In the USA...United Surveillance America
Obama Acknowledges U.S. Erred in Assessing ISIS
By PETER BAKER and BRIAN KNOWLTON
SEPT. 28, 2014
WASHINGTON — President Obama acknowledged in an interview broadcast on Sunday that the United States had underestimated the rise of the Islamic State militant group, which has seized control of a broad swath of territory in the Middle East, and had placed too much trust in the Iraqi military, allowing the region to become “ground zero for jihadists around the world.”
Reflecting on how a president who wanted to disentangle the United States from wars in the Middle East ended up redeploying to Iraq and last week expanding air operations into Syria, Mr. Obama pointed to assessments by the intelligence agencies that said they were surprised by the rapid advances made in both countries by the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL.
“Our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that, I think, they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria,” Mr. Obama said on “60 Minutes,” the CBS News program, referring to James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence. Mr. Obama added that the agencies had overestimated the ability and will of the Iraqi Army to fight such Sunni extremists. “That’s true. That’s absolutely true,” he said.
In citing Mr. Clapper, Mr. Obama made no mention of any misjudgment he may have made himself. Critics have repeatedly pointed to his comment last winter characterizing groups like the Islamic State as a "JV team" compared with the original Al Qaeda.
But he rebutted critics who say his refusal to intervene more directly in the Syrian civil war and his decision to pull all American troops out of Iraq in 2011 had created conditions that allowed the rise of the Islamic State. Instead, he pointed a finger at Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, until recently the prime minister of Iraq. “When we left, we had left them a democracy that was intact, a military that was well equipped and the ability then to chart their own course,” Mr. Obama said. “And that opportunity was squandered over the course of five years or so because the prime minister, Maliki, was much more interested in consolidating his Shia base.”
By contrast, he praised Mr. Maliki’s newly installed successor, Haider al-Abadi, whom he met in New York last week, for assembling a more inclusive government that may undercut Sunni support for the Islamic State. Mr. Abadi “so far at least has sent all the right signals,” Mr. Obama said. “We can’t do this for them.”
But he was measured in that assessment, saying there had been “some progress” by the new Baghdad government. “I wouldn’t say great yet,” he said.
Mr. Obama conceded that his strategy would be less likely to succeed in Syria, where he is working at odds with the government rather than in tandem. Mr. Obama has called for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to step down, but now the two share an enemy in the Islamic State. The United States’ plan relies on trying to build up a separate rebel force that can take on both Mr. Assad’s government and the Islamic State, but Mr. Obama dismissed as “mythology” the notion that he should have done that two years ago.
“We’ve got a campaign plan that has a strong chance for success in Iraq,” he said. “I think Syria is a more challenging situation.”
The House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, suggested on Sunday that airstrikes might not be enough and that American ground forces might ultimately have to be deployed. “These are barbarians,” Mr. Boehner said on the ABC News program “This Week.” “They intend to kill us. And if we don’t destroy them first, we’re going to pay the price.” Asked if he would recommend sending American ground troops if no other country would do it, Mr. Boehner said, “We have no choice.”
Mr. Boehner also said that while he believes Mr. Obama has the authority to conduct airstrikes without additional permission from Congress, he would summon lawmakers back to Washington from a recess to vote if the president asked him to. “I’d bring the Congress back,” he said.
Speaking on another news show, “Face the Nation” on CBS, Senator Timothy Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, pressed his opinion that the president needs congressional permission and accused Mr. Obama, a close ally, of inconsistency. “It really concerns me that the president would assert he has the ability to do this unilaterally when as a candidate for president he made very plain that the president cannot unilaterally start a war without Congress,” Mr. Kaine said.
American intelligence agencies were still trying to determine whether airstrikes in Syria had killed the leader of a separate network affiliated with Al Qaeda called the Khorasan Group. The SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors extremist social media sites, reported on Sunday that a Qaeda-associated Twitter account declared that Mohsin al-Fadhli, the Khorasan leader, had died. American officials said they believed that a senior Khorasan figure had been killed but were not sure whether it was Mr. Fadhli or Abu Yusef al-Turki. They were hopeful that both had been killed, but added that it was unlikely.
An intelligence report distributed at the White House on Sunday said that there were indications that Mr. Fadhli had been killed, but that they were not conclusive. Officials said they worried that the Twitter reports were part of a disinformation campaign to throw off the Americans.
Enough About ISIL, Obama Needs To Take Off The Gloves and Go After Republicans
By: Jason Easley and Sarah Jones more from Jason Easley and Sarah Jones
Sunday, September, 28th, 2014, 6:55 pm
The following is an editorial reflecting the opinions of PoliticusUSA’s publishers, Jason Easley and Sarah Jones.
Purely from a political standpoint as we head into the precarious midterm elections, President Obama needs to stop trying to explain why he feels it’s necessary to strike ISIL and instead he needs to be focused on the issues at home and call out Republicans. Otherwise, he risks depressing the Democratic base to a dangerous extent.
We rarely agree with Sunday show pundits, so it was no surprise when Jeffrey Goldberg tweeted dryly, “Watching CNN at the airport. Sunday panelists suggesting that Obama is like Bush because he is now fighting in the Middle East, like Bush.”
We almost can’t bear this level of stupidity. If you fight in the Middle East, you are Bush? This makes all presidents who ever fight in the Middle East Bush. That’s convenient, if you’re trying to whitewash Bush’s record.
This conclusion is absurd because it is built upon the premise that Bush’s political failures regarding the Middle East had nothing to do with the fact that he started a war in Iraq based on a lie, had no exit strategy, and declared Mission Accomplished on his war on an idea (who declares war on an idea and expects victory over the world?). Oh, no. It’s just being in the Middle East that made him one of the worst presidents in modern history. Just fight there and you are also Bush.
Here is an example of the speciousness of the Obama-is-Bush-because-Middle-East argument: If Obama breathes through his nostrils, he is like Bush, because Bush was also rumored to breathe through his nostrils on more than one occasion. But then, the Sunday shows star fallacious arguments lacking any logic every week.
Sadly, stupid is paid and stupid does speak and stupid does seep into the national consciousness. Then stupid beats up the Democratic base, who just like their representatives tend to value civility and middle ground so much that they will avoid conflict even when they should not, gets depressed.
They go silent, because they don’t want to hear that their President is Bush. And since this is such a massively stupid premise that is not backed up by reality or facts so much so that anyone with one working brain cell should know the difference, Democrats often can’t even articulate a coherent response. Pearls after swine, they tell themselves.
It doesn’t help that Republicans have been working hard on selling this idea to the Democratic base for 6 years, including deceptively editing video to suggest that Obama wanted the changes in the NDAA that made him “just like Bush”. Only not, because he had actually asked for the opposite. But no matter, those were heady days for anti-Obama operatives in the “left” media.
So it hurts the base. They have been down this road before from their own “side” and it was ugly. Now President Obama is making what seem like daily appeals to explain the need to fight ISIL, which on the surface really does sound too much like Bush (sounds like is not IS, this is an appearance thing not a reality thing). Then the pundits looking for easy hits pile on, Obama is Bush! The knee jerk response is: Bush argued for war. UGH. Bush bad. Stop talking about war. Bad Obama.
This kind of simplistic reaction overrides our logical understanding that conflict is necessary sometimes. Emotions rule opinions.
But the base loves it when Obama gets the terrorists. So do Independents and even some Republicans. So instead of making the case for why we need to strike ISIL (and it would be foolish to paint Obama with the Bush brush of wanting war, of irrationally surging into war, of justifying it at any cost, because Obama is on the record doing the opposite), Obama needs to actually be more like Bush in one specific way.
President Obama needs to stop explaining policy in an effort to build a coalition of support among the people on this issue. Sure, he can’t make the news, but he can pivot from an attempt to talk intelligently and with nuance about an issue that people can’t/won’t/don’t want to hear.
The people aren’t going to support the strikes because they are tired of any semblance of war. But they will cheer the President for getting the terrorists. He’s already explained why he feels this is necessary, so he can safely pivot now and embrace the Big Daddy-Protector-in-the-White House persona that Americans love to believe in.
President Obama needs to be the decider who decided to strike ISIL, and hand out the terrorist gets to the public as something they can feel good about. The President should be associated with good news like getting the terrorists, while someone else in the administration handles the doling out of the bad news.
The base loves it when Obama disses Republicans even a bit, as he did last night. They hate watching this President get attacked over and over again, it dampens their morale. Low morale means low turnout.
Fight back or die. It’s that simple in politics.
War talk got Bush re-elected, but war talk is toxic to the Democratic base and the larger public right now. A war on obstructionists? That’s a war the base wants to hear all about.
The base needs their President to get them fired up. They will turn out for him, but first he has to lead them into the fight.
Obama Goes Off Script and Drops A Truth Bomb On Selfish Republican Governors
By: Sarah Jones
Sunday, September, 28th, 2014, 10:11 am
President Obama went off script while speaking at the Congressional Black Caucus Awards Dinner Saturday evening and deployed a truth bomb on selfish Republicans.
While paying homage to the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, he said he was puzzled when certain governors decided to take a stand to make sure poor folks in their state can’t get health insurance even though it doesn’t cost that person a dime, adding one of the most salient political observations in the entire healthcare reform debate, “It’s easy to take a stand when you’ve got health insurance.”
Speaking about the need to get more folks covered in the march forward toward the Great Society, the President said, “But we know our work is not yet done until we get into more communities, help more uninsured folks get covered, especially in those states where the governors aren’t being quite as cooperative as we’d like them to be. You know who you are. It always puzzles me when you decide to take a stand to make sure poor folks in your state can’t get health insurance even though it doesn’t cost you a dime. That doesn’t make much sense to me, but I won’t go on on that topic. We’ve got more work to do.”
“It’s easy to take a stand when you’ve got health insurance,” Obama said, earning appreciative laughter and applause. “I’m going off script now, but – — that’s what happens at the CBC.”
During his speech, the President detailed areas of progress in the push forward toward a Great Society. Obama deadpanned, “We’ve done some work on health care, too. I don’t know if you’ve noticed.”
Detailing some of the unsung success of his signature legislation, the President continued, “Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, we’ve seen a 26 percent decline in the uninsured rate in America. African Americans have seen a 30 percent decline. And, by the way, the cost of health care isn’t going up as fast anymore either. Everybody was predicting this was all going to be so expensive. We’ve saved $800 billion — in Medicare because of the work that we’ve done — slowing the cost, improving quality, and improving access. Despite unyielding opposition, this change has happened just in the last couple years.”
When Obamacare is a beloved part of our social safety net like Social Security and Medicare, Republicans will pretend that they built that. But their years of hysterical obstruction to a policy built in part on their own idea will say otherwise.
To recap, “It’s easy to take a stand (against affordable health insurance) when you’ve got health insurance.”
Boom. This is what the pundits should have been pointing out from the beginning of this debate, and it’s something we’ve been going on about at Politicus for years. It’s all about the hierarchy of needs. It’s easy to get lost in the weeds when you are healthy and have insurance. And since most of the people in high profile media positions and elected officials have what is relatively excellent insurance, the point of view of the struggling American is hardly ever given a seat at the table.
The ACA looks quite different from the perspective of folks who had no insurance or were being screwed over by their insurance company prior to the changes imposed by the ACA. While Republicans fear-monger over the mere suggestion that they might have to change doctors and the press picks this up like it’s the End of the World, average Americans are dealing with things like how to pay for their loved one’s pain pills from their cancer.
The midterms are giving us a peek at campaigning Obama — the guy who could deliver a punch when he needed to, but only after being trolled publicly for so long that middle America knew the other person had it coming.
The lesson here? Republicans had this one coming. Why so selfish, Republican governors?
With Nothing To Run On Republicans Blow Religious Dog Whistles
Sunday, September, 28th, 2014, 9:15 pm
Dog whistle politics refers to the use of certain subjects or phrases that have very special meaning to a specific voting bloc, and represents a particularly insidious use of loaded language. Republicans are big on dog whistle politics, particularly going into a midterm election where they have no apparent agenda to run on, and as is usually the case with Republicans, they are appealing to a dependable voting bloc that are rabid over socially conservative (read religious) issues.
At the Values Voters summit, a dependable cast of Republican religious extremists took turns inciting Christians to vote for Republicans; not for a stronger economy, more jobs, healthcare, infrastructure improvements, higher wages, a clean and safe environment, or education, but for Christianity. There is a good reason Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, particularly, were marshaling electoral support for Republicans using religious dog whistles and it is simply because Republicans across the nation have nothing else to run on.
Republicans cannot possibly claim the economy is suffering since the latest economic report revealed that America’s economy grew at a rate not seen in eight years (since 2006), two years before Republicans created the Great Recession. It is noteworthy that the growth was in spite of a small tax increase on the very richest Americans and without wiping out environmental, workplace, and banking regulations Republicans perpetually claim destroy economic growth. It is true all of the growth is benefitting corporations and the wealthy, but only because Republicans refuse to help hard-working Americans who hold the distinction of being recipients of the lowest wages among the world’s most economically developed nations.
Even the Republicans’ favorite whipping boy, the Affordable Care Act is not a valid campaign issue like Republicans errantly thought it was in 2012. Particularly since reports emerged that most people are, in fact, paying their own premiums costing the government less, and those premiums are coming in much lower than expected. The dreaded “Obamacare” is turning out to be a popular program Republicans are ill-advised to campaign against as an economy, job, and people killer. So with no reality-based campaign issue, one might think Republicans would opt to campaign on raising wages, bringing off-shored jobs back home, or any number of things the people support like immigration reform, gun control, or higher wages, but they are not; particularly when religious extremists are desperate for politicians to legislate according to religion.
At the Value Voters Summit, the man who would be Pope, Ted Cruz, implored the “righteous” to flock to the polls in November to “vote Harry Reid out” to defend their Christian values. Cruz drew a standing ovation for calling on Christians to “defend the First Amendment or free speech or religious liberty, and vote Harry Reid out,” even though Senator Reid is not up for re-election or advocating for abolishing the 1st Amendment; that is the purview of Republicans. According to the Texas Republican and evangelical savior, Republican voters do not have to abandon their righteous values and promised the Christians that if they vote for a Republican-controlled Senate, Republicans will “stand for life, for marriage, for Israel,” and for good measure assured the crowd the Republicans would abolish the Internal Revenue Service, repeal Common Core, and “repeal every word of Obamacare.”
Cruz scolded Christians who had the temerity to consider embracing same-sex marriage and contraception, and demanded that as good conservatives, Republican voters stick to their Christian roots drawing wild cheers from the crowd. Cruz also accused congressional Democrats and President Obama of being an “extremist radical party” because they are not sending America’s fighting men and women on a Christian crusade to stand up for Christians he claims are being persecuted for being Christians all around the globe. He said, “This is a time of great crisis, but it is no greater than the crisis that so many of us have faced in our own lives” and quoted the bible to assure the faithful that if they dutifully voted for theocracy, they would experience the “joy that cometh in the morning” because they stood by their Christian values and voted for Republicans.
Although libertarian Rand Paul did not spew fire and brimstone like Cruz, he did attempt to convince Christians that voting for and electing Republicans would start a “revival of Christian values.” Paul told the Christian crowd that Republicans know “where there is liberty there is always plenty of space for God,” and that what America really needs is “something more than laws. We need something that civilizes a nation, and that is virtue. What America really needs is a revival.” Part of Paul’s revival includes an all-out attack on abortion and said “The debate isn’t really about whether government has a role in protecting life. The debate really hinges on when life begins. Don’t tell me that babies have no rights simply because they’re not yet born.”
For a so-called medical professional, Paul should know that a fetus is not a baby until it exits the mother’s womb, and according to the god of the bible, it is not a “living being” until it breathes air. But medical science and the god of the bible are irrelevant to the theocracy crowd and Democrats had better comprehend that the theocrats will show up at the polls and they will elect Republicans who will wage a real war on women; likely with a rash of personhood and anti-contraception laws to effectively eliminate women’s rights.
Paul, like Cruz, did not fail to attack Democrats and President Obama for not defending Christians around the globe. He said, “You and I must stand with Christians in the Middle East” and enraged the crowd into a frenzy by reminding them that Christians are being persecuted worldwide and there is no crusade against Islam. He also implied, strongly, that the Obama Administration is complicit because there is a Christian sitting in prison in Pakistan that proves Democrats are not interested in a military crusade against oppression of Christians abroad because Pakistan gets American economic aid.
Democrats should not underestimate the religious right vote because they are not driven by anything other than fundamentalist religious fervor and there is nothing on Earth as dangerous. Events in Syria and Iraq involving a group of fundamentalist religious extremists should reinforce that simple fact, and as recent comments from Christian fundamentalists calling for Muslims to “convert or die” reveal, there is little difference between the extremists in the Islamic State (ISIL) and those at the Values Voter summit.
Democrats must comprehend that those Values Voter extremists could not care less about the economy, jobs, healthcare, or the environment because they are laser-focused on eliminating women’s rights, gay rights, contraception, abortion, and education that is not founded on the Christian bible. Republicans certainly understand what motivates their righteous base and they are dutifully blowing every dog whistle in their biblical arsenal. Because although they have nothing else, they have what matters to theocrats and it should frighten the life out of every American who loves living in a democracy; a democracy that is in jeopardy of being replaced with a corporate theocracy that Republicans are as anxious to enact as their “values voters.”
John Boehner Rewrites History With An Epic Lie That Blames Obama For Republican Obstruction
By: Jason Easley
Sunday, September, 28th, 2014, 12:55 pm
John Boehner’s desperation was showing on ABC’s This Week as he repeated the Republican big lie in order to blame President Obama for the fact that House Republicans refuse to do their jobs.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Bring us inside that room in January. What do you say to the President? What can get done?
BOEHNER: I think the conversation’s pretty straightforward. ‘Mr President you’ve got two years left. Want to have two years like we’ve had the last four years where we just butt heads and butt heads and butt heads?’
George I didn’t come to Washington to make noise. I went there to do something on behalf of my country. And I think the president ran for office to do something on behalf of the country. And it’s up to us to see where the common ground is. But tax reform, a big highway bill, certainly are in the realm of doable.
It was so subtle that it could be easily missed, but Speaker Boehner was blaming President Obama for the his own refusal to bring popular legislation to the House floor for a vote. Boehner has refused to allow the House to vote on the Senate passed immigration reform bill. He won’t bring legislation to the floor to raise the minimum wage, and he has spent nearly a year refusing to allow a vote on extending unemployment benefits. This the same John Boehner, who stated in February that he would rather , commit suicide than raise the minimum wage.
A separate issue is the list of bills that Speaker Boehner has had to pull from the House floor because he didn’t have the votes to pass them. Rep. Boehner claims that he wants to do something for the American people, but based on the items that he mentioned during his This Week interview, he is only interested in helping a few wealthy Americans. Boehner wants tax reform to help the wealthy; the Keystone XL pipeline to help the oil industry, and the Koch brothers and the medical device tax repealed.
None of what Boehner wants to do will help average Americans. Most Americans hate this congress. The reason has nothing to do with Obama and everything to with Boehner’s Koch fueled agenda. Every answer that Boehner gave in the interview was based on a single lie. It is a lie that is the basis for the Republican obstructionist cover story.
The lie is that legislation is not getting passed because Obama won’t work with Republicans. In his own words, Speaker Boehner debunked this lie when he claimed that the American people don’t want a congress that passes laws.
If Speaker Boehner wants to meet the man who is responsible for the biggest do nothing congress in history, all he has to do is look in the mirror.
Facing tax shortfall, Kansas approves online sex toy auction to recoup lost tax revenue
28 Sep 2014
In an effort to make up for nonpayment of income, withholding and sales taxes, the state of Kansas has approved the online auction of sex toys and DVD’s by a businessman to bring his tax debt current.
According to the Topeka-Capitol Journal, businessman Larry Minkoff, who did business under the ‘Bang’ name, had refused requests from the Kansas Department of Revenue for payment of over $163,986 in state taxes.
In July agents from the state raided Minkoff’s multiple store locations, seizing the sex novelties, books, and DVDs.
Following negotiations with the state, Kansas gave Minkoff his sex toys back with the agreement that he would liquidate the inventory through an online auction and forward the proceeds to the state to apply towards his tax debt.
The Kansas City Star reports that Kansas Democrats are using the auction to mock straight-laced Gov. Sam Brownback who is reeling from a tax shortfall in his state.
“Brownback is so desperate to fill the massive hole in the state budget caused by his reckless income tax cuts that the state of Kansas is now in the porn business,” said Senate Democratic Leader Anthony Hensley. “This is the same governor whose supporters spent this past week attacking his opponent for a strip club incident that happened 16 years ago.”
According to the Capital-Journal, the auction includes, “a Pipedream Fantasy Love Swing, books, hundreds of DVDs, sex and drinking games, a wide assortment of sexually oriented equipment, the carrying cases for devices, the Glass Pleasure Wand, bundles of lingerie and the Cyberskin Foot Stroker.”
The Secret Service Ignored Shots Fired Into the White House Residence When Sasha Obama Was Home
By: Sarah Jones
Sunday, September, 28th, 2014, 11:51 am
If the news of a knife-wielding man getting access to the White House last week didn’t disturb you enough, late Saturday evening The Washington Post published a terrifying expose of never previously reported failures of the Secret Service to protect the Obama family. The Obama family has been repeatedly put into what can only amount to shameful peril, at the hands of a Secret Service that can’t logically be this incompetent.
According to a Washington Post report written by Carol D. Leonnig that looks to have been tirelessly researched and backed up by multiple accounts, including “interviews with agents, investigators and other government officials with knowledge about the shooting”, Oscar R. Ortega-Hernandez used a semiautomatic rifle to shoot “directly at the home of the president of the United States, and pulled the trigger.”
At least 7 bullets hit the upstairs residence of the White House. Bullets hit steps from the First Family’s living room, others hit a window frame, the roof. All while Sasha and the First Lady’s mom were in residence and as Malia was expected home at any moment.
The gunman parked his black Honda directly south of the White House, in the dark of a November night, in a closed lane of Constitution Avenue. He pointed his semiautomatic rifle out of the passenger window, aimed directly at the home of the president of the United States, and pulled the trigger.
A bullet smashed a window on the second floor, just steps from the first family’s formal living room. Another lodged in a window frame, and more pinged off the roof, sending bits of wood and concrete to the ground. At least seven bullets struck the upstairs residence of the White House, flying some 700 yards across the South Lawn.
President Obama and his wife were out of town on that evening of Nov. 11, 2011, but their younger daughter, Sasha, and Michelle Obama’s mother, Marian Robinson, were inside, while older daughter Malia was expected back any moment from an outing with friends.
This is bad enough. But what makes this alarming is the fact that after these shots were fired into or at the residence of the White House, a Secret Service supervisor issued a stand down order, saying there were no shots fired.
This supervisor claimed the noises were the backfiring of a vehicle, even as agents were preparing to defend the White House. The supervisor issued a stand down order, per the Post: “No shots have been fired. Stand down.”
It took four days for the Secret Service to realize that shots had been fired at the White House. They only finally realized this because of the discoveries of a white House housekeeper (who should receive an award).
This is not the result of chaos in the line of fire. This is simply incomprehensible. The only way this level of incompetence makes sense is if someone or several someones in the Secret Service have an agenda to fail to protect the First Family.
I’m not big on conspiracy theories, but I am big on logic. There simply is no other reasonable explanation for this level of consistent incompetence that is immediately apparent. When behavior doesn’t make sense, the first question is what is to be gained by this behavior and the second is what is the most logical explanation.
Since agents were preparing to respond to the discharging of a gun at the White House that evening, it does not make sense that a supervisor would issue a stand down order. It does not make sense that they tried to put this off as a gang related shooting — that’s something Fox News would dream up. It does not make sense that they wouldn’t look for and find signs of damage on the building and in the interior.
Also of note, while PolitiFact rates as “false” the claim that President Obama faced more threats than any other president of modern times because they allegedly couldn’t find proof that it was true (this doesn’t make it false though, so this is an odd ruling), the Post researchers found otherwise.
Writing about the First Lady’s concern for the safety of her family, they confirmed, “Her concerns are well founded — President Obama has faced three times as many threats as his predecessors, according to people briefed on the Secret Service’s threat assessment.”
It doesn’t take someone from the Secret Service to tell us that this President faces more threats than any other recent president. The vitriol aimed at him by Republicans, their 6 year gun buying spree, their frothing insanity about his race and name, their beliefs that his birth certificate isn’t real and accusations by elected officials that he is going to intern them in labor camps (these are not just the fringers, but party leaders some of whom campaigned to be the GOP presidential nominee), and so much more hate — these things spell violence.
Thus the Secret Service should be more vigilant, not more complacent. As it stands, they have put the First Family in shameful peril repeatedly. They allowed the daughter of the President to be in a building that was being shot at and into, and they did nothing. They even denied that it happened.
Shameful and inexcusable Secret Service work — and in need of investigation.