I've had several people tell me that there is a general fear Obama will be assassinated.
Poppycock and balderdash.
Socialists dictators, i.e., men like Obama, don't get assassinated by skinheads.
Socialists assassinate each other to gain political juice, and they don't allow the assassination to take place until they have all their ducks in a row. Consider Trotsky, who got an icepick in the forehead only because Stalin wanted him dead. Stalin needed someone to blame for the economic turmoil in the Soviet Union, and it's easier to blame all your problems on a dead revolutionary. He invoked Trotsky and the Trotskey-ites for years after the man was moldering in the grave. It worked wonderfully. George W. will find himself invoked a lot over the next eight years and for the same reason.
No, if Obama gets killed, it's because Pelosi or Durbin or someone else need him dead for some reason. They'll blame it on the skinheads, they'll set up the racists to take the fall, but the reason for his death will be a maneuver for political ascendancy by one of his current subordinates.
If he gets offed, it's because someone is confident they can control Biden and they want to set Old Joe up as the puppet for the man or woman behind the curtain. Assassination in socialist circles is a Praetorian Guard event. Skinheads don't have the brains to pull something like that off, but Pelosi does.
And speaking of socialists, we should discuss the possibility of internment camps. Poor economies are why socialists love internment camps. If you have an economy which is severely under-producing goods, then you have to do something to reduce the number of consumers in order to avoid riots stemming from the people's inability to eat or clothe themselves.
If the under-production of goods is fairly minor, this problem of too much consumption chasing too few goods can usually be resolved by simply killing the very old and the very young. Nationalized health care is an excellent way out. Euthanize anyone over 60, or simply give them inadequate treatment, then abort 30-70% of the children in the womb, and your production problem goes away - the remaining consumers have enough to eat so that you don't have to worry about riots.
But, if the under-production of goods becomes severe enough, you have to begin random arrests of people on the streets. If a lot of the general population is in prison, you can control their consumption right down to the gram. If they die, it's no big deal because people assume they are in jail for a good reason.
This is why the Soviet Union created and maintained the Gulag Archipelago. They were good economists, they knew they were not producing enough goods and they also knew they couldn't ramp up production in their command-style economy.
What was left? They had to reduce consumption. That was the point of the Gulag.
The United States is currently producing a LOT of stuff, so internment camps for economic reasons here won't be immediately necessary. But, if enough damage is done to the economy, look for a big increase in military-style camps for "troublemakers."
If our economy goes that deeply into the dumper, internment camps will start getting set up in outlying socialist dictatorships first, as the flow of international goods dries up. So, if, for instance, Hugo Chavez starts setting them up, it's time for US citizens to start considering options because that roadshow is likely headed to the United States.