Security?: The U.S. Government and Secret Service
Posted: Saturday, November 28, 2009
by Kenny St.pierre
In case anyone hasn't heard yet, President Barack O'bama shook hands with two crashers at a White House dinner recently, and this happened while we are in the wake of our civil liberties being methodically taken away. Apparently the people most responsible for this blunder and who are unable to protect their President, are the same people who claim that it's in OUR best interest whenever they strip us of our constitutional rights in THEIR fight against terrorist, yet they can't even guard the door to the White House. Ha!
I know a man who was interrogated 6 years ago for about 45 minutes by the Secret Service because he had a bumper sticker on his car which read: "Save Our Troops - Kill Bush!" Imagine that these clowns (S.S.) can find the time to look into harmless bumper stickers so thoroughly, yet they can't keep uninvited guest from shaking hands with the President at a fenced-in White House. Ha! Ha!
Someday soon the Secret Service will allow themselves the liberty to stop us on street corners and harass us for identification, and while we're standing there we might curiously peer through the glass windows of a nearby television store and notice a news flash that our President has just been assassinated.
I ask, does everyone feel better today knowing that the government and Secret Service is protecting us against the invisible enemy they are trying to sell us? If the Secret Service can allow the President such loose security and lax protection, then it is reasonable to assume that our country IS NOT under any threat!!!! If we are, then how did these people get in, and how can the government convince me I am protected?
To investigate seriously the foolishness of this terrorist bull, let's reflect and reconsider 9/11 when then President Bush, after being informed that we were under attack, stayed in a Florida classroom to listen to the children read, which to my reasoning would mean Bush put the lives of those children at risk if he really believed we were under attack. I question, what SANE adult(s) would put kids at risk if they BELIEVED we were truly under an attack? Why would Bush and the Secret Service do nothing to protect those children IF they really believed we were under attack by foreign terrorist? Why were these "authoritative knowing responsible"adults so calm about it? Is it that our children do not matter to them, or did they know it was an inside job? I think the latter seems more reasonable. What other explanation could there be for them not getting out of there and sending immediate air force military protection for those kids if any hijacked planes were headed that way?
I further pondered; besides a few buildings falling down, wouldn't a terrorist agenda maybe include the killing of a President of the country they are attacking, especially when you take into consideration that the Pentagon had been hit? If there were actual calculating and intelligent terrorist responsible for the attacks on 9/11, as the government will have us believe, then that would have meant the terrorist would have known where Bush would be the morning of 9/11 - therefore the school would have been on their list of targets to attack also, no?
And, if I'm not mistaken, terrorist didn't need high-tech covert information to know the President's whereabouts on 9/11 because it was public knowledge. The media and American public knew in advance President Bush would be at the school the morning of 9/11, therefore if foreign terrorist were involved in the attacks on 9/11 wouldn't they have known just as easily as the general public where Bush would be? According to mainstream news agencies the terrorist were in America days before the attacks. I'm sure they read newspapers and watched American television, with knowledge of Bush's whereabouts, no?
Keep in mind we are talking about "vicious terrorist" here and not some low end street drug dealers! It is to my understanding that terrorist could care less about kids caught in the crossfire while implementing their plans. At least that's what the media and government tell me. So why didn't the terrorist attack the easy school target and the vulnerable President?
Speaking by example let me ask anyone reading this, What would you think if a child told a parent that a suspected pedophile was writing to them on MySpace, and that the pedophile was trying to coerce the child to meet them? What would you do? What if the parent in question didn't report it to authorities, but instead took matters into their own hands; communicating and baiting the pedophile via the computer to meet (the child) at an agreed upon location so the parent could hide away and beat the scumbag to a pulp as soon as their child was approached? Wouldn't most of you, if the story came into the public forum, be angry as hell that the parent put the child's safety at risk like that even if their plan succeeded? Suppose the parent's plan backfired and the pedophile somehow escaped with the child before the parent's plan had a chance to go into effect? What would you think of that parent?
Yet I wonder why no one questions why Bush stayed at the school on 9/11while putting those innocent children at risk? Was Bush daring the attackers to attack the school? If so, doesn't anyone find that sick or at best questionable? If not, then I'm curious how many of you are convinced he knew in advance it was an orchestrated inside job, and that the children were safe and under no threat?
Why is it we hold public figures less responsible for irresponsible actions than we do ordinary people? Is it fear and intentional ignorance that motivates us to turn away and not question anymore?
I recall when I was standing before a judge in Probate court for a child support hearing against me. I was already having medical insurance and money extracted from my weekly earnings for my children, but my ex-wife was unsatisfied and wanted more. When the woman judge came out she was immediately in my face, and embarrassed me a few times as though I were a low-life. At one point this judge stated, " You need to get a second job." My ex-wife at the time was in school and not working at all, yet the judge did not hold her accountable for any of the kids expenses, rationalizing that her education was necessary and would benefit my daughters in the future.
However, this I did not agree with and so I voiced my opinion to the judge. I felt for me to work more than the 45-50 hours a week I was already working, would take away from the enormous amount of time I spent with my girls. I believed and still do, that children need the everyday presence of their parents in their lives, and I did not want to work more hours for money my kids would never see, while also losing out on the precious time my daughters and I spent together. My ex was a selfish woman and kept most of the support for herself, and I knew if I had to pay more child support the kids would never see it. I knew undoubtedly I would only be paying for my ex's schooling and her night's out with her girlfriends. The judge raised my support anyway. Ha!
I never felt so down as I did that day. 75% of the time it was I who picked up my girls in the morning for school before I went to work. Most of the time I was the one who picked them up after school. 90% of the time I was the one who took them to their volleyball, basketball, and softball practices and games. More times then not I paid for their summer basketball camps and September school clothes and shoes. I was a father who had his kids EVERY weekend and each Tuesday night for sleep-overs. And to my disbelief, after repeated attempts at cooking breakfast for them, I began to notice they would hardly eat anything, so one morning I questioned them about it, whereas they told me their mother never had time to cook for them and that they were used to going without breakfast.
Why do I bring any of this up, and what does it have to do with White House crashers? Well, I don't know about the rest of you people, but I've gotten tired from all the verbal, psychological, and emotional abuse society hands out to an ordinary guy like me so freely, when all I ever try to do is the right thing. Yet those in authority, like Bush, Cheney, and the Secret Service, can be irresponsible time after time, and still never stand before a judge and having to answer! I'm tired of having to answer to people of authority for all that I do, but when those in authority do wrong they are rarely questioned anymore, making me madder than hell!
If the actions of the Secret Service and President George W. Bush on 9/11 were not enough to motivate the public to question authority, then I ask why should two White House intruders be enough for the American people to care and query the irresponsibility of the Secret Service's recent botch? Will it be just another news item for Letterman and Leno to have a field day with while we sit amused? Have we become so apathetically pathetic that we think our voices mean nothing against these unaccountable buffoons? How much more time and energy will be wasted this football season talking about Bill Bellichick's "bad call" against the Colts, when that same energy could be used to question Bush, 9/11, and the Secret Service's recent screw-up? Does anyone care anymore?
Sorry, but that last question I can't get myself to say "Ha!" to.
This Article has been viewed 275 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (1 total)Thank you for sharing this informative article.RegardsMarkThank you for taking the time to read and comment Mark!
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.