In Revealing Contrast To The Patriots Who Built This Nation 244 Years Ago, Consider John Kerry

Speaking to the Copenhagen Democracy Summit this week on a panel via cybercast, John Kerry, former U.S Senator and Secretary of State, and unsuccessful candidate for President in 2004,  told his audience that a victory by President Trump could provoke a revolution in the United States, as he claimed that Republicans have a history of denying voting rights to Democratic voters. Kerry implied that  voter suppression contributed to his defeat in 2004 as well as former Vice President Al Gore’s loss in 2000, and he repeated Stacey Abrams’ completely unsupported claim that this was the reason for her defeat in Georgia’s 2018 gubernatorial race.

“If people don’t have adequate access to the ballot, I mean that’s the stuff on which revolutions are built,” Kerry said.  “If you begin to deny people the capacity of your democracy to work, even the Founding Fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, we have an inherent right to challenge that. And I’m worried that increasingly, people are disaffected. We’re not meeting the standard that we ought to be meeting, so I’m deeply concerned about protecting the vote.”

Kerry’s remarks, as so many of Kerry’s statements have been throughout his career, were reprehensible. The mystery, as always when Kerry is involved, is whether they were made with evil intent, or just as a bi-product of his severely limited intellect. John Kerry is not an intelligent man.

These comment were beyond irresponsible. It raises the fair questions as to whether he is deliberately planting the seed of violence and insurrection (rather than just blathering, as he is wont to do) and whether Kerry is playing a part in a strategy among Democratic leadership (or just encouraging an insurrection on his own).

There are good reasons to suspect that the Democrats are not beneath setting the groundwork for riots and worse if President Trump prevails in November. The steady drumbeats from the news media, based on dubious, unreliable and premature polls of an unstable electorate, that Joe Biden is a certain victor will encourage theories of conspiracy and a stolen election if and when Trump wins. Riots are all but certain, now that the “resistance” has had some practice. The mobs will be ready. Now Kerry, and perhaps others in his party, is recklessly—or deliberately—juggling flaming torches over the metaphorical kerosene of hate and distrust that has been poured everywhere, aided by “Big Lies”, since the 2016 election. I do not, unfortunately, find the analysis by Stacy Lennox extreme or exaggerated…

We are also in a national conversation about how to conduct the election in November. Democrats are insisting on mail-in voting due to the pandemic. Republicans correctly raise concerns about fraud in the process. The objections are framed as voter suppression by Democrats.

In the last several weeks, several other dangerous things have happened. Many Americans have become demoralized as activists who claim the moral high ground demand our history, and even the color of our skin is a source of shame. And racism has stopped being something to overcome. Instead, it is inherent in the very institutions we have built and can only be fixed by reforming the system.

The demoralization follows a blow to the economy caused by nationwide economic shutdowns and further damage from riots. And law enforcement, who would be able to keep citizens safe, has been completely demoralized, with progressive big-city mayors jumping on board. Do you believe in coincidences? Or do you see a strategy?

Now John Kerry and Democrats are setting the country up to question the very foundation of our republic. By choosing the election as the invigorating event, it could rock the nation to its very foundation. One of the defining characteristics of our nation is the peaceful transfer of power following free and fair elections.

The Democrats and their allies have been tearing down that characteristic since the 2016 election. It is far from inconceivable that they are prepared to go all the way.

Of course, it could be that John Kerry, all by himself and on his own, was behaving like a reckless, un-American, traitorous fool.

It wouldn’t be the first time.

14 thoughts on “In Revealing Contrast To The Patriots Who Built This Nation 244 Years Ago, Consider John Kerry

  1. A big part of growing up, of maturing, is recognizing that you lost the race not because the other kid cheated but because he was faster. You’re supposed to learn this at a young age. It’s a hard lesson but it’s supposed to make you train harder. If you don’t learn it you just try to be a better cheater I guess.

  2. John Kerry is not an intelligent man.

    Why do we have to go to a tiny, one man blog to get blunt, spot on accuracy like that?

    • A mystery. It has been screamingly obvious for decades. It was the ultimate example of confirmation bias that the Democrats, after mocking Bush as a moron, nominated Kerry to run against him. Nominating Biden to oppose Trump is similar.

        • Very true. The fact that Howard Dean got as close as he did to the nomination, and he didn’t get close, showed, in retrospect, that the Crazy Virus had taken hold way back then.

          • It’s ironic that Democrats are always the smart ones and Republicans are always dopes. Kerry, Gore and Bush were all essentially contemporaries at Yale and Harvard. All legacies. Bush was supposed to be a dope and Gore and Kerry, being Democrats, were supposed to be intelligent. Funny how Democrats always get into Yale and Harvard based on their intelligence and Republicans are legacies.

            I think John Kerry was just spouting Democratic talking points. He didn’t come up with this scenario and “concern” on his own. He’s never had an original thought in his life. I’m also suspicious of guys who marry for their money. Isn’t John married to a Hapsburg who herself married and then inherited the Heinz ketchup and bean fortune?

  3. Everything I hear points to this being a well thought out plan by the Democrats.

    You know about projection right? Where you interpret another’s behavior by what YOU are doing?

    Keep that in mind next time you hear or read a news story about Trump.

    It almost gives me the chills how accurately they lay out what they are doing when they are interpreting Trump as doing it.

    Who ever writes what Anderson Cooper reads is revealing.

    Things like… “he’s trying to hide what he’s really doing by making people think he cares, while he’s really trying to fool them with his words.”

    “The president only cares that he wins and he will use the virus and misleading the American people to do it.”

    “He says things to fool people into thinking he cares, but all he cares about is pushing his agenda for the country which he hides.”

    “He uses different groups just to get their votes. Making them promises he has no intentions of ever keeping.”

    And other stuff. It truly is revealing. And more what Democrats do.

    I think trump has done petty much everything he said. Mexico may not have paid for the wall but as of yesterday 1200 miles were built. (I think) they do 10 miles a week!!!’ Crazy!!!

    I honestly think the Democratic Party is overall very bad.

    Trump said in an interview last week when talking about them that all of them weren’t bad. And he knows some who really want to help and are working together. But some he said are doing evil things.

    He Even sounded like you for a second which made e wonder if he read this blog.

    He said “they have gone against the will of the American people trying to remove duly elected President since I was elected. “

    I thought… “that’s what jack says!!”

  4. Speaking to the Copenhagen Democracy Summit this week on a panel via cybercast, John Kerry, former U.S Senator and Secretary of State, and unsuccessful candidate for President in 2004, told his audience that a victory by President Trump could provoke a revolution in the United States, as he claimed that Republicans have a history of denying voting rights to Democratic voters.

    The reelection of Donald Trump, should that happen, will unquestionably produce and exacerbate the conditions of rebellion. I wonder if it will function like the not-guilty verdict in the Rodney King police brutality trial. (I watched this National Geographic presentation on the riots and aftermath — it has no narrator, just film footage — and found it fascinating). If there is a ‘revolution’ and if things are heading in that direction I think this needs to be better clarified. What is it? My suggestion that it is difficult to see the present — we tend to see distorted facets or partial aspects — still seems valid. So the question is What is this ‘revolution’ that is being fomented? Who stands behind it? And what is its larger purpose? It looks like the so-called Deep State is a kind of will that exists within the governmental mechanisms. The intelligence community, this seems beyond doubt, is absolutely opposed to Trump and whatever he is or represents. While it would seem that economic and industrial sectors would support Trump given his business orientation, a larger grouping seems to have enrolled itself in Trump-opposition. What will happen between now and November?

    My assertion is that — largely — the ‘revolution’ being fomented is directly an evolution of all the choices and policy-decisions that have been made in the Postwar. If what is happening now is seen as a ‘natural evolution’ of all the previous groundwork, it then makes more sense. I propose that what I just said is seeing. As distinct from merely looking at surfaces.

    What I can no longer accept is this assertion that what is going on is an anomaly, a freakish incident that should not have happened. It is important (I think) to at least note that all through Europe (and as well the former English colonies) that there are dissident political groups that have been described as — slandered as — Nazi-affiliated. France, Austria, Germany, Span, Romania, Sweden — all of these countries have similar rightist and what can be called anti-liberal parties. They are nativist and nationalistic.

    And they also represent a threat. To what exactly? If this question is answered it is one more piece of the puzzle to gaining understanding.

    The implication by citing Kerry is that be engaging with ‘irresponsible speech’ he will contribute to this ‘revolution’. No. This revolution has nothing to do with Kerry and has nothing to do with any one person. Again the question: Who stands behind all of this? Is the question valid? Is the question even possible? This is not a Sixties-style revolution that comes spontaneously from ‘the masses’. Perhaps it is only because those who were *street activists* during the Sixties manifestations, and those who allied thems selves in the following decades, are now elder people who have solid positions within the structures?

    So one can only return to the most logical thesis: this is all part of an effort — an all-out effort it looks like — to thwart Donald Trump’s reelection. But then if that is true there are many other questions that have to be answered about him, he as a figure, and his presidency. I have not been able to find any source that can speak convincingly of the dynamic underneath this unseating effort. It is stating the obvious, of course, and yet there is no clear answer as to why there is such tremendous opposition. That in itself is extraordinary.

    • Aliza said:

      The reelection of Donald Trump, should that happen, will unquestionably produce and exacerbate the conditions of rebellion.

      I think this is beyond rational dispute. And perhaps, that is exactly the message Kerry wants to send in hopes of convincing people that a vote for Trump is a vote for internecine violence.

      Obviously, if enough people fear the re-election of Trump will produce massive civil unrest and outright insurrection, they will quite likely choose to stay home or vote for Biden in the interest of avoiding such a conflict. I could argue that is a rational decision, because civil strife of that magnitude is an evil to be avoided at great cost.

      Great cost — but not all cost. The consequences of Biden to the other side of the argument is no less than their freedom, and God-given rights. Does Kerry imagine that they will silently acquiesce to surrender them to the new Woke Leftism?

      More likely, he thinks that any such uprising on the right can easily be put down by government, and sufficient appeals to patriotic duty by suggesting that the people have spoken. And given what I have seen, it is possible, although I think somewhat unlikely, that he is right. Such a position will be amplified by Republicans in hopes to avoid conflict and a restoration of Republican governance later on, so it’s a bit of an open question.

      But I wonder if it has every occurred to him what happens if he is wrong about that? What if either outcome, sufficiently demagogued, is likely to produce an insurrection? Wouldn’t it make more sense for a “statesman” to avoid stoking that division, rather than inflaming it further, by appealing to rationality rather than what he thinks is morally unassailable partisanship?

      Again, it seems that Jack’s perception of Kerry is either correct, or Kerry is too clever for his own good.

  5. I’d like to offer some kind of cogent analysis, but it escapes me. Why the Democrat party would think an insurrection would advance their cause is a mystery. I suppose if one is so convinced of his/her moral superiority that doubt never enters their mind, it might make sense.

    Can they really be that collectively stupid? Kerry, I know, can be. Just as you say, he isn’t an intelligent man, at least not in the way most people define it. He’s glib enough, but he has no interest in self-examination or self-criticism for dangerous or reckless speech. His intelligence is limited to book-learning. Apparently, the lessons of life, probably due to his privileged existence and unassailable liberal cocoon, have been completely wasted on him if they were ever present in his life at all.

    But surely, not all Democrats share this purblind lack of self-awareness. I know that some of them actually are intelligent in the ways John Kerry manifestly is not. Why is it that they are either silent, or directly participating in laying the groundwork for a future crisis that will cost untold lives, fortunes, and perhaps our very freedoms?

    Can moral certitude be so powerful as to render any self-examination anathema, or at least reckoned completely unnecessary? I have a hard time imagining such a thing in people with actual intellectual acumen, but the silence or even active participation of the “smart” left in this makes me question this judgment.

    Perhaps it is time. After all, it has become virtually impossible for people on opposite sides of the current political divide to even have a conversation. When family “unfriends” or refuses to communicate with family based on their political stance, the echoes of the Civil War are simply to loud and on-the-nose to ignore. So perhaps we have become so far divorced from each other, and built up so much bad blood, that only by slaughtering each other in job lots will we purge it. A scene from The Godfather seems apropos:

    Michael Corleone : How bad do you think it’s gonna be?

    Peter Clemenza : Pretty goddam bad. Probably all the other Families will line up against us. That’s all right. These things gotta happen every five years or so, ten years. Helps to get rid of the bad blood. Been ten years since the last one. You know, you gotta stop them at the beginning. Like they should have stopped Hitler at Munich, they should never let him get away with that, they was just asking for trouble.

    Is this our destiny, to purge bad blood by violence? One could argue that Kerry seems to think so, or believes so strongly in his moral rightness that he can’t imagine any contrary position prevailing. That would be consistent with his apparently dim intellect, but one would think that others who may agree with him but are smart enough not to wish a violent confrontation on the country would rise to take the sword from his hand.

    • I remember Susan Sarandon or someone of her ilk saying in 2016 that Trump’s victory was likely a good thing in that it would “bring on the revolution sooner.” So, John Kerry’s sentiments are nothing new.

Leave a Reply to mermaidmary99 Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.