Piers Morgan on terrorism with London Mayor

He states the obvious concerns about thousands of jihadists to a disconnected mayor. What a stooge.

He might as well be an apologist for these jihadis. Using the problem to excuse the problem.

Score for Piers Morgan and sanity.

Reference, H/T: see https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/06/07/questioning_mayor_khan_on_britains_jihadi_threat.html

Lemon question to Zimmerman

After the Zimmerman “not guilty” verdict, Piers Morgan interviewed his brother Robert Zimmerman on CNN. Don Lemon cut in at the end with a question for him and his brother.

Lemon asked:

“You said you want to start some sort of dialogue, and much has been made about race in this particular case. And you, your brother, your family—you have a unique opportunity in this country to address that. What would you like to see happen when it comes to race, healing the divide, and do you plan to do anything about that, and will you ask your brother to do anything about that?”

Well, talk about gall. So how can George Zimmerman heal the divisions? Like they would listen to anything he says, for one. And like they wouldn’t just mock him — maybe that’s their idea of healing.

I guess it was just another landmine they laid for Zimmerman:
Please, Geaorge Zimmerman, we’re waiting for you to help us heal.”

But he would never be able to keep up with the race-baiting Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. With an Attorney General perpetuating and extorting it, and a prez playing politics with it.

Piers Morgan’s anti-Constitution activism

How many rules of journalism does Piers Morgan break in this debate (for lack of other word)?
Or how much hypocrisy does he reveal?
Or how much common sense does he ignore? The end says it all.
See video at link by nycresistance

[Morgan gets angered over gun control debate with two women. Plays the “tank” card.]

Ignorance prevails.
“Hi, I’m Piers Morgan, and I’m sick of it….
And I also detest that 22nd Amendment of your Constitution that limits a president to 2 terms.” (little paraphrasing)

Not enough this Brit has issues with the 2nd Amendment, he also has an utter disdain for the 22nd on top of it. Well, maybe he has a personal phobia of the number two.


Rarely do two of my most unfavored people come together to air their views, but when they do this is what can happen:

Back in September 2012, he was all over the 22nd Amendment in an interview with Bill Clinton. It was like Piers trying to interview his alter ego. Sure, Larry King had major faults but this guy is totally shameless.

Morgan interviews Bill Clinton (excerpt – transcript)
MORGAN: That was that. You electrified the place. And they all say, why do we have this goddamned 22nd Amendment? Why couldn’t Bill Clinton just run again and be president for the next 30 years?

CLINTON: Well, we had it for a good reason. There — it’s a hard job being president. And you also have a vast array of people working for you. It worked, I think, well. We — I think we did the right thing to keep President Roosevelt for a third term.

But when he died shortly after being elected to a fourth term, and people didn’t really know a full measure of his health challenges, the 22nd Amendment passed. It’s ironic that the 22nd Amendment passed at a time when people thought the Democrats had a lock on the White House and then it was — then after the last 50 years, the Republicans had it more than the Democrats.

But I think there’s still an argument for saying that eight years, certainly eight years in a row, is enough. You don’t want this — you don’t want to run the risk of sclerosis in a democratic society. You want to keep the blood running. You don’t want to get the idea that any country, particularly not one this big and diverse and important as ours, is dependent on any one person.

You look at a lot of these dictators that have been deposed in the last few years, and the few that are hanging on. Almost all of them at one time were young and idealistic and incredibly capable. And they really meant to do something good. And they just kind of outstayed their welcome. So I love the life I have now.

I like helping the president. I like helping my country. I’m interested in politics, but I like what I’m doing. I think that, on balance, the system we have is better than the no limits.

Maybe someday the rules will be changed so if you can serve two years and lay out and — serve two terms and lay out a term or two, you could run again because for a simple reason, we’re all living so much longer and we’re maintaining the capacity to work and think clearly for a longer period. So some future people might be affected that — by that. It shouldn’t affect me or anybody who’s been president —

MORGAN: We’re trying to change the rules in Britain, actually, because if you can’t be president again here, we’d quite like you to be prime minister in our country. Are you available if it comes to — I get this through?

CLINTON: They — there are only two countries I’m eligible to run for the leadership position is if I move to Ireland and buy a house, I can — I can run for president of Ireland, because of my Irish heritage.

And because I was born in Arkansas, which is part of the Louisiana Purchase, any person anywhere in the world that was born in a place that ever was part of the French empire, if you move to — if you live in France for six months and speak French, you can run for president.


CLINTON: However, I once polled very well in a French presidential race. And I said, you know, this is great, but that’s the best I’d ever do because once they heard my broken French with a Southern accent, I would drop into single digits within a week and I’d be toast. I just don’t think — that’s what I think. I think the system we have may have some opportunity costs.

You know, I was young, perhaps I could have done another term, but I thought Al Gore was going to win and I wanted him to win. I thought he would have been a good president. I still think so. And the thing that’s kept America going is that we’ve trusted the people over the leaders. And I love my life now.

And if I can help my country, I will. But I — we’re organized around institutions, values, restraints on power and people. And it’s worked out pretty well for us for 200 years. We ought not to fool with it too much.

And on another show he verbalized his disdain for the 22nd Amendment — as the worst thing they did — whatever his adjectives were.

Gun control, meet freak central

There is a hint of sarcasm and a dash of satire within.
Funny how…

Only the people who could carry out fast and furious could say they are the people who need to take action on “common sense” gun control.

Only the people who perfected the use of drone assassinations around the world could be trusted to fix the gun problem – as libs refer to it.

Especially the people who allowed four great Americans including an ambassador to be killed in Benghazi without lifting a finger, could say they are interested in protecting Americans: “if we can only save one life, we must act!”

Just one, Joe? What about those four in Benghazi? And they saw that attack as it happened. You can’t even protect an ambassador and the consulate in Libya — after “liberating it” — but you are out to protect Americans at all costs? Where was Biden’s time for action comments on Fast and Furious? You must have missed that one, Joe.

Trust Obama, Biden and the Party that will go to any length to “preserve the right” of a woman to kill her baby, to look out for you and save the lives of children.

And then they’ll have you believe the only thing that stands in their way of saving Americans’ lives is the NRA.

Mark Levin puts their gun control fetish in perspective comparing it with what they did on DDT. Listen here.This is how government works,” he says.


Morgan to the Rescue

I stumbled onto an article about the Piers Morgan freak show. Tip to JTR for a post inspiring the idea. Some left-media are talking about Piers Morgan’s show and they presented a certain view. It got me thinking. It made me wonder about Piers Morgan’s nightly rants on guns. If the left is getting the idea that people are big mouth crazies for supporting gun rights, is that a coincidence? (I don’t get that conclusion, but the left seems to)

The mission and objective:

Isn’t it quite possible that Piers is deliberately trying to –A) paint gun advocates as crazies and to B) project a self-fulfilling narrative that “we can’t have a rational discussion”?

You have Piers daily provoking guests into heated arguments. So Piers Morgan has become the Jerry Springer of gun control. He constructs the narrative to show that they are just trying to have this “discussion” about guns and look what gun advocates are doing. All projection. Of course, it requires you ignore Morgan’s irrational blowouts, rants and character attacks at his guests. That’s no problem for libs or MSM.

Morgan said on Twitter:

“the more we hear from [Jones], the better chance proper U.S. gun control legislation will be passed.”

Now he is trying to tame his rhetoric a little bit. I guess the feedback was not very flattering, even from libs. I really think that is what is going on here. Leave it to the left to choreograph something for political gain.

Piers Morgan on the rampage again

Maybe someone should notify Piers Morgan that the first rule in journalism is not to become the story. Anyway, he hasn’t learned it.

So he brought Alex Jones on to attack because he is leading a petition to get Piers deported. Piers did what he always does, wait till they leave and then call them names,  question their sanity, and do the typical character attack he is so famous for. Yes, but after Jones made a world class azzhole out of him.

When a guy from England wants to rewrite the Constitution, he deserves to be attacked for it. What Piers wants is to spout all his rhetoric without anyone complaining. In fact, he wants accolades for it. And he believes he’s leading a movement as he demonizes the NRA and singles out anyone who supports the 2nd amendment.

So Piers made himself into a victim to promote his anti-gun agenda. Jones used the worrd red coat, which is about the best thing you can call Piers. Who does he think he is?

Guns front and center… Fast and Furious, fuhgeddaboudit

Texas YNN
Obama returns to the podium in the briefing room again. But he should have issued some strict rules and guidelines. It set off a firestorm of reaction following his speech, when off topic questions invaded the press conference.

It is a little hard to swallow Obama’s passion on the issue as ‘gun-runner in chief’. He thwarted, stonewalled, and blocked inquiries into Fast and Furious using executive privilege, now his priority is gun control. This was his third speech about it — gun control. Contradiction never occurred to him, nor does hypocrisy.

Then gun control advocates were frustrated when questions after were about fiscal cliff negotiations. Reporters were even called on to justify their fiscal cliff questions in view of the presidents remarks limited to gun and violence issues. They had to explain the rationale for their questions about the looming debacle.

But when did he make a national speech or commission about violence and murders, many of them children, in Chicago? He didn’t. Oh the president is the only one that can create a task force and then say “this is not a commission”. Does it matter what you call it? He promises it will not stretch out for months and inaction, you know, like Fast and Furious.

Just because the nation is headed for a fiscal cliff in a few weeks, with stalled negotiations, does not mean anyone should be asking about that subject. Nah. Piers Morgan led a charge of gun control advocates against the ofenders. That prompted statements today from reporters to justify their questions.

Gun running to Mexico can’t even be questioned or discussed. And there is no media firestorm about it. That was only “a manufactured scandal”. Obama has no time for such nonsense. He suggests the gun control should not be political and dragged out while they made Fast and Furious partisan ordeal, dragging the Dems for how many months now? They deny public outcry about it. They politicized the Newtown massacre from day one.

But read Obama’s lips, this is no commission on guns….even if it promisses to be a commission on guns. And let’s put that partisan hack, Baretta Biden, in charge of it.

Photo credit: http://austin.ynn.com/content/local_news/289711/president-pushes-reformed-gun-control–talks-fiscal-cliff

Deepak Chopra calls for gun control

 The guru of healing called for gun control post shooting.

We have no need for guns in a civilized society, according to Deepak Chopra, he told Piers Morgan Monday,  in the wake of this shooting in a Sikh temple in Milwaukee.  
On the twitter he got  some feedback after calling for gun control for this tweet Sunday after the shooting, which touched off a flurry.

Temple shooting in Wisconsin once again highlights the madness of no gun control in the USA

12:20 pm / Aug 5
Deepak Chopra

Guns do not belong in a civil society

Aug 5


I’m sorry that my comment on guns not belonging in a civil society generated so much violent & uncivil language on my twitter feed.

Deepak Chopra


Those who lose their temper when debating gun control should not be allowed to have guns.

Deepak Chopra


Violence is the shadow energy of shame & impotence

7:44 pm/ Aug 5



The only use of a gun is to kill


People who respond to opinions on gun control with comments of racism, prejudice, bigotry, hatred,hostility & fear should not own guns.


 Later on Monday night he talked to Piers Morgan  (via twitter)

“These people are the very people who should not be owning guns,” says @DeepakChopra on those enraged by his @twitter feed.


“I think President offers hope, stability, and compassion, but he needs to take a stand on gun control!” @DeepakChopra