Posted on 11/17/2008 8:50:02 AM PST by Candor7
Washington - Threats against a new president historically spike right after an election, but from Maine to Idaho law enforcement officials are seeing more against Barack Obama than ever before. The Secret Service would not comment or provide the number of cases they are investigating. But since the Nov. 4 election, law enforcement officials have seen more potentially threatening writings, Internet postings ......
SNIP
One of the most popular white supremacist Web sites got more than 2,000 new members the day after the election, compared with 91 new members on Election Day, according to an AP count. The site, stormfront.org, was temporarily off-line Nov. 5 because of the overwhelming amount of activity it received after Election Day. On Saturday, one Stormfront poster, identified as Dalderian Germanicus, of North Las Vegas, said, "I want the SOB laid out in a box to see how 'messiahs' come to rest. God has abandoned us, this country is doomed."
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
But it is also necessary to see such a situation from several perspectives.
A careful reading of the article reveals no imminant uprising of the " radical right."
We see no public rioting,or demonstrations which would lead one to believe that there is a reaction to our President Elect that would constitute a cogent threat of the gravitas implied by this article.
One must always have several eyes on the go at once. Fear mongering is also an interesting aspect of the alleged "more threats than other presidents" tenor of the referenced article:
1) We do not have any data about the normal level of threats that "other " presidents usuually experience.
2) We have no specific facts on the threats,and officials unidentified are speaking on condition of anaonimity and are unattributed sources
3) Two specific sitiuations are referenced by the article,
a)one a suicide in Denver of a Canadian Muslim by the ingestion of what amounted to the active ingrediant of some pesticides in Denver was investiogated and ruled a suicide with no conspiracy attributed to the incident, by the Secret Service.
b) The second plot of two skin heads who were aremed with rifles involved the plannned shooting of black high school students, which was thankfully apprehended. The perpetrators made statements which indicated they would later go after our president elect, but without the means to do so, and their statements indicated that the idea of assassination was a distant secondary motivation to their immediate activity.
There is the possibility that much of this publicity is simply a media preparation for the diminishing of the freedom of speech on the internet and in our various forms of news media, of commentors who have factually based criticisms of President Obama. Our nation guarantees the expression of free political speech, no matter how distatsteful it might be to those of alternate political beliefs.
Emotional graffitti and comments which allude to the death of President Elect Obama do not constutute death treats, and the article pays lip service to that fact while soliciting a rather emotional reaction of fear from the public who are emotionally invested in our new president.
If one applied a similar level of scrutiny to such negative commentary in relation to our current president, then one would conclude that President Bush was as good as dead some time ago, that included a feature movie produced assuming the assassination of President Bush.Yet these commentaries in public venues about President Bush were considered the exercise of free speech by such news organizations as AP, from which this instant article originated and was published in the New York Times originally.
I do not believe that fear mongering during the delicate transitional phase of politics is a particularly advisable way for a Presiodent elect to gain the unified support of a politically divided nation. But it is a way to ascribe ALL pertinent criticism which is usually acceptable political dialogue in our democracy to be "racist based statement or hate speech." One would think that President elect Obama could be criticized, and should be criticized according to the traditional conventions of our democratic republic, despite his racial characteristics. In that way our nation and its democratic conventions, and constitutionally guaranteed rights can be preserved for the futuire. Censorship via political correctness is hardly the way to assure accurate political dialogue, and promotes emotional knee jerk reactions in our electorate , rather than clear thinking.
So The context of the safety of President Elect Obama is a complex one. The press seems eager to pounce on any emotionally charged statements criticising President Elect Obama, in the context of " death threats":
Note the list revealed in the the article:
a) a sign posted on a tree in Vay, Idaho
b) threatening racist graffiti in Maine, ( without disclosing what was said)
c) Racially tinged graffiti ( across the nation with no factual examples on what it said)
d) "a lot of ranting and raving with no capability, credibility or specificity to it." (attributed to anonymous source, yet the article speaks of continuing death threats greater tha other presidents have expperienced?)
e) poster of Obama with a bullet going toward his head ( waht was the context?)
f)a sign inviting customers to join a betting pool on when Obama might fall victim to an assassin
(this is the most egregious one, but still does not rise to the level of a death threat against President Elect Obama)
g)Chatter among white supremacists on the Internet ( well there is a lot of political chatter on the internet across the entire political spectrum, which is the the sign of a healthy democtratic Republic which historically relies on an informed vote, rather than an emotional one. Its interesting to note that free speech is being so closely examined for political correctness.)
And it s interesting to note that a "hate group" statement ends the article in a punch line:
"He said hate groups have been on the rise in the past seven years because of a common concern about immigration."
There is indeed a common concern about immigration and the US public wants immigration reform, so much so that the last house bill seeking increased border security was passed in the house, but was so contentious the Senate let it die an ignoble death on the table. ( All of us know that a container is necessary to have a political entity which is a functioning one.)But those who had drafted the bill, in 2005 were hardly hate mongerers. They were elected representatives in the House, and were from both Democrat and Republican parties.
This article is a very skillfully written piece, and is a prime example on how public opinion can be shaped by a skeleton of facts, a skewed context, and unattributed sources on truly cogent,factual points, involving so called death threats on our president elect.
There is no genuine reason to be overly concerned, and also we see the very cogent need for good security for Obama. I also believe that the Secret Service has much to learn from in terms of awareness in these politically charged cultural wars to be played out as attempts at censorship. We can also believe that articles like these are opportunities to increase the sharpness of our conservative awareness. The more equanimity we have, the more accurately we can see " threat' and know what to do about it in a very grounded way.I see this as a threat against 1st amendment speech.
This article does little to promote national unity. I am sure our new president would regard it with some misgiving for that reason? Yes? LOL.
We must see grafiitti, oppositional speech, criticism, emotional graffiti in the context of free speech, even though leftists and progressives might consider them disagreeable and distasteful. The pattern may have an increased growth in terms of reaction to Obama, but it is doubtful, although some might feel good about a boogey man who is perpetually "just around the corner." President elect Obama is simply too "popular" for that to happen, outside the isolated mutterings of the radical rascist right and radical inhumane left. But there is a very real possibility that such emotionally based "protection" could cast a chill on free speech, and on genuine dialogue and debate as well.As a matter of fact it could result in the removal of political forums which we now take for granted.Freedom of Speech has no political correctness test at law. We might hope it stays that way.
This is part of Obama’s Reichstag Fire plan.
Fake/real-but-bungled assasination attempt/terrorist attack = emergency powers and martial law.
Censorship Ping
Just so ya know....
An article from last Friday CAN NOT be classified as Breaking News.
(Now back to reading the thread....)
how would the left react if he was finally done in by a gay Iranian abortion doctor?
|
Another Obama first. The most threatened ‘leader’ in history. Once he gets in office and gets rolling on his plan to crush conservatives, I wonder if the threats will go up or down?
Exactly.
O yeah, so now the NYT claims to be reporting ‘FACTS’ on these websites.
“This article does little to promote national unity”
The Left’s MO is to divide and conquer, while constantly accusing Republicans of being divisive.
Yeah....like they had the time to look over the data from EVERY presidential election.
It’s not hyperbole; he’s going to do this.
I guarantee this site will get closed and we’ll all be on some sort of list.
They can’t see the Forrest for the trees...
This is total nonsense, but completely predictable. Once again, we will raise the specter of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, when it is in fact almost entirely the left that threatens and employs political violence.
How many people have said “Kill Bush” over the past eight years? How many talking heads on TV have said it, publicly, with no response?
I have seen ZERO calls in FR to kill Obama, not even from trolls. I know the moderators would swiftly remove anything of that kind, but I’m here pretty often, and I just haven’t seen any real racism or hate. Plenty of criticism, dislike, fear for our country’s future, but not seething hatred.
You have to go to DU or Daily Kos for that. Or listen to the Daily Show. Or CNN. Or AP. Or Chrissy Matthews.
Most of the nooses, hate graffiti, etc., that have been publicized in the news during the recent election turned out to be—as expected—provocations from the left, or crazed academics who send hate messages to themselves.
...been to the mountain top, glass ceiling broken...don’t want to hear anymore about race.
I agree. There have been several of these stories lately. Probably disseminated from Rahm Immanual ("God is with us").
Your comments are better than the NYT article.
Go figure!
I closely followed Obamas work in Kenya in 2006/2007. He is a master at the implied threat, and the anonymous actual threat.
Hope our insight remains sharp and very healthy. We will need it in times to come.The kaliyuga is upon us.
Spin and agit prop. The Left made a mint marketing speculative fiction about doing this to Bush.
I do not support any such talk; it is not protected speech (neither is treason, perjury, slander, libel...).
The Left is using these talking points to silence anyone who would dare criticize fearless leader. You “might be inclined to agree” with these other nut jobs.
I will not tolerate being called a racist. I voted for Alan Keyes in the GOP primary.
Meanwhile a man who declared war on the United States and bombed our government is now a professor of education and “respected” by the establishment media INCLUDING the New York Times. Their own record damns them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.