White House Seriously Fears For Obama Safety

I've seriously feared for Obama's safety ever since he became a legit candidate for POTUS. Luckily, he hasn't really been the agent of change that he promised.

In this country, real agents of change usually end up with a bullet in their head

Lincoln
Kennedy
King

Disgusting but not unexpected. There are a lot of dangerous idiots in this country. Did I say ignorant yet? Clueless? Warped? Inbred? In any case, it's easy to understand why so many people are concerned about Obama's safety. Those fools in the media who fan the flames (read the article) are no better than traitors and treasonists if you ask me. Critical thinking ability has never been of greater importance than it is now, but I'm not sure it's going to be enough. I'll tell you one thing, if something terrible happens to Obama because of one of these lunatics, the sh_t will hit the fan... to put it mildly.

JS...that is what is so frightening....
All of your militia types are waiting for the next civil war/race war. All it takes is one loon to believe that hurting Obama could start it and...well...bad news.

I've often wondered why we don't talk more about Obama's safety. Personally, I think they should have doubled Presidential security the moment he took office.

Sad, Should, God forbid, "something terrible happen to Obama," those who are fomenting hate and violence, will most indignantly and righteously claim they had nothing to do with it...

I've often wondered why we don't talk more about Obama's safety. - shannonlee

Good question. I have no doubt the people who wish to do him harm aren't shy about talking about it.

The death of any President by violence is an affront to America and democracy, and no one in their right mind remotely hopes for Obama's assignation in particular, given what it would do to race relations, and just the general abhorrence toward such an action.

BUT...

The Bush White House was seriously concerned about HIS safety. Bush didn't use that concern to try and stop all dissent, or start whisper campaigns against his opposition in the US that they are planning to assassinate him. When even general concerns were raised, they were dismissed as 'understandable anger because of his actions, but they don't really mean it'. Again with the double standard.

All Presidents have feared for their safety since Kennedy got shot, and even before, but other than Kennedy only Republican Presidents HAVE been shot.

The list of assassinated Presidents is thankfully very short. Lincoln, Garfield, McKinnley, Kennedy. Three of those were Republicans. Reagan was almost assassinated. And both Squeaky Fromme (just released from prison) and Sarah Jane Moore tried to kill Ford.

The true 'fear mongering and lies' that is going on is the one from the Left that Right goes around wanting to kill Presidents and wanting violence, and and will assuredly Kill Obama now we don't stop them from protesting against ObamaCare!

The REALITY is that it is the Left that has the history of shooting and assassinating Presidents and inciting riots, not the Right.

This tactic is just another attempt at 'The Big Lie'.

AR, you are reading it wrong. This transcends partisanship. Apparently you can't see that.

AR
The Bush White House was seriously concerned about HIS safety. Bush didn't use that concern to try and stop all dissent, or start whisper campaigns against his opposition in the US that they are planning to assassinate him.
What country were you living in during the eight Bush years - it wasn't this one. They didn't start "whisper campaigns" they just came right out and called dissenters dangerous terrorist sympathizers and arrested people who had the wrong bumper sticker or T-shirt. If some guy had shown up to a Bush event with a sidearm he would not have been seen for months if ever. Give me a break.

AR This post from HotAir says that incidents involving Obama are four times higher than during the start of the W days.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/11/matthews-...

The worst part? According to a new book about the Secret Service, the number of daily threats against Obama is already four times the number Bush faced. Every pair of eyes diverted to watch this tool make his point about liberty is a pair that’s not watching the rest of the crowd.

Not 40%, but 400%; I think the nuts on the Right and the Militias are reaing their ugly heads...

The REALITY is that it is the Left that has the history of shooting and assassinating Presidents and inciting riots, not the Right.

ROFLMAO

"The REALITY is that it is the Left that has the history of shooting and assassinating Presidents and inciting riots, not the Right."

Come on Austin, you can't be serious.
Lincoln's assassin, John Wilkes Booth, was a Confederate sympathizer. Today he would be considered a Republican. Republicans own the Confederate states. And Appalachia. Corporate America owns the Republican party.

That is "The Truth."

Garfield's assassin, Charles Guiteau was an insane person who had been affiliated with a polygamous Christian cult: The Oneida Community.

(Any similarity to Mitt Romney and LDS is purely coincidental.)

McKinley's assassin, Leon Czolgosz, was an anarchist and a Republican.
Extra credit if you can explain the difference...

AR, "...other than Kennedy only Republican Presidents HAVE been shot."

Maybe because Republican presidents tend to be more polarizing than the Democratic presidents?

I feel that most of the hatred towards Obama (and I could be wrong on this- it's just an opinion) is based on race. The people I know who follow Rush and have no intention of leaving the Republican Party are all racists. Other Republicans I know, who may have policy differences with Obama, but still like him, are leaving (or seriously considering) the GOP.

Republican leaders do want to bring down Obama and his administration. Pretty dramatic. Nuts out there will interpret it anyway they want.

Palin's "death panel" statement along with the "rationing healthcare" and "killing granny" statements by others really really add fuel to this fire. People believe they must protect themselves. If it means killing someone else first, then they'll do it.

If Obama is assassinated he dies a martyr.

Reagan's attempted assassain, John Hinckley Jr. was just plain nuts, but the AP describes his family connections (via Wikipedia):
Associated Press published the following short note on March 31, 1981:
“ The family of the man charged with trying to assassinate President Reagan is acquainted with the family of Vice-President George Bush and had made large contributions to his political campaign ... Scott Hinckley, brother of John W. Hinckley Jr. was to have dined tonight in Denver at the home of Neil Bush, one of the Vice-President's sons ...

Austin, before you go spewing ignorant nonsense (I know, you're a Republican, it's all you know how to do) perhaps you could spend 5 minutes doing a little research. It's hard for you, I understand.

Best wishes to you & family.

What a crock. The left pulls out the old scare tactics, the old bogey man. Nobody on the right wants bozo killed in office because he is deep sixing the liberals every time he opens his mouth. Go affirmative action boy; show us what affirmative action folks turn out like. The Pantywaist Resident is the best thing that ever has happened to Conservatives. Just keep talking, bozo, we righties love it. Tell the world the right is out to get you, we don't care. We wouldn't touch you with a ten foot pole. You are a great gift to the Right. There will not be another far left liberal POTUS ever again. Happy trails.

I was going to disagree with some of StockBoy's comments, but here comes the lovely fafnir to show some of what Stockboy says is correct.

Has anybody noticed that all this great anger suddenly came about right precisely when Obama set out to take on MedMob. Funny, the coincidence. I don't remember this foaming anger starting up but for the announcement of pushing through the public option. Funny, that. Wonder if MedMob is behind the death threats?

Nah...

SB -

Are you saying the assassinated Republican Presidents had it coming because they were 'polarizing'??

You seem to be saying, 'If a Republican President gets shot, it was by a nut, and they had it coming anyway for being polarizing. But if Obama gets shot, it obviously will be the Republican Party's fault, and Obama isn't polarizing, and even if he is, only polarizing Republican Presidents deserve to be shot.'

Talk about insane.

p.s. - I am not, of course, fafnir. I still love and you respect you, even when we disagree. There was no need for his crap toward you.

It's really not useful to engage in the "blame game" of whether this partisan group is more prone to assassination than that partisan group. Most assassins or would-be assassins are lone wolf types with a deep level of mental/emotional instability who see what they are doing through an irrational lens...and those characteristics are not unique to any one political ideology, or to having a political ideology at all.

The threats to Obama have far exceeded those to others and it started from his initial announcement to run. He was the earliest candidate to receive Secret Service protection as a result, though Hillary Clinton had ongoing protection because she was the wife of a former president. Threats to him are not a Johnny-come-lately phenomenon, but they are serious and the protection of a President, any President, should matter to us all.

McKinley's assassin, Leon Czolgosz, was an anarchist and a Republican.
Extra credit if you can explain the difference... - joeaudio

Republicans dress better.

AR, no.... I am NOT saying that if a president gets shot he had it coming for being polarizing. But the people who DO shoot a president will see it in that way. Those people who kill doctors who perform abortions have a veery similar (if not the same) mentality.

As far as Republican presidents being more polarizing.... that I will admit is up for debate. But the more controversial (or perceived to be controversial) one's proposed policies the more looneys will lurk around. In that way Palin's statements (some of which are flat out lies, such as the "death panels" statements) draw out loonies. Even though the particular item in the legislation Palin lied about was actually Republican in nature, Palin used it to galvinze people against Obama. The Rush crowd went nuts over it blaming Obama, Pelosi and liberal Democrats.

The linked article said there is a growing trend of influential people making hateful comments to Obama and even implicitly supporting violence. I thought that was true and I offered my thoughts to expand on that.

Off topic, slightly... this (the "death panel" provision) is proof that the Republicans have input into legislation. It was, as I noted above and as I think we are all aware of by now, a Republican who actually put this in the bill. I guess his fellow Republicans didn't like it. :)

Anyone who says this healthcare is Obama's or the Democrats clearly do not know that Republicans have input. In this case it seems that other Republicans want (and get) their own members' proposals removed. Palin called the removal "gratifying" and said it showed that Americans have the power to stand up against the government. Never mind that it was actually someone from her own party who put it in the legislation to begin with.

But I agree with what the linked article said about influential figures (meaning Republicans) making hateful comments towards Obama and I still believe that such hateful statements by Republicans only create a more hostile environment for Obama. A large part of the hateful environment is race related. While I do not believe any president who is shot "had it coming", the people who are against the president and the people who are riling up the crowds (including the death threats we heard being shouted from the McCain/Palin crowds last year) do have a contributory effect to violence and some of those people clearly believe that if the president is shot then "he had it coming".

Bush dealt with this issue very undemocratically..... he simply called anyone who disagreed with him terrorist sympathizers and would only speak in front of highly vetted pro-Bush crowds, and not the general public.

AR, BTW.... "I still love and you respect you, even when we disagree. There was no need for his crap toward you."

Thanks, I appreciate your kindness and thoughtfulness.

fafnir, "Just keep talking, bozo, we righties love it. Tell the world the right is out to get you, we don't care."

I do not believe the right is out to get me, or the left or anyone else. I believe the right wants to win the argument and will do and say anything, including statements that cross the line.

When Palin makes a polarizing and controversial statement that is has no basis in fact (such as the death panel statement that's the outrage of the day) she is contributing to the hate towards Obama. When her crowds (as they did during the campaign) start shouting death threats aimed at Obama and she does not quiet them down, then her actions (or inactions) legitimizes the violence-prone nuts.

But I don't think Palin actually wants Obama to be assassinated. She is just an airhead making any statement necessary to win her argument without realizing their deeper impact.

And the same holds true for the elected Republican officials who attack Obama- they don't want him assassinated.... but they do not understand the deeper hate and violence they are fanning the flames of.

Yes, the Republicans who attack Obama do give legitimacy to the loonies looking for any excuse to kill Obama, but the majority or Republicans aren't out to "get" anyone. They just want to win the argument and many of their statements now cross the line.

a Republican who actually put this in the bill

Um, read more, SB. It was put into the House bill first, as a mandatory requirement.

The Republican Senator added an amendment to the Senate version later to ensure it was voluntary.

AR, "It was put into the House bill first, as a mandatory requirement."

Thanks, that's interesting.

I think it requires Medicare to pay for these services. I don't think the house bill made the sessions mandatory. At any rate, Republicans, including Palin have supported these measures in the past.

Here's the text of the bill, no need to read the whole thing :)

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

Here are some other links.... No need to read them through, either. Though I think they have some interesting points. Factcheck is the most interesting. The others are a couple sites I came across while looking for the "mandatory" bit which I enjoyed. The Arizona one was entertaining.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanas...

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/08/13/oh-t...

http://arizona.typepad.com/blog/2009/08/sen-joh...

http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/08/death-pa...