it's a benefit of the job, and within the scope of what government is supposed to do.

Besides, the last thing we need is Obama being martyred.
Presidents are scumbags. Make them pay for it out-of-pocket. It's the least they can do for all the traveling they did that the taxpayers paid for.
 
#22
Presidents are scumbags. Make them pay for it out-of-pocket. It's the least they can do for all the traveling they did that the taxpayers paid for.
How about moving some ATF agents over to the Secret Service and assigning them the duty? There are plenty of ways that this could be done without costing a single penny extra. We'd be swimming in surplus if even a portion of the money these guys spend buying votes was used for purposes allowed in the Constitution.
 

NuttyJim

Registered User
#23
So Hillary gets Secret Service protection AND armed military protection from being in the State Department? Must be nice having all that protection, especialLy when traveling in savage Muslim countries...
She mainly gets Secret Service and Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) Protection.
 

weeniewawa

it's a man, baby!!!
#24
these same people are complaining about how it much it would cost to have armed guards in schools

this is going to cost way more than that.
 
Top