Obama: Go to Hell

Obama: Go to Hell

I just finished reading a blog by Danielle Belton AKA the Black Snob.  So when I hit the comment button at her blog site, I was given the option to comment at my own blog.  Open doors sometimes need to be entered.  So to Danielle (Black Snob) from Danielle(B.U.G.) here’s my comment.

Great article by the way. I like the way you handle all sides of the President Obama like/love/mixed feelings/can’t stand and just plain absurd bigotry and hatred without any evidence of intellectual process. You noted some of the guff we the people spewed at George W. for his decided lack of qualities befitting a president.  Fair enough we took some pot shots at him. The advertisement for Sick and Sicker is pretty sick unto itself Go to Hell Barack.  Jim Moran (D. Virginia) attempted to have the offending ads removed from the D. C. transit system to no avail.   Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) and the courts say this is allowable as free speech.

I have a suggestion that might be somewhat convoluted.  It certainly is out of the box.  Threatening the President of the United States is a class D felony under UnitedStates Code Title 18, Section 871. It consists of knowingly and willfully mailing or otherwise making "any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States".  There is only one way I know of to go to hell.  You have to die first.

Granted prosecuting this wouldn’t be easy.  The courts have battled the issue of actual threats to the President vs. Pure Speech and Free Speech. It’s a fairly foggy path through difficult legal terrain.
Convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 871 have been sustained for declaring that "President Wilson ought to be killed. It is a wonder someone has not done it already. If I had an opportunity, I would do it myself.";
[3] and for declaring that "Wilson is a wooden-headed son of a bitch. I wish Wilson was in hell, and if I had the power I would put him there."[4] In a later era, a conviction was sustained for displaying posters urging passersby to "hang [President] RooseveltThere is precedent.  So, take the S.O.B.’S (Somewhat Obsessively Bigoted) to court or we can all follow the lead of the gentleman and scholar currently in the White House as the President of this country and ignore the fools.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Tags: Other News, Politics


Leave a comment
  • Only an idiot would claim that is "threatening the president." It is not nice, sure. It is even something I as a person in control of what ads appear on my bill boards would not allow -- it's an ad I would not take. But it is not threatening in the least.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Well there are a lot of “idiots” out there who take posters, cartoons, comments on TV, billboards, Facebook entries as threats against any president. You might be surprised how many originators of those incidents are picked up, questioned and detained because of statements like the one on those ads appearing in the D.C. transit stations.
    I’ll agree some things seem idiotic, like calling people idiots when you haven’t done any research. You don’t have to hunt through Black’s Law Dictionary or go through tomes on free speech, pure speech, etc. A quick look at Wikipedia will give you loads of references.
    A word of caution, the “idiots” you refer to are often the Secret Service. You might be surprised at who’s listening and reading and watching. You might also want to look up “tongue in cheek”.

  • Have to prove there is a “hell” first.

  • In reply to ejhickey:

    69% of Americans believe in hell according to Gallop poll. This is one of those debates over cocktails that I can't get into but the existence of hell can neither be proved or disproved. I don't think I care to schedule a vacation to the place to do research just in case.

  • In reply to Danie:

    If the existence of hell cannot be established beyond a reasonable doubt, then any criminal prosecution of a person who told the President to GTH, would fail.

  • In reply to ejhickey:

    The point is that just such has occurred many times and I didn’t see any references to the courts visiting hell or establishing the validity of hell prior to investigating and/or detaining the responsible parties.
    I also think you, and others, might have missed the last line of the blog. I believe in free speech. I think President Obama does as well.

  • What exactly is an "Obama-ectomy screening package".? This is a a vile, malignant attack on our president, and should be denounced and condemned by all conscientious and responsible Americans no matter their ideology .

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:


  • Interesting that disagreement with President Obama, expressed in any manner, is considered bigoted.

    Lest we forget there was some author who wrote a book about "Killing President Bush". He was lauded as creative, imaginative and certainly NOT prosecuted. He was certainly not condemned by anybody on the "D" side of the aisle or "enlightened" Americans anywhere. Were you the one lone exception? Any of the other pontificators here? No and no.

    The "gentleman and scholar" currently at 1600 Penn. is doing his best to reshape the US in what many consider "hell". Many thought the same of Bush, and said so many vile ways.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    You hit the nail right on the head, Richard. It's amazing that so-called liberals are not very open minded at all about these matters. What exactly happened to the love of free speech that was demonstrated on a regular basis during the Bush years?

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    I didn't agree with many actions taken by Mr. Bush. As a matter of fact I was not in favor of many of the actions of Bush or Clinton, especially the lack of control over the hedge funds and derivatives markets. Having said that, I did not nor would I sanction suggesting the death of a President nor do I think the vitriole exhibited by both parties should be indicative of our country.

  • In reply to Danie:

    Telling Obama to go to hell is not the same as suggesting his death. It is absurd to equate the two.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Definitions you might want to consider:
    1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
    2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

    I don't personally know anyone who thought a book about killing any President was acceptable. This statement does not include accounts of actual events of the past. There are numerous histories regarding past assassinations of presidents and other dignitaries that are laudable.

  • I already responded to this. I haven't changed my mind in the last few minutes. I hope the staff of the secret service nor the courts are idiots, at least not collectively.

  • This isn't China or Syria we are allowed to mock, critisize, and express feelings about politicans (contrary to popular belief, yes he is just a politican and not a messiah). Go to hell isn't a death threat.
    I'm so glad the supreme court will not uphold this so-called health reform law. What a complete waste of time, and makes the congress looks silly. Why would they pass such a questionable controversial law knowing that it would be challenged and would go to a conservative supreme court.

Leave a comment