We can safeguard them without anywhere near our present spending. For instance, why does Michelle Obama need a high-paid staff of almost 30 people? Throughout history, most first ladies had NONE at all. Jackie Kennedy paid her social secretary out of her own pocket, IIRC. Mr. Lincoln ran the entire Civil War with two clerks, also paid for by him. Did Nancy Pelosi need better transport than President Reagan had?
You are making zero sense here. Zero.
Mrs. Obama's "staff" is not her security detail, President Licoln WAS assassinated, and Nancy Pelosi does not work in the White House. If you have a point to make, you'll have to try a bit harder than that.
posted on 09/10/2012 8:20:18 PM PDT
(Islam is as Islam does.)
President Lincoln was assassinated by a circle of Confederate agents and sympathizers before we had any real security for the chief executive. That was a long time ago. Now we've gone too far the other way. You obviously think that the person of the leader of the USA is so valuable that we should spend billions of our scarce resources to keep him and his family from any harm. I think he should get the same protection as a Fortune 100 CEO, but no more than that. No one is irreplaceable, not you, me or him.
posted on 09/10/2012 10:53:02 PM PDT
(You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson