The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Ramona's picture

    Ugly Politics: When the Meme is "The President Must Die" We Have To Pay Attention

     

    At a Town Hall meeting held last week in Oklahoma, an audience member raised her hand and said to Jim Bridenstine, a congressman from the First District,  “Obama is not president as far as I’m concerned. He should be executed as an enemy combatant.”

    Read that again:  "Obama is not president as far as I'm concerned.  He should be executed as an enemy combatant."  (Video here.)

     She then went on to remind Bridenstine and the audience about the Muslims Obama is letting into this country to be pilots on commercial jets (I did not know that!), which was proof to her that "this guy is a criminal!"  She blamed congress for doing nothing when Obama "has no authority.  He has NO authority!"

    And when she was finished and the camera turned back to him, the first words out of U.S. Congressman Jim Bridenstine's mouth were, "Look, everybody knows the lawlessness of this president."

    He went on to describe a Chief Executive so out of control, so power-hungry that when he couldn't get something done through executive order, "then he used foreign bodies".

    He used as an example an effort in April, 2013 to ban certain types of guns, "not because they operated any differently than any other types of guns but because they looked scary".  (Oh, THAT was why.  I wondered. . .)  But congress blocked it, "which was the right answer".  Then Obama tried to block magazine sizes, which, again Congress blocked.  "Which was the right answer," according to Jim.

    But the congressman saved the best--or worst--for last: "Then he wanted universal background checks, which is a national gun registration, let me be clear."  Pause, repeat:  "He wanted universal background checks, which is a national gun registration. . .".  

    And when Obama couldn't get that done he went to the U.N, where they passed an international Arms Trade Treaty, which, according to Jim, says if you have any gun that has any part manufactured in a foreign country, then you have to do not just a national background check but an international background check and it becomes an international gun registry.  (The Horror!)

    Well, of course, this president signed it.  So here's how Jim sees it:

    "Now let me be clear.  The Second Amendment of the United States of America is not open for debate by a foreign government."

    A woman in his audience has just called for the President of the United States to be executed and this congressman answers her by bringing up the president's push for background checks, gun registration, and his dealings with foreign countries to accomplish the same.

    Nobody seems to know where this meeting took place or exactly when, but someone put it on YouTube and it went viral. The press picked it up.  Bridenstine got wind of the flak and put this notice on his web page:

    “A public figure cannot control what people say in open meetings. I obviously did not condone and I do not approve of grossly inappropriate language. It is outrageous that irresponsible parties would attribute another person’s reckless remarks to me."


    No, Congressman Bridenstine, you are the irresponsible one.  You kept quiet when an audience member called for the death of the president, and then you added fuel to the fire. You brought up guns and the Second Amendment and insinuated that the President of the United States is in league with foreign players to take American gun rights away.

    I hope the Secret Service pays that group a call and I hope you're there when they do.  You all need a lesson in Government, in Civics, in Constitutional and Sedition Laws, and in civility.

    I confess that I've never been as fearful of a president's safety as I have with Barack Obama.  The gun nuts are getting bolder and the propaganda against his "otherness" is unrelenting and growing more fierce. 

    There is no proof that this president has been threatened more than any other.  (I went looking.)  The Secret Service won't provide those statistics, of course, and Politifact finds no evidence and calls the charges that he has been, "false".   But a simple search finds threats against this president by the thousands.  Including this one on Facebook from the Christian American Patriots  Militia (Read more here.):
     



    The rumor is that Ted Nugent got a visit from the Secret Service for saying, "If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will be either be dead or in jail by this time next year."  I hope it's not just a rumor.  We'll never know unless Teddy tells us, but I hope they're doing their jobs.  That was a direct threat. (Not that it would cure him.  I wrote about his shenanigans just last month.  He gets off on this stuff.  Apparently so do a lot of other people.)

    Are threats against the president illegal?  It depends.  There is this:

    18 U.S. Code § 871 - Threats against President and successors to the Presidency

    Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. 

    But then there's this from FrumForum on July 21, 2011:
     

    On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that comments which encouraged the assassination of President Obama and predicted that he would have “a .50 cal in the head soon” while using racial slurs against him were protected by the First Amendment. While the decision seems to be a plausible reading of existing precedents, a former Secret Service agent contacted by FrumForum thought that it exposed the president to unacceptable risk.

    “It was a bad decision,” said Joseph Petro, former agent and co-author of Standing Next to History: An Agent’s Life Inside the Secret Service. He argued that permitting such remarks “creates more potential for someone to do something” dangerous. Petro claimed that, in his experience, it is normal to treat such comments as threats, saying “I’ve seen this before … Back in the Nixon days, there was a guy who put up a billboard in New Jersey saying ‘Kill Nixon.’ He was arrested and the billboard was taken down.”
    “We’re all in favor of constitutional rights,” he added, but “there should be some … sensitivity shown for the unique risk that the President faces.”

    The former agent suggested that the ruling was part of a pattern of recent events that did not show a proper awareness of the dangers presidents face comparing it to incidents in the past two years in which protesters brought weapons to presidential speeches. Petro also noted that the fact that the accused, Walter Bagdasarian, predicted that Obama would be shot with a .50 caliber rifle while he owned such a gun made the threatening nature of the comments especially clear.

    However, two legal experts contacted by FrumForum both agreed with the majority’s central claim that Bagdasarian did not express an intention to personally kill Obama because he merely predicted the president’s killing and encouraged others to shoot him. “The speaker did not tell Obama that if he didn’t do something he would shoot him,” said Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago who has written extensively on First Amendment issues. “The speech may have been repugnant and ugly … but it did not constitute a threat within the meaning of the First Amendment.”


    I'm afraid.  I'm very afraid.  When advocating and encouraging the killing of our president is protected under the First Amendment, it's destined to become as twisted as the Second Amendment to mean whatever the advocates want it to mean.  It'll be open season on wishing the president dead.

    Something will have to happen before we wake up to the harm this can bring.  I dread to think what that might be.
    _____________________

    (Can I just say to those who are already revving up their keyboards to remind me that George W. Bush got death threats, too?  I don't doubt it.  Every president has.  It goes with the territory.  But this was a town hall meeting where a member of congress did nothing to disabuse an audience member of the notion that the President of the United States should be executed as an enemy combatant. Instead, he immediately launched into an attack on "the lawlessness of the president" and his shady attempts to bring in foreign countries to control our guns, showing him to be a dangerous character, indeed.   Let me know when you find something comparable.)

    Topics: 

    Comments


    Oho. .  .and what did Nugent do?  He turned it into "Look how important I am. The Secret Service--great bunch of guys--came to see me.  Me!!  We had a great visit.  Blah, blah, blah. . ."

    He's at it again.  Platefuls of hate.  Pure performance art.


    I, too, would like to know if something comparable was said about G. W. Bush (or even Clinton). In the case of Bush, I think I would've remembered it, because I think that Fox News would've covered it like bees to honey, and my Fox News watching relatives would've given me an earful about it.


    I didn't look hard but I'm 100% sure nothing even close to this ever happened to a Republican president.  Or a Democratic president, either.  I've never seen or even read about this level of disrespect for any U.S president.


    It amazes me that somebody elected to Congress can't bring themselves to even gently censure the speaker in instances like this.  This is not hard. "We're good people who don't talk like that, even when we're angry," is all you need to set the tone.  Shut one person down that way and nobody else will pipe up at that event.  Let it go and you're inviting it at future events.  Which implies that our fearless leader is, in this case, scared to dress down his misbehaving constituents or doesn't want to.


    He's a Tea Party darling.  It would have gone against all he holds dear to have to tell that woman to cool it.


    It might have reinforced the perception  "SHhhh Watch what you say, big bad government might take you away in the night" 


    Resistance, you're going to have to go some to defend what was said at that meeting, but you go ahead and try.

     


    No Way,  I don't want the ecret ervice coming to my door. 


    Its not that hard. I've got a lot of complaints about my state senator McCain. But I have to give him props for this.

     

     

     


    I thought McCain handled that wonderfully.  It showed heart and class.  Whatever gripes I've had with him since, I can't forget that one scene.  He's a mystery in so many ways, but he proved himself a good man by not allowing that lie to live.


    That comment made me feel much better about McCain.

    During the campaign, my late mother told me that she and my Dad liked the McCains a lot. Dad used to market weapons systems to the DoD, and I already knew he had testified before Sen McCain in support of one of them. But apparently they attended a social fundraiser sort of thing, and talked Navy with each other.


    Peering through... a different prism . . .

    Crazy ass nuts will say the most subversive things publically that really raise the eyebrows.

    Although, there are those in the government that will set-up sites such as that Facebook page of the Christian American Patriots Militia so as to shake some of the nuts out of the tree. Don't believe what I'm trying to say? Check the following.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

    I'm not saying this is the way to go, but the FBI does have it's directives to follow.

    It's simply the reality of the situation.

    ~OGD~


    That could be about the Facebook page, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't the case at that Town Hall meeting.  They were all old white Tea Partiers.  Nobody there had to pretend to be anything else.


    About the Town Hall... I even wouldn't be so sure of that  . . .

    Observing the world of counterintelligence for the past 45 years has taught me to never take anything at face value. Never!

    ~OGD~


    The giggling in the crowd after this woman speaks bothers me. Are they laughing because they see her as a joke? It didn't seem like a nervous titter to me.

    And the laughter after the second woman calls to "impeach the s.o.b." includes Rep. Bridenstine himself as he tells her she "looks so sweet".

    This is reminding me of that summer of the townhall meetings where folks were packing heat and speaking out in an incendiary fashion.Yeah, I know: freedom of speech, blah, blah, blah.


    This is not an isolated event where the so called leadership in the room is remiss in pointing out that a call to execute the president is just wrong if not treasonous.
     


    We may be heading towards another civil war? 

    Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois, who was also a subject of criticism during the speech, suggested to a colleague while Sumner was orating that "this damn fool [Sumner] is going to get himself shot by some other damn fool.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Brooks

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sumner

    Fratricide?

    People are afraid

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/executiveorders.asp


    Given the fact that Obama has signed a low number of a Executive Orders, the fear seems to be in uninformed people many suggesting violent action against the President. The real threat of violence is from fearful, uniformed, armed nut jobs, not the US government.


    Some of this is due to the poor quality of our media. I expect Faux nooz to lie but the mainstream should at least try to tell it like it is. When a republican nutcase brings this up the follow up question should be, "Reagan signed more than twice as many executive orders as Obama. Was he twice as lawless?"


    None of the numbers on that snope site you linked to are real. A better source of information about executive orders can be found at the National Archives.

    Now, if the link is supposed to make a bank shot reference to how brazenly people will misrepresent the facts to put forward an idea, the point is well made.

    Bravo.


    Thanks Moat, for catching the Truth, Snopes was pointing out how the uninformed keep perpetuating the false claim.

    I don't know how to fix stupid. Irrational people are difficult to convince.   Every night their fears are validated.  NSA, Coming for the guns, Obama care not working as planned; "You can keep your Doctor" FALSE .....  LIE after Lies  Boehner "Can't trust Obama" 

    If Republicans come to power I can imagine many will hate their abuse of Executive power too. 

    People see to much hypocrisy;  where it's okay for the United States to use drones, but how would we react. if another nation used them against us here, at home?

    FEAR has gripped America. No retirement, bankers and wall street have fleeced the people, with the support of our Government. The days of the pitchfork rebellion is over; some folks are looking towards more aggressive means, to get the Government to listen.

    Tired of the same old same old.    


    So what are you saying?  This kind of thing is okay?


    NO! it is not okay to talk of harming others.

    BTW (I know you didn't appreciate it when others put words in your mouth).

    I know others won't agree with me, if they feel their cause is right. I am not their higher authority. As you well know, many scoff at the light, that can guide their footsteps. 

    Edited to add  We should all pray for all of our leaders.  

     


    I would just like to say that it often seems to me that it's only when others challenge some of your statements (which you apparently think of as "putting words in your mouth"), and you respond and clarify what you said, that it becomes clearer that you aren't someone pushing fear and anger and even violence at times.

    It's like this: Your initial comments often seem to do just that. Someone challenges because of what they appear to say. And and after you respond, it gets clearer that you are not as un-thoughtful as you originally appeared. Which takes us back to: my suggestion to either think more about what you write before you hit publish, or expect this scenario to continue to happen. Anywhere you might go, not just Dagblog. I don't see the attack pack here at Dagblog you claim to see. I see a few brave people often willing to question you to get you to clarify your thoughts. At less moderated forums, you might just get straight out dismissals with simple name calling, or be ignored with a "don't feed the trolls."


    Thank you, AA.  You put that so well.  We'll see how it takes.


    I was asking you a question.  How was that "putting words in my mouth"?   The post is about threats against the president.  I didn't see anything in your responses where you addressed that.


    Irrational people are difficult to convince.

    Your link shows how easy it is.

    Your reply is textbook concern trolling; Bemoaning how afraid everybody is after spending so much time yourself trying to make sure people are afraid.


    Heheheheheheheh . . .

    Very good point there moat...

    ~OGD~


    What? You have eyes and ears, yet you don't see or hear what your opponents/ fellow citizens are saying and what they fear? Sounds like an elitist viewpoint,  The Elitist are always blind and deaf. 

    I know some, would like all citizens to be as Polyannish as they. Thing is, some of us live in a reality based world.     

    Fear?The News reports do a pretty good job of instilling the fearful/facts. Everyday a new revelation is uncovered. Only those with short attention spans fail to see the mounting evidence.  


    You point to a Snopes assessment that the fear of Obama's excessive use of Executive a Orders is irrational. Then you say that citizens are rightfully fearful. You say that stating that you want to harm someone is not something you support but in the next breath you will talk about arming ourselves against the government. It seems to be double-speak. When people disagree with you it is often because your comments seem contradictory.

    I'd be arming myself against Ted Nugent and the Tea Party


    spending so much time yourself trying to make sure people are afraid.

    Afraid of what?  Seeing a fulfillment of a distressing time and pointing it out? 

    Next you'll be telling the Weather Service; "Stop scaring the people with your message to flee from the coming storm"? 

    As Ramona wrote :"We have to pay attention" 


    Resistance, I'm really getting tired of you hijacking every thread in order to push your own agenda or to troll

    .  This thread is about threats against the President of the United States.  You turn it into a rag against the government, and then others come on to tell you you're doing it again, and that gives you ammunition to pretend you're being abused.

    You get what you want when the original topic is forgotten and all the attention is on you and your attempts to take it over.

    We've had this conversation before, where you also pretended not to know what "trolling" meant.  I'm asking you to consider the group and refrain from commenting if you have nothing to add to the discussion.  (And read what ArtAppraiser said above.  We've tried to be patient with you, but our patience is wearing thin.  You're not being fair to the others here who want to keep a discussion going.)

    I'm as guilty as anyone but I would ask everyone to ignore the trolls.

    One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks with no substance or relevance to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.

     


    Your blog was about paying attention, and I did that, and the moment I disagree or I don't follow the script, "Yeah Ramona, you go girl,  you're so correct;  these right wingers are nuts"  I get accused of trolling, because I try to understand others points of views?

    You attack everyone who disagrees with you.

    Right wingers; who by the way are citizens of this country do vote  and it appears you don't care to find out, why they do, what they do; you only know your position is the right one.

     These constant threats by you, your censoring or removing my comments, is just another example of your type of authoritative rule. 

    You're the boss an no one better disagree. Fine, have your circle of friends reinforce your concept of fairness.

    I'll look around and see if there are others outside this closed committee.


    You're trolling.  You're not respecting the original poster, either here or on other threads.  I've tried to be patient with you, but even your response is trolling.  You can say what you want about me, but when you troll you will be called out for it.


    I noticed your link automatically uses the term moron?

    How many times have we been warned;  not to make personal attacks? For some it's alright others not so much? 


    Oh brother . . .

    The "...link automatically uses the term moron"???

    The link quotes H.L Mencken where he used the term "moron"... If there is a problem with H.L. Mencken's quote no one will be able to help you. Mencken is DEAD!

    Although, the link does outline this basic description of persecution complex:

    A persecution complex is a term given to an array of psychologically-complex behaviours, that specifically deals with the perception of being persecuted, for various possible reasons, imagined or real.

    People or groups who hold to marginal (non-mainstream) beliefs or theories often display some features of this malady, as a way of explaining why their views are not more widespread. It is also commonly displayed by people or groups whose beliefs actually are comparatively widespread, such as fundamentalist Christians.


    Nowhere else in that linked RartionalWiki does it use the term, "moron"...

    Now... to understand my point fully, a person must have the basic ability in the first place to rationally understand what the hell they're reading.

    ~OGD~


    OGD   "ability in the first place to rationally understand what the hell they're reading."

    Linked article  "for various possible reasons, ................or real."

    Real what?

    If there is a problem with H.L. Mencken's quote no one will be able to help you. Mencken is DEAD

    "Now... to understand your point fully, ........; if you're to be the judge, if the person is DEAD, then it's alright to quote the dead, who calls others morons; (in the lead quote) ?

    Well I'll be,  I believe that to be an odd standard or judgment call, ripe for abuse.

    Hmmm....  Would the term Chimpanzee be included, as long as the one who used it is dead?

    Edited to add

    I believe your explanation is unreasonable. I hope AA just missed that part, It can happen.


    On second thought . . .

    That Mencken quote does appear now to be quite apropos in this instance.

    ~OGD~


    I'd be surprised if you could ever put one together, without insulting someone. 


    No, I'm sure this kind of thing goes on all over the country.  That's what scares me about it, even more than that Militia Facebook page.  They looked like ordinary fun-loving old folks getting together for a. . .Tea Party. 

    Spewing that kind of hate seemed so natural to them.  They were right there, in the mood, and what tied them all together was their vicious hatred for the president.


    The laughter was weird.

    It could be an acceptance of someone speaking in a hyperbolic manner. It could be thanking someone for expressing something that others are bound not to do. It could be about something that was said earlier that we did not here in the snippet. Conversations taken out of context and that sort of thing.

    What struck me about the tenor of the meeting is how much it was directed by a strict measure of conformity; You don't get to talk in that place unless you are at "wits end" and talk like Dirty Harry. The "you look so sweet" remark (in response to acting tough) is pure Hollywood.

    Reagan excrement.


    George W. Bush was an in control, hands on, from the gut, President. He was not flustered by thousands of Americans dying on 9/11 and kept reading the Pet Goat book to show he was a tough guy totally in control.

    Bush was so in control he started on anthrax drugs before the first anthrax letter was mailed, link 1, link 2,  then blamed it on Saddam so we could invade Iraq and kill 'em there instead of here.

    He didn't wait for a UN permission slip to invade Iraq and spread God's gifts, and he kept us safer than he did the Iraqi's.

    Bush was an ordained Republican President by the Constitution and the Bible. The Supreme Court said so. Obama isn't. We know that.

    When Bush was running things you could get arrested for peace t-shirts and such because he was The Decider not just President like Obama.


    The GOP has bought into the Tea Party crazy. Louie Gohmert and Michelle Bachmann are now mainstream GOP. The GOP sees god stamps and health care as slavery. They want to limit access to voting. The Congressman did not counter the words of his constituent because he agrees with the sentiments. A significant segment of the GOP finds nothing wrong with the threat.


    Not just the T-Party. Corporate TeeVee has long been into dissing Obama.

    Just watched introduction to Olympics Opening Ceremony. Seems fathead NBC talking heads are planning to punditize a lot on politics, and how much Putin spent on Sochi (of course a tiny fraction of what the US spent destroying Iraq, for which all the networks were cheerleaders).

    Bob Costass perhaps trying out to replace O'Reilly, just grilled Obama:

    Costass asked - 'President, why has the US relationship with Russia gone down the tubes? You promised to reset the relation?'

    (alternate question if the relationship was excellent):

    Costass -  'Why are you so close to Russia and Vladimir Putin, he is a bad guy who hates gays not to mention a former communist and KGB chief?'

    Costass asked - Why aren't you going to the Olympics President?

    (alternate question if Obama was going)

    Costass - 'With millions unemployed, do you have time to go to the Olympics when you should be meeting with Republicans to get their ideas on how to create jobs?'

     


    An interesting aspect of the wingnuts is that they trivialize  slavery. Executive orders are slavery. Obamacare is slavery. They take the victim position whirl bullying others. The wingnuts demolish unions, suppress voting, obstruct health care, appoint special masters for cities and then cry that the wingnuts are the ones under attack.

    The Arizona Governor waved her finger in Obama's face as a flagrant demonstration of disrespect. We have to realize that the wingnuts with cheerleaders like Ted Nugent are a threat just like the White Citizens Councils during the Civil Rights movement.


    I've never seen such disrespect for a president in all my long life.  Politicians, pundits, preachers--they can publicly lie about and insult the president with no fear of being held accountable.  The public picks up on that and follows their lead.

    Showing hatred for this president has now become not just acceptable but popular.  The few who warn against this are dismissed as Obamabots and that's the end of that.  It comes from both the Right and the Left, which adds to the notion that he is our most hated president. 

    I live in fear that something will happen to him.  It won't be a comfort by then to be able to say "I told you so". 

     


    I do think that it is significantly worse for this President, because he is black. But I have to tell you, this sort of stuff happened to Bill and Hillary Clinton daily. I think it was Dan Burton who used a Hillary and Bill target for his backyard target practice, he announced it was and so proud of his idiocy. People used to threaten Bill Clinton's life as well, in public. Yes I do think it is much worse with President Obama, but you have to understand this is a tactic used by the Right Wing to instill fear in people and control them. 

    See every Resistance comment ever.


    Wingnuts do have a play book. The impeachment talk from Bob Barrr came before the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The only valid President wingnuts will tolerate are Republican Presidents. Limbaugh openly admitted that he was carrying water for GW because Bush was better than any Democrat in his view.

    The impeachment talk aimed at Obama is essentially the same play calling.


    I agree that the Clintons have had their share of abuse, but through it all they were still considered "one of us".   When Obama is made to seem like a shadowy "other" (read "dark"), that deliberate difference makes it easy to be suspicious of him.  The woman in the video said he is not our president, he has no authority. . .and she believes it, I'm sure, because she has been led to believe it.

    But in all fairness, bringing Resistance into this isn't necessary.  There are times when he's unfairly singled out, and since he isn't really pertinent to your comment, this, I think, is one of them.


    Sure, when David Geffen was literally burning Hillary in effigy at a Malibu party, and Bill was being called a racist by half the party for his "fairy tale" comment and when Hillary's concession of defeat came 2 months too late for many to forgive, and when they were interlopers at the 2008 convention, the Clintons were always "one of us". For over 20 years Hillary's been pilloried for not converting on health care, even though it was as much self-righteous Democrats like Robert Byrd and Patrick Moynihan and Bill Bradley who helped sunk it. SCHIP? all credit must go to Ted Kennedy, none to the Clintons.

    The Republicans impeached Clinton, but the press allowed people to show up on TV wearing C.U.N.T shirts about Hillary, they let the bimbo from Arkansas repeatedly accuse the Clintons of murdering 50 or so friends & followers, and post-2009 the Clintons became responsible for the financial crimes by being the corporate wing of the Democratic Party. Did I mention the vote on Iraq and saying she'd retaliate against Iran?

    I don't think things have been so bad for Obama - at least when Democrats criticize him they have an actual reason. Republican obstruction? well, we knew that was getting worse.


    I'll go back to my original post, which is about wanting Obama dead.  Maybe it's because the internet keeps growing, our wi-fi service is faster, or users feel freer to rage on about how much they want to see Obama get his, I just don't know. 

    It could be that my own fear about what might happen to him is getting the best of me.  I think there's a reason to fear for his life.  We can talk about the crazies, the nut-cases, the history of presidential threats, but my point here is that we need to talk about whether or not Obama is in any more danger than any other president has been or would be. 

    We didn't get notice of JFKs assassination, of course.  A big part of the shock was that we had no idea there were actually people out there who wanted to kill him. 

    He was already losing his shine, pissing off people Right and Left, but since we didn't have the internet, we'll never know how many threats might have been out there before it actually happened.


    The post is about people saying that they want Obama dead. That is a different level than we have seen before. The need to produce a birth certificate is also different. If you measure the 

    If we blame Previous Democrats for failure of the Clinton health care initiative, we must also blame current Democrats for the size of the stimulus package, the threat of a bill to promote war with Iran and opposition to increasing minimum wage by Sen. Mark Pryor.

    Here is a link to Republican obstructionism under Obama compared to previous Presidents.


    I completely agree with this. I will suggest that were Clinton elected, we might very well have seen the same number (or more) people wanting her dead and saying so publicly. For whatever reason, a lot of it probably sexism, people hated her far more than they did her husband.

    That said, it doesn't change anything. Even if there were Obama supporters who said such things, it would make it no less wrong that there are right-wing blowhards who are issuing treasonable "fighting words".


    Obama faced the PUMA folks during the Primaries and during the election.

    I don't doubt that there will be people who would want Hillary dead if she runs. Wingnut crazy encompasses hate based on ethnicity and gender.


    Bill had one advantage sociologically.

    He was a cracker and could look 'em in the eye from that vantage point.

    He and Newt had sprung from the same swamp and understood each other in that sense.

    And Bill was very agile.


    "He and Newt had sprung from the same swamp "

    No they didn't. Bill is Southern. Newt is a transplanted military brat who arrived in Georgia as a high school junior. At the height of his career he represented the area with the most people similar to himself living in and around defense contractor Lockheed. It has long been the most Republican part of metro Atlanta.  And now they have the Braves.

    Just wanted to clarify. I accept Bill Clinton as a fellow cracker but not Newt.

     


    Yes, good correction. Even as I was writing that I knew, somewhere, that it wasn't true.

    In fact, some parallels might be drawn between Newt and some other phonies, like the Bushies, who aren't Texan.


    I did not know Newt's military brat background, but I thought right away: huh? Newt is almost like the antithesis of a "cracker,"or a good ole boy or whatever, he's so effete. I'll take it a step further: he's so effete that I can not imagine even the gentlest, most aristo of 18th-century Southern gentlemen farmers thinking of him as a brother. (Well, ok, unless it was their "wayward brother." cheeky)

    Edit to add: kudos, Peter, for admitting your mistake.


    I all down with calling out Southern Pretenders.

    But Newt did get some street cred back in the day when he shut down the Federal Government.

    He drove that car as far as he could before the vapors returned to the atmosphere.


    It did not help that Democrats basically abandoned the South to the tender mercies of the Republican party. If I recall correctly, it was during the Mondale campaign that Andrew Young grew so exasperated with that strategy he called out the 'smart-ass white boys' running it. Of course, he had to apologize.

     


    Excellent response. That was the context.


    But wasn't Young's statement made specifically in connection with what he perceived as the campaign's failure to appeal to African Americans nationwide?   Mondale was only able to carry his own state; he couldn't even carry Massachusetts.  

    I'm not that sure under those circumstances he could have done much to counter Reagan's strength in Southern States.  His was a campaign of large rallies in large northern and mid-western cities because that election was over before it started.   I remember seeing him in Madison, Wisconsin a few weeks before election day.  Great crowd, lots of spirit, but we all knew what was about to happen.


    "But wasn't Young's statement made specifically in connection with what he perceived as the campaign's failure to appeal to African Americans nationwide?"

    Not so much.

    Mayor Andrew Young characterizes Walter Mondale's staff as "smart-assed white boys, " but says he will support the democratic presidential nominee because the issue is not black and white, but life and death.

    "I can't let them (the Mondale staff) lose this election," the former U.N. ambassador told the National Association of Black Journalists Friday. "I can't let them undo all the things I have done all my life.

    But Young used an expletive to describe Mondale's staff.

    "They're smart-assed white boys that think they know it all," he said. I talk to them all the time--I used to talk to them, " he said. "They won't listen to me."

    [....]

    Despite his blast at Mondale's campaign staff, Young said blacks cannot afford to abandon the former vice president.

    "There will be war in Central America if Ronald Reagan is elected, " Young said. "The real issues are not black and white but life and death."

    [....]

    Young said blacks should work to patch up quarrels within the Democratic Party.

    "It's a problem that in the interest of poor people and black people we've got about three months to address."

    The Atlanta mayor said he knows and likes [Jesse] Jackson, but added that "he scares the hell out of white folks."

    "It makes us feel good to scare white folks. But this is counter-productive. In a minority situation, you've got to bring the country along."

     


    Thanks, didn't recall that statement.  


    I agree with you in this, Ramona.

    Except that this has been the case since he was elected.

    Since he successfully fought off the attempts to beat him at the ballot box and defeat his initiatives, chiefly Obamacare, it's only gained in intensity.

    Whenever he refuses to lay down and just accept whatever the GOP throws at him ...but instead keeps on keeping on...the anger, fueled by growing frustration, gets worse.

    Most recently, his open defiance of GOP's attempt to shut him down in his promise to use Executive Orders, where possible, to go around GOP obstructionism to move his agenda forward is driving them bat shit.

    Tom Coburn is leaving Congress and promising to push for a constitutional convention as yet another example of the desperation they feel to stop Obama's "usurpation" of power any way they can.

    My question is...what to do about the crazies? I dunno, but here are my thoughts.

    • Internet is definitely an amplifier. It joins voices that otherwise would never find each other and never have an audience once joined.

    • In Off Center, the authors make the point that, once upon a time, the center served as the principal corrective force in American politics. Politicians couldn't go too far out in any direction because they'd be brought into line by the center. But now, for a whole host of reasons, the center has been neutered and GOP pols are rewarded for racing to the right and protected from the center when they do. "Backlash insurance" the authors call it. Written in 2005, this book is still timely.

    • Democrats and the left need to focus at the state level. This is where the game is being played, and it's the right's mastery of the state game that gives the crazies the freedom to act in the way we see in the video.

    At this point in time, and maybe for some time, the right has enjoyed politics more than the left, IMO. The left likes to elect their leaders and have them take care of things. "We don't want to work; that's what we hired/elected you for." The left also likes the courts to settle things so we can go back to doing the things we enjoy. Court decisions are a way to win political battles on the cheap. You don't have to change minds; you just make things illegal. I'm not against various court decisions; they are definitely important; but they do have their limitations.

    The key is to control the field at the state level.


     It joins voices that otherwise would never find each other and never have an audience once joined.

    People have always found like minded folks to associate with, in secret, just as our forefathers did. They wont need to use a Lantern in the Old North Church, they'll use cell phones  they'll go underground, but they'll still be there, you just wont see them. You're only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

    Elderly ladies speaking what is on their minds and  throwing them in prison for treason will only anger many more.

    I'd bet the sophisticated ones, know how to meet up. 

    News: Sniper attack on Silicon Valley power grid spurs security crusade by ex-regulator

    Democrats and the left need to focus at the state level. 

    Someone mentioned earlier about McCain, someone who might not get his own party nomination?.

    Marijuana laws are bypassing the FEDS, People from all across the spectrum, are fed up with the Federal government.  I see it only getting worse.

    The armed Ted Nugents and the like, are not going anywhere. They are the martyrs to the extreme groups.

    Who needs the underhanded tactics of the IRS, to go after resistors of the two capitalist parties? 

    Take a look at your new traceable $100 bills. Political groups outside the two main ones approval, will be dealt with. When the status quo asks for your donor list.


    People have always found like minded folks to associate with, in secret, just as our forefathers did.

    True, but speed and quantity count. That's my point. They are intensifiers. As a side note, my reading suggests that if GIII had been a tiny bit smarter, there would have been no Revolution. A LOT of colonists had strong attachments to England, including and especially GW. Initially, no one was champing at the bit to detach. We look at this wrongly in hindsight.

    Elderly ladies speaking what is on their minds and  throwing them in prison for treason will only anger many more.

    Is someone suggesting the lady be thrown in prison for treason? The Constitution defines treason in very limited terms on purpose. Political disagreements shouldn't be turned into treason trials. But here are two points to consider:

    • If you listen to her, she is accusing Obama of treason without necessarily using that word. Hence her recommended response, i.e., executing him as if he were a Tory or an agent of GIII or Hitler. Without benefit, even, of a trial.

    • Calling for the death of anyone, let alone the president, is a crime, I believe. She should note that. This has nothing to do with treason or politics. She might not have been aware, even, that she was being recorded. She comes from an era when someone spouting off in Montana or even Washington Square wasn't likely to be filmed, let alone be seen, potentially, by every single person in the world with an Internet connection. The pendulum swings both ways.


    Perhaps you can suggest to that lady that she open her Bible to this passage:

    Matthew 26:52

    “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

     


    That would be a good scripture to use; if she was familiar with the Bible.

    This plutocratic government, would have a lot of explaining to do;  if all it's future conscripts listened to this counsel. 

    Eugene Debs was thrown in prison for saying as much

    "The Canton, Ohio Speech, Anti-War Speech" in The Call (16 June 1918)

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs


    This off topic but you are mentioning Debs, a Socialist, who would be considered unacceptable to the area Party. How do you reconcile support for both groups? The Tea Party is very unhappy with the current President  labeled a Socialist by some members.


    How do you reconcile support for both groups?

    I don’t support either group.  As I have stated many times, I try to see things from other people’s perspectives.

     Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins.

    Being able to put yourself in the other person's place and understand why they act the way they do even if you don't agree with it.

    To bring it back to Ramona’s post; these right wingers are gearing up for war;  while the Socialists/democrats are persuaded to disarm

    What; you didn't know the Fascist and the Socialists rarely get along? 

    Or that claims of National Security are the Tools of those in power?

    As long as the two continue to fight, the plutocrats maintain control.

    The Tea Party activism is a tool to be used to counter implementation of Social programs. Who do you think finances the armed Tea Party? (While the Corporate Democrats, disarm the social/democrats ?)

    Taken from the Debs speech 

    "What did Rose Pastor Stokes say? Why, she said that a government could not at the same time serve both the profiteers and the victims of the profiteers. Is it not true?" 

    BTW The woman received a sentence of 10 years.  This happens because Federal judges are not elected directly by the people.  Who butters their bread; Profiteers or Victims of profiteers?

    When some of the people, finally do get fed up, those in power will know who they can’t trust, they’ll have all your conversations on file. Thanks to the NSA.

    Did you know, that there’s an Executive order, allowing the President to shut down all communications, if he deems it necessary.  Hmmm;  you think that order could be abused, if one party decides to attack another in the future?  The law of unintended consequences

    As events unfold; I’m praying even more these days “Let your kingdom come”


    Given the wording it is difficult to think that you do not support Debs. 

    Debs words are from 100 years ago. Debs faced police that attacked peaceful protestors. There was no great conflagration then leading to another Civil War. Why do you think there will not be a peaceful transition now? The Moral Mondays, as one example, movement is peaceful and has large turnouts


    Why do you think there will not be a peaceful transition now?

    What makes you believe; the plutocracy will ever see the error of their ways and will now show compassion? 

    Debs pointed out in his letter, how the greedy coal companies, whose business model, was hurting the poor and the workers. All that mattered to BIG business, was profit. 

    I don't see that things have changed or will ever change, as long as the government of the profiteers remains in power. 

    I am not advocating, I am only recognizing a long history of upheavals, between the haves and have nots, A historical friction between the rulers/aristocracy and the peasants/working class.

    Debs identified the two major parties as different wings of the same controlling faction.

    “ In this campaign there are but two parties and but one issue. There is no longer even the pretense of difference between the so-called Republican and Democratic parties. They are sub- stantially one in what they stand for. They are opposed to each other on no question of principle but purely in a contest for the spoils of office.

    To the workers of the country these two parties in name are one in fact. They, or rather, it stands for capitalism, for the private ownership of the means of subsistence, for the exploitation of the workers, and for wage-slavery.”

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Political_Appeal_to_American_Workers

    The friction became very obvious, in the 1947 HUAC hearings and the blacklisting of those who opposed corporate power. Right or wrong, there was a war being waged. The friction remains and those in control of power will do all they can, to assure they don’t lose.

    Has there been a substantial change, from what Debs recognized 100 years ago,  rmrd?


    The Moral Mondays, Moral Mondays - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "It began as a peaceful rally in support of workers striking for an eight-hour day. An unknown person threw a dynamite bomb at police as they acted to disperse the public meeting. The bomb blast and ensuing gunfire resulted in the deaths of seven police officers and at least four civilians; scores of others were wounded."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair


    I don’t support either group.  As I have stated many times, I try to see things from other people’s perspectives.

     Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins.

    Being able to put yourself in the other person's place and understand why they act the way they do even if you don't agree with it.

    To bring it back to Ramona’s post; these right wingers are gearing up for war;  while the Socialists/democrats are persuaded to disarm

    What; you didn't know the Fascist and the Socialists rarely get along? 

    Or that claims of National Security are the Tools of those in power?

    As long as the two continue to fight, the plutocrats maintain control.

    The Tea Party activism is a tool to be used to counter implementation of Social programs. Who do you think finances the armed Tea Party? (While the Corporate Democrats, disarm the social/democrats ?)

    Taken from the Debs speech 

    "What did Rose Pastor Stokes say? Why, she said that a government could not at the same time serve both the profiteers and the victims of the profiteers. Is it not true?"

    You're making some good points here...especially up top. It's possible that you're writing in such a way that points like this don't come through.


    It's possible that you're writing in such a way that points like this don't come through.

    You think smiley


    I think you're right about concentrating on the state level.  We've seen what has happened in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Florida and my own state of Michigan.  The Koch Brothers are writing the playbooks and the Republican governors and state houses are doing their bidding.

    But in the meantime, Barack Obama is still president.  If by the slimmest of chances, the Dems win the majority in November, the attacks against him will be relentless.  The fearmongers will be working overtime trying to convince the people that evil lurks in the hearts of Democrats.  They won't give up and Obama will be their main target.


    True, but what to do?

    Calling it out, as you do, is good.

    As someone above said, the congressman is the real guilty party here for not curbing the lady's outrageous comments.


    My first thought about this centered around creationism.

    Being a good, decently educated liberal from the east, I thought the Scopes trial had settled the evolution question long ago.

    So I was shocked when the issue erupted at school boards around the country.

    "What's going on here? Didn't these folks ever about the Scopes trial?"

    Aside from the fact that the Scopes trial seems to have been grossly misrepresented to liberals down through the years...

    The Scopes trial settled nothing. The whole thing went underground and got worse. In fact, not so far underground; just not visible to liberal types like me.

    My point is this: I suspect that the feelings expressed by this lady and the congressman have been shared by quite a few people for a very long time. They've been given freer rein and a taller soapbox per what I say above, but this has been a substantial swath of America for a very long time, I suspect.

    Having a black president just sums things up for these people and intensifies everything.

    Dallas 1963 goes into it.

    Also...

    We've always had a decent amount of xenophobia in this country, and maybe all countries do to some degree.

    But now, "foreigners" really are starting to outnumber the "native born" in many areas. Their worst nightmare really is coming true for them and that adds to all the other factors at work here. Note the reaction to the Coke ad as just one tiny example.


    The campaign to dumb down the populace is in full swing, too--you're right.  It's startling how well it's working.  We've been through this before, several times, but it's back to attacking the intellectuals--the elites--which of course means the Liberals/Progressives--and making their ideas seem out of touch and without merit. 

    Teaching to the test instead of teaching students to think; cutting pubic school budgets and disrespecting teachers is all part of the master plan.  They can't keep a service industry going with smart, ambitious young people.  They won't want to be servants.

    But enough of them will go along with the plan, and they're the ones I worry about.  I think I read too many nasty comment sections.  Those people scare the daylights out of me.


    Adding, not disagreeing here...

    If you read Off Center, the irony is that the GOP is now ruled by a relatively small and powerful elite. Things like "backlash insurance" are being using to encourage and allow folks like this guy in the video to run TOWARD the extreme views of this powerful elite and ignore the erstwhile powerful center which, in former times, would have checked this extreme rightward move.

    There is something to be said about the "liberal elite"...but the GOP elite is much more worrisome and dare not speak its own name.

    The book is written in a bit of a dull style, but the content is excellent, and it isn't that hard to read, nor is it long.

    Diane Ravitch is my lode star when it comes to all things education. I hope you tune into her blog and read her many informative books. In the 1990s, she bought into all this testing stuff and came to see its folly.

    http://dianeravitch.net/


    I'll check out that book, Peter.  Thanks.  I think the Republican moderates are finally waking up to what they've allowed to happen.  I hope so.  (Never thought I would be sticking up for Republicans but since we're destined to be a two-party system for a while yet, I want our opponents to at least be close to sane.)

    I think when liberals began to believe the propaganda about liberals and lost pride in who we were, we lost so much ground it's probable we'll never get it back.  Conservatives are facing the same thing right now with the Tea Party/Koch takeover.

     Diane Ravitch has been on my blogroll for some time now.  I wish everyone who thinks they know what goes on in public education would read her, too.  (I admit I still don't know how I feel about all aspects of Common Core, but I trust what she has to say.  She is closer to the facts than I am.)


    I think that the Scopes trial has gotten horribly misrepresented in the popular media. Scopes lost. Clarence Darrow made many powerful statements, but in the end, he lost the case. Perhaps he won in the press, but whether he was just preaching to the choir or actually changed any minds is hard to tell. We're still fighting this battle, and given that many still believe whole-heartedly in young-Earth creationism (and no, not just in the South), it's amazing we've made as much progress as we have.


    Though I can't vouch for its veracity, I HIGHLY recommend reading Garry Wills' Under God. He has a long section on the Scopes trial and, if he's right, almost everything we've been taught about it is wrong. So are the popular characterizations of Darrow and Bryan. You'll come away with a new appreciation for the latter for sure (and, perhaps, Resistance).

    Here's a taste: The man who authored the TN law didn't expect it to be followed. The TN textbooks were already teaching evolution as were the schools. The case bolstered the anti-evolution crowd's position.

    I came away feeling that the Scopes trial had eerie parallels with RvW in that the country was already moving toward legalizing the teaching of evolution and abortion ...until these court cases and trials galvanized the opposition.


    Eerie parallels?

    The endless disasters of the GW Bush administration created, among his disillusioned pissed off supporters, the Tea Party. 'Compassionate conservatism' morphed into nihilistic rage, the country wasn't 'working' for them anymore, so destroy it.

    Failure radicalizes the 'positions' of the delusional.


    I have also worried about our president being killed since he took office.  There has been such a over reach that the public is getting upset with it.  The media doesn't have a clue because they aren't out on the streets but in studios repeating each other.  I have had the conversation many times about the threats on Obama with just friends and neighbors and I am not the one bringing it up.   It is being noticed and people don't like it.  The disrespect is on the minds of minorities and women.  The GOP and the crazy rich trust fund babies have been successful with their wedge issues but they have gone to far in hopes of buying time before this new generation takes the reigns of this country. They know they are running out of time.  I just hope they don't add a dead president to the the trail of wreckage they leave behind as they get pushed out. 


    There has been such a over reach that the public is getting upset with it.

    I don't know if I am understanding or mis  this part. I agree, many folks feel this President is overreaching for power and they are VERY upset.

    These threats are a symptom of a diseased society. If they could kill a President, what is your worth?  Ask the residents of the Chicago ghettos or any of the multiple American ghettos, Residents who feel ignored and in their minds, there is no President saving them.

    The next generation who holds the reigns, wont have much to hold on to. Just as our hopes were dashed, when the members of the Chicago 7 became a part of the ESTABLISHMENT, they were once,so against.  Money talked and they listened. Just as the next generation will.

    Edit to add  This is the price of constant war,  the soul of the nation is taught to hate; not love one another. "The love of money is at the root of many injurious things" 


    Yes, momoe, this have been a topic of conversation with many people I know, too.  It's been going on since he was first elected.  It's a real fear and not something imagined, given the emphasis on supposed firearm freedoms (carry a gun because the government is out to get you--but only the Democrats, of course), and the outright hatred for this president, not over his politics as much as over who he is personally.

    That hatred is nurtured by bought-and paid-for right wingers who think the takeover isn't moving fast enough. 

    All those who think our troubles would be over if Obama was out of the picture need to take a deep breath and look at who is encouraging this insane hatred.  Who benefits the most if Obama and the Democrats are out of the picture?  It won't be you or me or anyone who believes they know what an America under our constitution should look like.


    (carry a gun because the government is out to get you-

    No Ramona, It's all about self defense. 

    if Obama was out of the picture need to take a deep breath,

    They wouldn't want Biden. Some of these people didn't start the war and many don't hate him because of the color of his skin, they don't like the direction he took the country.

    Who benefits the most if Obama and the Democrats are out of  IN the picture? 

    The Tea party wouldn't have bailed out the banker class. Democrats did that.


    Tea Party Congressmen have no problem accepting money from bailed out banks.


    The Tea party wouldn't have bailed out the banker class.

    Yes that's likely true. Its easy to make a case that Obama's actions to deal with the crisis were flawed. But that's not an argument in favor of the Tea Party response. The TP would have done nothing. The banks would have failed and the stock market would have crashed. Instead of 8 to 15% unemployment we'd have 25 to 30% unemployment. The austerity they proposed would have driven us deeper and deeper into crisis after crisis with no end in sight. Instead of a Great Recession we'd have another Great Depression. No extension of unemployment benefits would have led to a vast increase in homelessness and a repeat of the depression era hobo villages and unemployed men going to town after town looking for work.

    Only this time it wouldn't have just been homeless and unemployed men being turned away from town after town. It would have been women and children too.

    No increases in food stamps or the elimination that the Tea Party advocated would have left hordes of people begging in the streets or standing in totally inadequate food lines.

    I'm not at all happy about how Obama stabilized the economy but the TP response would have been much worse.

     


    I agree and so do most of the country because they re-elected Obama and the crazy right is in self destruct mode.  That is what is scary.  I am in part of the country where the center right is fed up with the far right and don't like all the threats on minorities plus the war on women. 


    Obama won his re-election bid by a margin of 51.06%-47.21%

    People are reconsidering their choice, He is not as popular anymore 

    Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handing his job as president? 2014 trend


    Polls like that don't tell us anything, whether about democrats or republicans. They're just to simplistic. They don't tell us that people are reconsidering their choice. I'd have been numbered among those who disapprove of Obama for years. Yet I voted for him over McCain and Romney. I still disapprove of Obama and I'd still vote for him over Romney. I'm liberal and I see him as center right or at least too centrist for me.

    Its just like polls showing disapproval for Obamacare. I disapprove but do not want it repealed. There's many liberals that criticize Obama from the left who vote and support him because the republican or tea party is so much worse. Polls like these just don't show the complexity of views among the American people.