Senator John Kerry, “Captain America” Democrat from MA, has validated the Liberal Media’s one sided coverage of political debate. On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Friday Kerry insisted that the media has a moral obligation not to give equal time or credence to TEA Party philosophy.
With a blatant call for tyranny, Captain America, AKA John Kerry seems oblivious of his call for suspension of fundamental liberties.
SEN. JOHN KERRY: “And I have to tell you, I say this to you politely. The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it’s exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual.”
“It doesn’t deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what’s real, of who’s accountable, of who is not accountable, of who’s real, who isn’t, who’s serious, who isn’t?”
After the TEa Party representatives have been called terrorists and hostage takers, many americans are left wondering what Democrat leadership has in store for the TEA party through its propaganda outlets.
Sadly, it is probably not so much of a coordinated movement, but merely an act of desperation and fear by politicians who worry that they may have a short lease of their careers.
A professional horseman for over 50 years, Skook continues to work with horses. Skook has finished an historical novel, Fifty Thousand Years, that traces a mitochondrial line of DNA from 50,000 years ago to the present. The story follows a line of courageous women, from the Ice Ages to the present, as they meet the challenges of survival with grit and creativity. These are not women who whimper of being victims, they meet the challenges of survival as women who use their abilities without excuses or remorse, these women are winners, they are our ancestors.
Fifty Thousand Years is available in paperback and e-book, it is getting great reviews. You can purchase a copy here; Visit me on Facebook.
I live in Ma ansd see what I have to deal with. The people here just keep voting these people into office time and again. Kerry is the most arrogant of them all since Kennedy died.Who the hell is he to tell the media what they can say. He has no clu what the people in this state is going through. I hope they vote his phony a– out this time.
Greta Van Susteren has posted an excellent answer to Kerry:
I can’t believe he actually said that in front of people. What a crock. It only proves that legislators on the hill do not care one iota about the Constitution. The people from his state either need to get his ass out of office or they have to take it as they certainly deserve what they get for voting such an idiot. Unfortunately the rest of us have to live in their hell too.
Nan G, hi,
the comments on the link where very upset with KERRY, the site show 100 comments out
of 1700,, and I check some 20s and they did not like that from him.
He said this about the liberal/progressive point of view, right?
Bees, it is wrong on several different layers.
The fact that he made the statement suggests that the Liberals have control over the media to the rest f the world. There is a distinct difference between a news outlet being biased and being controlled by one of the parties, it is a a major difference.
It shows a complete disconnect with the principles of our Constitution and the law of the land.
He has displayed a level of ignorance that compares with islands tipping over from too many people. (A statement from one of our Democrat Congressmen)
This one should wake up the people of Massachusetts, it is that far beyond acceptability and reflects an inner desire for tyranny.
If Kerry and Biden ran together, you could call them dumb and dumber; the problem is, you wouldn’t know which one was which. Bees, that is not to be funny, like Ha Ha. No not at all, it is meant to say something is happening here and it is really bad.
I always thought of him as more like “Captain Long Jaw.” But that was before I knew he was a commie.
To get to the real issue here, one must head to the Constitution.
Amendment 1, U.S. Constitution;
There are FOUR points here, concerning Kerry’s words, that must be acknowledged;
-One, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. This means that Congress can not produce legislation that in any way hampers the ability of a person or persons voicing their opinions, thoughts, ideas, etc.
-Two, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. This means that Congress can not produce legislation that directs or orders the press to promote only certain viewpoints, or punishes the press in any way from allowing a viewpoint of any type to be seen, read, or heard.
-Three, Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to peaceably assemble. It is assumed that they would do so in order to engage in their freedom of speech and to engage in petitions for redress of grievances.
-Four, Congress shall make no law prohibiting the people from petitioning for a redress of grievances.
Kerry has chosen to address all four of those points, and promote, in his official role as a US Senator, the abridging of those four. The TEA Party chooses to engage in freedom of speech in order to petition the government for a redress of grievances. They do so by peaceably assembling and in sharing their ideas with the press.
If Kerry proclaimed this as a private citizen, and promoted his desire to have the TEA Party’s ideas shut down, I actually wouldn’t have a problem with his statement, as he has the right to promote his idea using his freedom of speech. I wouldn’t agree with the content, but the statement itself wouldn’t draw my ire.
The problem is that Kerry has stated this as a U.S. Senator, and whether “on-duty” or “off-duty”, any appearance, while a senator, is as an official representation of the government. Now, no law, or legislation has been produced by Congress, however, just the idea that a U.S. Senator has stated this should be clear to everyone that Kerry is unfit to be a Senator. His oath, after his last re-election, swore him to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That means everything that is included in it, applied to everyone, equally. To promote a viewpoint that would remove the right to freedom of speech, to assemble peaceably, to have the press give them their time, and to prohibit a redress of grievances against the government is in direct violation of that oath, if not in letter, certainly in spirit.
Thanks JG, I wish I would have written those lines, but it is nice enough that you wrote them.
What Kerry really said: The Morning Joe video in question.
What Kerry is saying makes perfect sense. I have no clue how any reasonable person could interpret what he’s saying as a call for a limitation on First Amendment rights. What he’s calling for is a higher level of responsibility on the part of the media and a higher level of responsibility on the part of elected officials. That’s hardly a radical message.
well, keep this in mind next time Kerry is up for re-election, and make him wear his support for censorship like a necklace
wow, what he is calling for it shutting up anyone he doesnt agree with
johngalt, that tell me very clear, KERRY SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM HIS POSITION AND HE HAS SHOWN TO BE A TRAITOR TO HIS SENATE POSITION. BY GOING AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.
John Kerry: Once a traitor, always a traitor.
When Kerry said, “The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance….” it reminded me of a TV network. Can you guess which one? He doesn’t want “equal balance” in reporting. As I have mentioned before, whenever a liberal talks without their TOTUS they either babble and make no sense, or they tell the truth.
Greg, I read your link. Kerry has Swift Boated himself this time.
@Skookum: “Swiftboating” AKA exposing the TRUTH
I had read, and heard, his entire comments prior to this article, and prior to my comment above. That you don’t believe this is a call for action in direct opposition to our 1st Amendment rights shows your lack of understanding of those rights.
-One, he calls for the media to stop, or limit, their attention to ideas that he doesn’t favor. This is in direct opposition to “freedom of the press”.
-Two, in calling for that limitation, or halt, on those ideas, he calls for action in direct opposition to “freedom of speech”.
-Three, also in calling for that limitation, or halt, on those ideas being presented, he calls for action in direct opposition to the right of the people “to petition the government for redress of grievances”.
-Four, when he calls for people with that different set of ideas to be “held to a different standard”, he calls for limitations in their right “to peaceably assemble” to engage in the three rights from the 1st Amendment that I listed above.
And, as I said above, in post #8, if he was doing this as a private citizen, or even part of the media itself, I wouldn’t have a problem with the statement he made. It’s the fact that he did so as a sitting U.S. Senator, which entails representation of the government 24/7, that is the problem. A representative of the government calling for limiting the 1st Amendment rights of anyone is unfit to serve in Congress, or anywhere else in government.
You don’t mind it because he isn’t calling for limiting the 1st Amendment rights of liberal/progressives. You are blinded by ideological circumstances, however, I have a hard time picturing you being OK with some conservative stating similar comments regarding liberal/progressives. I, on the other hand, would hope that I would enter the same post denouncing the statements of a conservative against a liberal/progressive idea.
Perspective, Greg. I’ve told you before, it’s all about perspective.
@johngalt: Excellent point about Kerry speaking as a sitting Senator, JohnGalt.
If a sitting judge made remarks about how he opposed one or another of the parts of the US Constitution there would be a move to unseat (impeach) him.
When Obama’s administrative policy was to exclude Fox News as ”not a ‘real’ news organization,” all the other news organizations circled the wagons.
Because they KNEW if Fox could be excluded for any reason SO COULD THEY!
That is why I say that it isn’t so brave to fight for one’s own rights. It IS brave and honorable to fight for other’s rights, even if you don’t agree with them. As I said to Greg, I’d like to think that I’d be just as critical in my comments if it was a conservative saying those things about the liberal/progressive point of view.
Also, I’d like to point out that I believe it is OK for Kerry to speak out against the ideas in opposition to his. I never had a problem with that. And he can call them false and untrue and not based on fact if he wants to. I don’t agree with his analysis, but he can say that. The only problem I have with his comments is his proposal that the media needs to limit, or stop, their giving time to the opposing point of view.
Lest we forget:
John Kerry is the chairman of the Senate Communications Subcommittee, which holds oversight hearings related to the FCC.
When he speaks, people in the media MUST listen.
this is just the liberal talking points action plan
they intend to lie, lie lie
and the lamestream lying media will assist them
there should be a law to punish them, when they get out of terms, lately is been currant to hear the threats and the mad expressions like calling the TEA PARTY, TERRORISTS, OR ELSE OFFENSIVE,
THEY ARE ACTING LIKE A PACK OF ATTACKING BULLEYS , SIMILAR TO THE TUGS IN THE UNION OUT TO SCARE THE PEOPLE WHEN THEY WANT MORE MONEY: THIS NOT A WAY TO SHOW THE AMERICANS THEIR EFFICIENCY TO EARN
THE POSITION THEY HAVE BEEN ELECTED TO COVER, AND RESPECT THE AMERICAN FOR HAVING GIVEN THEM SUCH A HIGH RANK IN GOVERNMENT THEY OWE THEIR JOBS TO THE PEOPLE
AND SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE AT ALL TIME AND RESPECT THE OATH THEY SWORE TO PROTECT,
IT DOESN’T LOOK LIKE THAT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW AT THE LEVEL OF REGULAR AMERICAN,
THE ARE A BIG DISAPPOINTMENT AND SHOULD BE PUT IN THE NOTE BOOK FOR REFERENCE WHEN THE VOTING TIME WILL BE HERE,
NO MONEY CAN BUY THE VOTES THEY WANT NOW, BECAUSE THEY HAVE INSULTED THE PEOPLE TOO MANY TIMES, THAT’S WHY THE TEA PARTY IS ON THE MARCH TO EXPOSE THOSE
WHO THINK THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING,
Control of the media! Control of the mind! The very thing that has been going on for some time now. The only difference? They don’t think they have to hide it anymore!
Ladies, Gentlemen, and trolls:
The citizens of the sovereign State of Massachsetts will always vote to re-elect Sen. Kerry. After all, he is a Democrat, and the people of MA always vote for Democrats. Sometimes they vote for people in jail; they even have been known to vote for dead people.
Sen Kerry is a traitor. He negotiated directly with the Vietcong, which is a felony violation of our laws. He was not prosecuted, because he had a very powerful defender in the Senate.
He provided testimony before Congress about being an eyewitness of war crimes. He was never called on to back up those claims with names, places, and dates; his remarks were simply allowed to slide.
He received a secret amnesty for his war crimes; we are not able to learn the details of that amnesty.
He received a Silver Star with V for Valor (no such decoration exists), apparently for shooting a teenager in the back while the kid was on the ground.
He received three Purple Hearts, under the most questionable of circumstances.
He has been tireless in promoting projects that contribute to the wealth of his brother, who invests in Vietnam.
He divorced one wife (she was not rich enough) and married another woman (she had more money).
So his remarks about how the press should conduct itself are consistent with his previous treasonous activity. He does not want to be restricted by the Constitution; he wants to do what he wants.
So expect years more of the foulness which comes from his mouth.
He knows no other way to act.
It isn’t “a call for action in direct opposition to our 1st Amendment rights”.
Among other things, the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press–it guarantees a fundamental, unrestricted right to freely express one’s thoughts, ideas, opinions, and beliefs.
It doesn’t guarantee particular thoughts, ideas, opinions or beliefs equal time and attention by the media.
At some point the mainstream media apparently made a decision that the theories of 9/11 “Truthers” warranted little continuing time and attention, even though superficially compelling presentations have been made that might affect increasingly large segments of the general population with repeated exposure. This was a responsible decision. It was made in spite of the fact that increasingly large segments can be equated with increasingly large viewing and listening audiences.
The First Amendment rights of Truthers haven’t been restricted. They’re still free to express their opinions, and continue to do so. Their beliefs aren’t being pushed into the American collective consciousness and developing an aura of truth by endless repetition, however.
It’s logical for a person like Kerry to be making this sort of statement. After all, he was personally targeted by people who captured the attention of the media with slanderous allegations, and shamelessly exploited that attention in an effort to destroy a veteran’s reputation to further their immediate political agenda. The modus operandi central to the Kerry smear is so recognizable in its repetition that we immediately understand what’s implied by the tag applied to it: Swiftboating.
Did Donald Trump deserve a week of highly focused media attention–to the exclusion of real stories of genuine importance–for latching onto the absurd notion that the President of the United States isn’t actually natural born citizen? By mid-week a reality TV personality had convinced a substantial number of people that he might actually be a relevant 2012 contender. Unless reality TV is a true reflection of the reality we actually live in, the thought of a President Trump is totally ludicrous. Yet there was the media, irresponsibly blurring the distinction between what’s real and what isn’t. Such blurring can have very serious consequences.
The debt ceiling debate was genuinely frightening example of how people can become so focused on one single aspect of a situation that they totally lose touch with other, equally important aspects. The nation became like a street-crossing pedestrian, so totally focused on a bus approaching half a block away on the right that he unwittingly steps in front of a speeding taxi coming from the left. In this particular case, the long-term debt issue simply wasn’t the immediate danger. It was irresponsible of the media to allow that point to be deliberately obscured for so long.
How nice to hear you will be standing with conservatives against your party’s attempts to reinstate the “Fairness Doctrine” then, Greg.
Well now… were it not the 24/7 subject of every news channel and pundit, and all blog and publications media, do you think anyone would be so focused on a single issue? But you just think it was only irresponsible that they didn’t say the long-term debt is wasn’t “immediate danger”. Of course, in retrospect, you are incorrect, as the attempt to address long term debt, not short term, was integral to maintain the credit ratings. DOH!
You may be making an error, assuming that because the media is fixated on it, not to mention dumber than dirt about the facts, so is the nation. Personally, I found other things to do than be subjected to the political farce with a predictable plot and ending… even a B movie was more interesting.
Really, Greg? What’s this?
That is a call to action on the part of the press, to direct them to limit access or exposure to another viewpoint. That is in direct opposition to the 1rst Amendment rights, Greg. The fact that he is a SITTING U.S. Senator saying this is why I have a problem with it, and also why you should too, regardless of what party he represents, or who he is calling on to be limited in their rights. He is sworn to uphold the Constitution. He should NEVER make a statement advocating for the limitation of those rights, or any other rights held by we, the people.
It’s not very surprising, however, that you wish to be like Kerry and support the limitation of opposing viewpoints. For you, however, I don’t have a problem with it, because you are a private citizen. It’s also not surprising that you don’t understand that distinction.
GREG, DONT HOLD YOU’RE HORSES, BECAUSE THE DONALD TRUMP IS WATCHING AND IF HE DOESN’T SEE AT THE END WHAT IS FITTING TO BE THE SUPER PRESIDENT THAT HE MAINTAIN IS NEEDED FOR AMERICA, HE WILL JUMP IN AND HE IS PASSIONATE ABOUT THE SUPER AMERICA HE KNEW AND WANT IT BACK. WITH ALL THE PEOPLE HAVING THE LIFE OF FREEDOM AND WELBEING IN THEIR ENDEAVOUR,
WITH THE PRIDE TO BE AMERICAN
” All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.” Adolf Hitler. The libdems have an excellent understanding on just how important propaganda is in this war for control of the citizens, and ultimately control of the nation. And just as important, they know how to use propaganda effectively to reach their goals. Conversely the republicans are still scratching their watches and winding their butts when it comes to understanding it, let alone how to use it. Propaganda is politics, and politics is propaganda. You cannot separate the two.
Trump can’t be president. his mother, Mary Anne MacLeod Trump, was born in Stornoway, Scotland.
SMORGASBORD, HIS MOTHER BECAME AMERICAN BEFORE HIS BIRTH, SO IT SEEM TO BE LEGIT,
FOR HIM, HE SEEMS TO BE SURE OF IT. AND ONE EXPERT IS CONFIRMING IT TO HIM,
THAT IS MORE THAN THE OTHER, WHICH IS STILL BEING DEBATED BY EXPERTS.I
I think the DONALD TRUMP would move the economy and get the jobs for AMERICANS ON THE BEAM,
HE CAN MAKE OR BREAK DEALS WITH THE UNIONS FAIRLY FOR AMERICA’S INTEREST MORE THAN THE SELF UNIONS INTEREST WITHOUT BECOMING THEIR HOSTAGE ‘S PUPPET.
HIS LOVE FOR AMERICA IS COMING THROUGH HIS WHOLE PERSONA, AND THAT IS
SECURING FOR THE AMERICANS A LOT , KNOWING HE WONT SELL HIS SOUL TO THE UN.
AND KEEP AMERICA THE GREATEST COUNTRY ON EARTH. ON THE PATH OF THE BRIGHT FUTURE HE SEE IT AND SAID HE WOULD DO IT,
THAT IS SO POSITIVE , IN COMPARISON, AND HE HAS A GREAT ADMIRATION FOR THE TROOPS,
HE WOULD BE ON THEIR SIDE. AND HE WOULD CLOSE THE BORDERS . AND THIS GUY IS NOT LAZY, HE WOULD WORK TIRESLY TO GIVE TO AMERICA THE BEST SHE DESERVE, BECAUSE HE LOVE HER WITH HIS HEARTH AND SOUL.
AND HE IS SEEKING THE POSITION FOR THE RIGHT REASON
BECAUSE HE WANT THE TOP FOR AMERICA AND THE AMERICANS.
“No person, except a natural born citizen….” Meaning: Both parents BORN in the USA. BECOMING a citizen doesn’t qualify.
@Smorgasbord: actually, anyone born on US soil is a natural born citizen
I am referring to what the term “natural born citizen” meant at the time the Constitution was written. What it means now doesn’t change what the laws were back then.
SMORGASBORD I see what you mean that is to be aspiring for the PRESIDENCY POSITION IS
THE REQUIREMENT, AND THEY CHANGE THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION,
AND WEAKEN THE SOLID FOUNDATION OF THOSE PILLARS OF AMERICA, AND LOOK WHAT
WE HAVE NOW, SUCH DESTRUCTIVE POWERS IN MAKING THIS COUNTRY A MISERABLE PLACE TO LIVE FOR THE CREATORS OF JOBS AND ALL THINGS MADE IN AMERICA,
BUT MR TRUMP NOW AS BEEN ASSURE THAT HE IS MORE ILLEGIBLE
OTHERWISE HE WOULD NOT MENTION HIS DESIRE TO SERVE THIS COUNTRY,
@Smorgasbord: and your source for what it was “back then”?
i have never seen any solid proof that anything of the sort actually existed anywhere but in the delusional minds of the birfers
Why do liberals ALWAYS go into the name calling with peope they disagree with? Is everyone who disagrees with you on a subject “delusional?”
Originally, I was going by different blogs and links in blogs that went into the subject. Do a search of the subject and you will find that the general agreement is that both parents had to be a citizen of the USA. Obama’s dad never was. Even if the term “natural born citizen” doesn’t mean that both parents had to be BORN here, the general agreement is that both parents had to be citizens of the USA at the time of the child’s birth.
It might not matter what the term means. A suphenea has been issue to let a lawyer see the typewritten Obama birth certificate on Monday 8 Aug. That should end this mess, (unless Obama does more blocking) because, in my opinion, there ain’t one. You might want to listen to Fox News on Monday and see if they cover it. I know your propaganda media won’t.
Obama’s main lawyer who has been fighting the release of ANY of his info has gotten her reward and is now a US Supreme Court judge, so she can’t help him now.
I looked through your entire post and didn’t find a single citation or source which indicates what the term “natural born citizen” meant at the time the Constitution was written.
Surely if you have sources, preferably sources that are not blogs, then you’ll be able to cite them.
I’d like to read those sources. I’d like to analyze those sources. I’d like to compare the “general agreement” of your source material to what the Founders had to say.
Cite those sources for me.
Surely there are some historians, or legal scholars, or Supreme Court decisions or something… Right?
As I mentioned earlier, I was going by blogs and emails that were reporting on the issue. There is no definition of what “natural born citizen” meant at the time of the Constitution’s writing. Each person is free to come up with their own definition. Some people go back to the British term “natural born subject.” I don’t form an oppinion about something new until I have gotten enough info to satisfy me. I didn’t want to search the issue and went by what others said. I don’t rembember which blogs they were. I’ll just leave it that each person can decide for themselves.
@Smorgasbord: wow, when you go wrong you REALLY go wrong
first off, stuff the “liberal ” crap where the sun don’t shine
I’m no where near a liberal
I’m just not delusional like you are to believe the crap posted on places like newmax and WND to be factual without a reliable source to back it up
and so far not one of you birfer morons has been able to provide such a source
you guys will never be satisfied with the facts
anyone born on US soil is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
@Aye: no, there isn’t
its just newsmax and WND pushing this crap
DiveCON, of course the one born in the USA is a natural citizen,
but SMORGASBORD mean that position of the top position which is the PRESIDENCY
should and surely demand the father and mother to be US CITIZENS when the birth of the candidate happened ;
I noted that DONALD TRUMP HAD BEEN ASSURE OF IT, when he checked with expert, HIS MOTHER BECAME A CITIZEN BEFORE HIS BIRTH,
It doesn’t mean that when the CONSTITUTION was put in place there was NOT a law written that both parents must have been BORN IN THE US, AND MOST PROBABLY THERE WAS AT THE TIMES,
and at some times that requirement was MAYBE scratch from the genuine papers,
LIKE MANY OTHER ALTERATIONS THE NUMEROUS GOVERNMENT IN POWER DID,
MOST LIKELY TO ACCOMMODATING THEIR VIEWS,
BUT THE REAL UNTOUCHED LAWS ARE STILL VALID IN THEIR GENUINE REQUIREMENTS; are BEING STILL CHALLENGED AS THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN BY MANY BLOGS OF CONSERVATIVES LOYAL TO THE LAWS OF AMERICA AS THE FATHERS CREATED IT AND AS IT WORKED FOR THESE LAST CENTURIES FOR THE PREVIOUS GENERATIONS,
AND UNTOUCHED FOR MANY YEARS.
and that is what MANY LIKE SMORGASBORD ARE STILL FOLLOWING,
that is the truth untouched by time IS not to be discard TOO EASY by the future generations angry and eager to change what don’t suit their need,