Barack Obama Death Threats

[BecauseHeLives]

Barack Obama Death Threats

by Liv Empress Published on Wed Jan 17, 2007 1:36 pm

2

I didn't know exactly how to title this one. I hesitate to mention it, quite frankly because I think it's absurd that people even need to ask, would Barack Obama be assassinated if he became President. But, driving home yesterday on the local talk station (101.1 I think) that's exactly what they were discussing. Not more then the day after Martin Luther King JR day, the white (I assume) Disc Jockey from Conservative North Carolina is insinuating that Barack Obama would be assassinated if he was to take office. The sad part is callers called in and agreed making statements like "we might be ready for a woman [president], but not a black male." Then the host starts comparing Obama's name to Osama, and Hussein and other Islamic names, and asking if most of America would associate a ethnic individual with a name easily confused with individuals involved in the war on terror.

I couldn't believe I was hearing this, although I do understand that he was pointing out the obvious concerns of many Americans who aren't intelligent enough to separate the two, and we all know half of America is dumb as bricks; but, to think in 2007 a presidential candidate has to worry about his life simply based on his race is proof, we are less like we think we are and more like that which we don't want to be every day.

[BecauseHeLives]

I'd gamble to say that most of the stupid people out there that are thinking those things aren't smart enough to figure out how to vote.

[Sanjuro]

Reason #1 I don't listen to talk radio. Its full of bile and angry people trying to be alarmist. If you want something other than music, might I suggest NPR? They seem much more fair, tell both sides, and would approach a subject like America's social readiness and racism in respects to something like this from a much deeper prospective.

[BecauseHeLives]

Reason #1 I don't listen to talk radio. Its full of bile and angry people trying to be alarmist. If you want something other than music, might I suggest NPR? They seem much more fair, tell both sides, and would approach a subject like America's social readiness and racism in respects to something like this from a much deeper prospective.

WTRU is an excellent choice for talk radio.

[Liv]

NPR is what I usually listen too, but lately I've been tuning into the local talk FM station just to hear what absurdities they are talking about.

[Sanjuro]

NPR is what I usually listen too, but lately I've been tuning into the local talk FM station just to hear what absurdities they are talking about.

And find it you did. Some of the scariest and most uneducated things I've ever heard have come from some of the AM radio talkshows I've listened to during a commute or twelve.

[Billy The Blogging Poet]

To think that people would allow ignorance to threaten one of the best and brightest in American politics today simply because of the color of his skin is tantamount to saying there is no hope left in this world. So sad.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

Maybe I'm old fashioned. Maybe I'm out of touch. But I have serious doubts about this idea of Barak Obama running for president.

I have the same problem with him, before hearing word one from him, that I had with John Edwards. The man just got elected to the Senate. He has no "track record." And frankly, I see no reason to trust anyone with that sort of naked ambition.

If you got elected to the Senate just so you could get enough attention to run for president, you are obviously not even slightly interested in serving the PEOPLE who elected you.

[Liv]

I definately wouldn't vote for him... I say comeback in about 8-12 years and ask me again, and I might re-consider.

[Sanjuro]

Or another way of looking at it is that he hasn't been in the Senate long enough for it to corrupt him... or for him to become institutionalized.

Personally, I think this country absolutely needs a younger, fresher vision. I don't care if its Obama or someone else.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

Personally, I think this country absolutely needs a younger, fresher vision. I don't care if its Obama or someone else.

A younger, fresher vision is one thing. A younger, fresher megalomaniac -- that would get me a bit concerned. I know it's hard to tell with anyone, but I just don't think anyone who hasn't established at least a full term in office and been re-elected can expect the nation to trust him.

[Liv]

Barack outed as a extremist Muslim...

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/19/fox-obama-madrassa/

[RebelSnake]

Barack outed as a extremist Muslim...

Don't you think you could use a slightly more balanced site than thinkprogress.org? Could that site be any more left?

[A Person]

A left wing site quoting a right wing site (insightmag.com) - there's a big gap for reality to fall in to.

When you remember how the Republican character assassins took on Kerry and managed to make it seem as if he got his medals from the communists, I'd say they must be salivating at the idea of a Muslim. They'll have half the population convinced he wears a bomb vest at all times and wants to fly Air Force One into the White House

I'd say the chances of America electing a female president are pretty slim, a Muslim about half that and an atheist/agnostic about half that.

The US is going to be stuck with old white Catholic/Protestant men for some time.

[RebelSnake]

http://www.insightmag.com/

Hillary's team has questions
about Obama's Muslim background
Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage? This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama.

And they're quoting Hillary Clinton.

[Questioner]

http://www.insightmag.com/Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?

Oh puhleeeese! Obama was never in a madrassa. Another republican smear. I can see the republican lie machine is already hard at work.

[RebelSnake]

http://www.insightmag.com/Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?

Oh puhleeeese! Obama was never in a madrassa. Another republican smear. I can see the republican lie machine is already hard at work.

If you would take the time to actually read the article you would see it originated from Hillary Clinton's camp, not the republicans.

[Questioner]

http://www.insightmag.com/Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?

Oh puhleeeese! Obama was never in a madrassa. Another republican smear. I can see the republican lie machine is already hard at work.

If you would take the time to actually read the article you would see it originated from Hillary Clinton's camp, not the republicans.

Well, my dear, if YOU would take the time to track down the full story (instead of just reading republican propaganda), you would learn that Insight made up the whole story about Obama being educated in a Madrassa. And then Insight simultaneously tried to discredit Hillary (and to cause trouble in the Democrat camp) by attributing their toxic garbage to Hillary Clinton. Clinton had nothing to do with it. The extremely conservative Insight is a yellow "rag" and just another part of the republican brainwashing machine, and it is the sole "source" of the "story".

Since relatively few people even know about Insight, the republican smear machine had to figure out a way to spread their prize manure. No problem! Fox News immediately put it on their "news" (with no further checking into the falseness of the story as a legitimate news organization would have done). You see, when it came out that none of the story was true, Fox was able slither out of their legal responsibility for their libel (leaving their typical slime trail) by saying they were just quoting another news source. And of course that excreble Rush Limbaugh filth jumped in and helped by spewing these lies all over the radio waves. Fox News and Rush Limbaugh know that the courts have found that if one news source quotes another and gives attribution (Fox clearly stated that the report came from Insight), then they cannot be held responsible for their libel. And a "political commentator" such as Rush basically is immune to libel and slander suits because he makes sure he says at least once on his show, "in my opinion". Opinions cannot be sued over.

This was another well orchestrated republican smear. With an evil but creative twist: Instead of getting some shill group like Swift Boat Veterans to spew their lying poison, they came up with the idea to attribute their contemptable lies to Hillary. As is so typical of malevolent and vile people, instead of taking personal responsibility for their calumny of Obama, they continue to defame Hillary by attributing their lies about Obama's background to her.

I guess since they can't run the country, foreign policy or their own trumped up war competently, the republicans have to show they are good at something--and the only thing I've seen them do competently is to produce an endless string of foul smear campaigns.

[Questioner]

To think that people would allow ignorance to threaten one of the best and brightest in American politics today simply because of the color of his skin is tantamount to saying there is no hope left in this world. So sad.

Billy, I quote Kurt Vonnegut, "Things are going to get worse and never get better again."


Sad indeed--and equally sad that I hear women on those talk shows saying they would never vote for a woman because God meant men to be the leaders. Such pitiful foolishness.

[BecauseHeLives]

To think that people would allow ignorance to threaten one of the best and brightest in American politics today simply because of the color of his skin is tantamount to saying there is no hope left in this world. So sad.

Billy, I quote Kurt Vonnegut, "Things are going to get worse and never get better again."


Sad indeed--and equally sad that I hear women on those talk shows saying they would never vote for a woman because God meant men to be the leaders. Such pitiful foolishness.

Nah. Its OK for women to be leaders. Its just that they are not to have authority over men.

[Questioner]

Nah. Its OK for women to be leaders. Its just that they are not to have authority over men.

Now that is just sick. Do you realize that such a rule means no woman can own a business where she hires men? So of course a woman business owner must discriminate against men in the hiring process. That is not only illegal, it is morally offensive.

I'm beginning to think you are trying to turn Christianity into Islam. If you don't like Christianity, please just join a Muslim Mosque. So that is the idioc "reasoning" behind the idea that you can't vote for a woman presidential candidate. Because then she would be Commander in Chief and have authority over the thousands of men in the military. I guess Margaret Thatcher will burn in hell forever for being Prime Minister.

Tell me how you can be a leader without having authority over both men and women. Stupid and not possible.

This means any woman with a managerial position must discriminate against men in hiring because no woman can have authority over men? That also means no woman can EVER have a supervisory position in a job where there are men subordinates? So if a woman aspires to being a businesswoman, she must make very sure to break a bunch of laws by discriminating against men in hiring--just to make sure she doesn't have authority over any man. THAT my dear, is the ONLY conclusion to your idiotic (and unChristian) rule. Sick, sick, sick!

It is people like you who give Christianity a bad name.

[RebelSnake]

Well it would appear I was misled on the Hillary Clinton link on that story. But then I know I'm not the first person to be fooled by a piece in the media. I never thought Obama was a muslim and I had never heard of insight before either. Thanks for showing me where I was in error, but all the vitriol concerning republicans, FOX news, etc., really wasn't necessary.

[BecauseHeLives]

Women can have authority over other women and children. If a woman president were to happen I would still respect the position of authority over me but that doesn't mean I should endorse it biblically speaking. My position on this subject is NOT an isolated opinion but is the opinion of many protestant denominations out there of which many members are women.

I will admit that this view of women does not extend outside the church in many congregations.


http://www.gotquestions.org/women-pastors.html

1 Timothy 2:11-12 proclaims, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” In the church, God assigns different roles to men and women. This is a result of the way mankind was created (1 Timothy 2:13) and the way in which sin entered the world (2 Timothy 2:14). God, through the Apostle Paul’s writing, restricts women from serving in roles of spiritual teaching authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors, which definitely includes preaching to, teaching, and having spiritual authority over men.

[Questioner]

"God, through the Apostle Paul’s writing, restricts women from serving in roles of spiritual teaching authority over men."

I won't go into my nearly complete distain for Paul's unChristian writings against women--Jesus Himself had Mary Magdalene in his inner circle and she was the first person to whom He appeared after His death. His respect for women was WAY ahead of his time culturally. Paul's opinion on women was not derived from anything Jesus said--it was derived from the culture of his times, where women were nothing more than chattel--possessions of men. Nothing in any of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John refer to Jesus saying anything about keeping women subjugated to men. Quite the contrary. The bible should not be used to try and prevent the advance of civilization--and the subjugation of women is something that should be abandoned by every Christian church. Especially since it is contrary to the actual behavior and words of the Christ.

Leaving that aside, however, your quote above talks about women not having spiritual teaching authority over men. Exactly where in the President's job description does it talk about a role in "spiritual teaching"?

IMHO, to extend the idea of women not having authority over men to civil situations is heresy because it goes directly against Jesus' words, "Render unto Ceaser the things that are Ceaser and unto God the things that are God's". In those words, Jesus specifically told us to keep civil matters separate from religion.

[BecauseHeLives]

"God, through the Apostle Paul’s writing, restricts women from serving in roles of spiritual teaching authority over men."

I won't go into my nearly complete distain for Paul's unChristian writings against women--Jesus Himself had Mary Magdalene in his inner circle and she was the first person to whom He appeared after His death. His respect for women was WAY ahead of his time culturally. Paul's opinion on women was not derived from anything Jesus said--it was derived from the culture of his times, where women were nothing more than chattel--possessions of men. Nothing in any of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John refer to Jesus saying anything about keeping women subjugated to men. Quite the contrary. The bible should not be used to try and prevent the advance of civilization--and the subjugation of women is something that should be abandoned by every Christian church. Especially since it is contrary to the actual behavior and words of the Christ.

Leaving that aside, however, your quote above talks about women not having spiritual teaching authority over men. Exactly where in the President's job description does it talk about a role in "spiritual teaching"?

IMHO, to extend the idea of women not having authority over men to civil situations is heresy because it goes directly against Jesus' words, "Render unto Ceaser the things that are Ceaser and unto God the things that are God's". In those words, Jesus specifically told us to keep civil matters separate from religion.

Hence my previous response:

I will admit that this view of women does not extend outside the church in many congregations.

You can't use the word heresy with any credibility unless you believe in the Word of God. Otherwise it sounds a bit hypocritical.