Poor Secret Service Protection Threatens America’s Security

Can you imagine the consequences of Joe Biden in the Oval Office?

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

65 Responses to Poor Secret Service Protection Threatens America’s Security

  1. Moe over Curly?

    • stewart pid says:

      That is pretty much what I was thinking … although Biden’s fusterclucks might be less creative than Barry’s.

  2. Bob Knows says:

    Even Joe Biteme would be a huge improvement than the mad Kenyan. “America is a Muslim nation,” Obama.

  3. Pathway says:

    Because Joe is a Cracker, the House would not be afraid of him and might even decide to fulfill their constitutional duties.

  4. The Iconoclast says:

    The man may actually have some sense of his limitations, though.

  5. redc1c4 says:

    lazy stupid leaders are always less trouble than active stupid ones.

    advantage Biden.

    that being said, having the #SCOAMF killed in an assassination would not be of benefit to this country, long term.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Unfortunately you are correct. I am sure the likes of Eric Holder, Jeh Johnson and Janet Napolitano will IMMEDIATELY blame the Tea Party, Sarah Palin and Conservatives no matter who was actually to blame.

  6. Okie says:

    Gine me stupidity (Biden) over treachery (Obama) any day of the week

  7. Biden For President 2016: “My opponent is content to let the atmosphere collapse. I will keep that from happening!”

  8. Gail Combs says:

    Aug 2009 US President Barack Obama is the target of more than 30 potential death threats a day and is being protected by an increasingly over-stretched and under-resourced Secret Service, according to a new book.

    …Since Mr Obama took office, the rate of threats against the president has increased 400 per cent from the 3,000 a year or so under President George W. Bush, according to Ronald Kessler, author of In the President’s Secret Service….

    I doubt if Obama is any more liked now than he was in 2009. Rasmussen Reports says, “The president’s monthly job approval rating held steady at 46% in August for the second month in a row and remains his lowest monthly approval rating this year. It’s up just a point from his two-year low of 45% reached in November during the troubled rollout period for the new national health care law. “

    In another report from last year on the Obamacare rollout:

    …Quinnipiac’s numbers on Obamacare were also exactly the same as their numbers on Obama: 49 percent favored the health care legislation, 55 percent were opposed. Moreover, a near-majority — 46 percent — said the president knowingly deceived them when he assured Americans over and over that they could keep their health insurance plans.

    There are few names a president can be called that are more damaging than liar.

    The numbers are particularly daunting when you look at the groups that Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg identifies as major parts of “the big cultural and demographic wave that threatens to swamp the Republican party” — young voters and Hispanics.

    Obama carried voters under 30 by 66 percent to 32 percent in 2008 and 60 percent to 37 percent in 2010. He carried older voters by 1 point in the first election and lost them to Mitt Romney in the second.

    Obama did even better with Hispanics: 67 percent to 31 percent in 2008 and 71 percent to 27 percent in 2012. This was one of the few demographic groups among which he ran stronger than four years earlier.

    But that was then, and this is now. Quinnipiac shows young voters disapproving of Obama 54 percent to 36 percent and Hispanics disapproving 47 percent to 41 percent.…..

    So it doesn’t seem as if Obama has managed to gain back the voters he lost over his signature Obummercare fiasco.

    The big question is if we are going to have a ‘terrorist attack’ just in time to make the Democrats heroes before Nov 2014 or Nov 2016. Do I think much of the Middle East terrorism is staged? Yeah, I think there is some definite string pulling going on. Otherwise Fast and Furious would never have occurred and stimulus funds would have been used to build the darn wall from the Gulf to the Pacific. Instead the measly 700 miles we were promised during the last Amnesty go-round has yet to be built. (The Mexican border is almost 2,000 miles long.)

    If I were Obummer I would certainly be a wee bit worried. He is now worth much more to the Movers and Shakers dead then he is worth alive. I wonder if he is smart enough to know it?

    • Ed Martin says:

      Next up on the Fox-Please Buy My Book$$$ Channel: Bill O’Reilly to remind us that Abraham Lincoln would not have let his bodyguards screw up like this. 😉

      Did you know that there was gun walking in 2006-2007 called ‘Operation Wide Reciever’ where large numbers of guns were lost. Phoenix and Tucson was doing it even before that. Did you know??????

      • gator69 says:

        There was no gun ‘walking’ program until Fast and Furious. Operation Wide Receiver only used about 300 guns, and they were traceable using RFID chips and surveillance. F&F only recorded serial numbers of the roughly 2000 guns they employed, and sent them on their merry way. WR also worked hand in hand with the Mexican government while F&F was unknown to our southern neighbor. But the most important differences are that WR did not result in the death of any US border guards, and was abandoned when it was clear there was a problem.

  9. Latitude says:

    i would love it…..we could go back to posting monkey pictures

  10. wyoskeptic says:

    Hell no, keep the sorry sob alive. The last thing anyone needs is for B Hussein (Obama) to become any sort of martyr. If he were to become one, the US would never get rid of his legacy. Let him fade away into the memory of a bad dream / nightmare.

    He is no Kennedy after all.

  11. One saving grace is that there are 53 million people who are dumber than me as they voted for Obama twice! That and a dollar will buy me a cold cup of coffee

  12. Gail, I’m glad to still be on the sunny side of the dirt and intelligent.

  13. aeroguy48 says:

    I fear for the next pres in office not this current one.

  14. Truthseeker says:

    I make this prediction with a confidence level of over 99%.

    In the next US presedential elections, the people of the USA will lose …

  15. Phil Jones says:

    Joe would be hilarious…

    At least we’d get some entertainment value out of Biden at the helm…

  16. gator69 says:

    “When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.” –Joe Biden

    Our very own Chauncey Gardner.

    • mjc says:

      And they said Dan Quayle was an idiot for adding an ‘e’ to potato…

    • tom0mason says:

      Good film ‘Being There’, every Democrat should watch it.
      Chauncey Gardner seems very wise and knowledgeable compared to the current WH incumbent.

  17. rah says:

    SS is just working at a comparable level to the standards the rest of the administration is performing at. I The closer to the WH any agency is, the lower the level acceptable of performance is. Don’t know why anyone would be surprised by that.

    • Gail Combs says:

      I am sure Barrack and Michelle are demanding the Secret Service uses Affirmative Action Objectives in their hiring. {:>D

      1. Eyesight – best corrected visual acuity of 20/100
      2. must be able to hit the broad side of a barn at 2 paces
      3. Hearing loss range best corrected 56 to 70 (dB HL)….

      • rah says:

        BTW, I have always thought that AA had no place in the Army but sure does. Even back in the 80’s they lowered the PT standards so that females could go Airborne. Now I have no problem with female soldiers at all. In fact in Special Operations they can be a real asset. But their reason for having us do all those pushups was that it takes upper body strength to pull down on the risers to slip the chute. I did a whole bunch of extra pushups when a black hat (Airborne trainer) claimed that and I said “Well I guess the girls must be natural expert jumpers since they don’t do what we men are doing.”

        When it comes down to it, either you meet the standards or you don’t and changing the standards to accommodate any sex, race, or religious belief is just plain wrong. And it has only gotten worse. Now they have allowed a Seik to serve with his beard. Beards in the Army have been forbidden (except under specific medical or operational exceptions) for a very long time on the basis of hygiene and because they claimed that the facial hair would not allow a gas mask to seal correctly. But now that they have allowed a Seik to serve with his beard all those claims have gone out the window.

        • au1corsair says:


          I met the last three Sikhs serving in the United States Army during 1991 through 1994. We were also in the same unit, used the same karate studio–the Army banned Sikhs who followed the tradition about unshorn hair.

          So the Army was forced to change again?


          Doesn’t seem to be a big deal right now. Perhaps the Army will permit carrying a Bible and wearing Christian religious medallions again, too.

        • Gail Combs says:

          I agree with you. As much as it rankles, women just do not have the muscle mass of men. That means we should stick to what we can do. If the female can meet the standards good for her. If not then she should do another job. (My ex was a basic training officer and talk about pathetic…)

  18. rah says:

    And then why should any soldier not now be allowed a beard since uniformity has gone out the window?

    • Gail Combs says:

      Short hair is a hygiene matter. It also doesn’t allow a useful hand hold in a fight.

      Army manuals have been refined for over three thousand years. As technical writers say, they have had over three thousand years to get it right. The Darn Progressives need to keep HANDS OFF!

      …the time is ripe to reflect on the roots of dressage—the very roots—as far back as we can historically trace them: Xenophon’s fourth century B.C. treatise On Horsemanship, which, if you’re like me, has been foisted upon you by every clinician, coach or columnist you’ve encountered as essential reading for the bookish equestrian….

      The Art of War was written nearly 4000 years ago, by Sun Tzu, a high ranking Chinese general. The book was created as a military strategy guide. Sun Tzu is universally recognized as the greatest military strategist in history, a master of warfare interpretation.

      Sun Tzu’s The Art of War is as timely for business people today as it was for military strategists in ancient China. Written in China more than 2,000 years ago, Sun Tzu’s classic The Art of War is the first known study of the planning and conduct of military operations. These terse, aphoristic essays are unsurpassed in comprehensiveness and depth of understanding, examining not only battlefield maneuvers, but also relevant economic, political, and psychological factors. Indeed, the precepts outlined by Sun Tzu regularly applied outside the realm of military theory. It is read avidly by Japanese businessmen and was touted in the movie Wall Street as the corporate raider’s bible….


      • rah says:

        Actually I got the Kindle version of that book free though I read the dead tree version years ago.

      • rah says:

        It is obviously not a hygiene matter for Sikhs though and so why should it be for any other solider?

        Obviously I agree with you Gail but the fact is that when unnecessary exceptions for regulations are allowed then the stated reasons for those regulations can be rightfully brought into question.

        On top of that uniformity is a necessary discipline.

        While attending PLDC (Primary Leadership Development Course) at Ft. Knox as an already SF qualified and assigned soldier I was told by my platoon instructor that I could not wear the regulation green beret of my specialty and unit in the interest of uniformity. The green beret, unlike any other Army head gear, was stipulated as the garrison and dress headgear for Army Special Forces as per an executive order from JFK. Thus the Army can’t take it away. But in the interest of comity and in the spirit of uniformity I complied without complaint or comment.

        Then one cold morning during the course our ordered uniform included the Army winter cap with ear flaps but that same instructor was standing at the front of our formation wearing his fatigue cap. That is when I stepped out of the crowd and made the point that he was not uniform. It went all the way up to the schools Sergeant Major and my point was taken. Of course I was dogged for it. The very next morning I failed inspection because it was claimed my pin on rank was out of position by about a 64th of an inch. But it was worth it to make the point. If your gonna make the rules then by God your going to live by them.

        This is why many service schools like that hate to see an SF troop in attendance. We tend to not stay quiet when we see the all too frequent examples of the Military habit of abuse of authority under the auspices of “leadership.”

        • Gail Combs says:

          I certainly agree that it is all about discipline and conformity.

          As a female who has caved and backpacked with long hair, I can also say it is a matter of hygiene too. Long hair out in the field is a real royal pain to keep clean. So much so that when I went on a 6 week camping trip I had my hair cut Army short. Wiping the entire head with a wet rag is a LOT easier than washing, rinsing and drying long hair.

          The other hygiene problem is head lice. Very contagious and hard to get rid of. Much easier to just cut all the hair off the heads of the recruits and then keep the hair short.

          Beards can also carry lice link

          I since human lice are common, I am fairly sure they are probably the reason for requiring short hair and no beards aside for the handy hand grip problem and the drive for uniformity.

        • rah says:

          Andy portion of the body or for that matter even certain apparel having fur can provide habitat for the lice and their nits leading to pediculosis. The three varieties are capitus, corpus, or pubis.

  19. What would be really helpful is the ability to do a recall election of a president at least once per year. (I would prefer twice.) Then there would no need for this talk of assassinations. A good threshold for signatures might be:

    25% of the registered voters of a state must sign the petition for a recall vote, with the requirement that this threshold be met in enough states so that if every state voted to recall, their electoral votes would total 270 or more.

    In other words not every state would have to meet the threshold in order for a vote to be triggered, and the vote would only happen if, prior to the deadline, sufficient states met the threshold so that if they all voted to recall, the electoral vote in favor of recall would be at least 270. In states where the petition did not meet the threshold or there was no petition as of the deadline, participation in the vote would be at the state’s discretion.

    I would also support the idea of having a mandatory interim election for both President and VP in the event of a successful recall, with the winners to serve out only the remainder of that current four-year term, and then have to stand again for re-election if they want to continue. The VP of the recalled President would be President only during the time of the interim election and a transition period, unless of course he is re-elected during the interim election.


    • Actually I didn’t mean “no need for this talk…” but “no reason” for it. There isn’t any need anyway. RTF

      • Gail Combs says:

        Actually I liked the old way. No parties and the second place winner was VP. That way if you remove the first guy from office you do not get his clone.

        • But I just wrote just now that you would not get him for more than a few months! What exactly is wrong with what I’ve written?

          Also there’s nothing in what I wrote that requires parties in any way, shape or form! I didn’t even mention them, and neither does the Constitution. If you want to eliminate parties from the presidential elections, that would require the support of far more people than we are likely to get for any kind of reform. Why not start with something easier?

        • Gail Combs says:

          I am not criticizing you or your idea. I am just stating a preference. I also wish politicians were honest but I know better than to hope for it.

          Actually I would start smaller. The right of recall for all federal (and state) senate and house congress critters. Unfortunately not all states have that as an option.

          You might want to look into



          No use working alone.

        • Why do say that I’m working alone? It seems you imagine that I’m the only one who wants the President recalled. Don’t you want him recalled? There is a whole blog page here of people who want the President out. So don’t just sit there complaining. If we want presidents to be recallable, this is the ideal time to pursue that, because the President is extremely unpopular right now. It is absolutely achievable to present a state legislature with an impressive-sized petition for such an amendment. If you have a major grievance, petition your government for redress of that grievance under the First Amendment. But what you have argued makes no sense:

          1. Actually, I prefer doing more than your petition.
          2. Actually, I support doing less than your petition.

          I repeat my question: what exactly, in your view, is wrong with my idea? Or would you sign it if presented with such a petition? Also, have you signed a paper petition for the congressional idea that you support?

        • P.s. Are any of those three groups planning to pass any paper petition of any sort on Election Day? Because I don’t see them saying anything about it on their home pages. RTF

        • Also regarding the honesty of politicians, that is precisely why we need a presidential recall passed as a constitutional amendment. I am sure there are states where at least one chamber of the legislature would pass this. I have little doubt that with sufficient signatures as an impetus, the Florida House would be happy to pass it!


        • Gail Combs says:

          I do want the ability to recall esp. Federal Senators and Congressmen or at least term limits but there is little hope for that.

          I Do Not want Obummer recalled. He and his asinine moves are the best publicity for a saner government I have ever seen. Also impeachment or recall leaves Obummer a martyr – a really bad move. Plus impeachment leaves us with Biden who can, as a sitting president, run for office – UGH!

          Right now Obummer’s popularity is ~45% so not enough people have woken up to just how bad this government really is.

          Wednesday, October 01, 2014
          47% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Obama’s job performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) disapprove

          WE can see just how bad things are but most people can’t. Wasting time on getting recall through is useless until we wake the sheeple up. That is our most important job right now.

          Oh, and just to add insult to injury, a new study shows the Sheeple are much happier with more government (Blech gag) or that is the how the reporter sees it. Typical twisting of facts.

          Professors: Bigger government means happier citizens

          Big government improves life satisfaction of citizens around the world, according to a recent study.

          Professors Alexander Pacek of Texas A&M, Patrick Flavis of Baylor University, and Benjamin Radcliff of the University of Notre Dame studied 21 free market, capitalist democracies and concluded that “life [is] more satisfying as the degree of government intervention in the economy increases.”

          The professors’ findings conclude that limited government poses problems such as social inequality and poverty which can lead to insecurities in citizens. On the other hand, Pacek says government intervention, if it is done correctly, “can improve life satisfaction by smoothing out these kinds of negative effects and consequences.”

          The study examined spending on social welfare programs, the size of government, generosity of welfare benefits, and workplace protections….

          “In short, to compare today’s happiness with today’s government spending is to automatically bias the results in favor of big government,” Davies said. “What you’re seeing may not be greater overall happiness so much as a shifting of happiness from tomorrow to today.”

          Davies conducted a similar study,… which concluded that countries with greater economic freedom have higher incomes, less unemployment, less poverty, less income inequality, cleaner environments, less child labor, and less gender inequality.

          “Virtually every objective measure we associate with a ‘healthy’ society is positively correlated with economic freedom. In turn, economic freedom, requires smaller government,”

          I do not think she even read the words she wrote or she is hoping no one reads the entire piece.

        • I respect your view on the consequences of recalling Obama. However, this would not be enacted so quickly anyway. So I think that if one wants generic presidential recall, this is a good time to start it.

          The latest Gallup poll that I looked at (yesterday) showed Obama at 51 percent disapproval. Is it enough to recall him under the scheme I proposed (assuming it were in place, which it wouldn’t be)? Maybe, maybe not, but that misses the point. The point is that to gain support for a constitutional amendment, we need more than just websites, membership organizations, and angry online comments. (Though there’s nothing necessarily wrong with those.) We need petitions! The act of passing them gets people talking, and that can produce higher levels of support in the future. We have to start somewhere. Truthfully, there is no valid reason I can see not to.

          You yourself said on another thread, “[Too] bad there is no way, we as citizens can not take these *&^%$ to court for Tre@$0n.” Well, theoretically we could petition to give ourselves that power. However, this has the same effect, and is much more practical to enact than trying to give ourselves the power to try a President for treason. In addition, I think making a case against this or any President for treason would be very difficult because it would require the open and public testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act of providing aid and comfort to a specific enemy. And of course he would have the right of cross-examination. Recall, on the other hand, would be a superior option.

          If you don’t like the idea of the VP becoming president because he would have an incumbency advantage, would you sign the petition if we changed it to recall both of them at the same time, or not at all? We could say that the Speaker would become President for the time it took to run an election and do the transition, and that he could not run in that same election.

        • BTW the Gallup poll said 43% support, and I strongly believe that a significant portion of those are lying because they don’t want to be labeled a racist. But if you give them a ballot that says, should he stay, a certain number of that 43% will vote “no”. That’s why this is an ideal time. The anger level is much higher, I think, than many people are willing to admit. RTF

        • And that would also explain the continuing composition of the House. Remember in 2010 the “zeitgeist” was that that only happened because of demographic shifts that had not yet been reflected in the districting. Everything was going to change when the new districts kicked in in 2012, or so we were told by both sides. Oops….

          We may not get a better time than this to enact a constitutional amendment designed to shift some power back out of Washington. There could be several in play at the same time. I am simply arguing to include this as part of the mix.


        • Gail Combs says:

          I would prefer to think about it for a bit mainly to research this:

          As to removal by recall, the United States Constitution does not provide for nor authorize the recall of United States officers such as Senators, Representatives, or the President or Vice President, and thus no Member of Congress has ever been recalled in the history of the United States. The recall of Members was considered during the time of the drafting of the federal Constitution in 1787, but no such provisions were included in the final version sent to the states for ratification, and the specific drafting and ratifying debates indicate an express understanding of the framers and ratifiers that no right or power to recall a Senator or Representative in Congress exists under the Constitution.

          Found here:

          I also do not think a simple majority is a good idea for recall because it would cause too much instability in the government. It could make the president fearful of making hard decisions that are correct but unpopular. It also means the new media would become the rulers of the USA (Not that they are not already)

          Since I have great respect for those who thrashed out the Constitution I would prefer to know why they decided not to give the citizens the right of recall but left it to their representatives to impeach those who abused their power.

          My SWAG is they expected the right of jury nullification to be the method left to the citizens to rein in an out of control government.
          ….As Thomas Jefferson put it to Tom Paine in a 1789 letter, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” ….

          Here is how the politicians have gotten around the US Constitution to make sure citizens are denied their right to a trial – link

          And then there is the growth of the unconstitutional bureaucracy.

          Former Senator Schmitt Cites Constitutional Limits on Regulatory Government

          Regulatory intrusions into the social and economic fabric of America have reached crisis levels in their attack on individual and collective freedom. Recent actions by the Obama Administration in placing regulatory limits on healthcare, the Internet, the use of public lands, transportation, energy production and transmission, and financial transactions merely constitute the tip of a colossal authoritarian iceberg ahead of the American Ship of Liberty.

          It is now obvious that Congress got America into a real pickle when it agreed in 1933, as part of Roosevelt’s New Deal, to delegate law-making power to agencies under the control of the President. This unconstitutional and increasingly threatening situation became entrenched with the passage of the 1946 Administrative Procedures Act. APA set up the formal mechanisms for creating regulatory law outside any direct action by Congress.

          With the Administrative Procedures Act, Congress gave the Executive Branch almost complete responsibility for directly overseeing the economic burden, legality, and the constitutionality of non-legislative regulations. The legal oversight of regulatory law through the Federal Courts, and its costs were left to the people and the States, as the current challenges to healthcare law and regulations so clearly illustrate.

          Does any constitutional authority exist for Congress to transfer the power to establish regulatory law to a federal agency? The very limited answer to this question is “yes.” Clause 18 of Section 8, Article I, gives Congress the final power, “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof.” The underlined phrases, however, clearly limit Congressional authority to enumerated powers, specifically Clauses 1-17. Federal Judge Henry Hudson’s recent ruling that Clause 18 “may only be constitutionally deployed when tethered to a lawful exercise of an enumerated power” reinforces this obvious limitation….

        • Very well, I’ll watch for your further comment. Thanks! RTF

        • “It could make the president fearful of making hard decisions that are correct but unpopular.”

          The problem we face is that the people are much more malleable than they used to be. It is much easier to talk them into voting for an obviously bad candidate. By the same token, it may also be easier to talk them into voting against a decent incumbent. That’s the tradeoff.

          But … if you prefer a supermajority, one problem I see with that is that our goal is to make presidents who want to make bad decisions that, by some miracle, happen to be unpopular, to think twice about it, and to remove them if they prove intransigent. Making it too hard could prove to be the same as the status quo. I’d rather take the chance of creating some unwanted instability than take the chance that all our efforts would end up being in vain. I could certainly support 275, and I’ll go along with whatever has the most support. But I think that 280 is a mistake. In my opinion, it would be too hard to get over that hill. Plus, if you introduce the public to the idea of a supermajority, all of a sudden the entire fight is going shift from “should any President ever be recalled” to “how much power for the people is too much”? Everyone will have their own preferred number, and the campaign will fracture. No one will get what they want. The Obamas and their kind will laugh till they can’t breath.

          Politics is about compromise.


Leave a Reply