Obama will be assassinated if he wins?

[karrie]

According to Nobel literature laureate Doris Lessing, the end result of Obama winning a presidency will be his assassination. She feels that the best hope is for him to run as Clinton's VP, as the public will be more supporting of a female president than of a black one.

When I read the article when it first came across YahooNews, my first reaction was to question what qualifies a British fiction writer, regardless of how many awards she's won, to have such predictions published.... but, I thought it would make for interesting conversation regardless.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2267607,00.html

 

[Walter]

Were Lincoln, James, McKinley and Kennedy assassinated because they were white? I like the word ass-ass-inated.

 

[louchiss]

nothing new

nothing new. But the writer is right. Regardless of sex or race. Whether your a democrat or republican. There will always be haters and crazy people out there who will want to kill the president. I think they get around 50000 death threats a year. With about 10000 that can be deemed as serious threats. Thats what those secret service robots are for. But i would not be suprised if any president down the line gets assassinated. Who cares. Im canadian. God dam politicians. WE CAN. WE BELIEVE. Bla bla bla. I wonder what the vegas line odds are for obama or hillary to get sniped

 

[Praxius]

Well there was that nutty gunman at H.Clintons' campaign HQ not too long ago.

But Obama being assassinated? An attempt is kind of a given and should be expected.

But the big question is if he is assassinated..... what then?

What exactly would happen to the US and the citizens of the US?
Who would replace him?
What kind of government will emerge once Obama's "Hope" is killed along with himself, like most presidents who brought promise of great change and hope?

Notice how all the assclown presidents have always ended up living ripe old ages and those who tried to wake the country up got killed?

Would the assassination of either Obama or Clinton be enough to finally wake up the US for a well deserved revolution?

Somehow I doubt it.

 

[#juan]

If any president royally deserved to be assassinated, it was G.W. Bush. I think it would depend on how badly the new president pi ss es off big business..

 

[Praxius]

If any president royally deserved to be assassinated, it was G.W. Bush. I think it would depend on how badly the new president pi ss es off big business..

Or goes against Bush's Agenda. Don't forget he passed that bill that allows him to take over government control if he feels the new president will threaten the stability of the mission in Iraq, or there is an emergency.... AKA: Dictator Takeover if he doesn't get what he wants.

 

[Colpy]

Or goes against Bush's Agenda. Don't forget he passed that bill that allows him to take over government control if he feels the new president will threaten the stability of the mission in Iraq, or there is an emergency.... AKA: Dictator Takeover if he doesn't get what he wants.

What the Hell are you on about? What bill?

Geezus.

 

[Praxius]

What the Hell are you on about? What bill?

Geezus.

Oh you didn't know?

One second, allow me to clarify:

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

Or to sum up:

New presidential directive gives Bush dictatorial power
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHI20070521&articleId=5720

The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed on May 9, 2007 declares that in the event of a “catastrophic event”, George W. Bush can become what is best described as "a dictator":

"The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government."

This directive, completely unnoticed by the media, and given no scrutiny by Congress, literally gives the White House unprecedented dictatorial power over the government and the country, bypassing the US Congress and obliterating the separation of powers. The directive also placed the Secretary of Homeland Security in charge of domestic “security”.
The full text is below. A critical analysis on the directive can be found here.

Or:

Bush: dictator with a stroke of a pen
http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/05/24/bush-dictator-with-a-stroke-of-a-pen/

President Bush has signed a directive granting extraordinary powers to the office of the president in the event of a declared national emergency, apparently without congressional approval or oversight.

…The directive establishes under the office of the president a new national continuity coordinator whose job is to make plans for “National Essential Functions” of all federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president’s directives in the event of a national emergency.

“Catastrophic emergency” is loosely defined as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.”

I'm not sure where I read it, but it was back when all this first occured, that there was speculation that if the in-coming president poses risk to Bush's war in Iraq and threatens the instability of the mission by planning any sort of pullout, he could interpret that as threatening national security and the troops overseas, and can claim these powers before the new president takes over.


I will see if I can find more information on this.

Added:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ROG20070521&articleId=5721

......So what does this mean? This is entirely subjective and doesn’t provide any real concrete definition of what such an emergency would entail. Assuming that it means a disaster on the scale of the 9/11 attacks or Katrina, there is no question that the United States at some point in time will experience an emergency on par with either of those events. When one of those events takes place, the President will be a dictator in charge of ensuring a working constitutional government.

The language written in the directive is disturbing because it doesn’t say that the President will work with the other branches of government equally to ensure a constitutional government is protected. It says clearly that there will be a cooperative effort among the three branches that will be coordinated by the President. If the President is coordinating these efforts it effectively puts him in charge of every branch. The language in the directive is entirely Orwellian in nature making it seem that it is a cooperative effort between all three branches but than it says that the President is in charge of the cooperative effort........

......The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.

This directive on its face is unconstitutional because each branch of government the executive, legislative and judicial are supposed to be equal in power. By putting the President in charge of coordinating such an effort to ensure constitutional government over all three branches is effectively making the President a dictator allowing him to tell all branches of government what to do......

.......The directive itself recognizes that each branch is already responsible for directing their own continuity of government procedures. If that’s the case than why does the President need to coordinate these procedures for all of the branches? This is nothing more than a power grab that centralizes power and will make the President a dictator in the case of a so called “Catastrophic Emergency”.

It is insane that this directive claims that its purpose is to define procedures to protect a working constitutional government when the very language in the document destroys what a working constitutional government is supposed to be. A working constitutional government contains a separation of powers between three equally powerful branches and this directive states that the executive branch has the power to coordinate the activities of the other branches. This directive is a clear violation of constitutional separation of powers and there should be angry protests from our legislators about this anti-American garbage that came from the President.

Now granted, I am not a big reader of globalresearch.ca, however they do raise some very good questions to what exactly was stated and signed by Bush above. It's kind of hard not to misunderstand the bill and clearly seems to allow Bush to claim dictatorship powers in whatever he may deem as an "emergency."

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

If any president royally deserved to be assassinated, it was G.W. Bush. I think it would depend on how badly the new president pi ss es off big business..

G.W will never be assasinated as long as Dick Cheney is the VP (unless he goes on a hunting trip with trigger-happy Dick).

 

[lone wolf]

.... Georgie ain't president for life. When the new guy takes over, then it's his kick at the can - and his turn to dance to the magic tune. Sorta works the same as here....

Will he be assassinated? Guess it depends on how well he dances.

Woof!

 

[Tonington]

G.W will never be assasinated as long as Dick Cheney is the VP (unless he goes on a hunting trip with trigger-happy Dick).

Lol. Oops, sorry George...George?

Aww crap, someone call Gitmo.

 

[talloola]

I have that fear also, and have mentioned it in a previous post.

I am curious though, as to why the 'white' half of Obama is never recognized by anyone.

He is actualy 'malato' (sp?), half white/half black, which, in my opinion, is perfect for a
u.s. president, as he will represent both races.

What if he looked 'white', what then. I just don't understand the 'race card' thing, he is
an american, born in the u.s., I do understand that.

He is a handsome, articulate, well educated, thoughtful, person, who is willing to give up
a 'normal' life, to serve his country, and if he turns out to be as honest as he seems to be,
then what a bonus.

As I see him, he will become a president of the world, he will draw other leaders to
him, he is genuine, and DIPLOMATIC, he is inspiring, and a wonderful speaker. He doesn't
have to be an expert on every possble aspect of politics, (no president ever is),but have good knowledge,
have vision, be a good listener, and demand honesty in government, and know how to
bring people together, and think 'peace', not 'war'. A true leader of people.

 

[Kreskin]

If he does win, he and his administration better ensure it doesn't. I think it would unravel the country like nothing ever seen before. I'd be more worried about the aftermath of that than a 9-11. It might even be a tactic the terrorists will do everything they can to make happen.

 

[I think not]

Praxius,

You must be confused, the directive is the first directive to be made public. There have been directives of this kind by every single President, the only difference has been they have never been made public. And a Presidential Directive means very little if it is taken to the Supreme Court.

Besides, “Catastrophic emergency” is loosely defined as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.” is a far cry from a kidnapping placing the entire country under Martial Law. You must be thinking of Trudeau.

 

[lone wolf]

Praxius,

You must be confused, the directive is the first directive to be made public. There have been directives of this kind by every single President, the only difference has been they have never been made public. And a Presidential Directive means very little if it is taken to the Supreme Court.

Besides, “Catastrophic emergency” is loosely defined as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.” is a far cry from a kidnapping placing the entire country under Martial Law. You must be thinking of Trudeau.

Trudeau's didn't last six years and counting - or through any manipulated ballot counts....

Woof!

 

[I think not]

Bush never declared Martial Law either or changed the law to stay in power or another dozen or's that global research got wrong.....again. I realize when you can't argue the point you divert attention, but try and keep your attention span at maximum, otherwise you'll be "accussed" of thread derailment.

 

[Toro]

Globalresearch is absolutely hilarious.


This is why Obama should pick a Mexican as a running mate. He'll never get shot because nobody wants a Mexican as President.

 

[eh1eh]

Globalresearch is absolutely hilarious.


This is why Obama should pick a Mexican as a running mate. He'll never get shot because nobody wants a Mexican as President.

Not only is that witty and funny but it seems to make sense. :lol:

 

[mapleleafs67]

i would like to see them hit with a pie in the face thats more funny then a bullet in the head.

 

[lone wolf]

i would like to see them hit with a pie in the face thats more funny then a bullet in the head.

SS never seem to think so....

Woof!