In Rexburg, Idaho. Very Disturbing.

Elementary Age School Kids Chanting:

"They were chanting on the bus, 'Assassinate Obama. Assassinate Obama.' Then adding in a name sometimes of a classmate on the bus, 'Assassinate Obama and Kate."

LINK - 2News.TV - KBCI

The article says they then added in name of classmate - "Kate." I wonder if that was name of classmate - or Katie Couric.

Rather chilling what kids are hearing from adults or older kids and then repeating. I hope the FBI is was called in to investigate 'cause obviously there are older people around these kids calling for violence. These types of threats are always investigated by the FBI...there's long history of such.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tolerance,

How old were the kids, 5,6,7 year olds. Maybe they heard their parents say that they hope he doesn't get assassinated or this guy is going to be assassinated. and just took it out of context. I know if I was planning a presidential assassination I wouldn't do it in front of my 6 year old.
There is also the right of freedom of speech, even kids are allowed it. I don't know how long this will last under the messiah. But they are allowed to chant that if they want.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 17keith,

quote:

There is also the right of freedom of speech, even kids are allowed it. I don't know how long this will last under the messiah. But they are allowed to chant that if they want.

Actually the freedom of speech is not absolute, and chants to assassinate the President of the United States are certainly outside those rights.

Putting aside the fact that chants to assassinate the POTUS is illegal for a moment, Tolerance's post is merely pointing out how disturbing that is and that the FBI should look into it.

And, of course, she is correct. The FBI should investigate.

quote:

Originally posted by 17keith:
How old were the kids, 5,6,7 year olds. Maybe they heard their parents say that they hope he doesn't get assassinated or this guy is going to be assassinated. and just took it out of context. I know if I was planning a presidential assassination I wouldn't do it in front of my 6 year old.
There is also the right of freedom of speech, even kids are allowed it. I don't know how long this will last under the messiah. But they are allowed to chant that if they want.

Well considering that Rexburg is one of the reddest places in the country and with nearly no people of color in it in a state known for extremist groups, I think the chances of your hypothetical, though fair to ponder, is rather slim. Kids repeat what they hear and the chances are good the FBI went to investigate - or will - as soon as it becomes/became known to them.

quote:

Well considering that Rexburg is one of the reddest places in the country and with nearly no people of color in it in a state known for extremist groups

Yes Intolerance, we all know that hatred and extremism is the exclusive domain of red states and conservatives. We would NEVER see any such behavior in a predominantly liberal area such as...oh, I dunno..SAN FRANCISCO! That's a town that is known for it's moral fiber, civility, and tolerance for others, right?

quote:

Kids repeat what they hear and the chances are good the FBI went to investigate - or will - as soon as it becomes/became known to them.

Careful there, hon. You wouldn't want the feds to do anything that would infringe upon the precious civil rights of those kids, now would you? I mean, you wouldn't want any of those illegal Bush administration-ish wire taps or any unauthorized servailances, do you? So WHAT if the kids were making threating remarks, or for that matter, if would-be terrorists plot against us. The hell with our safety, the most important thing is that NO ONE'S CIVIL RIGHTS ARE INFRINGED UPON. Isn't that the kind of stupid crap you libs are always spouting?

Dumb kids. To think that some of their parents condone this nonsense. Please let Obama mess up a war and have 4,000 soldiers killed unecessarily ,screw up our economy, and bend every rule in the book till we become hated by everyone else before you wish him death...

quote:

Originally posted by Double R:

quote:

Well considering that Rexburg is one of the reddest places in the country and with nearly no people of color in it in a state known for extremist groups

Yes Intolerance, we all know that hatred and extremism is the exclusive domain of red states and conservatives. We would NEVER see any such behavior in a predominantly liberal area such as...oh, I dunno..SAN FRANCISCO! That's a town that is known for it's moral fiber, civility, and tolerance for others, right?

quote:

Kids repeat what they hear and the chances are good the FBI went to investigate - or will - as soon as it becomes/became known to them.

Careful there, hon. You wouldn't want the feds to do anything that would infringe upon the precious civil rights of those kids, now would you? I mean, you wouldn't want any of those illegal Bush administration-ish wire taps or any unauthorized servailances, do you? So WHAT if the kids were making threating remarks, or for that matter, if would-be terrorists plot against us. The hell with our safety, the most important thing is that NO ONE'S CIVIL RIGHTS ARE INFRINGED UPON. Isn't that the kind of stupid crap you libs are always spouting?

Don't get all bent out of shape. The people of Rexburg call themselves extremely red. I didn't write the book on them or Idaho. Rexburg is indeed an extremely conservative place, basically a Mormon town with very strict rules of living. Brigham Young University is the center point. Salon.com did a story on them in 2006 and called it the "reddest place in America."

Here's How The Article Opens:

Billboards outside the apartment buildings advertise "Approved housing for young ladies." A sign on the door to the student union thanks you for "obeying the dress and grooming standards." The local multiplex shows only family-friendly fare. And when you ask if you might have a beer with your burger at a restaurant next to the movie theater, the hostess looks puzzled, thinks for a bit and suggests that there may be a place way on the other side of town where a guy could get such a thing.

And Here's More:

The Mayor Had This To Say: "I asked the mayor if maybe people here don't feel the need to show off their views because it doesn't occur to them that any of their neighbors might have different ones. "I think that's probably an accurate statement," he replied.

And perhaps the results are preordained because of the monolithic influence of the Church of Latter Day Saints. As BYU-I English professor Dawn Anderson tells me, it's important to understand that most voters in Madison County are Mormons, and that "everything of a political nature" has to be understood in that context."

..."conservative professor of humanities named Rick Davis, offers a different sort of testament to the appeal of the area and the politics of its residents. Davis has lived in a lot of different places, he says, and he knows that people are different all over. Even Mormons are different. Davis contrasts his neighbors with Massachusetts Gov. and potential GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Romney is a "Boston Mormon," notes Davis, not to be confused with "Rexburg Mormons," who, he says, are "so red that you just bleed."

"We don't have blacks in this area to speak of. We've had them, and they've come and gone. Not to say they were driven out; they've just felt uncomfortable because there aren't enough of them -- like you and me moving to Montgomery, Alabama."



A Democrat Living There Had This To Say:

"She says the political Ho_mogeneity can be isolating and depressing and sometimes a little scary. She remembers the time when a group of classmates followed her third-grader home, shouting out "baby-killer" all along the way. She took it up with the teacher, who didn't seem to mind.

LINK - Salon.com Article

The last census had Rexburg with less than 1% of population being black. Rexburg is in Madison County and Tom Kennelly, a 74-year-old retired mortgage banker, says "It's hard to find a spot that isn't red."

So what exactly is your beef here? Let's go down the checklist: Rexburg is unapologetically and ferverently conservative, the people have a certain lifestyle and standards by which they live, and they aren't very tolerant of those who don't think as they do. Hmmmmmm, interesting. Now let me ask you, doesn't that sound awfully familiar to other LIBERAL cities in this country? Again, I will go back to the analogy of San Francisco, the liberal mirror image of a town like Rexburg. I guess the major difference would be that I have never heard of any acts of rioting, violent demonstrations, and wanton civil disobedience in Rexburg. (But a bunch of kids yelling anti-Obama stuff on a school bus, THAT'S a big problem for you.) By the way, I wonder what the crime rate is in Rexburg. Pretty low I would imagine, yes? I'll bet the town itself is very safe and very clean too. Yup, just a few of those "ugly" side effects of high moral standards and strict conservative beliefs.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Double R,

This incident reminds of a time in grade school back when the area I lived in was predominantly "blue". There was a kid on the bus who started chanting "Adolf Eikman" in a a "Paul O'Neil" Yankee chant sort of way. Before you knew the whole busload of us youngsters were stomping our feet and chanting along with him. The name meant nothing to me nor in all likelyhood to 99% of the rest. It wasn't until years later until I ever realized who Eikman was. I suppose today there would be an investigation over such a chant over a **** war criminal, yet things were so much simpler then. Not everything was held under a microscope. Now the actions of those kids in Idaho were definitely not proper and should be addressed but unfortunately, in this day of knee jerk hysteria, the door is left open for their entire town to be branded in a way that might not or more like it, probably not be true.

This has nothing to do with Red states and Blue states. It is a simple concept. People who chant for the assassination of the President of the United States should be investigated at least, but most probably arrested as a threat to national security. Now these were just kids so you can't reasonably believe they are a threat, but the FBI would be remiss not to investigate and collect intelligence on their families.

I notice that this concept has proven to be a bit difficult for some who are on the extreme right to understand..."Country First", my tush.

quote:

Originally posted by JamesBond:
This has nothing to do with Red states and Blue states. It is a simple concept. People who chant for the assassination of the President of the United States should be investigated at least, but most probably arrested as a threat to national security. Now these were just kids so you can't reasonably believe they are a threat, but the FBI would be remiss not to investigate and collect intelligence on their families.

I notice that this concept has proven to be a bit difficult for some who are on the extreme right to understand..."Country First", my tush.

Well thank you for adding your two cents and for completely missing my point. I was highlighting the hypocrisy of the left, as they are the ones who scream the loudest and longest about supposed government infrigements of rights to privacy, wiretapping, eavesdropping, etc. As usual, liberals have very misguided and naive notions regarding rights to privacy vs government methods of obtaining vital information in the prevention of imminent and/or future security threats. Liberals would much rather that our safety be compromised because they are against anything that smacks of an invasion of privacy. We've heard a lot of that stuff from the left over the past 8 years. And yet, a bunch of kids in a school bus yelling stuff about The Messiah gets people like InTolerance all up in arms and saying that they need to be kept an eye on very closely. I'll bet that she would have no problem whatsoever if the government was to infringe upon those kids' right to privacy by listening in and monitoring their activities. Once again, the shameless hypocrisy of the left rears it's ugly head for all to see.

DoubleR,

Where is the hypocrisy specifically. You never talk in specifics. Give me examples.

No one that I know of had ever complained about the government investigating people who chant about assassinating the President of the United States. People who chant for POTUS assassination do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy against government invasions of privacy.

I doubt that you genuinely fail to see the difference between someone people monitored for being a Muslim American versus someone being monitored for chanting for the assassination of the POTUS.

Please acknowledge that you recognize the distinction between those two examples.

Yes James, I recognize and acknowledge the distinction between the two. I always did. I was being facetious for a purpose. We live in a dangerous world and all threats need to be taken seriously, in my opinion. If a few rights to privacy are violated in the process, then so be it. The government's top priority is to keep us safe and our advanced technologies should be used to that end. I'm not suggesting that our rights to privacy aren't important, they certainly are. Nor am I suggesting that the government should feel free to blatently trample those rights indescriminatly whenever they feel like it. It's all a very delicate and complicated balancing act of the protection of those rights vs the security of the citizenry. But my right to be kept safe trumps everything else, in my humble opinion.

quote:

But my right to be kept safe trumps everything else, in my humble opinion.

Again...I don't know how you can reconcile that for everyone. What would be the standard?

Should Muslims be monitored because of 9/11?

Should everyone who has any association with skinheads and the KKK have their rights to privacy invaded because they threaten the safety of other people?

Should all black people living in LA be kept under surveillance because of the 1992 riots?

There are lots of ways for us to be kept safe...but we are a constitutional democratic republic. Should we cease to be such in the name of keeping the people safe? After all, you said that your feeling of safety trumps everything else. Does that include the very rock that our country is built on?

quote:

Originally posted by JamesBond:

quote:

But my right to be kept safe trumps everything else, in my humble opinion.

Again...I don't know how you can reconcile that for everyone. What would be the standard?

Should Muslims be monitored because of 9/11?

Should everyone who has any association with skinheads and the KKK have their rights to privacy invaded because they threaten the safety of other people?

Should all black people living in LA be kept under surveillance because of the 1992 riots?

There are lots of ways for us to be kept safe...but we are a constitutional democratic republic. Should we cease to be such in the name of keeping the people safe? After all, you said that your feeling of safety trumps everything else. Does that include the very rock that our country is built on?

Like I said, it's a very fine line and it's not an easy thing to reconcile no matter which way you look at it. There are too many gray areas and a lot of room for interpretation. For instance, is there a logical and reasonable boilerplate definition of what consititutes a "reasonable threat" to national security or to the head of state? What are the deciding factors? What are the parameters and tolerance criteria? What are the reasonable exceptions that could be considered in any such interpretation? What set of criteria justifies unwarranted surveilances or unauthorized gathering of informations in order to analyze a threat that may of may not be credible? I have no answer for that, as there is really is no right answer. At the end of the day, I would think it's all a "make it up as you go" kind of thing where the gov't is using their best guesses, intuitions, gut-feelings, and experience working in conjunction with whatever info they may already have. I can only sit here and guess as to how they go about the decision-making process of what to hone in on and what not to.