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.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
