What is strange is that just 10 or 15 years ago, Dr. Pierce used to opine about then President Bill Clinton in similar ways.
"Clinton deserves to be ..." because of his "treason" and so forth. Pierce must have opined in that manner dozens of times in his past broadcasts and if you look hard enough at those broadcast on-line, you probably can still find them.
What's the deal with that? Have the laws changed that much in the past 10 or 15 years. And what was the purpose of expressing such opinions?
Also, don't neo-con talk radio hosts say that people who doubt the government's position on 9-11 "deserve to be killed." Is that an opinion or a threat?