Fiery Rhetoric After Health Care Passage “A Clear And Present Danger”!

Mike Vanderboegh, an Alabama survivalist and former militia leader, has advocated that Americans break the windows of Democratic leaders’ homes. After calling for this last week, we have had attacks of violence against property, and death threats against Democratic politicians. He is now calling for supporters to be well armed and ready to defend the Constitution.

This event, on top of demonstrations planned at the home of an Ohio Congressman in his district; and Iowa Republican Congressman Steve King slapping a picture of Nancy Pelosi in front of a Tea Party crowd in Washington, DC; and the continued fiery rhetoric of Republican leaders, including John Boehner and John McCain, makes it clear that conservatives and Republicans, either by plan or by their dangerous rhetoric not being understood to be inciting, is provoking a possible insurrection that will lead to bloodshed and death!

All of these events are a “clear and present danger” that will soon force the government to utilize the Schenck case of 1919 and intervene to keep law and order in the midst of what is rapidly becoming a threat to public security! People must be held responsible for their speech, when it incites violence!

We cannot allow chaos and anarchy to rule this country! The evoking of the Constitution does not allow violent action to be considered legitimate! It is time for violent rhetoric and advocacy of lawlessness to end! Cease and desist!

One comment on “Fiery Rhetoric After Health Care Passage “A Clear And Present Danger”!

  1. William Nightingale March 24, 2010 11:54 pm

    Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) is no longer the standard used by the Supreme Court to limit Free Speech. Under Schenck, the Espionage Act of 1917, WWI and the US Draft played a major role to the “Clear and Present Danger Clause” you are citing. This, certainly, is not the case at this time with Congress.

    Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) fits more appropriately here and is now the standard for limiting Free Speech to the First Amendment -citing inflammatory speech that is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action.

    I think that once you research and compare Brandenburg to Schenck, your claim to limit Mr. Vanderboegh’s Free Speech more substantial. That is, of course, if you can personally link him to the violence.

    I find it interesting that you use this sentence: “We cannot allow chaos and anarchy to rule this country!” – against Vanderboegh. As defined by the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, the 111th Congress recent passing of HR 3590 et. Al. is just that – Tyranny! So much so, that your AG and mine have filed suit – along with twelve other AG’s – against Congressional Chaos and Anarchy. You should read them; here are the links:$file/HealthCareReformLawsuit.pdf

    After reading them and doing the lengthy research with their claims, you may find that the 111th Congress and the Obama Administration may have some trouble imposing their “will” upon the People.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.