NRA's New Ad Calls Obama "Elitist Hypocrite" For Having Secret Service Protection For His Children

[Journeyman]

22. His children are no more important then mine, but they are more at risk than mine. . .

and their being in jeopardy would place greater strains on the fabric of society than would threats to my children's safety.

As parents, neither of us loves or cherishes his children more than any other. But those who would wish ill to the State or Society have greater interest in harming the President's children than attacking mine. We who recognize the fragility of our mutual condition see a greater need to protect the family of the head of state, since their well-being affects us all.

If the wealthy and powerful choose to protect their children in a manner the majority of us cannot afford, that's their decision and they do it because they fear certain elements to which the rest of us are probably not at risk. But again, that's their decision.

Elected officials, however, at least above a certain grade, are encouraged to engage certain protections for their family because it is a benefit to our society for these people to remain safe and well.

My concern for the welfare of the President's children is no greater than my concern for any other citizen's children. My concern for the welfare of the State, on the other hand, which could be impacted by threat's to the President's children, informs my decision to desire sufficient protection for these children so as to make all of us safer by extension.