Talk show host, Mike Reagan calls for anti war activist's murder

[eOs]

What kind of person sends this type of "educational" material to someone who's face to face with roadside bombs, suicide bombers in the middle east fighting to stay alive? What Mark Dice is doing is demoralizing our troops right now. I have no problem with him sending this material when they get back, but when you're in the shit, you don't do something like this. I'm not for this war and I'm sure as hell not for more depressed, demoralized troops who will probably end up taking their anger out in a negative way either. Let it be noted what Reagan said was messed up too.

 

[Theocrat]

Free Market, Not FCC

That's why it's the free market way to take him down. He didn't do anything wrong necessarily but in the free market, he doesn't have to to be taken off the air. PS, we are the free market. I think we should get a list of his advertisers and let them know that they support the killing of people using free speech (since they advertise with him, they obviously support what he says, right? ).

That's basically what I said here.

 

[OptionsTrader]

What kind of person sends this type of "educational" material to someone who's face to face with roadside bombs, suicide bombers in the middle east fighting to stay alive? What Mark Dice is doing is demoralizing our troops right now.

Soldiers aren't that weak that they cannot read a letter without being demoralized. They are doing very shitty work for very shitty pay and they know it. What they want is honest leadership and they want to be commanded to fight when it is necessary, not for other reasons. A simple letter isn't demoralizing anybody, these men and woman are tougher than that.

 

[asgardshill]

What kind of person sends this type of "educational" material to someone who's face to face with roadside bombs, suicide bombers in the middle east fighting to stay alive?

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't necessarily agree. Hell, my creditors and the junk mailers knew just where to find me when I went on deployment too. Did it improve my morale to get my bills and ads for life insurance at my FPO address? No - they didn't do a damned thing to make me feel better. But by the same token, there was (and is) no law that says that you can't send mail, even junk mail, to the troops. I would have been much more upset if I had found out that my mail had been censored. As a deployed troop, I was always free to line a birdcage with the junk mail I got or put unsolicited DVDs in the microwave in the squad room and watch them spark like a malfunctioning transporter on Star Trek.

Let it be noted what Reagan said was messed up too.

QFT. Threats of violence are the last refuge of the chickenhawk coward.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Odd, but somebody making the exact same statement on the radio about President Bush or any member of Congress would receive a nasty, brutish and short visit from the Secret Service. One rule for thee but not for me, eh?

Bing - fucking - go!

 

[Bruno]

I say its free speech. Free stupid speech.

I agree. However, how is it that this gets less attention than calling the Rutger's Basketball team nappy-headed ho's?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Obviously he's just trying to get a rise out of someone, it has nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever. Apparently there was nothing better for him to do than try to derail the conversation.

So, back to the FCC. . .

Those idiots at the FCC, if they were at all capable of being fair, would have already given Michael Reagan the smackdown. They only seem to operate on public outcry or a vendetta (Howard Stern.)

Yet another corrupt federal agency. No surprise there.

So do we help provide the public outcry to get the FCC to act? (Not that they will, it is Michael Reagan after all.) Or do we go the market route and complain to XM, boycott the advertisers and inform local law enforcement?

I'm still leaning toward not using the FCC because I think it would either be pointless or harmful in the long run. Yeah, Reagan went over the line, for sure, and there should be consequences.

You are quite right.

Full disclosure, I did not file a complaint with FCC. I have sent emails to him, his network, XM (which I subscribe to) and his advertisers.

Check this out

Posted by Dary:

On 09/27/2007 I sent an email to the FCC concerning similar threats made by Lee Rodgers on KSFO radio in San Francisco:

[email protected]

I wanted to bring to your attention the fact that on September 6th at 5:27 am, a certain radio personality, Lee Rodgers of KSFO Radio (San Francisco), AM 560 suggested that the supporters of Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul be run down and killed like mad dogs.

Being a supporter of Congressman Paul I find these comments deplorable and I do feel threatened by them.

Also being a supporter of Congressman Paul, I am a strong supporter of free speech. But my question is this. Is this free speech or is this assault?

Am I free to threaten my fellow Americans with death or would I be jailed for such an act? If I would be jailed for such an act, why hasn't Lee Rodgers?

I would like to know if the FCC has any authority over these types of issues and if the FCC has taken any action concerning this matter.

Thank you for your time.
-----
They responded with the following:

You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC.

Thank you for contacting the FCC in regards to political attacks.

The FCC has repealed the BROADCAST personal attack and political editorial rules, pursuant to DC Circuit Court of Appeals' order.

The FCC also repealed the personal attack and political editorial rules that apply to CABLE TELEVISION operators.

Rules: MM Docket No. 83-484 released October 26, 2000
CFR 47, Parts 73 and 76

Website: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-386A1.pdf

There is no longer a role for the FCC and the FCC will not defend any person concerning personal attacks or political editorials. You may wish to consider seeking advice from private sector legal counsel.

CAMS14
888-225-5322

So it would be pointless anyway.

"Run down like mad dogs", "terrorists in bed with al quaida", "taken out and shot".

Those are just a few.

It's clear they want a war.

Bring it on.

 

[winston_blade]

That's basically what I said here.

Congrats on being correct

 

[amy31416]

So it would be pointless anyway.

"Run down like mad dogs", "terrorists in bed with al quaida", "taken out and shot".

Those are just a few.

It's clear they want a war.

Bring it on.

What better to unite all us cats?

 

[LibertyOfOne]

Call up his sponsors and tell them that Mike Reagan advocated murder of an American citizen live on the air. Ask his sponsors if they condone this type of behavior. If they say they don't then ask them why they haven't pulled their sponsorship if they don't condone such behavior.

 

[asgardshill]

//

 

[amy31416]

Have you ever actually seen Michael Reagan?

I had not, here he is--and what a man he is:

 

[Anti Federalist]

What better to unite all us cats?

I hope so.

I wonder how many have the stomach for real revolution.

Because that's what it's coming to and what it's going to take.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Some people just look ridiculous holding a firearm.

Like Mike Dukakis in the tank or me a in a "thong"

Looks like a bad casting photo for the lead role in Taxi Driver 2008.

Or Paul Simon's pissed off, long lost brother.

 

[Mini-Me]

Technically speaking, treason is defined by the Constitution as being limited to making war on the United States. Of course, by the United States, it doesn't mean its government; rather, what else is the United States other than its people and the basic ideals for which it stands, as manifest by the Constitution itself? In other words, while Mike Dice is no traitor, our government officials who war against the Constitution and this country's founding principles in fact are. Treason is being committed, but not by Mike Dice.

As for Mike Reagan...I've always felt that personal responsibility reigns supreme. If he had made a direct, believable threat that he would personally maim or kill Mike Dice, that would have made him a clear and imminent danger to someone else's well-being. As such, it would have been an illegal threat. However, what he actually said does in fact fall into the confines of free speech as I understand it - he has not made a believable threat to kill anyone. Rather, he has merely incited others to - and if any one person (or group of people) harms Mike Dice, the responsibility for that action falls solely on them.

Nevertheless, what Reagan said does make him a fascist piece of chickenshit un-American trash, and he fully deserves to be tarred, feathered, and made a national spectacle through his humiliation. One thing I hate more than almost anything else is how fascists pass their beliefs off as something else and hide behind the cloak of "freedom and liberty," rather than just coming out and admitting what their beliefs actually amount to.

EDIT (along with minor grammatical alterations): To continue...I sincerely doubt that the day will ever come when dissenters are taken out into the streets and shot. In the words of King Leonidas in The 300, "Relax, old friend. If they assassinate me, all of Sparta goes to war. Pray they're that stupid. Pray we're that lucky." The general public may be split between socialism and national socialism (fascism) in their political opinions, but they don't actually know it. They think they believe in freedom, and such blatant violence would be an affront to their lingering American sensibilities and shock them out of their complacent stupor. It would provoke revolution. Rather, what's actually likely to happen is this: Quiet disappearances and prison camps, for "national security" and everyone else's "own good." Unfortunately, the enemies of freedom are not entirely stupid and incompetent.

 

[Anti Federalist]

New Jersey law on the matter:

TERRORISTIC THREATS (THREATS TO KILL)

N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3(b)

Page of 3

Revised 6/14/04
TERRORISTIC THREATS1

(THREATS TO KILL)

(N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3(b))



Count of the indictment charges defendant with committing [a] terroristic threat. [READ COUNT OF INDICTMENT].

That section of our statutes provides in pertinent part:

A person is guilty of a crime if he threatens to kill another with the purpose to put him in imminent fear of death under circumstances reasonably causing the victim to believe the immediacy of the threat and the likelihood that it will be carried out.


In order to convict defendant of the charge, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. That the defendant threatened to kill another person;

2. That the threat was made with the purpose to put the person in imminent fear of death; and,


3. That the threat was made under circumstances which reasonably caused the person to believe that the threat was likely to be carried out.


The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant threatened to kill (name of victim). The words or actions of the defendant must be of such a nature as to convey menace or fear of being killed to the ordinary person. It is not a violation of this statute if the threat expresses fleeting anger or was made merely to alarm.2

The second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the threat was made with the purpose to put (name of victim) in imminent fear of death.

The third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the threat was made under circumstances which made (name of victim) believe that the threat was likely to be carried out.3 The threat must be such that it would reasonably convey a fear of death to an ordinary person.4

 

[asgardshill]

The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant threatened to kill (name of victim). The words or actions of the defendant must be of such a nature as to convey menace or fear of being killed to the ordinary person. It is not a violation of this statute if the threat expresses fleeting anger or was made merely to alarm.

This would be the tough one to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Michael Reagan never actually said that he was going to pull the trigger, just that he would buy the bullets. I wonder if a solicitation of murder (hiring a hit man) charge might not be more appropriate?

 

[kombayn]

If this isn't a clear indication of what the Neo-Conservative movement truly is... Facism. I don't know what is, someone needs to contact the 9/11 truth activist and get him a good lawyer to sue the shit out of Michael Reagan and press charges for endangering his life or someone can pay me $1,000 and I'll go kill Michael Reagan. Fuckin' prick.

 

[Anti Federalist]

This would be the tough one to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Michael Reagan never actually said that he was going to pull the trigger, just that he would buy the bullets. I wonder if a solicitation of murder (hiring a hit man) charge might not be more appropriate?

I think you're right.

But this is only one state. I haven't looked at Kalifornia yet, but I will, since that's where it happened and I believe both Dice and Reagan are residents of Cali.

The FCC's response, posted by another member (who complained after a local talk show host said Ron Paul supporters should be run down like mad dogs) is also interesting.

Posted by Dary:

On 09/27/2007 I sent an email to the FCC concerning similar threats made by Lee Rodgers on KSFO radio in San Francisco:

[email protected]

I wanted to bring to your attention the fact that on September 6th at 5:27 am, a certain radio personality, Lee Rodgers of KSFO Radio (San Francisco), AM 560 suggested that the supporters of Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul be run down and killed like mad dogs.

Being a supporter of Congressman Paul I find these comments deplorable and I do feel threatened by them.

Also being a supporter of Congressman Paul, I am a strong supporter of free speech. But my question is this. Is this free speech or is this assault?

Am I free to threaten my fellow Americans with death or would I be jailed for such an act? If I would be jailed for such an act, why hasn't Lee Rodgers?

I would like to know if the FCC has any authority over these types of issues and if the FCC has taken any action concerning this matter.

Thank you for your time.
-----
They responded with the following:

You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC.

Thank you for contacting the FCC in regards to political attacks.

The FCC has repealed the BROADCAST personal attack and political editorial rules, pursuant to DC Circuit Court of Appeals' order.

The FCC also repealed the personal attack and political editorial rules that apply to CABLE TELEVISION operators.

Rules: MM Docket No. 83-484 released October 26, 2000
CFR 47, Parts 73 and 76

Website: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-00-386A1.pdf

There is no longer a role for the FCC and the FCC will not defend any person concerning personal attacks or political editorials. You may wish to consider seeking advice from private sector legal counsel.

CAMS14
888-225-5322

 

[Anti Federalist]

Mini Me wrote:

To continue...I sincerely doubt that the day will ever come when dissenters are taken out into the streets and shot. In the words of King Leonidas in The 300, "Relax, old friend. If they assassinate me, all of Sparta goes to war. Pray they're that stupid. Pray we're that lucky." The general public may be split between socialism and national socialism (fascism) in their political opinions, but they don't actually know it. They think they believe in freedom, and such blatant violence would be an affront to their lingering American sensibilities and shock them out of their complacent stupor. It would provoke revolution. Rather, what's actually likely to happen is this: Quiet disappearances and prison camps, for "national security" and everyone else's "own good." Unfortunately, the enemies of freedom are not entirely stupid and incompetent.

Leonidas could not have been more correct.

And to the last sentence, isn't that happening now?

Not tens of thousands, and not every day, but enough people have been "rendered" to be "testing the waters".

And they may not be incompetent, but they are arrogant and haughty.

Pride and arrogance can undo you even faster than just plain old stupidity.