[VIDEO] Goldberg: Secret Service Cartagena Hooker Cover-Up a Glimpse Inside the Politicized, Control-Freak White HousePosted: October 9, 2014
— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) October 5, 2014
The resignation came less than a day after lawmakers from both parties assailed Ms. Pierson’s leadership and said they feared for the lives of the president and others in the protection of the storied protective agency.
“Under intense questioning on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, Ms. Pierson admitted that those charged with securing the White House failed to follow numerous security protocols, allowing a man armedwith a knife to penetrate deep inside the mansion.”
A 30-year veteran of the Secret Service, Ms. Pierson was supposed to have been the one to repair the agency’s reputation after scandals that raised questions about a culture that gave rise to incidents involving drinking and prostitution during overseas trips. Read the rest of this entry »
For The Daily Caller, Ariel Cohen reports: At 2:45 p.m. on the Friday before Memorial Day, a man approached the White House security gates, just in time for President Barack Obama’s 3:30 p.m. press announcement.
“I have a 3:00 p.m. meting with Mr. Obama,” he said as he handed the security officers his driver’s license.
“Sir, this is a foreign ID, we need either an American driver’s license, an international license or a passport,” the Secret Service agent replied. ”I’m sorry but you can not enter.”
The man walked away, looking slightly upset. The Secret Service continued going about their usual business of checking reporters’ IDs, including the ID of this Daily Caller reporter, and ushering them through security.
Suddenly, the man began undressing in front of the gate, but no one noticed until he was down to his gray boxer briefs. Read the rest of this entry »
The Secret Service won’t give any details about how often the fox trips the White House’s obviously sophisticated security alarms, but rest assured, officials say, they’re watching.
President Obama was apparently “stunned” to see the fox roaming freely down the oft-photographed White House colonnade, home to the world’s shortest, but most dramatic, outdoor strolls.
WASHINGTON (AP) — More than 18 months after a prostitution scandal in South America rocked the Secret Service, the agency in charge of protecting the president is investigating another case of suspected sexual misconduct in its ranks.
This time, two supervisory agents assigned to President Barack Obama’s protective detail have been investigated for misconduct involving sexually suggestive emails sent to a female subordinate. The alleged misconduct does not appear to involve a breach of Obama’s security.
The paper reports that two senior supervisors at the agency, Ignacio Zamora, Jr., and Timothy Barraclough, were found to have sent sexually suggestive emails to a female subordinate. The emails came to light as part of an investigation into an incident in May in which Zamora was found attempting to force his way into a woman’s room at the Hay-Adams Hotel in Washington to retrieve a bullet from his service weapon.
Zamora has been pulled from his position as a shift supervisor for the president’s protective division, while Barraclough has been moved to a separate part of the division.
It’s not only Undemocratic, it’s Un-American
Am I the only one bothered by this? Not the overuse of the phrase, but the phrase itself. ‘Signature’ legislation. ‘Signature’ achievement. The arrogance, the vanity associated with it–okay, yes, that bothers me, and well get to that, but–they’re the things that bother me least about it.
It’s that it’s got everything exactly backwards.
It implies a Ruler, and subjects. The Ruler, or Monarch, would endeavor to preserve a “signature achievement”. Like a Master Chef guarding the secret sauce in his ‘signature dish’. The purpose of this tradition is the opposite of serving the interests of the public. It’s to serve the interests of the Ruler. To bestow honor upon his Majesty’s historic legacy. While the scribes and poets and servants and subjects weigh the fortunes and perils of legislative achievements of the Great One in power. I don’t just mean the current president, either. Any president.
Since when is it our job–as citizens–or the media’s job–or the job of historians–to facilitate the White House occupant’s ego-gratifcation? We’re supposed to invest in preserving the ‘historic legacy’ of an elected official? A public servant?
We already pay for the house. The plane. The Secret Service detail. The vacations. The library. The whole thing.
Are we actually enduring the catastrophe of The Patient Care and Affordable Care Act‘s spectacular, epic, cascading failures primarily to protect president’s vanity? A chief executive unwilling to compromise, and a governing party dedicated–not to doing the least harm to citizens, but to minimizing harm–to the ruling party? To help insure a signature stack of 11,000 pages of regulations’ special place in history’?
I try to imagine Thomas Jefferson consulting with his advisors, concerned about how the pamphleteers would regard the controversial debts incurred in order to produce Jefferson’s “signature achievement”, the Louisiana Purchase. Or John Adams’ allies in the Senate fretting over his’ ‘signature legislation’, the Alien and Sedition Acts, rightly concerned for how it might negatively impact president Adams’ ‘historic legacy’. Did legislators boast, in 1919, about the ratification of the doomed 18th Amendment? Did president Wilson entertain the notion of preserving his signature legislative achievement? Did such conversations take place? Perhaps they did. If so, it was a bad idea then, too.
Google News brings up 9,780 hits on the phrase ‘signature achievement’. And 15,300 on the phrase ‘signature Legislation’.
Who is the master, and who is the servant?
It’s undemocratic. It’s un-American.
I vote to retire the phrase.