While trying to disarm the citizens, Obama grants himself armed security protection for life

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 by: J. D. Heyes
Tags: Obama, security protection, gun control

(NaturalNews) As President Obama and his allies in Congress seek to limit your ability to provide armed protection for you and your family, the master political magician has just signed off on legislation forcing taxpayers to provide him with armed protection for life.

"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," Yahoo! News reported Jan.10. "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 legislation, which was introduced by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., reverses a law passed in the mid-1990s imposing a 10-year limit on Secret Service protection for former commanders-in-chief. President Bush, the report said, would have been the first former president affected by the change.

Protection for the elite; none for you

When they initially passed the legislation, supporters said it would save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. In addition, they said former presidents could follow the path of Richard M. Nixon, who shunned Secret Service protection in lieu of hiring his own private security firm in 1985.

But the profligate spenders in the current Congress obviously felt no such loyalty to the taxpayer; Gowdy's legislation rolling back the 10-year limit easily passed the House of Representatives on a voice vote in early December, then went on to sail through the Senate unopposed.

The new law also mandates that the children of presidents receive government-subsidized protection until age 16; protection for spouses would be ongoing as well, but "protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event of remarriage," the law says.

Secret Service agents began protecting presidents in 1901 following the assassination of William McKinley; in 1965, Congress passed legislation authorizing the agency to protect presidents for life.

Granted, presidents and their families can face extraordinary threats upon leaving office, but so can just about any ordinary American walking the streets in Chicago - the president's hometown - or Washington, D.C., the nation's capital. The point is, as this president moves to limit your right to self-defense, he obviously sees no irony in ensuring that he and his family are well-protected for the rest of their lives, and all on the taxpayer's dime.

But the irony doesn't stop there. Consider that many in Congress - those same individuals who just voted for lifetime armed, taxpayer-provided protection for a millionaire president who will undoubtedly cash in even further on his fame once he finally does leave office - are some of the same hypocrites who are demanding that wealthy Americans who paid into the Social Security system all of their lives be denied benefits just because they are well-to-do.

They are not better than you

These hypocrite elite are the same ones who vote themselves pay raises year after year, while wages for most U.S. workers have stagnated or declined, thanks in large part to oppressive laws and bureaucratic policies they approve.

And now, these uber-wealthy statists who have sheltered themselves from the dangers ordinary folks deal with and face daily want you to continue paying for their protection, even as they work feverishly to rob you of yours.

If Sen. Dianne Feinstein feels the need to carry a concealed weapon; if blowhard filmmaker Michael Moore feels the need to hire armed bodyguards; and if leaders like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg feel the need to travel with armed protection - why does the ordinary American citizen deserve less?

Natural News does not, and will not, support laws that make anyone, including our leaders, more vulnerable to the criminal element, but at the same time we have not, and will never, support legislation that seems to say some certain segments of our society are more important, and more worthy of protection, than others.

Sources:

http://www.infowars.com

http://news.yahoo.com

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144921,00.html#ixzz2FnQC65J3

http://youtu.be/B1EObqM9Z0s