TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMso12zeYDQ

Linked instead of embedded, because Uncle Ted has some choice words for Piers Morgan in a 1 on 1 interview.

JALLEN wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: Can someone be denied a visa for moral reasons? Just a thought.....

Aaahahahahahahahahaha!

Ahhh, Jeepers! That's a good one. I needed a good laugh today. Morals? Oh, please? Whose morals? Theirs? Yours? Mine? The governments?

They admit even convicts, provided whatever it was they were convicted of is not considered much of a crime here, or politically popular crime. It used to be that AIDS was disqualifying. I bet it no longer is.

Advocating the violent overthrow of the United States government may not be anymore, either, merely a cultural difference of an oppressed minority or something. One of those guys is a trusted adviser to the President of the United States, come to think about it, maybe several.

Things aren't like they used to be, are they?

No they aren't. Was I too desperate?

JALLEN wrote:

VMI77 wrote:.

CNN is essentially renting its broadcast privileges from the citizens of America. They can't broadcast whatever they want, and just about every network has cashiered people like this idiot merely for uttering one politically incorrect sentence. That it hasn't happened in this case is the product of open media bias and the fact that they don't care what millions of Americans think if those Americans aren't leftists --or at least, if those Americans are not in support of this particular fundamental element of the collectivist agenda. Again, if this Marxist agitator is not a citizen, he's here by permission, and CNN has no right to employ a foreigner in the US --they have to get permission to do so. Would we tolerate a radical Muslim with a national platform on CNN advocating Sharia Law? I doubt CNN would even try to get away with it. Advocating the violation of the US Constitution as a Marxist hypocrite is no different.

I believe CNN is cable only, no airwaves are harmed in the spewing of its daily bile, no licenses required.

They do from time to time have Muslims discussing Sharia law, but don't advocate it openly 24/7.

CNN has every right to employ this fellow, assuming he is here lawfully. There is no requirement in immigration situations that someone be a right thinking, true-blue American in thought, word and deed. They can keep you out of you have a criminal background, I think, or a loathsome disease perhaps. Even if they couldn't have him here in the States, it is child's play to broadcast from anywhere in the world these days.

Unfortunately, "advocating the violation" of the US Constitution is a matter of interpretation, and frequent dispute. Not everyone who disagrees with you is guilty. Even Supreme Court Justices differ on questions of interpretation, often 5-4. Constitutional interpretation is not a clear cut as you make out, and never has been in the ~220 years since it was adopted.

Actually, Morgan may be eligible for expulsion under that qualification. He was involved in illegal phone-hacking and was investigated for it and was, I believe, fired for it. However, I don't think he was criminally prosecuted for it because the british government echoes his sentiments. Can someone be denied a visa for moral reasons? Just a thought.....

VMI77 wrote:And in this particular case, the scoundrel we're talking about is a British twit who obviously hates this country. The Brits wouldn't allow an American who attacked the British Socialist Utopia to have such a platform in Britain, nor would any other European government allow a such platform for an American to attack their country. There is no place for a British citizen to use his bully pulpit to influence the internal politics of America. This nasty piece of human debris should either be deported, or have no more of a pulpit than the average American. If he wants to stay here and exert the same level of influence as the rest of us fine....let him spill his vile garbage. If not, let him go find himself a pulpit back in the Socialist Utopia.

WE did not give him that platform. CNN—an organization which shares his values and his hatred of America and all things American—gave him that platform. The best way to kill vampires is to kill the master vampire. CNN is the vampire master. Unfortunately, they can hide behind the First Amendment, so any "reprisal" has to take place purely in the market place. When their market share dwindles to the point where nobody listens to them, they'll go belly up on their own, without anybody doing violence to the Constitution.

I agree that it would be satisfying to see Piers Morgan tossed out of the country, extremely satisfying, but not if it means doing to the First Amendment exactly what he advocates doing to the Second Amendment. The entire Bill of Rights is sacred, even when it is inconvenient or contains risks. Isn't that part of the basis of the argument we provide in favor of the 2nd, and isn't that what differentiates us from the British socialist utopia and the other European governments?

It is absolutely true that an amoral, Godless (Big "G", because he is very much his own small "g" god), lying sack of barnyard excrement like Piers Morgan will quite cynically use the very freedoms contained in the Bill of Rights to dismantle the Bill of Rights. That's what commies do. That's what socialists do. And by extension, that is what the majority of the democrat party do—because they are by majority sympathetic to socialism and communism and anything which furthers the idea of abdication of personal responsibilities in favor of the nanny state. These are, overwhelmingly, who voted for Obama. Piers Morgan is their voice, the voice that hates anything that America stands for......or at least, used to stand for.

I was having a discussion with a Libertarian friend of mine at church a few weeks ago, during the immediate phase of post-election despair. He's one of the other guitar players in the worship band. We're both 60 years old, but he's 4 months older than I am, so I kid him about how nice it is for me to have an older man in my life whose whose wisdom I can tap into. He keeps telling me that I'm a Libertarian but I just don't know it yet. Anyway, I told him that I used to have confidence in the notion that the political pendulum swings both ways—you can get an Obama-lite one year (Jimmie Carter), and just a few years later you can get a Ronald Reagan—and that conservatism periodically has the chance to undo the damage done by the left. But I said that I was no longer convinced that this was true, and that I believe the pendulum's momentum toward the left had been so great this time that it had overcome the inertia of fundamental political stability we've enjoyed since the Civil War. I said that it appears to me that the changing demographics of the voting population, combined with their demonstrated preference for godless communism and the fact that their numbers are growing, not shrinking, indicated to me a tectonic shift in the political future of the United States. I believe that this election was a Black Swan—not just because Obama was elected, but because his election is a datapoint shedding light on that tectonic shift. Anyway, my friend said that he thought the pendulum was still swinging and that it would swing back the other way, but that the principle question wasn't so much whether it would swing back toward the libertarian side of conservatism, but rather whether or not the United States of America as we know it today would still exist as a nation when it swung back.

I'm inclined to agree. The question then becomes: Do we abide in the sacred principles of the Bill of Rights, come what may, or do we abrogate one to preserve the other? And if we do that, are we any better than the democrats? It requires answering another very simple question: Do the rights enshrined in the Constitution accrue only to documented citizens of the United States, or do they accrue to anybody who—however temporarily—makes the United States their home?

To me, what would be far more satisfying than seeing Piers Morgan get thrown out of the country would be for democrats who still allege themselves to be patriots to join in calling for Piers Morgan to butt out and tend to his own country's business; that this is a family argument, and he's not family, and that his opinion will become welcome when he steps up to become an American citizen......but until then, he's an outsider, and his opinion isn't worth a cup of warm spit.

I would be FAR more satisfied to see THAT because it would indicate to me that Obama's election is maybe not a Black Swan datapoint, and that his voter base still considers themselves to be patriots who stand up for the principles on which the nation was founded.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Even so, because I revere the Constitution, and because I believe that its protections extend to anybody who lives here and has not taken up arms against the nation, I think it would be wrong to banish Piers Morgan.........even though it wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit if he were hit by a bus tomorrow.

Thomas wrote:

RPB wrote:

Total signatures on this petition
25,467

Signatures needed by January 20, 2013 to reach goal of 25,000
0

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... t/prfh5zHD" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Based on the White House's responses on other petitions, I don't think much is going to happen.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/responses

If anything, it will let them know that we aren't too happy about others treading on our rights.

My biggest problem with White House petitions is that this administration takes that as permission to add you to their emailing list for all of their propaganda. Also, although I am sure that somebody somewhere in government already has all of my personal information, including on any list of "angry white radical tea party gun-owning secessionists" or some crap like that, I am loath to give this particular administration any means of identifying me, who I am, or what I stand for. I did not sign the "Texas Secession" petitions for much the same reason. THIS particular administration thinks they own your data and can do whatever they want with it, and they are big believers in data mining for the purposes of forming lists. I have no problem with data-mining for direct marketing purposes as long as I have some opt-in/opt-out control over it, but to this administration, you are not citizens, you are subjects, and they have no problem data mining to form "friends" lists and "enemies" lists. I am far less worried about mid to low level bureaucrats accessing my data, because government is so inefficient that little can actually be accomplished with it. But when that power is willingly surrendered to an administration as radical as this one, and with the sense of entitlement and destiny that this one has, you're no safer giving your email address directly to this White House than you would have been giving it to Joe Stalin's office.......if they'd had email back then.

gigag04 wrote:Lets not end up like left leaning nut jobs calling for the murder of NRA members.

Exactly. Piers Morgan is a vile little man with the blackhearted soul of the most avaricious communist party aparatchik, but it is his right under the First Amendment to be a blackhearted soulless commie aparatchik, and to bestow his verbal diarrhea upon the rest of us as if it were peals of wisdom dripping from the bum of an angel. In turn, I have the First Amendment right to boycott CNN—which I've been doing for a long time now anyway—and to boycott their advertisers whenever I am aware of one.

THAT is exactly how Piers Morgan ought to be reacting to guns: boycotting Winchester and Bushmaster, and refusing to buy anything with a Cabela's logo on it.

Here is my sincerest prayer for knuckleheads like Morgan.......I sincerely pray that they enjoy an extraordinarily terrifying experience at the hands of a thug, and that he is rescued by an armed citizen......with an EBR.