Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Carson and Trump to Get Secret Service Protection

Carson and Trump to Get Secret Service Protection

Threats have been “off the charts.”

Threats to Republican front runners Dr. Ben Carson and Donald Trump have been so significant that the two candidates will now get protection from the Secret Service.

Todd Beamon of Newsmax reports, hat tip to The Gateway Pundit:

Secret Service to Protect Trump, Carson as Threats Grow

The Secret Service will give agent protection to Ben Carson and Donald Trump while heavily upgrading Hillary Clinton’s existing detail, a Washington source close to the agency’s plans confirmed to Newsmax.

The deployment of agents around Republican candidates Trump and Carson is set to begin as early as next week. Approximately two dozen agents will be assigned to each candidate.

Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, has had Secret Service protection since leaving the White House as first lady in 2001, but her detail will be heavily upgraded by the agency’s move.

The agency’s decision was primarily triggered by a significant number of threats to Carson, including death threats and terrorist chatter, the source said.

The threats to the retired pediatric neurosurgeon have been “off the charts,” the source said. Polls show Carson either tied with Trump for front-runner status or in second place…

Trump specifically requested Secret Service protection and made an excellent point about American politics in the process.

Unlike Carson, Republican front-runner Trump has officially requested Secret Service protection.

The billionaire noted that he has drawn “by far the biggest crowds” of any candidate at his events. He also said that President Barack Obama had received protection at this stage of his first campaign in 2008.

“I want to put them on notice because they should have a liability,” Trump told The Hill. “Personally, I think if Obama were doing as well as me he would’ve had Secret Service [earlier].”

Obama, who was an Illinois senator during the 2008 contest, received Secret Service protection on May 3, 2007, with law enforcement officials saying that the protection was not approved because of any specific threats.

In July, shortly after Trump criticized the Mexican government for the escape of drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman from a maximum-security prison, a Twitter account linked to Guzman issued a threat against the billionaire: “Keep f–king around and I’m gonna make you swallow your whore words you f–king whitey milks–tter.”

Trump spoke to Greta Van Susteren about this on Friday. Topic comes up at the 2:20 mark:

Featured image is a screencap from Breitbart.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Is Clinton’s security detail armed with evil looking guns? Wouldn’t that be unsafe? She would be in constant danger if they were so armed, wouldn’t she?

She will act on her core principles and will make sure her security is unarmed — Right?

    Mannie in reply to TX-rifraph. | October 18, 2015 at 9:27 am

    Reportedly, Hillary shits allover them. Being assigned to her detail is considered a punishment. I always thought it was a particularly stupid idea to denigrate those who are expected to catch a bullet for you, but that’s just me.

I wish I didn’t feel this way, but having the Secret Service as it has shown itself to be over the last few years would not inspire feelings of security in me.

And for T-rump, it’s mostly just a status symbol.

DINORightMarie | October 18, 2015 at 9:30 am

Notice it’s ONLY Trump and Carson getting the threats – why bump up Hildabeast’s protection contingent?!?!

Why?!

    jayjerome66 in reply to DINORightMarie. | October 18, 2015 at 9:59 am

    Why? Because of the escalating hatred of her, expressed by commenters on blogs like this, duh!

    And you do know the SS keeps track of hostile internet threats against people they’re protecting. Therefore you shouldn’t be suorised to find out that you are on the hostile watchlist, with your real name alongside your internet alias.

    But don’t worry – should they come and haul you away, another of the Right’s hated enemies, the ACLU, will come to your aid.

      Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | October 18, 2015 at 10:36 am

      Link to a “threat” against Hellary by any commenter on this blog, you lying SOS.

        jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | October 18, 2015 at 11:37 am

        Link to where I used the word threat in my comment, DouchPierre.

        Oh, have you noticed those clicking sounds on your phone recently?

          “Link to where I used the word threat in my comment”

          Not only do you just make shit up, you are incapable of reading your own comment.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 18, 2015 at 11:43 am

        “And you do know the SS keeps track of hostile internet **threats** against people they’re protecting.”

        …followed by…

        “Therefore you shouldn’t be suorised to find out that you are on the hostile watchlist, with your real name alongside your internet alias.”

        You’re so psychotic, you’ve apparently lost even your short-term memory.

      rinardman in reply to jayjerome66. | October 18, 2015 at 10:49 am

      You’re mistaking disgust for hate. I don’t hate her, I just find her liberal agenda disgusting. And depraved.

      Oh, BTW, nice try on the “hostile internet threats” gambit.

      But,….no.

      [T]he SS keeps track of hostile internet threats against people they’re protecting. Therefore you shouldn’t be suorised to find out that you are on the hostile watchlist, with your real name alongside your internet alias

      You addressed this to a person or persons on the LI blog.

      You’re welcome to link to all of the “hostile internet threats” against Mrs. Clinton which emanated from commenters to this blog.

      William A. Jacobson in reply to jayjerome66. | October 18, 2015 at 2:13 pm

      Where has a threat been made in the comment section against Hillary or any other politician? Point it out and we will delete it. If you can’t then you are just trolling.

Note that it is the threats to Carson that are “off the charts.”

That’s your Democratic base. If you want to knw where the race prejudice in this country is, it’s there, encouraged by Democratic leaders.

      Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | October 18, 2015 at 11:52 am

      No, lying SOS. It would be from demonstrated bigots, like yourself.

      Six malpractice lawsuits is NOTHING in a career like Carson’s.

      I don’t find evidence of even one where he’s been found liable for medical malpractice, you lying SOS.

        jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | October 18, 2015 at 12:19 pm

        There ha go again, dum dum, knee jerk jumping to a prejudiced conclusion.

        I didn’t say he was incompetent, moron.

        I gave an alternate theory to explain who might be making threats against him.

        And ex-patients who’ s brains, faces, bodies he messed up would naturally hold a grudge. And the fact they were in a reasonable statistical number of fu*k-ups by Carson wouldn’t evaporate their anger against him.

        Got it ditzy?

        Also, after hearing Carson on Stephanopolis this morning, I’m liking Ben better. Guess what? He’s a mini SocialistRepublican, a Bernie Alter ego when it comes to free higher education. Go watch it on Demand if you haven’t seen it. Bet you’ll be suprised at other statements from his past as well. If he was running as a Democrat you’d be calling him Commie Carson

          Milhouse in reply to jayjerome66. | October 18, 2015 at 6:02 pm

          And ex-patients who’ s brains, faces, bodies he messed up would naturally hold a grudge. And the fact they were in a reasonable statistical number of fu*k-ups by Carson wouldn’t evaporate their anger against him

          You’re assuming without evidence that there exist people whose brains, faces, or bodies he messed up, that he had some number of f***-ups. The evidence is only that over the course of his career six people have claimed such things. As Rags pointed out, that number of claims is not unusual. That number of actual f***-ups would be a different matter, but there is no evidence of any actual f***-ups. And therefore there is no pool of people who might have reason to hate him and threaten him.

          jayjerome66 in reply to jayjerome66. | October 18, 2015 at 8:19 pm

          http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/04/ben-carson-malpractice-claims-doctor-for-president

          photo(s) of the little girl with malformed face; specific description’s of operation(s) gone wrong.

          Also one of the newspaper stories said many malpractice cases are settled out of court, and never are formally noted in the records; also many are directed at hospitals, and doctors are shielded by confidentiality agreements.

          “photo(s) of the little girl with malformed face;”

          Got any pictures of what the girl would look like had she not undergone the procedure? They would likely involve a graveyard. Removing brain tumors involves risk, a lot of risk. Not removing the tumor normally results in a horrible death.

          You’re a pathetic bastard.

          Milhouse in reply to jayjerome66. | October 19, 2015 at 11:11 am

          That the girl’s face is malformed doesn’t tell us whether he f***ed anything up. To determine that we’d have to know what was the expected outcome of the surgery. It could easily be that this result, or even worse, was expected, and there simply wasn’t a better way to save her life.

          What percentage of malpractise claims do you think are justified?

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 18, 2015 at 12:29 pm

        No, lying SOS. This is part of a piece with your slime-fest the other day where you speculated that he has a childhood history of torturing small animals.

        You are a disgusting excuse for a human being. You know it, and you can’t help putting it on display. You are very sick.

          jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | October 18, 2015 at 12:35 pm

          Just curious – how long have you been suffering from those migraines?

          jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | October 18, 2015 at 12:55 pm

          As a 14 year old Ben stabbed a male friend with a knife, angry because the friend turned up a radio too loud.

          Therefore why is speculation about him slicing up small animals as a kid unreasonable?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 18, 2015 at 1:01 pm

          It isn’t just unreasonable. It’s slanderous and comes from your deep bigotry and hatred. Well, and your psychopathy.

          You are a disgusting excuse for a human being. You know it, and you can’t help putting it on display. You are very sick.

          jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | October 18, 2015 at 8:25 pm

          Which part is slanderous?
          The hypothetical that he may have sliced up tiny animals?
          Or the actuality of stabbing another kid when he was a teen? I’m sure you looked that up and know it’s true.

          So be honest (another hypothetical)- if the Donald had stabbed a kid, and later in life became fascinated with sharp cutting instruments, would it be slanderous to wonder if he sliced up other living tissue in his youth?

          Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2015 at 11:13 am

          Which part is slanderous?
          The hypothetical that he may have sliced up tiny animals?

          Yes. It’s slanderous because it’s utterly without foundation.

          So be honest (another hypothetical)- if the Donald had stabbed a kid, and later in life became fascinated with sharp cutting instruments, would it be slanderous to wonder if he sliced up other living tissue in his youth?

          Yes.

      I notice quite a few of you progressive drones are beginning to parrot this line of shit… must be on the latest commie party email list or something.

      Here is an interesting fact for you: nearly 1 in 5 neurosurgeons faces a malpractice suit every year. Imagine that… when you open up somebody’s skull and operate on their brain there is a high likelihood of something going wrong.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3204310/

        Snap! But I only had the stats for doctors in general, not neurosurgeons. Those figures you offer make Dr. Carson’s career look even more impressive.

      Every year, one in 14 doctors faces a malpractice lawsuit. If a pediatric neurosurgeon (one who performs some of the highest risk, highest benefit operations out there) only faced 6 lawsuits over his entire 35-year career, that’s pretty impressive.

        jayjerome66 in reply to Amy in FL. | October 18, 2015 at 12:31 pm

        I agree he was a great surgeon.

        So why did he stop helping those who need his medical expertise?
        It’s like a ship’s captain in a storm who decides not to help those dying in front of him, and instead heads out for shore to work on modifying the sailing lane charts to possibly prevent future wrecks from bad weather.

          Sammy Finkelman in reply to jayjerome66. | October 18, 2015 at 1:36 pm

          Decline in skill because of age might be a reason, but iit might just be he was expected to retire.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson

          In March 2013, Carson announced he would retire as a surgeon, saying “I’d much rather quit when I’m at the top of my game”.[25] His retirement became official on July 1, 2013.[26]

          That would sound he wanted to quit BEFORE he made a mistake.

          Now, it might be that he was interested in going on to other things.

          Also medicine had become less enjoyable (slowly) because of reduced autonomy, when a doctor could just decide to treat someone who came to him if he wanted to, regardless of the ability to pay – and there were all kinds of bureaucracy and regulations now.

          Perhaps it had something to do with all the attacks on him and his reputation after he called out President “Iwon” at the National Prayer Breakfast some time back? Just guessing here of course, but it would fit the facts.

          Milhouse in reply to jayjerome66. | October 19, 2015 at 11:18 am

          Because he’s not a slave, that’s why. Nobody is required to work in a life-saving field just because they can. We don’t all have to be firemen or policemen or soldiers, even if we’d be good ones. And those who do choose such careers are entitled to decide they don’t want to do it any more, and don’t have to justify that decision to anyone else. “Gone fishin'” is a perfectly good response to any such question. The only alternative is slavery.

Mommy Dearest must have forgotten to turn off the wifi router before she left the house this morning…. I see little Va-jj did a drive-by and scatter-blasted his moronic bullshit again.

I kinda like the look of those 2 together.

Sammy Finkelman | October 18, 2015 at 1:40 pm

I read one of the reasons Trump was given for not getting Secret Service protection is that he did not fit the criteria – one of the criteria being how much in campaign contributions he had collected, and Trump is largely self-financed (and as result has spent 98% of what he took in, because he adds money to the campaign kitty as needed.)

That did not sound like it made too much sense, because how did it wrork with Perot in 1992? I don’t if Perot even got it or not or when, though.

    One must take into account just who it is that has the responsibility to make the decision to provide Secret Service Protection.

    As I understand it, it is…

    -Director of Homeland Security

    -Leadership of both parties of both Houses Of Congress

    Not really hard to imagine why anyone in that bunch would drag their feet to act on Trumps behalf

Sammy Finkelman | October 18, 2015 at 1:41 pm

And the truth of the matter is really, Robert F. Kennedy was targeted because he was a Kennedy much more than because he was a candidate. I don’t think candidates are exactly the people who need protection.

I’m tired of all the hash slinging comments & will not comment on them. But to answer the real question, I don’t think any of the candidates should have secret service protection. Why should the taxpayers pay for their protection? It only adds to the problem of deficit. If they want protection, they should pay for it themselves. Besides, if they need protection now, why do they think they’re going to be popular enough to win the election?

    “…& will not comment on them.”

    Fortunately you have me and I will comment:

    You are an idiot. Needs no explanation, your comment does just that.

    Milhouse in reply to sherih1951. | October 18, 2015 at 6:11 pm

    1. The government owes protection to anyone whom it knows to be in particular danger.

    2. The more popular someone is the more likely they are to need protection.

      2nd Ammendment Mother in reply to Milhouse. | October 19, 2015 at 9:55 am

      Including Pam Gellar – not everyone’s favorite blogger, but she’s doing darned good work on pointing out the plight of women and girls in the Middle East. In fact, that stuff needs to get a heck of a lot more attention than the Dems fake “War on Western Women” who get their feelings hurt in college classrooms from reading the Odyssey.

Trump has his own superior protection, Carson does not need protection because all assassins are liberals and they will not kill a black leader. hillary has always had government protection since she was flotus.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to dunce1239. | October 19, 2015 at 2:46 pm

    “Carson does not need protection because all assassins are liberals and they will not kill a black leader.”

    Tell that to Martin Luther King, Jr. and that famous liberal James Earl Ray.

    You are hereby promoted to Dunce #1. (j/k, sorry).

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend