Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Shame the shameless shamers

Shame the shameless shamers

The French mathematician and French philosopher Blaise Pascal noted, “The only shame is to have none.”

I am going to have to disagree. In today’s environment, the only shame is having it wrongly turned around and used against you.

An advantage of having Democrats/former Democrats (e.g., Tammy Bruce, Mickey Kaus) as independent activists is that we can share some of progressive’s favorite tricks to suppress conservative arguments.

One of them is that most hardworking, taxpaying Americans don’t want to offend someone, no matter the circumstance. The second is that most conservatives will try and respond to the initial premise offered in conversation, assuming that their opponent will respond to an intellectual argument intellectually. These two tactics are combined in the use of shame to deflect reason.

In a compelling verbal take-down of progressive self-righteousness, Breitbart’s Ben Shapiro challenged Piers Morgan on the CNN host’s attempted use of shame to deflect gun control support through the use Sandy Hook Elementary school victims.

BEN SHAPIRO, EDITOR BREITBART.COM: I think we can have a rational, political conversation about balancing rights and risks and rewards of all of these different policies, but I don’t think that what we need to do is demonize people on the other side as being unfeeling about what happened at Sandy Hook.

MORGAN: How dare you accuse me of standing on the graves of the children that died there. How dare you.

SHAPIRO: I’ve seen you do it repeatedly, Piers.

As Joel Pollack noted in his review of the turning-point appearance:

Ben put into practice something that Andrew Breitbart preached throughout his career of battling the mainstream media: Question the premise, whether it’s an assertion that you don’t care about the victims of Sandy Hook, or a faulty definition of Critical Race Theory, or that Barack Obama is a nice guy who only wants America to succeed.

Capitalism advocate and writer Aaron Clarey touches on the subject of shame in his post, The Shaming of John Galt.

Ultimately all the efforts and propaganda that goes into villainzing what is only human nature can fall under one single category or “weapon” of the left.


The left uses shame and “shaming language” for one reason and one reason only – they are factually wrong, so they must “shame” what is “right” or what is real. Since the left lives in a world that is not based in reality or the reality principle, they have to “change reality” and the best way to do that is to convince or outright brainwash people into thinking the opposite of what is true and the opposite of what is in their best interests.

Clarey theorizes there may be more to this shame approach, beyond silencing conservatives. For example, environmental shame is used to promote “going green” and some of the true believers think they owe it to society to slave away for other people at “non-profits”.

Both pundits have new books: Shapiro’s is Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans, while Clarey’s is Enjoy the Decline.  Both offer approaches on how to address the progressivism and redistributionism that are so pervasive in our society and government today.  Both will also help fight leftist attempts to deflect their shame on you!


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Ben’s opening threw Piers off his game plan, and from my point of view, Piers never recovered. This was a brilliant move by Ben, and resulted in Piers post-interview jabs on Twitter.

I love the idea of punching back twice as hard in a case such as this…

    The gun debate needs to get the nomenclature right. Those who are pro Second Amendment need to properly define an “assault weapon” as one with a 3 or 4 position fire selection switch: Safe, Semi-Automatic [one shot for each pull of the trigger], 3 round burst and full automatic [firing until the trigger is released or the magazine [not “clip”] is empty.
    This is a military grade weapon.
    The firearms sold by gun shops are semi-automatic, meaning they have a 2 position fire selection switch: Safe and Fire, but fire with one shot for each pull of the trigger.
    A “military style” firearm is one that looks like an “assault weapon” but is not. It may have a pistol grip, flash hider and a high capacity magazine [again, not a “clip”], but it is not an assault weapon.
    The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sport shooting. It is there to keep the federal and state governments from becoming dictators who want to take Freedom and Liberty from WE, THE PEOPLE. It has everything to do with our RIGHT to own a firearm for ANY reason.

Shapiro was on the right track. He was trying to get Morgan to admit the left’s only logical goal was confiscation. Almost did it. Morgan bullied Shapiro into a rhetorical corner or two by using his position as host, but for the most part Shapiro came out swinging and kept on hitting. His response to the Morgan’s Reagan gambit was priceless.

I’m told even the Brits don’t like Morgan.

    I can also confirm the Brits have no use for Piers Morgan. I’m wondering how much longer until we wake up as well and get him off the air. A total waste of time!

      punfundit in reply to Helen. | January 13, 2013 at 11:50 am

      Oh, I don’t know. If CNN’s ratings are going into the toilet thanks to the likes of Morgan, I say leave him in place. Maybe Ted Turner will set out to al-Jazeera too and Time-Warner can drop them like a bad habit.

TrooperJohnSmith | January 13, 2013 at 10:47 am

Great, great post! Thanks for the book recommendations, too.

man, pascal. that brings back bad memories involving a TRS-80, loading pascal on top of BASIC using 5″ floppies or a tape drive.

    TugboatPhil in reply to dmacleo. | January 13, 2013 at 11:22 am

    I’m far from being a computer guru, but did get forced into using one at work in the MS-DOS 2.0 days. I was trying to explain to a youngster recently that file names were limited to 8 characters and got a look like I had a lobster sitting on my head.

    I did learn early on that if the screen asked me “Do you want to add that to autoexec bat or config sys?” that “yes” wasn’t always a good choice.

The desire not to offend is part of conservative socialization that needs to be overcome to counter the ruling elite’s campaign to demonize all who disagree with them.

HUTCH68: “… I love the idea of punching back twice as hard in a case such as this …”

This the only way you can win these discussions. Use their tactics against them, even the highly distasteful ones.

Either fight or die, pick one.

After the crank Alex Jones was used in an attempt to make any Second Amendment supporter look like a nutbag, Shapiro deftly took that away from the Collective.

Morgan made an IMMENSE mistake in his “…your little book…” crack. Very nice revelation!

CNN has been trying to smear Shapiro ever since his appearance, which tell us how effective he was. They appear, as Ed Driscoll notes, to have gone full bsNBC;

Just as a note…you can be jailed in Britain for walking around with your Rachel Ray santoku chef knife…or your pocket knife.

NOT someplace I would care to live…

Also, I NEVER watch CNN. I only view clips found on the interweb.

Unfortunately for our side the self righteous leftists like Obama have no shame. Mostly because they really do not care about those they claim to protect. They care about winning and power.

Why would we need the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. We have the right to vote, and surely our representatives would not legislate in anything stupid or dangerous… /sarc

Why, for that matter, should we need a 4th Amendment right against search and seizure. This only hampers police investigations and allows criminals to go free. Surely our wise and dedicated police officers would never deliberately do anything to harm innocent citizens… /sarc

Piers Chamberlain is the idiot.

Ben did a good job here. We could also add that it’s been a very long time since Americans were seriously threatened by an invading force on their own soil. The military does not function as personal bodyguards. Piers would be the first one running to his gun-toting neighbor’s house, cowering in fear, and begging for help protecting himself.


Three good rules for arguing with progressives: do not accept their premise, make them define their vocabulary and be on the lookout for fallacies.

Two oft used fallacies are an appeal to authority (Morgan “Reagan was against assault weapons” Shapiro “So?” ) and trying to make you select an option from an incomplete list of possibilities.

PS: Imagine how badly Morgan would have been spanked if he did not have the power of being the host to protect him.

MORGAN: How dare you accuse me of standing on the graves of the children that died there. How dare you.

Just as “it’s not bragging if you can do it,” it’s not an accusation if you are merely pointing out the obvious.

    jimzinsocal in reply to TugboatPhil. | January 13, 2013 at 11:38 am

    The old “how dare you” ploy. We see it used alot by liberals…usually a vanity driven response to some truth.
    “How dare you accuse Susan Rice of being substandard…or less than truthful”.

    Its a reflexive response thats similar in form to a man “claiming” to be honest.
    Truly honest men dont need to vocalize what is self evident.

Another cheap point made by Morgan: Ronald Reagan PENNED a letter in May, 1994. By August of 1994 he was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. That takes nothing away from him as a wonderful, albeit imperfect, president. I would be more interested in learning what positions he held on gun control during his active political life.

What Ben Shapiro did was use Saul Alinsky tactics on that brain dead Brit. Only without the “spittle spewing shouting in your opponents face” tactic. He was calm, collected and completely rattled his host.

Logic, and rational, is the enemy of the left. If presented actual facts, they have no response. Morgan tried to us Ronald Reagan against Shapiro, and Shapiro handed it right back to him with the question “So?” Morgan had no answer.

I read a great article that told how Larry King, who previously had that spot, made his guests the show, not himself. King was police, and allowed his guests to speak. Morgan is directly the opposite. The show is all about him and he, in typical statist fashion, prevents his guests from speaking by constantly interupting them. Shapiro didn’t let him get by with that.

I image Larry King is mumbling to himself “What the hell were they thinking when they hired that guy?”

I meant to say “King was polite”.

“most conservatives will try and respond to the initial premise offered in conversation, assuming that their opponent will respond to an intellectual argument intellectually.”

Yes. We keep trying to discuss issues with them while they merely sneer at us. Then we get angry and they declare victory.

1. Good job by Shapiro. I’d like to see him go a round with Maddow.

2. Iirc Shapiro said that “assault weapons” could be used to resist an attempt at government tyranny 50-100 years from now. (IMHO 15-20 years is not out of the question.) I wonder if that’s the only supportive scenario which can be presented. Not having pulled a trigger since my military training back in mumble, I’m asking.

(I understand that the Left wants a complete ban and their focus on assault weapons is only a pretext, but that’s not the point of my question.)

Wonderful job by Mr. Shapiro. Also more patience that I know I would have had. Ben is very calm, and Piers with his idiocy in full view looks like a complete elitist moron.

I’ll definitely be picking up this book by Ben, I had not heard of him until now. Great Job Ben!

“your little book”

what a punk his a$$hole is. And this is CNN’s primetime.

Thanks CNN for showing us even more how much you hate this country and its foundations. I stopped watching your crap in 2008 when you went full in for your Messiah Barry, looks like nothing’s changed in 4 years, except, you’ve gotten even worse in your anti-american views.

All that was left was for Ben Shapiro to give Piers a wedgie, a wet willie, and demand Piers hand over his lunch money. All with a boyish smile.

legalizehazing | January 13, 2013 at 1:08 pm


Fuck these losers! cause that’s what they are, whiny losers that think they can lead from behind without character forged in reality. LOSERS LOSERS LOSERS

Only minority interests, including: cartels, criminals, and authoritarians (e.g. government), should be armed. Law-abiding citizens can purchase their arms from these special interests, the first and second supplied by the last.

The causes of psychopathic and sociopathic behavior, including administration and consumption of psychotropic drugs should not be evaluated. Neither should an authoritarian monopoly, which defends these practices, and protects progressive inflation of their compensation (i.e. Obamacare).

Shifting disruption of environment and labor to places out-of-sight and out-of-mind is “going green”. Destroying tens of thousands of birds and bats annually somewhere other than your backyard is “going green”. Promoting technology to produce energy, which cannot be reasonably isolated from the environment (and therefore unreliable), which is not strictly renewable, is “going green.”

The premeditated murder of around one million Barack(s), Harry(s), Nancy(s), etc, is illegal by the standard (i.e. “creation”) defined in our national charter and law (i.e. Fourteenth Amendment) defined in our Constitution.

It is dissociation of risk which causes corruption. It is dreams of instant (or immediate) gratification which motivates its progress. It is competing interests which keep the honest people honest and others from running amuck.

    n.n in reply to n.n. | January 13, 2013 at 2:59 pm

    The premeditated murder of around one million Barack(s), Harry(s), Nancy(s), etc, annually by method of scalpel and vacuum.

    The solution to mitigate (not necessarily prevent) commission of involuntary exploitation, whether by gun, knife, conflagration, explosive, scalpel, vacuum, etc.) is risk management. That is the purpose of the Second and other Amendments. The Second Amendment recognizes that “the security of a free State” (and, in following, the security of a free people), is promoted by the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. The Second Amendment recognizes the necessary and proper role of citizen “soldiers” (other than standing armies) in a free society.

    As for the Left and Right paradigms, that is a distraction from the issue of merit. The issue is whether individuals should have the right to employ force multipliers (e.g. guns) to mitigate and prevent acts of involuntary exploitation, to protect life and property, to preserve our Creator endowed unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    Neither a majority (i.e. democratic) nor a minority (i.e. totalitarian) governing model should be the design of our society. Neither is likely to preserve individual dignity or an intrinsic value of human life.

    “Military style”? What a joke!

    As for tyrannical governments, in the twentieth century alone, they are responsible for the murder of around 200 hundred million men, women, and children; the enslavement of over 1 billion men, women, and children; and the normalization (via democratic leverage) of premeditated murder of around 1 million children annually in American alone. There is not only good reason to fear an authoritarian monopoly, but there is recent, overwhelming evidence that people should fear an authoritarian monopoly.

    That said, the imminent physical threat is not from our government, it is from criminals (including cartels armed by our federal government) and sociopaths who commit acts of involuntary exploitation, which are often not reported (e.g. black on white crimes), let alone investigated (e.g. black on black crimes), by the press when not suitable for political leverage.

    Morgan uses emotional appeals, and exceptional circumstances, to prevent rational discussion of the relevant issues.

    n.n in reply to n.n. | January 13, 2013 at 4:25 pm

    What is important to consider when attempting to understand the Left/Right paradigm, is that there are people on the Left who appreciate guns to mitigate risk; who do not approve (but do not disapprove) of elective abortion; and so on and so forth. The converse is also true for people on the Right. Within each group, class, etc. of people, there are disparities born of circumstance and choice. This is certainly true for people on the Right, but it is also true for people on the Left. It is important to identify the common thread which prevents these alliances from unraveling.

[…] » Shame the shameless shamers – Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion […]

“The weapon necessary to defend against evil is justice: the unequivocal identification of the evil as evil. This means the refusal to grant it, by word or by deed, any moral respectability. It is by scrupulously withholding from the irrational even a crumb of a moral sanction—by rejecting any form of accommodation with the irrational—by forcing the irrational to stand naked and unaided—that one keeps evil impotent.” –Peter Schwartz, On Moral Sanctions

This is instructive and educational because we get to see Morgan use all the tricks that argumentative hosts of radio and TV talk shows use-conservatives included. First, put the guest on the defensive, Second, demand they justify their position by creating the assumption that the host is correct and the guest must refute it adequately in order to win, third push for agreement on unfair and inaccurate characterizations, and then use the power of the microphone to attempt to give the impression that the host the winner. I understand that Morgan did not succeed as he had hoped, but we should learn how to respond to people like him.

The logical errors of Morgan are as follows: Identifying the last 3 shootings as involving “assault” rifles he then makes the leap to the conclusion that outlawing them would have stopped the killings-no factual support for this. In fact the most lethal shooting, Virginia Tech, involved a Glock handgun. Why not ban Glocks in particular, given their use by shooters, going back to the Luby’s shooting in Killeen, Texas-if banning specific types of guns will make a difference?

Second, the premise is that those who want to ban such weapons are willing to make it illegal for millions of people to own them when only 3 shooters were identified as having used such weapons. That is an unacceptable trade-off which should be pointed out. To declare that saving even one child’s life is worth imposing a ban on millions of people is ridiculous and unfair. If you want to identify a mechanical device that could be banned and save many more lives eliminate automobiles-obviously no one is willing to do that.

Also, the tactic of asking who the guest fears will impose tyranny is a sleazy attempt to get the guest to identify a particular group so he can be ridiculed for holding that belief. The proper response is to say that everyone who has given it unbiased consideration, including the US Supreme Court understands that defense against tyranny is the reason for the amendment and that the continued viability of that purpose does not depend on the guest providing any personal belief as to who should or should not be feared at present and simply refuse to answer the question. This question, in particular is similar to those I have heard previously when a host wants to shut down criticism. Unfortunately those I have heard use this on radio talk shows are, or claim to be, conservatives.

The real way to protect children is to tighten security at schools, including arming select personnel or guards. Even replacing classroom doors with bulletproof doors would improve security significantly. It is not just wild-eyed crazies who can commit atrocities. Terrorists should be on the radar as well. And no amount of gun banning will stop state-sponsored terrorism.

While mental health is a legitimate issue the idea that you can do more to keep mentally ill people from getting guns is a backdoor way to tracking private gun sales, something that should be opposed categorically. Giving the government more records of who owns guns is not a good idea with a wannabe tyrant in charge either presently or in the future.

byondpolitics | January 13, 2013 at 6:44 pm

Alas, one of the things I’ve learned in the last few years is that shame has lost its power.

Freddie Sykes | January 13, 2013 at 9:43 pm

I just saw “For Greater Glory” about the almost democratically elected Mexican government’s crack down on religious freedom in the 1920s leading to an armed rebellion. Of course we all know that Obama would never ever force a citizen to violate his conscience by enforcing odious regulations but who can say to what level President Crazy Joe Biden would descend.

Henry Hawkins | January 13, 2013 at 9:48 pm

When I watched the Shapiro/Morgan video, I immediately thought of Monty Python: Quest For The Holy Grail, the scene where King Arthur lops off the Black Knight’s limbs one by one.

Unfortunately, what Shapiro has done is to make sure he never again gets booked to a liberal news talk show. If I were a Maddow, Schultz, or Scarborough (don’t correct me that he’s not a lib), Shapiro is the last guy I’d want to tangle with, on air, on my own show.

Freddie Sykes, you will love this guy. He follows each of your rules with great poise:

I think Shapiro did a good job, but I have one complaint. He stated that Nancy Lanza was irresponsible in her gun storage. Perhaps he has seen something about that, but I have not seen any details as to how her guns were stored in home. While they might have been locked up, someone who is observant, and lives in the home can often figure out where keys to secure storage are kept. So while the guns may have been responsibly stored, the storage security was defeated. Or maybe not, but I have not seen any reporting of storage within the home.

Remember, the son murdered the mother to steal her weapons.