John Kerry Finally Makes An Accurate Statement, But His Intent Is All Wrong

I’m a big believer in Intent. If something is said or done with no ill will intended, then criticizing it, getting rid of it, or destroying it should be reconsidered. Two things that come to mind are the left’s destruction of statues from the Civil War or anything that offends their delicate sensibilities. The statues of Southern generals that reminded the left of slavery were not erected out of malice. They are a part of American history, warts and all, and represent a time that should not be forgotten. The left’s insistence on their removal demonstrates small-mindedness and a desire to whitewash America’s past. That is, however, until the radicals want to push reparations, then they want everyone to remember it.

Another example is the left’s infatuation with changing Native American named teams. The name Washington Redskins was not chosen to denigrate Native Americans; in fact, it was chosen to highlight them. The Cleveland Indians’ name was selected for the same reason, but the left insisted it be changed because they didn’t like the mascot’s image. In these two examples, the intent was not to harm, but the rampaging radicals never considered that truth.

Recently, John Kerry made a true statement, but his reason for saying it, his bottom-line intent, was decidedly wrong. During the United Nations General Assembly fall meetings, the World Economic Forum (WEF) held its ‘Sustainable Development Impact Meetings’ concurrently. Kerry revealed that he and other radical globalist entities have a disdain for the First Amendment because it hinders them from firmly establishing their narrative.

Kerry made his statements during a panel discussion called “It’s Not Easy Trading Green.”

“Our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to hammer disinformation out of existence. What we need is to win…the right to govern by hopefully winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change.”

Kerry, who’s now 80, spoke about energy last week. He expressed a desire to “curb” the flow of information about environmentalism to “have some accountability” for persons he believes are not promoting the facts. 

“If people only go to one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda, and they’re putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence.”

Kerry then continued to whine that there is no centralized authority to declare what is truth. 

“Democracies around the world now are struggling with the absence of a sort of truth arbiter, and there’s no one who defines what facts really are. So what we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern, by hopefully winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change.” 

He then voiced his thoughts on the election, insinuating that Harris’s puppeteers would move us more toward this type of autocratic government.

“I think democracies are very challenged right now and have not proven they can move fast enough or big enough to deal with the challenges they are facing, and to me, that is part of what this election is all about. Will we break the fever in the United States?” 

Kerry’s statement that “Our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to hammer disinformation out of existence” is correct, but how he states it makes it seem like a problem. It isn’t! The First Amendment, and for that matter the entire Bill of Rights, is designed to protect us against the type of autocratic government Kerry craves.

Kerry wants the radical left to have the final say on what is the truth. Essentially eliminating any opinion that disagrees with or disputes their outlandish lies.

If Kerry and Democratic liberals get their way, we will suffer with a government that:

Demonstrates a leadership style where a single leader or party has complete control over an organization, group, or citizenship. Autocratic leaders are characterized by the following:

Decision-making:

Autocratic leaders make all decisions, often based on their own ideas, and rarely accept input from others.

Structure:

Autocratic leaders create a highly structured environment with clearly defined rules and processes.

Control:

Autocratic leaders have intense control over tasks and may even be involved in every action their subordinates take.

Authority:

Autocratic leaders gain authority through punishment, threats, demands, orders, rules, and regulations. 

Kerry knows the protection afforded by the First Amendment, and he hates it. He’s a used car salesman promoting a way of life that would make radical socialism our reality. Fortunately, our Founding Fathers anticipated this type of tyrannical threat and short-circuited it with their theoretical wisdom and a quill pen.