According to an internet article from the Guardian (yes... from Great Britain) entitled: Inside the World of Obama's Secret Service Bodyguards, Barack Obama received a Secret Service detail LONG before there was any certainty he'd even be the Democratic Nominee for President... MUCH earlier than any candidate EVER had. Actually, I remember that, and "some folks" saying it was racist to believe he needed it But the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has now released a report that extends well back before even that. Herewith some telling excerpts:
In the 13 months that Barack Obama has been the occupant of the Oval Office he has been the subject of an extraordinary outpouring of emotion from the American electorate. At the start it was largely adulatory, though more recently the adoration has been drowned out by a cacophony of criticism from tea party activists, birthers, global-warming deniers and viewers of Fox News. At the same time, largely hidden from view, there has been a layer of antagonism towards Obama that lies well beyond the boundaries of reasonable political debate.
Now WHAT d'you suppose would lie "...well beyond the boundaries of reasonable debate."?  Well, let us move on. There have ALWAYS been home-grown terrorists, sickos and nutballs. And for some time into the campaign, domestic terroristic threats covered the gamut, as they had for years. The most interesting aspect of this, at least to me, is that, while this report was commissioned by the SPLC, an organization with obvious policy bias, it researched "...in chronological order, the serious home-grown plots, conspiracies and racist rampages that have been cooked up in America since the Oklahoma City bomb in 1995. The list runs to 10 pages of closely printed type and itemises 75 domestic terrorism events, from plans to bomb government buildings to attempts to kill judges and politicians. All of 'em folks... all of 'em that the US Government characterized as "serious."
Then came a sea-change: "Virtually every domestic terrorist event we have identified since June 2008 – when it became obvious that Obama was going to win – has been directly related to him," says the author of the report, Mark Potok.
And how is he different from every other president... EVERY ONE of them? In only one particular. President Obama is BLACK! And, as "...Joseph Petro, head of global security for Citigroup,and who spent four years as the man beside Ronald Reagan. puts it, the challenges facing the service today are unlike any period that has gone before. On top of all the usual risks associated with guarding the world's most powerful politician, there is now the added, explosive ingredient of his race. "As the first black president he creates a whole other set of issues for the secret service to deal with," he says.
Yeah... they want to kill him 'cause he's BLACK, and they've wanted to since he started to look like the winner. It's not his politics, it's not healthcare, or the jobs bill, or the stimulus, or illegal immigration, or all of that put together... or even that he's a liberal Democrat. It's because he's BLACK!
Â
Â
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 124 ( 1 removed by Chuck Larlham )
Some on gather claim Ron Paul is the original tea party leader. He has written and published racist mailings.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_skeeter__080113_racist_rantings_in_o.htm
~M
That all the threats of the last year or so relate to Obama is striking. Where's the radical left in all this?
I recognize the validity of the fears of the right and of the left. Both wings of the political spectrum have correctly identified serious threats to the nation and to its people. The problem is that each sees the other as the problem when it is really the nature of the money we use. I think both wings could happily live with each other were it not for our money.
But my bad. I'm trying to use reason and logic to explain but, of course, that doesn't work when conversing with leftists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=O0bXGB30aGI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRqcfqiXCX0
http://chattahbox.com/us/2010/01/04/racist-tea-party-leader-cant-spell-the-n-word/
http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2010/02/05/tea-party-convention-kicks-off-with-racist-rant/
http://www.examiner.com/x-4383-Portland-Progressive-Examiner~y2010m2d6-Politics-Tancredos-racist-Tea-Party
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-02-10/news/bal-ed.teaparty0210_1_klan-rallies-anti-immigrant-mr-perot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04Ysv9B5ic0
http://trueslant.com/jonathancuriel/2010/02/17/race-in-america-does-racism-explain-the-%E2%80%98tenure-shooting%E2%80%99-and-tea-party-movement/
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=fieGfc6DL7k&feature=related
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-02-28/news/bal-op.pitts28feb28_1_tea-party-mr-obama-keith-olbermann
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=Y2tON2RkTqM&feature=related
http://blog.buzzflash.com/contributors/2159
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2011202616_pitts28.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=qHKFSUcNIKw&feature=related
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/02/27/1503251/tea-party-fears-a-matter-of-race.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22887392#35413662
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKmWe2Wo500
http://www.vernonjohns.org/rosemary1246/repubs.html
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/04/racist_signs_at_tea_parties.php
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/04/the-rotting-racist-underbelly-of-the-tea-party-protests/
Second, while there are racists in America (of all colors), there are legitimate non-race based reasons to oppose essentially every policy pursued by this president. That is the fact that neither you nor your endless dopey list of biased links will address.
Listen to your language. "Give me.." and "I'll (deign to) look at it."
Wake up junior. It's 2010. You're not on the plantation any more.
As I said, there are legitimate non-race based reasons to oppose essentially every policy pursued by this president. What about that?
The joker image was never intended to appeal to race but rather to Obama's pro-government socialist leanings. See
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/08/obama-joker-artist.html
And lastly, listen to what you are really saying. Somehow unless every republican ad/campaign is above board and issue-based then somehow the republican party is running scared. Makes no sense. There are fringe elements in every group. The trouble is how many such fringe elements are inside the circles of power of this administration. That presentation was school boyish but not racist. It was arguably more insulting to donors than it was to Obama.
I enjoy the debates and I try to bring some reason, and maybe sometimes a unique perspective.
I think some of the FDR actions were ok but overall that administration built for us a foundation on sand that greatly over-emphasizes what the federal government can and should do and which under emphasizes what individuals, communities, churches, states, etc. can and should accomplish.
I agree with you on the UN.
True there was some worry about an assination attempt but it would not come from the TEA Party. The TEA Party was not in existance at the time. It would come from the Nazi party or KKK, some white suprmist group but not the TEA Party.
Where does this phoney mention the real dangers to candidate Obama? Like from the Racist organizations.
Thanks for posting this to 4 US, World News & Opinions.
Yep youn got it rightI was wondering, seeing as he is ALSO half white, do you think anyone ever says that?
like other races, like other blacks, has anyone ever said "oh, the Obama, he is half white you know"!
My computer has been down with a pesky trojan virus all week, so.. what have I missed?! LOL
"It's not the color of Obama's skin that I have a problem with, it's the thinness of it".
"CONSPIRACY THEORIES" Your post is FEATURED!
It is not a half truth that gun and ammo sales have been historically high since Obama was elected. The current secret service said months ago that there have been more threats against this president than any in history. One need not think this out in any particular order and can think it through as poorly as they can. The only conclusion will continue to surface. It is because he is black. All of those superbly created reasons against him existed for decades with every other president yet now they are laid at his feet as if he were the great flaw of America. Hmmm
It's a BRITISH newspaper, quoting a study of that created a list of FEDERALLY IDENTIFIED risks and threats.
Then there is the economy. Bush started us on the road to destruction
The FED has been messing with our money since 1913
The growth of government, again Bush
The taking of power from Congress by the executive branch. i.e. Executive Orders that make laws and declaring war.
Obama has actually done little except continue in the footsteps of Bush. Two things there is concern about with Obama is health care by government instead of reform (some TEA Party people do back it) and the Cap and Trade bill. ( don't know anyone who is in favor of that one)
Now: yes there has been some talk about political prisoners on the site for Restore the Republic. They are a bit radical but they do point out the taking of political prisoners and warn us about the new powers the Patriot Act gave to the government to arrest anyone for anyreason, imagined or otherwise and hold them with no trial and no rights.
And woodncha know...
I know I'll get in trouble for saying this but I wish his eligability to be president had gone to court. There is a question about the meaning of "Natural" born that begs to be answered. What does it mean in the context of the Constitution legally. I'm not interested in anyone's opinion on the subject just the SCOTUS's opinion and ruling. I know for a fact he had a foreign father and american mother. That would give him dual citizenship. Only SCOTUS can say if that is not "Natural Born".
Ask yourself, If white is so good or think they are, why do they spend so much time and money to get a good sun tan (turn darker)
Yes I would accept the SCOTUS decision. I may or may not agree but that's my problem. A point of law would be clarified. I don't think any SCOTUS decision would be applied to a sitting president just candidates.
Not ONE of the SPLC's top ten, highest paid officers is a minority. Talk about White supremacists. (http://wp.me/pCLYZ-3r)
The last "Whites Only" sign remaining in Montgomery hangs in the board room of the SPLC. Some "experts".
I don't detect any hypocrisy on their part either.
Peace be with you.
Proverbs 15:2
I'm also cool with the fact that a "non-profit" organization has hoarded nearly $190 million donor dollars, instead of spending it on their core causes. How unusual is that? Lots of non-profits keep hundreds of millions of dollars on hand. I can't name any at the moment, but it'll come to me.
And it's not like they don't spend ANY money. Last year the SPLC spent $1.1 million on "legal case expenses", which is nearly half as much as they spent on fund-raising postage and a third of their fund-raising printing costs. (http://wp.me/pCLYZ-34)
Let's face it, $1.1 million isn't exactly chump-change. It's just over 3% of the $31 million donor dollars they took in last year, which compares nicely with the 42% that they spent on salaries. This is definitely money well-spent. (http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/downloads/resource/SPLCfinancial_2009.pdf)
When you total up the $21 million they spent on salaries, fund-raising postage and printing, as well as the $4 million they dumped into that $190 million "Endowment Fund", I think they deserve a round of applause for still finding that $1.1 million that they actually spent on "law".
I don't know where the hate-filled racists at the Better Business Bureau get off saying that they won't grant the SPLC accredited charity status, "due to a lack of financial transparency..."? Sounds more like KKK than BBB to me. (www.bbb.org)
But if you guys say they're above criticism and review, that's good enough for me. Where did I put my checkbook?
The SPLC does maintain a diverse board of unpaid "advisers", but that is just so much "brownwashing". If you look on page 7 of the SPLC's current Form 990, you'll see that they are all paid exactly zero.
(http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/downloads/resource/SPLC_990_2008.pdf)
On page 132 of his autobiography, SPLC founder and klan lawyer Morris Dees wrote about offering Julian Bond the "largely ceremonial position" of president of the SPLC so that he could use Bond's name on his first batch of fund-raising letters. In short, paid celebrity endorsement, nothing more.
Bond gets two and a half short paragraphs in Dees' 300 page book. You have to wonder just how much of an impact Bond had then or now. (http://wp.me/pCLYZ-p)
As early as 1994, Dees' own hometown newspaper, the Montgomery Advertiser, wrote a three-part expose of the SPLC, citing "...subsequent complaints filed about a "plantation mentality" in its hiring and promotion procedures involving its African American employees," which caused many Black lawyers to quit. (http://www.splcinfo.com/)
I'm citing from the SPLC's own records, Dees' autobiography and published newspaper accounts. I know this offends many people, but like the Ghost says to Scrooge:
"I told you these were shadows of the things that have been," said the Ghost. "That they are what they are, do not blame me!"
Well, thank goodness I've found somebody willing to look at the facts objectively. Here we go:
Here's the homepage for the SPLC's financial information. If there's anything askew here, you'll have to take it up with them.
(http://www.splcenter.org/who-we-are/financial-information)
Here's the link to the SPLC's IRS Form 990. If there's anything askew here, you'll also have to take it up with them. As mentioned earlier, all of the financial information on the "board of directors" and the highest paid officers is on page 7. (http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/downloads/resource/SPLC_990_2008.pdf)
As soon as you identify the person of color who is pulling down six digits a year, you just post it here and my mea culpa is on it's way. From what I can see, even the SPLC's highest paid black woman, Lecia Brooks doesn't register on the list, although COO Michael Toohey does at $73,454.
My guess is either she makes less than that, or your buds at the SPLC are lyin' to the IRS. As Gomer Pyle would say..."Shame...shame... shame".
I'll freely admit that I got all my pictures of the top ten PAID officers from Google, many of them from SPLC related links. If you can produce the pics that show that Joe Levin, Dick
Cohen, Mark Potok or Rhonda Brownstein are black, I'll back off. You have my word on it.
Here's the link to the SPLC's audited financial report, audited by the SPLC's own accouting firm, Jackson Thornton. This is the document that says that the SPLC has $190 MILLION donor dollars in it's "Endowment Fund", that the SPLC spent 70% of its budget from 2009 donations on salaries, fundraising postage and printing, and $4 MILLION donor dollars to the aforementioned "Endowment Fund". (http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/downloads/resource/SPLCfinancial_2009.pdf)
It also states that the SPLC spent $2.2 MILLION on postage yet only $1.1 million on "legal case costs". I can't prove that any of this is true, I can only go by the figures the SPLC posts on their own website. If you have proof that they spent far more on actual legal case costs than they are claiming, it is your civic duty to make that information public.
Just so we're all clear here, the SPLC's website is http://www.splcenter.org/, as far as I know. If you know that this is a fake site put up by the KKK or neo-Nazis, you need to step up and say so. I found all of the above financial information under the "Who We Are" link, but if this is a bogus Klan site, it really doesn't matter. Your call.
Next, Julian Bond's "largely ceremonial" presidency. I think we're in agreement here. Bond was paid off for the use of his name, (Dee's admits in his autobiography, "A Season for Justice", that neither man had ever met in 1971. Naturally, Mr. Bond is going to give his good name over to someone he never met for nothing, right?)
Bottom line, if Bond was nothing more than an public relations gimmick in 1971, you're saying that he and the other "diverse" members of the SPLC's unpaid board of directors are key players today? Did I read that right? I guess, whatever it takes to "get the minorities to pay attention" is good enough for me too.
How about just a little consistancy here? If Bond was a shill in 1971, what makes him a credible player in 2010, or any of his co-directors? These are your words, not mine.
Oh, and winding up, also in his autobiography, on pages 85-86, as you well know, having read it from cover to cover, Morris Dees brags about taking $5,000 dollars from the Montgomery Klan to keep it's most violent thug, Claude Henley OUT of Bobby Kennedy's federal prisons, in 1962.
Dees admits that Henley led an attack on a Greyhound bus carrying Freedom Riders into Montgomery, in 1961. Dees admits that LIFE magazine published photos of Henley in mid-rampage, which, through the magic of the Internet, you can view for yourself on pages 22-25 right here. (http://books.google.com/books?id=rk8EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&rview=1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=&f=false)
Time Magazine described Henley's attack as "An idiot, club-swinging mob of about 100" led by Henley. The photos speak for themselves. Your hero, SPLLC founder Morris Dees got Henley off scot-free. Dees, a millionaire at the time, cashed the Klan's dirty check, worth about $33,000 today, and a few weeks later he shut down his law office to concentrate on the mail-order business that had made him rich. Dees didn't need the Klan's filthy money.
Now we all know that celebrities don't necessarily write their own autobiographies, but one would think that an experienced lawyer like Morris Dees would object to outright falsehoods being published in his name. This is what the book says, you can read it for yourself and interpret it any way you want to, but Dees has never challenged these statements.
By the Southern Poverty Law Center's own criteria, Morris Dees is a Klan lawyer. If you can prove otherwise, do so. Millionaire Dees pocketed the Klan's dirty money and Claude Henley's victims, who are pictured in the LIFE magazine article I linked above, never saw one red cent of compensation for their attack.
If THIS is the man, and THIS is the organization that you can endorse without reservation, I think it says a lot more about you than it does me.
If I'm reading any of these signs incorrectly, just say so. I'm not a bigot. I'll consider all new information... just like you will.
Bye!
and their always will be.
Well, at least you and Chuck are willing to admit it.
Proverbs 15:2
you know it but don't tell it all !!