15 votes

Politico Exclusive: Piers Morgan On Alex Jones

CNN host Piers Morgan just called to discuss his interview last night with Alex Jones, the conservative radio host and gun advocate who went on a tirade against Morgan, gun control legislation, and a litany of government conspiracies.

"He was the best advertisement for gun control you could wish for," Morgan told POLITICO.

"That kind of vitriol, hatred, and zealotry is really quite scary. I didn't feel threatened by him, but I'm concerned that someone like him has that level of influence," Morgan said. "There's got to be a level of discourse that can rise above what happened last night. It was undignified, unedifying."

In what Morgan described as a "big, long rant," Jones -- the man who started the White House petition to deport Morgan -- shouted questions about gun control legislation, gave premonitions of a 1776-like rebellion, and pronounced conspiracy theories -- including his belief that 9/11 was an inside job -- while Morgan tried calmly and in vain to conduct a civil interview.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/01/exclusive-piers-...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It was great to see Piers...

get a taste of his own medicine. Though Alex came off looking like a kook in the interview, I have to commend him for being the one & only person I've seen that could shut Piers up!

Piers Morgan should be

Piers Morgan should be investigated by the FBI for attacking our Constitution. Why did CNN hire him in the first place? Is he a foreign subversive hired to undermine our Constitution? If an American citizen did what Piers is doing, the citizen would be at the top of the FBI's list as a possible domestic terrorist -- no doubt he would be under 24 hour surveillance.

The problem with Alex Jones is:

He can't stay on topic, even when he is talking into a mic by himself on his own show. I can't listen to the guy. I will say that I've learned a few things from him, by reading articles and seeing him here or there on the net. So I have some level of respect for him. But I watched about 2 mins of the Piers Morgan interview and he come accross as simply insane... Especially to the lay person who watches CNN. I had to turn it off knowing it did nothing but harm to the future of the second amendment. Alex needs to slow down and act like an adult in these interviews. It's impossible to get a point across to someone by simply saying it louder and faster. Stay calm, collected, rational, and logical. Beat them with your intelect. Even your advesaries deserve that courtesy.

They ignore, they laugh, they fight, we win.

George Washington Says:

George Washington January 7, 1790:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable.

The very atmosphere of firearms "EVERYWHERE" restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's GOOD."

American Patriot Party.CC - Get Educated.

Tired of being deceived? - Visit us! - We know Freedom.
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/

http://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nati...

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

*Bang Bang* Open up! It's the Quote Police!

You sir are under arrest!

Just kidding man, but as someone that works on a Revolutionary War battlefield, you should know that that quote is bogus as described here: http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/general/BogusFounderQuotes.htm

However, for some great true quotes about firearms from the Founders I'd check out Gun Cite: http://www.guncite.com/

"Liberty's too precious a thing to be buried in books...Men should hold it up in front of them every single day of their lives and say: 'I'm free to think and to speak. My ancestors couldn't. I can. And my children will."

-Jimmy Stewart

Sure Morgans analysis is

Sure Morgans analysis is only slightly off... but AJ is a radical and I love a radical when I see one

I love AJ...

...but find him most persuasive when he dials back the volume and paces himself.

His mistake was to agree to enter an arena that he knows is rigged. He knew that they could pull the plug at any moment, and probably would given his responses. That, in turn, impelled him to take a shotgun blast approach just to get as much info out as possible before they did pull the plug, which made him appear manic and unhinged to the uninitiated.

I could have done without the mocking British accent at the end, but I also know that there is a significant portion of our countrymen who are more responsive to WWF-style antics than sober, intellectual exchange. That is the reality of our popular culture. As such, Alex's visceral reactions and "Larry the Cable Guy" (as one poster likened him to) antics might actually reach more of our fellow citizens with the message of liberty than the measured and polite exchanges favored by those of us who are more cerebral.

One thing about AJ's performance -- it put the effete East Coast elites on notice that there are regions of this country that consider their assault on the 2nd Amendment as a virtual declaration of war against our Constitutional Republic. At least now they can't say that they had not been warned, and it might back them away from the precipice of inadvertently setting off a second civil war.

No.7's picture

He knew what he was getting into

That's why he started with an uppercut to the new world order globalists and dropped like 20 truth bombs on CNN in 7 minutes. It was awesome!

To sum up AJ's rand "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS"

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

Alex Jones

Everyone stop with all the negative comments. Alex took everyone watching by the collar and shook them up. When I heard Alex for the first time I could not believe what I was hearing. I said to myself I have to find out who this guy is and what he is all about. I had never heard him before and he woke me up. He woke up a lot of people last night. Everyone has their own style.

"I am concerned someone like him has that level of influence"

so Morgan uses the second amendment to hop to the first amendment now?

I say AJ destroyed them all last night no matter the pontificating. If America draws straws about who is right then they were two sheets to the wind long ago... fuhk em, they're not real Americans to begin with then. most likely asking "who is the bad one" to their families sitting around the ole tele.

Whether you think you can or you can't, you're right. -Henry Ford

Hey!

That's the same way most aware Ron Paul supporters felt about ”controlled opposition” AJ's ” scheduled psyop last night.

He fails the 9/11 litmus test
He constantly acts possessed when he's got the most exposure.
He is not what he appears to be.

Time to distance ourselves from his ”operation”.

I would bet money that somewhere in some government office, there is a dossier that explains who he really works for.

"If this mischievous financial policy [greenbacks], which has its origin in North America, should become endurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debts. It will hav

You might be right

Mr. Danger I have considered this option. For anyone who has thoroughly pondered our present disposition you must have come across the idea that AJ is, in fact, an insider.

Unfortunately we have no evidence of this other than his continued presence. On the other hand, AJ has spent years and years compiling evidence for us and rallying together those of us who are of the same mindset. I hope that, if there is such evidence, that it would surface but I have not heard of it nor seen it nor heard any rumors of it beyond simple possibility.

Yes participation with this program implicates us in the anti-NWO scheme but "live free or die" is the motto that will see us through all of this. Survival to the other end is possible but then we are just as guilty as the masters for crimes committed against humanity simply by acquiescence of the situation. I would prefer to wash the blood from my hands for being born in this place than to let it remain whilst I formulate a strategy of how to profit the most from it.

"The only necessity for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Talk is cheap, action is required here.

Who he really works for?

Alex Jones Inc. that's who.

fails the 9/11 litmus test?

Excuse me? I don't even know what that's supposed to mean, other than non-sense.

I am a fan of Jones and I do think he screwed the pooch last night. His righteous indignation with Morgan started off good and some of that NEEDS to be shown--like many comments below say. Just like the movie "Network" ... where the dude says "I want you to get PISSED OFF". We need to get PISSED OFF and show these a-holes at all levels of the establishment this is the Rubicon and you're NOT crossing it. So, I say he started off well. BUT he should have just backed off. He should have had a much more civil "debate" during the 2nd segment -AND- he should not have taken the bait that Morgan threw him about 9/11. He should have just said "we're here to talk about the 2nd amendment, we can talk about 9/11 when you bring me back..." or some such thing.

So ...... started off strong, but screwed the pooch ultimately I think. And no, I don't think Alex Jones is a "dis-info agent." He may be a @#$*-up in people's eyes, attention whore, whatever you want to call him, but disinfo agent ...... no ..........

you

Feel the same way about AJ that many feel about government. As in, they're incompetent, but they really really do have our best interests at heart. They'd NEVER do anything to harm us...really!

"If this mischievous financial policy [greenbacks], which has its origin in North America, should become endurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debts. It will hav

Re: you

This cause will have many that speak up - and do so in their own way, with strengths and weaknesses both - and ALL of those individuals will bring people in, and wake them up, because we are all different and resonate with different approaches. Is Alex for everyone? No. Has he performed an important role for many? Yes.

I agree with Daniel James Sanchez: "People may say Alex Jones was over the top, but I disagree. Bootlicking tools like Piers Morgan need to be called out to their face for exactly what they are. The fact that Jones did that to both Morgan and the TSA on the SAME day makes him a bad-ass and a freaking hero.

Alex wasn't hysterical. He was passionate and talking fast and forcefully to make the most of the opportunity. As for rudeness, manners are context-specific. In a private conversation, that certainly would have been rude. But, given that Morgan is using his enormous platform to help disarm a whole country, calling him out in the strongest, most frank terms cannot be considered rude.

As much as Morgan represents the establishment elite, Jones was representing tens of thousands of ordinary Americans in this televised exchange. By saying, in no uncertain terms, 'NO WAY' to Morgan, he effectively said that to the establishment itself for us. Any members of the power elite who watch this exchange may get the message that Americans are serious about not being disarmed."

"I hate government as much as government hates freedom, and that's a lot." - Mike Malin

Check out my PowerPoint: http://www.slideshare.net/anarcholibertarian/why-do-they-hat...

And my Ron Paul vs. Lincoln video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi

My Take


I don't think the problem with government is competence.

The problem is that it is bought-and-paid-for by the Banks & Corporations, and so it is their crooked agenda being carried out and laid at our doorstep, and not the actual interests of the common people.

But...If you took the money out of politics, and had it refereed with equal-opportunity rules (like a Sporting Event) -- where each candidate gets the same exposure, and equal time on the public airwaves -- then we would have a campaign actually about the best ideas, fairest policies, and the most practicle results. A guy like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich would get equal time and equal coverage. And then the best ideas would win out.

Instead we just get a phony, puppet-show, with the Banks & Corporations in total control of the underlying agenda.

But the concept of public government is not wrong or bad, anymore than a Town-Hall meeting to decide things is bad. Anarchy is not the cure here, (nor is letting poor people starve out on the streets).

The problem is that what we have is a system of legalized bribery falsely masquerading as "the government". This is because long ago Government had been hijacked by the rich, for the rich, and made up of the rich.

Notice that we have no "working-class" Senators, Presidents, Congressman, Treasury Secretaries, etc.. They are always well-to-do people who haven't a clue how working-class people live and make ends meet, and due to bribery usually directly affiliated with The Council on Foreign Relations, the CIA, the Banks, the Corporations, etc.

And that will always be the case, until we change the way that Campaigns are run, and change our whole Election System procedures.

Nobody ever talks about fixing that!
We are all serfs and peasants until we get rid of the money.



Re: My Take

A republic/democracy is like any other form of government. It empowers one political group over another. There is no permanent title. Your neighbors can always take your property away. This creates a disincentive to "own" and an incentive to use the political means to take someone else's property. The final stages of democracy are a race to the bottom (like we are beginning to see in Greece, and soon in the US).

In a monarchy, the King is judge in his own case. In a democracy, the majority are judge in their own case. Nothing good can come of this arrangement. Besides what I mentioned, democracy should be abolished for these 3 major reasons:

1) Conflict with Self ownership: Taken by many to be axiomatic. I use the standard of universalization to judge among competing theories of ownership. Thus, some men cannot own themselves and others (democracy). There are other ownership patterns, but self ownership is the only universally consistent position.

2) Moral Hazard: The majority gets to decide which rights citizens have. There is no check on majority power that the majority cannot overcome. Theoretically and in practice, this leads to predation and exploitation of minority classes who have no recourse. This has many detrimental economic and moral consequences.

3) Voting is a Collective Action Problem: Each individual's vote has a very low chance of deciding elections. As such, voters are rationally ignorant. Political positions are chosen not on the basis of any real merit, but for fashionable/self validating purposes.

This is what opens the door for special interests like the banks & corporations you mention. Say for example there is a piece of legislation that would cost each voter $1, but benefit some special interest group $1,000,000. If a voter spends an hour of his time trying to fight the special interest, he is working for $1/hr. The special interest group will lobby much harder to get the legislation passed. Rinse, repeat, democratic failure.

Anarchy isn't the cure, anarcho-capitalism is. Anarchy is when there is no state. Anarcho-capitalism is when there is no state but there is private property rights. A society can be slow to develop private property rights even without a state.

"I hate government as much as government hates freedom, and that's a lot." - Mike Malin

Check out my PowerPoint: http://www.slideshare.net/anarcholibertarian/why-do-they-hat...

And my Ron Paul vs. Lincoln video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi

Cannot Work...


"Anarcho-capitalism" (unregulated) cannot work, because it leaves in-place the rich with unlimited and unchecked power/influence, and therefore assures that the rich make all the rules, and the poor get shafted (and have no voice).

This is essentially our problem today. The Rich Banks and Corporations, and Rockefellers/Morgans/Rothschilds/etc. easily overwhelmed the U.S. Constitution with their massive wealth and Bribery -- and because their dirty money was allowed to be used (without any checks or regulations) to dominate and manipulate the whole system, and thus they created a rigged, corrupt, two-tier...have and have-not society.

And nobody really owns any property anyway, there are only renters. Even if you pay-off the Mortgage, you still have to pay Property-Taxes every 3-months on your house and land anyway (forever and ever), so you are really just a tenant, not a true "owner" of anything.

But that is besides the point here. The point is that, with our system of legalized bribery that we have, and which we never question --- nothing but corruption is assured, and the end-result can only be corruption.

You have to take the money (which puts the Banks & Corporations in charge) out of the Campaign system and create a new environment in which the working-class people can actually run for office and be empowered (with no money needed) and then honestly manage their own affairs, and enact things that benefit the common man.

As long as we have a system which forces us to be governed by only the Monied-Elites....the result is totally predictable...our declining standard-of-living, loss-of-rights, and economic destruction is then assured.


Re: Cannot Work...

@LB: "Anarcho-capitalism" (unregulated) cannot work,"

The fact that government wouldn't provide law, oversight, and regulation in anarcho-capitalism doesn't mean that they would not exist in a free society. On the contrary, a free society is regulated and overseen by something much more robust than supposedly benevolent (yet fallible, and definitely self-interested) human bureaucrats: human self-interest.

If government regulation and oversight are necessary because humans are self-interested and greedy, who then regulates and oversees the equally self-interested and greedy regulators? It's turtles all the way.

Government regulation does NOT make goodies (wages, safety, quality) suddenly appear out of thin air WITHOUT COST. Regulations simply raise the minimum cost to whatever a bureaucrat deems to be a "proper" standard. If we regulated that all cars must have Mercedes Benz quality standards we would NOT suddenly make all cars acquire MB quality. We would simply force people who could not afford a MB to use a bike or walk or take the bus.

Let me give you an example of how regulation would work in a free society. Let's say you were to buy a gallon of gas at the pump. How would you know it's a gallon?

If confidence/trust in transactions becomes an issue, then information about counterparties' reputations would be in high demand by the market. This in turn becomes a business/profit opportunity for information providers (consumer report, reputation.com, product/service reviews, etc.) to provide that information to the market that demands it. It would be in the best interest of every honest business and customer to sign themselves up with the most widely followed reputation/review agency and -- after undergoing a few inspections -- get a stamp of their approval which they can proudly stick on their shop-window. Customers would prefer to frequent certifiably reputable businesses. That's how you reliably get a gallon of gas without ANY government regulation.

There are a few competing private regulatory bodies that already exist: Zagat, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Kosher, Underwriters Laboratories, but the state generally prohibits them in most areas. Kosher has a food safety record that is thousands of times better than the FDA.

@LB: "because it leaves in-place the rich with unlimited and unchecked power/influence, and therefore assures that the rich make all the rules"

How does money = power, though? In a free society, money/wealth can only come to agents who exhibit extremely PRO-social behaviors, such as millions of voluntary transactions (sales) to customers who are made better off by the purchase. ANTI-social behavior (theft, sociopathy, parasitism, etc.) would be an extremely difficult way of amassing wealth. Does Walmart have the power to start poisoning its chocolates or putting 1 lb. labels on products weighing 0.5 lb. simply because it has lots of money? Is Honda not selling cars with a missing wheel because government regulation prevents them from doing so? No. They do it because because outraged customers would spit on them going forward.

Money may equal power in the status quo, but only because unquestioned power has been delegated to the (fallible, self-interested, corruptible) humans in government by the people like yourself. I propose that NO ONE entity should have such power.

@LB: "the poor get shafted (and have no voice)."

The poor get a better service in a stateless society. The amounts of wealth, productivity, and progress that would be unleashed in a free society compared to the fenced-in farm we have today, would be like comparing the present markets in the US to USSR in the 50's. How would you explain to a comrade in Stalin's USSR that letting go of Stalin and his GUARANTEED state-produced bread (for all) would most likely lead to a society where the POOR receive FREE cell phones from greedy capitalists and suffer from TOO MUCH FOOD (obesity)?! He'll look at you as if you've gone completely mad, no? I hope you understand my predicament with you better now.

Murray Rothbard in For A New Liberty, p. 215:

But how could a poor person afford private protection he would have to pay for instead of getting free protection, as he does now? There are several answers to this question, one of the most common criticisms of the idea of totally private police protection. One is: that this problem of course applies to any commodity or service in the libertarian society, not just the police. But isn’t protection necessary? Perhaps, but then so is food of many different kinds, clothing, shelter, etc. Surely these are at least as vital if not more so than police protection, and yet almost nobody says that therefore the government must nationalize food, clothing, shelter, etc., and supply these free as a compulsory monopoly.

Very poor people would be supplied, in general, by private charity, as we saw in our chapter on welfare. Furthermore, in the specific case of police there would undoubtedly be ways of voluntarily supplying free police protection to the indigent — either by the police companies themselves for goodwill (as hospitals and doctors do now) or by special “police aid” societies that would do work similar to “legal aid” societies [p. 220] today. (Legal aid societies voluntarily supply free legal counsel to the indigent in trouble with the authorities).

@LB: "And nobody really owns any property anyway, there are only renters. Even if you pay-off the Mortgage, you still have to pay Property-Taxes"

I agree that under the status-quo everyone is on the government plantation. It would not be so in a free society, where individuals are sovereign and actually own their own land forever. Unfortunately people don't understand that taxation is theft:

http://youtu.be/PGMQZEIXBMs

"I hate government as much as government hates freedom, and that's a lot." - Mike Malin

Check out my PowerPoint: http://www.slideshare.net/anarcholibertarian/why-do-they-hat...

And my Ron Paul vs. Lincoln video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi

?


> "How does money = power, though? In a free society, money/wealth can only come to agents who exhibit extremely PRO-social behaviors"

Of course Money = Power, and has ever since the dawn of civilization.

Because the Rothschilds, and Rockefellers and Morgans have nearly all the World's Money, they have been able to systematically buy-out and hollow-out Governments (to control them), and also rig any alleged "free" (or non-free) market to their favor.

I agree with your theory, that in a perfectly pure "free market" this would be self-regulating over time. But this is just an academic abstraction, that has never existed in reality....ever.

It is like believing in flying Unicorns. No "free market" could possibly exist, when the people who have all the money seek to dominate, distort, and control any such market by using (guess) ....their money..., and the power of that money. It's never a fair fight.

Money = ownership = power (and ultimate control).

It's called Bribery, and unfortunately bribery always works because money is always a requirement to do anything in our society. This is the very thing that our Founding Fathers feared most of all. When Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of a government we had, he replied: "A Republic, if you can keep it." He wasn't so sure. His concerns were validated.

President Lincoln said:

"The money powers preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me & the financial institutions [ Private Banks ] at the rear, the latter is my greatest foe.

Corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed."

--President Lincoln

This is exactly what we have. These people knew that the system was inadequate, and doomed to fail even back then.

Our Constitutional system failed, because the only Watchdog on the government was the government itself assuring its demise. So once privately-held wealth (Rothschilds, Rockefeller) had infiltrated the government and the Election system, there was nothing to ever stop or resist it.

Similarly, with no regulations on how many TV Stations Ruppert Murdoch can own, and no regulations on Wall Street, Foreign Banks, Multinationals, the War Establishment, the Pharmaceutical Industry, Insurance, etc., ...with their money...they will try to control and dominate everything.

And there is nothing to stop them, because they have the power (through money) to buy-out Corporations, buy the Airwaves, buy-out the government, and destroy all the small businesses and have them replaced with Walmarts.

There is no fairness, when the wealthy elites can do whatever they wish.

Piers is a douche bag because disarming innocent people

Isn't a "peaceful" thing to do.

did he really compare..

did he really compare himself to john lenon and charlie chaplin? lol what a lump of sh**

"What light is to the eyes - what air is to the lungs - what love is to the heart, liberty is to the soul of man."
-Robert Green Ingersoll

Go back to England Morgan. Alex Jones spoke TRUTH.

And I don't care HOW loud he gets either.

Jones is just one of the very few voices crying out in the wilderness.

Thank GOD for truth-tellers like Alex Jones. THAT is the attitude which made America great and which is preserving SOME of that greatness.

I cannot understand why a socialist, one-world government person like Piers Morgan would move here when he could have all the government control (and high taxes) he wants right in his home country.

Jones nailed it when he mentioned suicide drugs. We are drugging our children JUST for acting like kids do.

They use Prozac, Lithium, Ridalan, Zoloft (Sertraline) etc and then they wonder why some of these drug-addicted kids lose it later in life.

I blame the psychiatrists - Not the guns.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Pawnstorm, I Believe He Had To Flee England or Face Charges

Alex Jones touched on charges involving 'Hacking' and falsifying stories by his former employer, " The Daily Mirror'

Well that may explain him coming here but there may be more...

Morgan is a perfect tool for media indoctrination of the sheeples.

I think Jones is right.

The media is complicit in helping move American away from soverignty.

Tha bankers have already succeeded with organizations like the U.N., IMF, World Bank, WTO, USAID etc...

They got our money.

Now they need a few other things to complete their ultimate goal and Morgan is just another tool in their belt for that.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Michael Nystrom's picture

Here is the story guys

http://www.dailypaul.com/269083/why-did-cnn-hire-piers-morga...

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

LoL at the Morgan and

LoL at the Morgan and Politico connection. Why don't either one of you actually address any of Alex Jones' points? Personally, I thought Alex's comments on 9/11 were quite restrained and 100% accurate. There's absolutely NO question that elements within the military-industrial establishment played a role in BOMBING the WTC complex into oblivion. Nice try, though, at another vain attempt to squelch the truth. ;)

"...while Morgan tried calmly and in vain to conduct a civil interview"

Ahem, you actually mean while Morgan tried arrogantly and in vain to conduct a scripted interview ... ;)

Testing Comment Button

Testing, one, two, three

THIS comment field

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/01/exclusive-piers-...

LOL! I think the guy has comments shut off, there are none.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.