Reminding Alex Jones sympathizers about first amendment rights

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Is PM even a citzen?

I just have a problem when anyone comes here from another country and tries to turn THIS one into the one they saw fit to leave.

I don't care if it is PM or the Muslim daddy killing his daughter for honor.
I don't like it.




posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Didn't the government try to run John Lennon out for some of the things he said?


Seriously though, I always thought that whole petition was stupid. Piers has a right to speak his mind. I just wish he wasn't on t.v. using his right to try to strip away another right.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by hadriana
 


No he isn't a citizen...as he says after 4 mins : www.examiner.com...

he doesn't even have a horse in the race because he is British.

ok then why is his agenda then to cause intense questioning of the Constitution which was written by founders of a country that were avoiding HIS country as HE is doing. Why is he now enjoying the luxury of being in a free country so much that he is comfortable in biting the hand that feeds him. He, like many, want to sit back and enjoy the fundemental rights but ignore the fact that MANY have died in the creation and the continued defense of such freedoms.

If he enjoys being in a gun-free zone....he is free to move to many of the numerous countries that disallow them, including his country of birth.

A good article:Long Walks, Short Piers

The media's attacks on the Second Amendment--and on the First.


By JAMES TARANTO
www.xoxohth.com...

"Piers Morgan does not admire the U.S. Constitution.



That overstates our case. Ernest Mandel, the Belgian in the 1972 case, was denied his visa under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that applied to advocates of "the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism." As far as we know, there's no statutory basis for excluding Morgan. Our point was simply that the First Amendment wouldn't preclude it. As Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in Mandel: "The Court without exception has sustained Congress' 'plenary power to make rules for the admission of aliens and to exclude those who possess those characteristics which Congress has forbidden.' "


That power is inherent in national sovereignty, as any well-informed Englishman should know. The BBC reported in 2009 that Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, as intemperate a critic of Islam as Morgan is of the American Constitution, was denied entry to the United Kingdom because its government disapproved of his viewpoint. Wilders had been invited to screen a controversial film--ironically at the House of Lords, the British legislative body roughly analogous to the U.S. Senate. (As London's Guardian reported, Wilders was admitted and held the screening, more than a year later.)

cont...
edit on 14-1-2013 by dianashay because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by FuZe7
 





This is a dumb thread.
The first amendment prohibits the government from limiting free speech, it doesn't apply to citizens.

We're exercising our first amendment rights to protest the garbage Morgan is spewing, and let CNN know we're not interested.


And what exactly is a petition to have the man deported, if not an attempt to remove his right? Free speech applies to anyone who's in the US legally, he's protected under that. Just like you are protected if you so choose to boycott him. But you do not have the right to demand the government silence him.

You have every right to go stand outside CNN's head offices with bullhorns AJ style and protest, demanding they remove him from the air. That's your right. It's their right to laugh at you and give him a better time slot. It's his right to go on there and say whatever opinion he happens to have, or has been fed.

so lets just take a minute and be realistic about this folks....

What if someone started a petition to have AJ deported, silenced, banned from the airwaves, because he poses a clear and present danger in regards to his followers and his ability to incite them.

No, of course not right, because AJ has the right to say whatever he wants, and we all have the right not to listen, but once you try to bring the government in to silence someone you don't like, you've become the exact tyranny you purport to be fighting against.

This circular logic is just pure insanity.
===
ETA for the clueless:

A citizen, resident, or visitor, petitioning the government for ANYTHING is not an act of treason. Google the damn word, and feel free to post the definition all over infowars. If your government decided to act on this petition, the end result being something treasonous, the elected or appointed officials who passed it would be the ones guilty of treason.

Honestly, you aren't doing yourselves any favors tossing around terms you clearly don't understand.
edit on 14-1-2013 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by dianashay
 





"Piers Morgan does not admire the U.S. Constitution.


Clearly neither does Alex Jones, as evidenced by his petition to have the government deport Pierce because of his views on gun control. The guy is a douche, but he's doing a job, just like Bill O'Reilly. Why are these guys able to pull in such good ratings and media coverage?

Because they say stuff to make people react. Pierce is on there to paint the "left" as a bunch of gun grabbing self riotous idiots. AJ and Bill O are around to make the "right" look like a bunch of unbalanced gun crazy bullies. (neither of which are representative of the whole)

Zap back a few years and AJ was talking about the false left / right paradigm, yet, you've all followed him right back into it. the whole time, most of you knowing both sides are working the same agenda, you still fall for it.

So now you direct your anger at Morgan, a TV talking head who is in the grand scheme of things, meaningless. And others direct their anger at AJ, who is the other side of the coin.

I have to say this, at least I haven't seen Pierce claim to be honest about anything, I haven't seen him claim to be upholding some grand principle of freedom fighting against tyranny. He's paid to say something, he says it, lather rise repeat.

In fact, it brings us right back to AJ again, before the left / right deal.

Problem, reaction, solution.

Logistically, your government couldn't even pretend to hope to "take your guns", it's something that is pure fantasy and simply couldn't work in the United States. The best they could hope for is restrictions on certain types, from a point of law passage moving onwards, probably with some type of amnesty or grand fathered in clause.

But, it sure does get people riled up thinking they are gonna take their guns.

So they create the problem:
"We're taking your guns"

So get the reaction:
"1776!!! REVOLUTION!!!"

To provide the solution:
"Welcome to the full police state"


edit on 14-1-2013 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-1-2013 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
Hmmm...I'm an Alex Jones "sympathizer".

Piers Morgan is an obnoxious twit with a habit of being condescending and snippy.

However, I disagreed with the petition to have Mr. Morgan deported. He can say whatever he wants, same as Mr. Jones. In the case of him saying certain things on national TV, I as a viewer have a right to express my displeasure to CNN.

I also have the option to NOT watch Piers Morgan on television, and I choose to exercise that right.

I did think the petiton to deport Mr. Snippy-Britches was kind of silly, and I did not support it. Piers can stand in Times Square butt nekkid while he steps on the flag and burns the a copy of constitution for all I care. He's just a ratings whore. I won't be watching him.

People like him tend to dry up and blow away as soon as enough people get tired of his attitude and realize his only talent is to provoke negative responses.



geez, one could say the same thing about rush limbaugh...except rush broadcasts for 3 hours a day, takes no callers, and makes 30 million dollars a year



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
i didn't think Alex Jones interview on CNN was disastrous. but people with their own opinions can make threads sooooo yeah



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


PM is wanted in England for crimes.... Why is he not being expedited. 1st Amendment does not protect foreign criminals who are wanted in their home countries.

These days the label Terrorist has a broad reaching implications. Anyone who slams the Constitution and disrespects it IMHO is a terrorist. If Englanders do not want him back to Englanderville may I suggest the proper place for America's Terrorist (as recommended by Homeland Security) Gitmo Bay....

Just my thoughts.... yes he has freedom of the speech but as we have seen a couple who tweeted that they were coming to America to Destroy it meaning they were going to drink themselves silly were deported for that Tweet it is clear that the 1st Amendment has been overruled by Homeland Security. I feel PM was not joking as the couple who were deported were.....



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by IceHappy
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


PM is wanted in England for crimes....


Source? And what does this have to do with him being deported because of his views?



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Perhaps he should read this form again that he must have signed upon applying for his Visa to be employed by CNN: www.immihelp.com...

even to be elligible www.immihelp.com... one must be of "good moral character, ,,,,...........; 'and attachment to the Constitution'. Therefore since The Constitution seems to irk PM and him an 'it' don't seem to get along he surely can be ousted. *IMPORTANT: also see the examples that may demonstrat lack of moral character under the section wording: "Persecution of another because of their race, religion...etc etc and 'political opinion or social group'.

see further Attachment to the Constitution definition: 'must support and defend the Constitution and the laws'.

and now I got him even further:

www.law.cornell.edu...

" Fourth, applicants must show a basic acceptance for the United States' form of government, which is typically referred to as "attachment" to the Constitution. An attachment to the Constitution means that the applicant will not try to effect political change through violence or infringe upon the rights and liberties of other U.S. citizens. The Bureau may disqualify applicants with histories that affiliate them with the Communist Party and other authoritarian regimes."

Therefore he has demonstrated PUBLICLY and broken the rules of his Naturalization process. Where is his immigration officer? If he were any other guy causing trouble on a Constitutional scale they would be gone.

..what is next for him?? since one of his kids was born on US soil will he used her as an 'anchor baby'? lol
edit on 14-1-2013 by dianashay because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-1-2013 by dianashay because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


In 1972 A supreme court justice refused the entry into the USA of a reported. When the reported cited the first amendment right the judge countered with your speech is protected but not your presence! Get your facts straight before you rant about the bill of rights. Its people like you that will stand around dumbfounded when your 2nd amendment right is infringed!



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
I already posted a link about that situation of the reporter Ernest Mandel www.xoxohth.com...

The case: bulk.resource.org...

"This action was brought to compel the Attorney General to grant a temporary nonimmigrant visa to a Belgian journalist and Marxian theoretician whom the American plaintiff-appellees had invited to participate in academic conferences and discussions in this country. The alien had been found ineligible for admission under §§ 212(a)(28)(D) and (G)(v) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, barring those who advocate or publish 'the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism.'


'Section 212(a). Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the following classes of aliens shall be ineligible to receive visas and shall be excluded from admission into the United States:

6
'(28) Aliens who are, or at any time have been, members of any of the following classes:

7
'(D) Aliens not within any of the other provisions of this paragraph who advocate the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship . . ..

'(G) Aliens who write or publish . . . (v) the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship; . . .

FURTHER:

The Department of State in fact had recommended to the Attorney General that Mandel's ineligibility be waived with respect to his October visa application. The Immigration and Naturalization Service, however, acting on behalf of the Attorney General, see 28 U.S.C. § 510, in a letter dated February 13, 1970, to New York counsel stated that it had determined that Mandel's 1968 activities while in the United States 'went far beyond the stated purposes of his trip, on the basis of which his admission had been authorized and represented a flagrant abuse of the opportunities afforded him to express his views in this country.'New York counsel stated that it had determined that Mandel's 1968 activities while in the United States 'went far beyond the stated purposes of his trip, on the basis of which his admission had been authorized and represented a flagrant abuse of the opportunities afforded him to express his views in this country The letter concluded that favorable exercise of discretion, provided for under the Act, was not warranted and that Mandel's temporary admission was not authorized.

Piers has abused his opportunities while allow him to express his views also.

It is likely written on his immigration papers that his purpose here is entertainer/journalst...NOT an advocate of Constitutional disruption.

Therefore he has committed fraud and liable to charges.
edit on 14-1-2013 by dianashay because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Not sure if 1st amendment applies to non-citizens.

But, regardless, making snide commentary about our founding document is what did it for me. I don't care if he is a gun hater or whatever. What I do care about is that a guest in my homeland showed a distinct disdain for the rule of law in my country.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 


Non citizens and immigrants not yet finished the processing waiting time are covered by the Constitution and Bill of rights but there are allowances to remove those who are sh***t disturbers...and he is one, lets use em folks, they are there for a reason (perhaps they knew it would even be a Brit).



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ShaeTheShaman
 


Nah dude.. it was a disaster.
Piers had him from question 1. The first one!

PM: Why do you think I should be deported?

AJ: Yaketysmacghettyseventeenseventysixblahblahblah (inner monologue: man if I don't stop yelling he's gonna mention the first amendment and I will look as dumb then as I look crazy now).





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join