Piers Morgan serves hypocrisy piping hot and delicious

Rick Moran
I can't write this without giggling like a 12 year old school girl. As all of you know, CNN's Piers Morgan has been on a gun grabbing crusade since the tragedy at Sandy Hook. He has shamlessly stood atop the dead bodies of little children to make a political cause out of gun control. And he has done it with the most extraordinary sanctimony and moral preening imaginable.

Now comes the case of the rogue LA police officer, Chris Dorner, whose obscene "manifesto" praises media elites, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, gun control efforts - and Piers Morgan.

Jim Treacher:

Apparently it's different this time, for some reason. Jared Loughner never so much as uttered Sarah Palin's name before his shooting spree, whereas Dorner specifically praised Morgan. Yet Morgan bears none of the responsibility he placed on Palin.

Odd, innit?

Allahpundit:

The left, needless to say, is blameless for Dorner's actions. Also needless to say, if his manifesto had extolled gun rights and called Obama "a vile and inhumane piece of sh*t" instead of Wayne LaPierre, this would be a five-alarm media inferno floating on a sea of sweaty rhetoric about The Conservative Movement turning to madness over gun control. The goal, as it was with Palin and as it always, always, always is in a situation like this, would be to cow law-abiding people on the right into softening their opposition to liberal policies or else be accused of complicity in some random crank's bloodletting. It's just a nastier version of Obama bringing kids up onstage when he signed those executive memos on guns last month: Instead of O implicitly accusing conservatives of being accomplices to murder, the immediate aftermath of a prominent act of violence tends to bring accusations that are more explicit. But when, as today, the facts don't lend themselves easily to a "right-wing apocalypse" narrative, then suddenly all of the grander meaning in the killer's political sympathies melts away. The double standard has become so obvious and so grotesque that I doubt most media liberals would even deny it anymore when challenged on it. It's unmistakable and indefensible and they know it.

And what is Morgan's response? He tweets:

The LA cop-killer murder spree has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with deranged criminality. I hope they catch him asap.

My first reaction was to giggle. It really is kind of funny that someone lacks any self-awareness at all. We have to call it hypocrisy because there's no other way to describe it, but what's jaw droppingly shocking is that Morgan is so blithely unaware of it - clueless, totally.

I will excerpt a bit of Ace's post, deserving to be read in its entirety.

This is the underlying assumption that they simply will not confess, for if they did confess it, it would be game over for them. All of their conclusions -- all of their bias, all of their double-standards -- flow from this premise, which they will not admit, but will only dance around.

The premise is simply that liberal speech is much more valuable than conservative speech and this is of course because liberal politics are much more valuable than conservative ones.

Once you accept this premise -- liberal speech is high value, conservative speech is very low value -- then you can see that all the conclusions make logical sense (although the syllogism remains invalid, as it's based on a false premise).

Of course there is distinction between how we treat liberal and conservative speech -- just as there is distinction between how we treat jewels and how we treat human waste! One is precious and one is refuse; of course the two are treated differently!

Of course, having vastly different levels of value, one might be worth a certain toll in human lives, and of course the other one would not be!

They won't say this.

But this is our fault -- because we don't ask them.

If we asked them, they would say it was a "trap" and wouldn't answer. Just like asking a liberal about limits on the Constitution - they clam up and accuse you of trying to trick them.

All we can do is, in our own small way, point to their hypocrisy and call them out for it. It won't shame them. But it will let them know that they aren't fooling anybody.





I can't write this without giggling like a 12 year old school girl. As all of you know, CNN's Piers Morgan has been on a gun grabbing crusade since the tragedy at Sandy Hook. He has shamlessly stood atop the dead bodies of little children to make a political cause out of gun control. And he has done it with the most extraordinary sanctimony and moral preening imaginable.

Now comes the case of the rogue LA police officer, Chris Dorner, whose obscene "manifesto" praises media elites, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, gun control efforts - and Piers Morgan.

Jim Treacher:

Apparently it's different this time, for some reason. Jared Loughner never so much as uttered Sarah Palin's name before his shooting spree, whereas Dorner specifically praised Morgan. Yet Morgan bears none of the responsibility he placed on Palin.

Odd, innit?

Allahpundit:

The left, needless to say, is blameless for Dorner's actions. Also needless to say, if his manifesto had extolled gun rights and called Obama "a vile and inhumane piece of sh*t" instead of Wayne LaPierre, this would be a five-alarm media inferno floating on a sea of sweaty rhetoric about The Conservative Movement turning to madness over gun control. The goal, as it was with Palin and as it always, always, always is in a situation like this, would be to cow law-abiding people on the right into softening their opposition to liberal policies or else be accused of complicity in some random crank's bloodletting. It's just a nastier version of Obama bringing kids up onstage when he signed those executive memos on guns last month: Instead of O implicitly accusing conservatives of being accomplices to murder, the immediate aftermath of a prominent act of violence tends to bring accusations that are more explicit. But when, as today, the facts don't lend themselves easily to a "right-wing apocalypse" narrative, then suddenly all of the grander meaning in the killer's political sympathies melts away. The double standard has become so obvious and so grotesque that I doubt most media liberals would even deny it anymore when challenged on it. It's unmistakable and indefensible and they know it.

And what is Morgan's response? He tweets:

The LA cop-killer murder spree has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with deranged criminality. I hope they catch him asap.

My first reaction was to giggle. It really is kind of funny that someone lacks any self-awareness at all. We have to call it hypocrisy because there's no other way to describe it, but what's jaw droppingly shocking is that Morgan is so blithely unaware of it - clueless, totally.

I will excerpt a bit of Ace's post, deserving to be read in its entirety.

This is the underlying assumption that they simply will not confess, for if they did confess it, it would be game over for them. All of their conclusions -- all of their bias, all of their double-standards -- flow from this premise, which they will not admit, but will only dance around.

The premise is simply that liberal speech is much more valuable than conservative speech and this is of course because liberal politics are much more valuable than conservative ones.

Once you accept this premise -- liberal speech is high value, conservative speech is very low value -- then you can see that all the conclusions make logical sense (although the syllogism remains invalid, as it's based on a false premise).

Of course there is distinction between how we treat liberal and conservative speech -- just as there is distinction between how we treat jewels and how we treat human waste! One is precious and one is refuse; of course the two are treated differently!

Of course, having vastly different levels of value, one might be worth a certain toll in human lives, and of course the other one would not be!

They won't say this.

But this is our fault -- because we don't ask them.

If we asked them, they would say it was a "trap" and wouldn't answer. Just like asking a liberal about limits on the Constitution - they clam up and accuse you of trying to trick them.

All we can do is, in our own small way, point to their hypocrisy and call them out for it. It won't shame them. But it will let them know that they aren't fooling anybody.