Brian Ross: Obama's Safety and Hate Groups

Of course, the safety of the president of the United States is always a concern.

Any threats have to be taken seriously and investigated.

A report by ABC's Brian Ross, Anna Schecter, and Megan Chuchmach addresses fears for Obama's safety amid the tensions of the debate over his government-run health care plan, "Obama's Safety: Fear Grows for President as Hate Groups Thrive on Racial Backlash."

They state there's emerging anger directed at Obama, and the underlying reason is race.

In effect, Ross is echoing the statement by Chris Matthews: "I think some of the people are upset because we have a black president."

Experts who track hate groups across the U.S. are growing increasingly concerned over violent rhetoric targeted at President Obama, especially as the debate over health care intensifies and a pattern of threats emerges.

The Secret Service is investigating a Maryland man who held a sign reading "Death to Obama" and "Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids" outside a town hall meeting this week. And in New Hampshire, another man stood across the street from a Presidential town hall with his gun on full display.

Los Angeles police officers apprehended a man Thursday after a standoff with him inside a red Volkswagen Bug car in Westwood, CA – the latest disturbing case even though officials said the man had mental problems.

"I don't think these are simply people who are mentally ill or off their rocker," Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, told ABC News of those behind the threats. "In a very real sense they represent a genuine reaction, a genuine backlash against Obama."

And all the threats to President Bush and his family during his two terms, what were those about?

Anyone recall how violent the rhetoric of the protests against Bush and the Iraq war was?

Leftists were always calling for the Bush daughters to be sent to Iraq, to fight and die.

Was that hate? It seemed hateful to me.

Were those people labeled simply "mentally ill or off their rocker"?

Not at all. The lib media gave the anger legitimacy, as if that reaction made sense.

The shocking nature of some of the signs and displays by those angry anti-Bush mobs weren't deemed a "genuine reaction or backlash" against Bush and ultimately a serious threat to his safety.

He was relentlessly ridiculed for his religious faith. Madeleine Albright wrote a book about how dangerous Bush was due to his religious perspective, what she called his absolutism.

At the time Bush was being threatened, burned in effigy, and depicted as Hitler, did Brian Ross do a story on how the Leftists were stoking the anger of anti-religion hate groups?

Did Ross do a story about the history of violence in the anti-war movement (Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground), and cite concerns for Bush's safety?

I don't remember any such stories.

However, Obama's safety receives a rather lengthy review by Ross and his two colleagues.

The double standard is so blatant.

It's interesting that Ross chooses to blame Rush Limbaugh for inciting "potential" violence against Obama.

..."It's certainly a scary time," said former FBI agent Brad Garrett, now an ABC News consultant. Garrett said the Secret Service "cannot afford to pass on anyone," and he believes "they really do fear that something could happen to [Obama]."

Garrett said statements like one recently made by controversial radio host Rush Limbaugh comparing a logo for the White House plan to a Nazi symbol "legitimizes people who are on the edge to go do something or say something."

"And if you go and take a look at this, you will find that the Obama health care logo is damn close to a Nazi swastika logo," Limbaugh said.

Later, someone painted a swastika outside the office of Congressman David Scott of Georgia, one of Obama's supporters.

There is no way to connect that vandalism with Limbaugh.

Perhaps the swastika was in reaction to Nancy Pelosi's baseless accusations against town hall participants.

Ross can't connect the vandalism at Scott's office with Limbaugh, but that's his intention.

Here is the kicker. It's tucked in the second to last paragraph of Ross' breathless telling of the danger Obama is in thanks to Limbaugh and others.

While officials told ABC News that the President's daily threat matrix has yet to reflect a sharp increase in threats, White House officials privately admit deep concern and have told the Secret Service to keep security tight, even if Obama objects.

"OFFICIALS TOLD ABC NEW THAT THE PRESIDENT'S DAILY THREAT MATRIX HAS YET TO REFLECT A SHARP INCREASE IN THREATS."

Then what is the story about?

What violent backlash has there been?

The story paints a picture that isn't backed by facts.

Ross creates a story that doesn't exist. He's serving as a propagandist.

Of course, Obama's safety is a real concern. No threats against him should be dismissed. The president must be protected. I think foreign or domestic threats against the U.S. president are threats against all Americans.

I am in no way diminishing the seriousness of any threats against Obama.

The problem with Ross' account is that he pieces together a story that he actually debunks at the end of the report.

It's terrible journalism.

The final paragraph is also problematic.

"I think the president has, in effect, triggered fears amongst fairly large numbers of white people in this country that they are somehow losing their country, that the battle is lost," Potok told ABC News. "The nation that their Christian white forefathers created has somehow been taken from them."

This is racially incendiary stuff.

Whites are being trashed.

What proof does Potok have that "fairly large numbers of white people in this country" believe that they are losing their country due to Obama's race as opposed to his policies?

What does that even mean? What's a "fairly large number of whites"?

And what's with the "Christian white forefathers" stuff?

Potok seems to have forgotten that whites voted for Obama.

Every time Obama's poll numbers drop or he faces opposition is the race card going to be played?