Category Archives: Free Speech

The Peerless Malevolence of Redcoat Piers Morgan

Christianity, Constitution, Founding Fathers, Free Speech, GUNS, Hebrew Testament, Individual Rights, libertarianism, Natural Law, Private Property, Taxation

Below is an excerpt from the current weekly column, “The Peerless Malevolence of Redcoat Piers Morgan,” now on RT (“hoplophobic” in the tagline is courtesy of the editor—I had never heard that word before today. Very cool):

“Piers Morgan is preaching treason from his perch at CNN—and not because he is undermining the dead-letter US Constitution, as some have claimed.

Most people would define treason as a betrayal of one’s country or sovereign. In my book, the book of natural law, treason is properly defined as a betrayal of one’s countrymen—and, in particular, the betrayal of the individual’s right to life, liberty and property. (To your question, yes, this renders almost all politicians traitors by definition.)

A right that can’t be defended is a right in name only. If you cannot by law defend your life, you have no right to life. If you cannot defend your property, you have no right of private property. And if you cannot defend your liberty, you are not a free man.

It follows that inherent in the idea of an inalienable right is the right to mount a vigorous defense of the same rights.

Knowing full well that a mere ban on assault rifles would not give him the result he craved, our redcoat turncoat has structured his monocausal appeals against the individual’s right to bear arms as follows:

1) The UK once experienced Sandy-Hook like massacres.
2) We Brits banned all guns, pistols too.
3) There were no more such massacres.

… This week, the CNN host will be fulminating over the shortfalls of 23 new imperial orders against firearm owners and in furtherance of federal tyranny. Piers believes the president’s extra-constitutional diktats don’t go far enough to void what’s left of the Constitutional scheme (to say nothing of the Hippocratic Oath. The Dear Leader has decreed that, “Doctors and other health care providers … need to be able to ask about firearms in their patients’ homes and safe storage of those firearms”).

Last year, an admirably rebellious Egyptian people revolted against President Mohamed Morsy for issuing a single executive order. America’s “King Tut” issued 23 such directives in one day! But—and by contrast—Piers thinks nothing of this “attempt by the [US] executive to make laws in violation of the Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution” …

… Read the complete column, “The Peerless Malevolence of Redcoat Piers Morgan,” now on RT.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION, AND DO BATTLE FOR LIBERTY BY:

• Using the content-sharing icons on Barely a Blog posts.

• At the WND and RT Comments Sections, and on Facebook.

• By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” WND’s “Return To Reason” , and RT’s “Paleolibertarian Column.”

Privacy For Some Gun Owners (State Workers), But Not For Others (The People)

Constitution, Federalism, Free Speech, GUNS, Individual Rights, Journalism, Media, States' Rights

It’s old news that will not be getting old anytime soon. A shitty rag, The Journal News, published “an interactive map containing the names and addresses of pistol-permit holders in New York’s Westchester and Putnam counties.”

In response, there has been a great deal of special pleading from conservative quarters. A lot of the gun owners whose names and addresses were mapped are “first responders,” conservatives have been lamenting. “We can’t expose our [sainted] first responders to any dangers.”

The Bill or Rights was meant to protect individuals against the state. It defends the people from the government; not the obverse. But trust conservatives to elevate the “oink sector,” in the debate over the right of gun owners to privacy.

If anything, “first responders,” and other members of the oink sector—having sold their souls to the state—need to accept the risks that go with exercising ultimate decision-making powers in society, to use Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s term.

Government workers–the special interests—are expected to live with the risk of the job. They accept the perks and the pensions, don’t they?

I’m reminded here of the special pleading the same Fox News folks made in the case of the Transportation Security Administration’s illicit searches at the airports.

On Mr. Hannity’s Great American Panel, Noel Nikpour, a tedious Republican strategists who talks up a storm on that forum, extended her exquisite understanding of individual rights to … people like herself and her co-panelists. You know, important sorts who fly a lot; they ought to be able to acquire a permit that’ll exempt them from being screened afresh [by TSA goons] as they scurry to their important appointments.

This evening, Sean Hannity provided a forum for some very impressive gun owners, all of whom had been “outed” by the The Journal News. These were highly intelligent people, more than capable of articulating the essence of the freedoms they were exercising.

Still, sympathy is all “conservatives” like Mr. Hannity are able to offer to these exposed individuals. Sympathy and an appeal to the decency of the media (laughable, I know).

Republicans have no leg to stand on in objecting to the publication of gun-owner addresses, as they argue from the positive law. And the positive law, defended by all so-called “reasonable” conservatives, compels all law-abiding individuals to register with the state when purchasing a fire arm. (To this registration, libertarians like myself would object.)

Information thus collated and centralized is accessible to all.

An appeal to the sympathy and decency of the liberal establishment: That’s all statist “conservatives” have to offer in the case of The Journal News Vs. the gun owners of Westchester and Putnam counties.

Piers Morgan Preaching Treason From Perch @ CNN (Pinko Pukes Abound Among Foxettes)

Britain, Celebrity, Constitution, Free Speech, GUNS, IMMIGRATION, Individual Rights, libertarianism, Liberty, Media, Natural Law, Political Philosophy, Private Property, Propaganda

From where I’m perched, Piers Morgan is guilty of preaching treason from his perch @ CNN—and not because he is devoting his time to undermining the US Constitution. For “all vestiges of natural justice in the Constitution lie buried under the rubble of legislation and statute.” Rather, Piers is a traitor for using his perch at CNN to advocate against the people’s natural right to defend their sacred lives.

More crucially, Piers is not guilty of preaching treason for preaching against the government, or the dead-letter Constitution. The more men so preach, be it on the left or the right—the merrier. Treason, in my book, is an act against The People’s natural rights to life, liberty and property (later today I will explain to the perplexed why the right of self-defense is an extension and a prerequisite of the right to life).

What Piers is doing is preaching treason against The People.

But is not the agitation for the violation of individual rights an act of free speech? In libertarian law—the only universally just law—there is no free speech without private property. You can’t deliver a disquisition in my living room without my explicit permission, as owner of the abode. But from your property, you may preach whatever is in your heart: hate, love, violence, etc.

Is Piers preaching treason from private property (CNN)? Probably. Is asking for his deportation, as some Americans are, a use of force, or just an exercise of free speech, to counter Piers’ true hate speech? Is deportation a use of force? Besides being a royal pillock, Piers Morgan is an immigrant from the UK.

You can see why the penalty some of our countrymen seek for Piers may be disputed by libertarains.

Ultimately, what Morgan is doing is reprehensible. The man disgusts me.

On a positive note: I started this blog yesterday, prompted by the site of the pillock Piers’ blockhead on my TV screen, interviewing a retarded PhD from “the crap country of Britain.”

Much to my delight, my husband sent me a petition calling for Piers’ deportation on the White House’s publicly supported website. It’s worse than useless, and may be disputed in libertarian law, but it warms the cockles of this heart.

UPDATE (Dec. 24): “Oh, how we suffer for the female suffrage! I once vowed to ‘give up my vote if that would guarantee that all women were denied the vote.'”

There is no shortage of pinko pukes on Fox News, especially among the women folk. “Anyone who wants a gun must go through state training and a certification process over a number of months,” writes Elizabeth MacDonald (whom I quite liked), “if not a year, similar to what police officers go through. That process would include a deep-dive background check. All gun sales or exchanges must be registered with states and towns.”

Megyn Kelly and her cretinous colleagues (I guess viewers were meant to focus on Kelly’s stripy bottom. The rest of the segment was senseless):

Lead me to the vomitorium.

Nagging Begot The Nanny State On Steroids

Affirmative Action, Feminism, Free Speech, Gender, Labor, Welfare

At the not-so-new news that “more men in this country are opting out of the workforce and signing onto government entitlements,” Gerri Willis (whom I like) asks: “Where are all the good men?”

Let me attempt to reply.

For the sake of argument, let’s presume that all things are equal between men and women in our state-commanded labor force—also the faulty premise shared by those who comment on the lackluster performance of men in this economy. (“You Go Girl” gloat the pundits, left and right.)

Let us pretend along with the rest that women have not benefited from decades of fem affirmative action in government and big-business bureaucracies.

Notwithstanding legislation that privileges women, the wholesale feminization of American society comes at a price, especially to men.

Ours is a soft society. The women folk have molded men in their image. And what an awful image it is. Too many American men, like their women, don’t shut about their (invariably shallow) feelings, worship Oprah and watch chick flicks with equal zeal, deify and mollycoddle their solipsistic, badly behaved kids, become parasitical social activists (rather than mountaineers or entrepreneurs), cry on cue, and broadcast their (usually barren) inner-lives to the world.

For the purpose of a purchase I was making for him, I described my husband to a more traditional American woman. And she asked: “Where did you find this guy?” Although we were not discussing men qua men, I realized that what I had described was normal to me, but not to her.

“Oh,” I explained, “he isn’t North American. He’s an old-school WASP from South Africa.”

This type was raised (by like-minded parents) to keep a stiffer upper lip, dutifully assume his role as a man (in other words, get things done), and be both individualistic and self-sufficient to a fault. I joke that my husband doesn’t believe in the division of labor; he thinks he should do everyone else’s job. (A nerd’s joke, because to free marketeers like us, the division of labor is sacred.)

Men, however feminized, need moral instruction and manly role models. This a hierarchical, traditional society provides. The collapse of the work ethic among so many of America’s men is no doubt related to the progressive, matriarchal society rising.

American women didn’t like their WASPs (they’re not getting mine), so they molded the men into women, albeit with a preponderance of testosterone.

Nagging begot the Nanny State on Steroids.