Is Glen Beck trying to usurp the President?

Well, the USA have a history of killing their president, and there is a well-known passage in the constitution to the effect of killing him if he is a tyrant is fine... thus I would say the US president is pretty much living with a crosshair on his head no matter who it is.
For some reason, the idea of killing the president to change everything sticks to (some) peoples heads, but I dont think its that much more likely for Obama than it would be for any other president on the wrong side of a certain demographic (you know, those with guns on a holy mission from god etc.).

The problem isnt really security. If you get a guy with the will to sacrifice himself and a gun within range, there isnt much the secret service can do. However, outside of movies people dont get that far, and there is a big difference between spewing venom from behind a desk, out of your armchair or at a NASCAR race, and getting your ass in motion and doing something.

I wouldnt worry. Beck is just milking the situation for every dollar he can, as others do too. What we notice isnt so much a remarkable urprising against the president because he is black/democrat/good at basketball, but the next step in the evolution of Infotainment and opinion-making media. I dont think it would have been much different if Hillary Clinton had won. And I dont think Obama is any less safe than she would be.

In a couple years, someone will invent the next annoying media trend, and we ll be having the same thoughts then.

On a sidenote, Nazi references are sort of in fashion right now, plus there have been and are a couple movies around that topic just recently (valkyrie, basterds and more) so its just a term that works. This decade is likely the last one where you can still get people for whom Nazi means a part of their early lives to care and maybe act on it. Plus, lets face it, "terrorist" has gotten old.

I don't think you're out of line with this kind of thinking. So far, Glen Beck has had to tell his viewers not to resort to violence so he knows that his language is stirring up some violent tendencies. Has he stopped? Nope. Will this end badly? I hope not but I'm preparing for some kind of horrible incident that this talk will spark. The last time we had this kind of talk was right before the OKC bombing. What will it be this time?

It's not just Beck. I've noticed that since the inauguration, there's been a coming out of a LOT of closeted racists. So again, it's NOT just Beck.

I think you're right. It's not just Beck. Hannity treads in the same language as well. "We need to take our country back.", "I'm afraid Obama doesn't share our values.", "Obama is setting up death panels" are all calls to arms for a certain demographic. The scary thing is that I doubt the people putting this shit out there really believe it. They do it for ratings or power if they are politicians. It's the rhetorical equivilent of putting a loaded gun on the table and leaving the room.

There have been Bush/Hitler comparisons for almost a damn decade. While the reasoning is different it's all been done before. It's a mute point anyways.

They're not trying to kill Obama by proxy. Obama getting killed would fuck this country right up for everyone, probably for good.

I am not american, which is why I screwed up Declaration and Constitution. I was talking about the Declaration it seems.

I still dont think Obama is more likely to get shot than other democratic presidents right now. The question is, and for that you guys over there are far more qualified to answer, if maybe the atmosphere in the USA is currently changing into one making people more prone to try and kill him. Which would have been the same for Clinton.

I dont think death threats are a measurement for the danger. I think death threats are a sideffect of this faux outrage at a "bad , evil, muslim" president, but someone who sends threats has not actually done anything, and since they know they ll never get an answer anyway (or if they are dumb enough to leave their home adress, they just get handcuffs) they can now pat themselves on the back for having done the closest to .. well, actually DOING what they threatened.

Its actually an established theory in psychoanalysis: Someone giving threats is less likely to follow up on them if there are no repercussions to not following through (ie nobody saw him make the threat, so he doesnt have to fear loss of face). Threats are kind of an outlet.

Now, one could of course say that when more people feel the need to threaten, the percentage of those feeling the need to ACT is proportionally higher too. Tbh thats something for criminalists to figure out, I just dont know. But how many death threats to some celebrities, or sportsmen and -women receive when they screwed up something? Rock Stars? Aside from rappers, I dont see many of them getting shot at, so I dont think there is a direct connection between threats and actual actions.

During my time in the german army, I once stood about 20 yards from the german and the french head of state, with an assault rifle nobody had checked for being loaded. I was part of the security detail and honour guard, and could have shot them. So what? Is that lax security? I dont think so. There is a certain risk that Obama faces, that Bush faced, and that every american president has to face, but I seriously doubt it has anything to do with strict security controls right around the president.
If you start having airtight security, spend lots of money on it and generally play it safe, you show the world that you are afraid, and you look vulnerable, or trying to hide being vulnerable. I think thats much more of an encouragement to those considering an assassination than the way Obama handles it right now.

An assassin not concerned for his own life is hard to stop, and always has been, if you dont want to lock yourself into a bunker somewhere and be utterly ineffective as a head of state.

That being said, as I dont live in the USA, and dont keep in contact with americans who are deep-republican, I cannot really judge just how enraged people truly are. So far, it still comes across as "man, they cant really believe that shit" stuff to chuckle about.

It's nearly impossible to assassinate a President with today's advanced security tech. That's why there hasn't been a real notable attempt since the early 80's. These days it would basically have to be an inside job.

Usurpation always implies the transfer of power or land or something from one party to another. So, no, Glenn Beck, that racist, xenophobic, capitalist pig doesn't want to become president. Not really. What he wants is to generate as much chaos as possible so that he might garner high ratings/sell books/draw whole piles of attention to himself. He's perfectly happy with a scary black liberal being president. Right-wing crazypants business is booming.

1st Amendment.

lol

You might want to try reading it sometime, moron.

I've pretty much ignored Kate, but holy shit.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I wouldn't worry about it. It will never happen. The political damage and governmental instability would be too great a cost.

But whats the harm in talking about it, right?

Good Wikipedia skills by the way, but while you were there you might have wanted to further your research.

But when does it become treason? To me, the logical conclusion of all this--including corporate and think tank sponsorships, strategizing, funding and organizing--is crossing the line.

I thought the Sedition Act was repealed.

I agree. The mere suggestion of it is enough.

But Obama is in a bind because he can't do anything about it. Because if he does people would flip out and it would give the appearance of validity to this guys (and Beck's, Limbaugh's, etc) whack-job nonsense.

FOX news and Republican Senators sneer at peace protests (not like telling the people you represent that they're wrong for participating in government) but we're supposed to just twiddle our thumbs at thoughts like this.

Disgusting. Sideway, why you're not disgusted for defending this is an answer you'll have to sort out with your soul. If you have one.

Who said I was defending it? You assume too much.

The mere suggestion that Obama is actually in any danger of assassination at the hands of morons like Glenn Beck (and the slavering retards who eat up every word that comes out of his mouth) is sort of an insult to the presidency (at best) and an amusing bit of paranoid delusion. Seriously-- just no. Ain't gonna happen.

Oh, and

How do idiots like you manage to breathe?

I firmly believe Beck, and all the pundits like him, are in it for the ratings. This is even more disgusting than genuinely believing the crazy shit he spews. He isn't exploiting idiots to achieve political change he believes needs to happen, he's exploiting them for the attention and the money.

and in case I didn't use it enough: believe, believe, believe.

Exactly, Gabe. Just another blow hard that will do anything for attention no matter how baseless. I don't watch Glen Beck or read Anne Coulter. Ironically Princess Kate is on my ignore list too (this thread was on the front page). I'm swimming in a sea of ignorant bliss when it comes to these kind of useless people.

Whoa, whoa whoa. Back it up. I never used the 1st Amendment as an excuse to advocate a military coup. You asked what gives a person the right to write an article like the one you mentioned earlier by John Perry, and I stated that it was the 1st Amendment, that is all.

In order for someone to violate the federal statute that protects the safety of the President, a threat must be made knowingly and willfully.

"A threat is knowingly made if the maker of it comprehends the meaning of the words uttered by him or her. Under some authority, a threat is willfully made if, in addition to comprehending the meaning of his or her words, the maker voluntarily and intentionally utters them as the declaration of an apparent determination to carry them into execution.

Otherwise stated, it has been held that the willfulness requirement of the statute requires that the maker intentionally write or make an oral statement under such circumstances that a reasonable person would construe it as a serious expression of an intention to take the life of the President."

"It is sufficient that intent to make the threat exists, and the existence of an actual intention to carry out the threat or a subsequent abandonment of the bad intent with which the threat is made is immaterial. However, under other authority, it has been held that when a threat is uttered without any communication to the President intended, the threat can form a basis for conviction under the statute only if the threat is made with a present intent to do injury to the President.

In any case, the statement must be a true threat. A true threat is a serious one, not uttered in jest, idle talk, or political argument or hyperbole. Statements made as the result of mistake, duress, or coercion are not within the statute. A threat is not deprived of its quality as a threat by the fact that it is conditioned on a contingency which is possible."


I've read that article and in no way does it violate any federal statute against the safety of the President. In order for someone to be charged and convicted, the statement made must be pretty detailed and unambiguous. Saying there should be a military coup to overthrow the president is a pretty ambiguous statement coming from a conservative journalist.

Being a jackass and a fool is not a crime. This is not a threat to overthrow Obama any more than opposing Bush's policies was treason.

It does stagger the mind, though.

Oh, I know this one. I've had to look it up before. These are the important bits, I think.


All else aside, saying something should happen isn't inciting it.

Treason

I liked this bit:

How much of a peripheral role would funding teabaggies be if they got even more stupid, say, next August?

This thread is fucking carcenogenic.

Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity are just cheap shock jocks in over their heads, not knowing how dangerous it can be to tweak the Guns & Ammo crowd. (edited to add that I think Glenn Beck is probably genuinely mentally ill in addition to being ratings-hungry.)

Do you get the impression that any of these people are so thoughtful? Causality probably conflicts with their religion.

And for all the comparisons between the Bush/Hitler people and the Obama/Hitler people, the worst the Bush/Hitler people threatened to do was move to France (plus they were saying "fraudulent war, torture, suspension of habeas corpus = Hitler," not "universal health care, carbon control, soda tax = Hitler," so as asinine as it always was, I think there's still a credibility gap). For that matter, the Bush = Hitler people I remember were stoned college students. What's GOP Grandma's excuse?

GOP Grandma's excuse is that she grew up in a country run by white people, and now this uppity nigger is gonna take all that away from her.

...or some shit like that. Seriously, it amazes me that people on this forum (myself included) actually look for some kind of logical thought progression with these people; we should all know by now that there is no thinking, it's simply old fears becoming new again; whether that old fear is of black people or socialism or liberalism or secular humanism or whatever, the right wing is fucking tweaked that they no longer have control of the country (especially after the Republicans, and the Southern Strategy in particular, gave them such a voice for so long - something that we are still feeling the effects of in terms of one sided media coverage).

I've stopped trying to reason with these people; my strategy now is that if you don't know the facts, fuck you and shut your mouth, you have no reason to be talking (and this applies to both idiotic left wingers **cough cough** Kate **cough cough** as well as right wing lunatics).