ABC News Censors Democratic Presidential Candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

ABC News

Before he was assassinated, Robert F. Kennedy declared that “hand in hand with freedom of speech goes the power to be heard.” That does not appear to be the view of ABC News, which censored his son who is now running for the Democratic presidential nomination. ABC objected to Kennedy’s views on COVID-19 vaccines, so it simply announced that it was preventing viewers from hearing those views to protect them from dangerous ideas.

ABC’s Linsey Davis began the interview by introducing Kennedy as “one of the biggest voices pushing anti-vaccine rhetoric, regularly distributing misinformation and disinformation about vaccines, which scientific and medical experts overwhelmingly say are safe and effective based on rigorous scientific studies.”

That apparently was not enough. After telling viewers that this is one of his most famous stances (and its own disagreement), it then censored those views.

After airing the interview, Davis announced “[w]e should note that during our conversation, Kennedy made false claims about the COVID-19 vaccines. We’ve used our editorial judgment in not including extended portions of that exchange in our interview.”

Kennedy tweeted that “47 USC 315 makes it illegal for TV networks to censor Presidential candidates but Thursday, ABC showed its contempt for the law, democracy, and its audience by cutting most of the content of my interview with host Linsey Davis leaving only cherry-picked snippets and a defamatory disclaimer.”

The provision is designed to guarantee equal time for presidential candidates and does add “such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast.” However, that does not mean that a candidate is given carte blanche and cannot be edited. In this case, however, ABC is affirmatively stating that it censored his remarks because it disagreed with them.

Putting aside the federal law, this is wrong. ABC can challenge such views, but it is actively seeking to prevent voters from hearing a presidential candidate on an issue of great public interest and debate.

It is particularly troubling after prior media censorship has been shown to have been wrong in silencing dissenting scientific views.

We have seen various journalistic and scientific figures banned for expressing skepticism over pandemic claims from the origins of the virus to the efficacy of certain treatments. For example, when many people raised the possibility that the virus may have been released from the nearby Chinese virology lab (rather than the “wet market” theory), they were denounced as virtually a lunatic fringe. Even objections to the bias of authors of a report dismissing the lab theory were ridiculed. The New York Times reporter covering the area called it “racist” and implausible.  Now, even W.H.O. admits that the lab theory is possible and Biden officials are admitting that it is indeed plausible.

The same is true with the debate over the efficacy of masks. For over a year, some argued that the commonly used masks are ineffective to protect against the virus. Now, the CDC is warning that the masks do not appear to block these variants and even CNN’s experts are calling the cloth masks “little more than facial decorations.”

Yet, the W.H.O. head is now embracing censorship as a means of combating the “infodemic.” There are also calls, including from the White House, for Spotify to ban or curtail Joe Rogan’s show for allowing dissenting views to be aired on Covid or its treatment.

If there had not been such extensive censorship of dissenting viewpoints, there might have been more discussion on the costs and science behind the lockdowns. Instead, there was a chilling effect on such dissenting voices and those expressing doubts were labeled extremists or conspiracy theorists. Recently, for example, scientists have come forward to admit that they also suspected the Wuhan lab was the origin of virus but were silenced by the backlash at the CDC and universities.

It is also not clear where ABC draws the line. Joe Biden has made so many false statements that the Washington Post gave him a “bottomless Pinocchio.” Likewise, many view contested claims over climate change and transgender issues to be dangerous. Will ABC now be censoring these other candidates or positions?

As noted by ABC, the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion still disagrees with Kennedy. That is fair to note. However, ABC is now claiming the right to censor presidential candidates to protect the public from harmful thoughts or disinformation, including major issues behind a campaign. It is wrong for both the country and for journalism.

We do not have to be protected from dangerous thoughts by the media. A far greater danger lurks in the indoctrination and orthodoxy that comes from censorship.

235 thoughts on “ABC News Censors Democratic Presidential Candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.”

  1. April 15, 2023 Independent Analysis Estimates 26.6 Million Americans Injured by COVID Shots in 2022

    A recent independent analysis conducted by the global macro alternative investment firm Phinance Technologies of Portugal estimates that of 148 million people vaccinated for COVID-19 in the United States in 2022, about 26.6 million were injured by the shots they received and 1.36 million have been disabled.1 The Vaccine Damage Project – Human Project report was compiled by former Wall Street analyst Ed Dowd and his team at the research firm and showed that there were 310,000 excess deaths as a result of COVID shots.×467.jpg

  2. There is no ‘news media’ … there are alleged news networks who have sold out the country and it’s citizens. They must be put out of business.

  3. Kennedy is by no means a conservative but Tucker Carlson had him on his show and he let him say what he had to say. It’s most likely that on most issues Carlson and Kennedy are polar opposites but Carlson allowed Kennedy to voice his views without censorship. Consequently comparing censorship by ABC and Fox News doesn’t come close to passing the smell test. You may have forgotten what you learned in elementary school. One of these things is not like the other. That is of course if you learned it.

    1. Thinkitthrough – virtually every word of his reply to me was patently ridiculous (including “and” and “the”). Comparing vaccine hesitancy to Alex Jones’ claims about Sandyhook? Lauding censorship as “corporate responsibility”? Not to be taken seriously, and I suspect he had no intention of providing a good-faith justification.

      1. Oldman. I think that some of Alex Jones subjects are over the top. However, I can make my own decision about what he says without having some nanny news station deciding what I can not hear. I do not agree with what he says but I will defend his right to say it. My contingencies are the calling for the murdering of someone you don’t agree with (see Jane Fonda) or chid pornography including the mutilation of a child for money.

        1. All speech should be allowed even threats. Every law made agaibst free speech is unconstitutional.

          1. “All speech should be allowed even threats. ”

            It is incredible that you believe it legal for a gangster to threaten to burn your place of work, kill your wife and rape your daughter.

  4. Just by way of a pleasant reminder to Professor Turley to KEEP IT REAL: There’s not a single website I’m aware of — including this one — that hasn’t censored and/or BANNED people, when it later turned out that the censored/banned person turned out to be RIGHT and the website WRONG concerning the root issue that led to the censorship/banning.

    That’s NOT to be taken as a defense of ABC garbage “news.” They are among the worst of the worst, and MANY years ago were the second website ever to ban me from commenting under my real name and previous computer address. The first site ever to ban me was the wholly-disreputable Mother Jones website. I posted a single comment at that trash site and was instantly swarmed by its inbred regulars, then banned. The entire episode took less than 10 minutes. LOL

    This Res Ipsa site was probably somewhere around the 7th or 8th site to ban me. I stopped counting at 5, but there have been at least a dozen more bans since then. Websites generally allow wild nonsense without banning it — probably because the ridiculousness of the comments cancel themselves. But reasonable comments with which a website has an ideological disagreement often lead to people getting censored or banned, AFTER they get attacked by the website’s hired defenders posing as commenters.

    If raging hypocrisy and deceitfulness were eliminated from the web, there’d be very few “news” sites left. ABC isn’t really anything special when it comes to hypocrisy and dishonesty. They just take it a bit further than most of the others.
    Subtlety is not in ABC’s DNA.

    1. Ralph, I’ve read some really wacky stuff on this blog but the people who made such statements are still here everyday. So the conclusion that we must come too is that you are making statements worthy of Atilla the Hun to get one of your comments banned. Perhaps it’s just a mental game you like to play.

      1. Yea Ralph you want to say anything you want to say about this blog post and me and if I respond in defense you think I should be banned. I say again your being banned all the time is just an obvious little mind game that you play.

        1. Ralph, I knew that sooner or later the gesticulated raving would begin. I never said that you should be banned from this blog I only pointed out that your opinions make no sense. In response you don’t respond to my opinions but call me trash. I don’t even say that you should be banned for calling me trash. How ironic that you complain about your comments being banned and then you follow up with a desire for someone else to be banned. Banned you say and yet here you are.

    2. that’s why I don’t get my daily dose of news from these so called journalist, anchors, news readers
      news outlets. they are incapable of honest unbiased news reporting.

  5. ABC News Censors Democratic Presidential Candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

    The FCC needs to re-institute the fairness doctrine.

    Let listeners/views weigh the merits of an issue not censorial SoB’s posing as journalists.

    1. That would certainly kill conservative talk radio.

      The real problem is there is hardly “two sides” to an issue. Framing it as left-right is generally a misnomer. So, there’s no real way to apply the “fairness” doctrine without inserting the network’s bias. Do you give equal time to Libertarians and Greens? What about ethnic nationalist parties like the American Freedom Party or the New Afrikan Black Panther Party? If not, how do you make that determination?

      If you set a popularity threshold for access, then the station isn’t been viewpoint neutral. It is simply marginalizing minority viewpoints. Thus, the fairness doctrine is generally unworkable.

      1. We should remember that the DNC used the fairness doctrine in 1964 to silence supporters of Barry Goldwater.
        See Paul Matzko, “The Red Lion Roars Again”: The Fairness Doctrine, the Democratic National Committee, and the Election of 1964.”
        An abstract of chapter 5 states:
        “After the assassination of John F. Kennedy, leadership of the counter–Radio Right censorship campaign [in other words, it was already in effect] passed to the Democratic National Committee (DNC). DNC Chairman John Bailey recruited operative Wayne Phillips to take charge of a team that would intimidate conservative broadcasters who either supported Barry Goldwater or attacked Lyndon Johnson during the 1964 election. By Phillips’s own estimations, the project was a remarkable success, garnering hundreds of hours of free airtime via Fairness Doctrine complaints. They were aided by a new front organization—secretly created by the DNC—called the National Council for Civic Responsibility. As a bonus, the campaign also generated a court challenge from journalist Fred Cook against conservative radio station owner John Norris. The resulting court case, Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC, went all the way to the US Supreme Court, which ultimately upheld the Fairness Doctrine.”
        Outlawing “unfairness” is about as plausable as outlawing “misinformation”. There is no objective definition of the terms. It is simply a disguise for suppressing opinions the politically powerful disagree with.

  6. Professor Turley,

    Ironically, you have selectively edited the statute. It explicitly states, “Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this chapter to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.”

    ABC News has an obligation to operate in the public interest. Unless you have the leaked transcript of what he said, we can only speculate. But, he has made “fire in a crowded theater” -type claims in the past, which absolutely should not be spread by news organizations with a statutory obligation to “operate in the public interest.” ABC gave RFK Jr. the opportunity to discuss his claims, but it ultimately determined that these views were not in the public interest.

    Especially given what happened to Fox recently with Dominion, ABC has every reason to be cautious about what it disseminates on its news programs. The standard is different when a network has a TV personality discussing his views on an opinion program (as Fox has demonstrated in court). But, this was a news program (“World News Tonight”).

    1. And “[YOU also] have selectively edited the statute.”
      Looks like you glossed right over the part that says, “Nothing in the foregoing sentence… shall be construed as relieving broadcasters… from the obligation imposed upon them under this afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.”
      It is my impression that RFK should have been allowed to state his views, and ABC was perfectly free to challenge him, contemporaneously on them, in the same broadcast (defeating your concern about viewers/listeners only hearing one side), or ABC could present its own “editorial” opinion to viewers/listeners, summarizing RFK’s comments and offering an alternative view/opinion, OR ABC could simply offer a standard “disclaimer,” as many networks do, that the opinions of guests “are not necessarily the opinions” of the station/network/program, and let RFK say what he wants.
      Instead of “afford[ing] reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance,” ABC bleeped out RFK’s opinion, and worse, told its audience that his comments were “false.”
      What say you?

      1. “but it ultimately determined that these views were not in the public interest.”
        anonny: mandatory Covid vaccines and mandatory masks and mandatory school closings are not in the public interest?

  7. “I will shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”

    – JFK

    That cannot happen, Sir, however will the Deep Deep State “Swamp” control America?

    It didn’t.

  8. The DNC & Biden

    It speaks volumes of what They (The DNC) already know. It’s the DNC Game Plan

    They know Biden will loose – The rational: If your going to loose the 2024 Election, then why injure future viable Candidates in the process. Let Biden take the fall and go on out-to-pasture. They (The DNC) will let the Biden(s) Hang Themselves by their own noose of corruption.

    They also will put Biden ‘Up’ as a Contender to raise Money for the DNC War Chest (an est. 2 Billion is needed for the 2024 election cycle).
    In Marketing jargon this is known as a Loss-Leader, wherein the Product (Biden) is sold at a Loss in order to get the Buyers (Voters) into the Store (Party), where another Democratic Party Candidate can sweep-up their Votes.

    Finally, after raising Money for the 2024 Election, Biden may also drop out, for any number of reasons at anytime before the Election, leaving Kamala the Presidential Runner or Other Democrat.

    The WAR, The Democrats have done everything They could to make this War happen, (And WE know it) Harassing, Badgering, and Attacking Donald Trump from his initial Candidacy, throughout his Presidency, his Post-Presidency, and his Re-Election Campaign. So that there would be no impediment to the War efforts against Russia in Ukraine.

    Henceforth – Now that They have Their War, They want to put the blame (blame of the War) on the Republicans and pivot back to their previous offensive positions of Harassing, Badgering and Attacking the Republicans. It takes nothing but Words for Them to destroy the opposition and It’s easy for Them to do.

    Make no mistake, This War is the full responsibility of the Democrats (The DNC
    Don’t let them get away with this juxtaposition, Make them Eat every bit of It.
    The Democrats want to have Their War & Cake and Eat it to.

    Wounded Warriors of this War (III) – are the Democrat’s fault.
    The War Monger’s can not escape, They must; be Hunted, Punished, and brought to Justice
    (To paraphrase Pres. George W. Bush).

    The Line has been drawn.

    The WAR Mongers believe that They can turn this event (WAR) into Their favor. They intend to re-calibrate the Global Economics by a Victory and Clean-the-Slate of Debt by re-writing the terms. Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) will be employed as well as Stock Market manipulations (Bank & Corp Stock Valuations), Trade Agreements and Sanctions. It’s a Winner-take-All mentality.

    In the end, War is about Economics & Control. Politicians, Industrialist, Investors, and Military Personnel will line Their pockets with Gold ($USD), Others will be no better off than They were before, and some will loose Their Lives.

    However, The Power is already resting in the Hands of the Chinese, They are the World’s Producer. Most importantly, They don’t hold Debts (Marco Economic Debts). In addition their Allies (B.R.I.C.) are stable Sovereigns.

    America is going to be put back in It’s place, and have It’s Ass handed to It in the process. The Democrats have a lot to pay for (Lives)[.]

    They are going to tell You: “We don’t have a Choice” but to go into this War.
    In one way or another (Media Propaganda).
    You won’t have a Choice. Biden ( will leave Office and has left US with a WAR.


    It’s a ‘Zero-Sum’ Game for All. [Nash Equilibrium: ‎Non-cooperative Game Theory – Dr. John Nash]

    The DNC’s Candidates:

    Robert Kennedy:
    If the NDC thinks that They can reach Détente with Russia and create a Cold War stability by pitting Robert Kennedy vs Putin [or with Xi Jinping (china)] through some bizarre avant-garde drawn Khrushchev vs Kennedy scenario. Russia is not interested in drawing a Geo-political line for a New Iron Curtain. Russian Nationalism calls for the agreed WWII line to be honored. Kennedy – Forget it.

    Gavin Newsom:
    Gavin Newsom has a absolutely terrible record when it comes to his management as Mayor of San Fransco, he created a 1.5 Billion Dollar debt. Of which He ran away from by running for Governor and taking Higher-Office able to escape his responsibility. Since then He has run the State of California into huge debt, This after Jerry ‘Moonbeam’ Brown handed Gavin Newsom a clean fiscal slate.

    His Modus-Operandi (M.O.) is to escape the real consequences of the mess(es) he makes and leaves behind, He looks for Financial Credit Equity (a Line-of-Credit) to spend and look like a Million Bucks. He has no skin in the Game and takes no negative responsibility. (That M.O. fits Kamala Harris like a glove to)

    Since America already has a mess caused by the Democrats, and the Country is Broke, no more Credit ($) to max out, Gavin will probably not Run, the Presidency is not ‘pretty’ enough for his likes at this time. That reasoning would also apply to Other Candidates.
    This and the fact that Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein are gone leaving him with a few fellow Californians that are his jealous Contenders.

    Berni Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, … have all gotten a little too long-in-the-tooth.

    The 2019-2020 Field: Democratic presidential debate participation, 2019-2020 (You can count ‘at least’ 4 of these Candidates out),_2020#Democratic_presidential_debate_participation.2C_2019-2020

    There is never a vacuum.


    With all that is being pushed in the available information channels, I can not escape the thought that ‘all this’ is a “Distraction” from the real facts that our World (The U.S.A.) has Fractured (1), and the Parts (2), have Crumbled (3), and are Deteriorating (4).

    The ‘Economics’ are not sound, The Policy is compromised (The Constitution and respect for Laws), and Undeclared WAR (Globally). Just as America has reached a streamlined Supply Chain Delivery System for Goods & Services (Basic Needs: Food, Clothes, Shelter, and Utilities Water & Electricity & Sanitation, and Health (Medical).

    It’s not 101% perfect, however when you compared it to the rest of the World, it was functioning pretty darn good.

    Like Guns, Money is not Killing Us. It is the PEOPLE (Politics, Policy, Systems, …) that have the fingers on the trigger. You might say that Money stops Us from Killing each Other.

    SO why is it Breaking Down now [?] There are some People that want this to happen, somewhere … everywhere.

    WE each hold the capacity of “The Power of Positive Thinking”. WE don’t need Someone to Lead Us (Trump).
    WE can Live without “Them” (The Democrats|Deep State|Negativity) and be much stronger.

    Biden’s a downer, so forget about Him. The Democrats are a downer, so forget about Them. The Deep State is a downer, so forget about IT.

    They can’t touch this, because it’s Yours. It’s Your Happiness.

  9. Something desperately needs to be done. The liberal media is the most powerful industry in America and it’s hellbent on censoring, attacking, mocking, omitting and lying about all things that don’t fit their, more often than not, manufactured narrative/s. Words like “disinformation” and “misinformation”, phrases like , “false claims” and “editorial judgment”, etc., are thrown around by the leftists with impunity, as if they and they alone are the “Arbiters Of Truth”, You dare not question them or you will be sorry. And the most sicking thing? They no longer even try to hide their righteous indignation, their transparent agenda, their propaganda. It’s all out in the open now, and it’s rewarded. The more bias and offensive they are, the more they are admired by their peers and the further they will go in the business. Truly disgusting what has become of American journalism.

    1. RFK Jr should publish the statements he made that were censored.

      I agree with much of what he says, though sometimes he distorts the sources he claims to be relying on. My biggest concern with him is energy policy. He has made very few clear statements about that, beyond wanting to remove “subsidies” for carbon and then letting the “free market” determine the mix. I suspect that his concept of the “free market” includes a government-defined cost of carbon that producers and users of fossil fuels would have to pay.

      Does anyone know where he stands on energy policy?

      1. Congress has no power to regulate “energy,” the energy industry or carbon.

        Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to regulate the value of money, Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes, and land and naval Forces.

        That is all; read it.

        You have accepted the arbitrary, communist “dictatorship of the proletariat” and rejected American constitutional freedom.

        Individuals were provided maximal freedom while government was severely limited and restricted by the Constitution.

        What kind of American are you?

        Please cite any legal basis for Congress regulating anything.

        All of these unconstitutional acts must have been struck down by the Supreme Court through its power of Judicial Review revealed in Marbury v. Madison, 1803

        Judicial Review in the United States

        The legitimacy of judicial review and the judge’s approach to judicial review are discussed.

        The doctrine of judicial review holds that the courts are vested with the authority to determine the legitimacy of the acts of the executive and the legislative branches of government.

        – Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs


    “ABC objected to Kennedy’s views on COVID-19 vaccines, so it simply announced that it was preventing viewers from hearing those views to protect them from dangerous ideas.”

    – Professor Turley

    This is the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” understanding that the American Founders excised the dictatorship of the monarchy and all dictatorship in perpetuity.

    “[I and my disciples will seize control and protect and provide for all citizens of the State, womb to the tomb].”

    – Karl Marx

    “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

    – Karl Marx

    By contrast, the American Founders’ thesis is: Freedom and Self-Reliance.

    What happened, America?

    What happened was Abraham Lincoln, his treasonous “socialist” successors and the subsequent treasonous “progressives” who “progressively” and incrementally implemented the principles of communism over the past 163 years.

    “They consider it…the lot of Abraham Lincoln,…to lead his country through…the RECONSTRUCTION of a social world.”

    – Karl Marx to Abraham Lincoln, Letter, 1864

  11. I guess I’m really old (64) as I never, truly NEVER in my entire lifetime thought I’d be hearing all these arguments to suppress free speech. The logic being used, i.e. misconstrued to support such arguments in direct conflict with our constitution not only shows a direct connection to the party currently in power, but to the ignorance of the American public and importance of our constitutional rights. Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote, “The greatest danger to liberty lurks in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding”…
    In my opinion as it relates to our current political environment, I think “men of… well meaning” is giving them credit they don’t deserve

    1. What about the arguments made by GOP-led Montana legislature to suppress the free speech and debate of a legislator. All she did was speak here mind at the appropriate time during legislative session. But, she has been censured by the right for infringing on their safe space.

      1. What about . . .

        Ever hear of whataboutism? “The technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.”

        -Oxford Dictionary

  12. Earlier Olly posted quote from John Kennedy. “There is no time in history where the people who were censoring speech were the good guys”. It should be recognized that the mainstream Media are not the good guys. Kennedy called them bad (evil) guys just like Tucker Carlson. Has anybody here seen my old friend John. Can you tell me where he’s gone. Has anybody here seen my old friend Martin can you tell me where he’s gone.

  13. The state I live in, on Election Day during the primaries I can declare a party affiliation for one day. I may become a democrat for a day and vote for RFK jr. ABC will not give him any coverage and the dims will not let the big guy debate him.

  14. Today is May 1, traditionally the day Communists displayed their might with parades, show of military dominance, and the (forced) gathering of the citizens of those Communist countries to show their solidarity. Had AOC been around at the time, Leonid Brezhnev could have just paraded her in Red Square. Alas we have Biden’s Handlers and the MSM showing their fascist Marxist marriage while they go after our children, in obsequiousness to Karl Marx’s “Communist Manifesto”, which I quoted at length yesterday.

    Some of us, too few of us, remember what the fruits of the XX Century leaders Communism accomplished in an effort to build back better™. Thus it is important today to recall the > 100+ million lives lost under Communist leaders who lied to their people with promises to create diversity, equity and inclusion for all, with cooperation of the “journalists” of those nations, of course. Here’s looking at you, ABC!

    Revolutions, like trees, must be judged by their fruit,” Ignazio Silone wrote, and this is the standard the authors apply to the Communist experience―in the China of “the Great Helmsman,” Kim Il Sung’s Korea, Vietnam under “Uncle Ho” and Cuba under Castro, Ethiopia under Mengistu, Angola under Neto, and Afghanistan under Najibullah. The authors, all distinguished scholars based in Europe, document Communist crimes against humanity, but also crimes against national and universal culture, from Stalin’s destruction of hundreds of churches in Moscow to Ceausescu’s leveling of the historic heart of Bucharest to the widescale devastation visited on Chinese culture by Mao’s Red Guards.
    – from a book review of The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression

    So happy Communists Memorial of Saint Joseph the Worker, on this May 1, a Catholic memorial that Pope Pius XII instituted in 1955 in reply to global Communists.


    The example of St. Joseph the Worker amid postmodernism, transgenderism, and wokism

  15. This is all the proof you need that your Dem party has been hijacked – Dems are censoring Dems if they fall out of line (see: Tulsi Gabbard). We are dealing with a regime that has taken the Dem name in vain – open your eyes and stop blindly supporting it. You are supporting elitist fascism with your blind votes. Abortion was not made illegal by the recent decision. JFK is dead and buried and rolling in his grave.

    I have friends in Ireland that talk about moderate liberals. These do not exist, and indeed, are not tolerated, in America’s modern Dem party. WAKE UP. Get over your own prejudices and do the right thing. A blue wave is a death wave for America in the 21st century, and far too many of us still seem to think Bill Clinton is POTUS, Newt Gingrich is the devil, and you are somehow protecting something when in fact you are trading everything away, metering it our bit by bit every damn day. get out of the hermetically sealed cave you have been living in since the 90s. Obama was not a savior, and he was not even that smart, just half-melanin advantaged in the eyes of identity BS.

    Wake. Up.

  16. For over 230 years, we have used government to defeat oligarchism. The federal government busted trusts, taxed the rich, fired generals, and RICO’ed criminals to defend our constitutional republic from consortiums of avaricious and ruthless men.

    But what do you do when the government is the oligarchy? What do you do when the Deep State is the revolving door between industrial, academic, and media brahmins who arrogate to themselves the authority to talk down to the rest of us?

    Reagan was at best only partially successful at rolling back government, and now the leviathan is beached on the Potomac… and the oligarchs own it. They finally gamed the system.

    So what do we do? I honestly don’t know yet.

    I can tell you what the Romans did. In the beginning, the Roman Senate was an elite class of patriots who organized redoubtable Latin farmers to create a powerful civilization.

    But success carried the seeds of its own destruction. The Senate, thanks to conquest and slavery, became a state unto itself, independent of the people. It became in every sense an oligarchy that sought only to marginalize everyone else.

    The Romans decided to fight the oligarchs with a dog who eats all the other dogs. Enter Caesar and the imperial period of Rome. But it, too, ended badly. Going from oligarchy to monarchy only delayed the collapse by introducing intermediate horrors.

    So what happens if the Deep State wins? They can’t. Strategically, their program is utterly incoherent. They can’t win, but they can make sure everyone loses. They can drive all of us to civil conflict and societal collapse. We’re already starting to see those effects.

    The Roman Senate was doomed to disintegration or dictatorship. So is our Deep State. Can we avoid their mistakes? Help me with this.

    1. Great points, Diogenes. “Can we avoid their mistakes?” I believe the Founders were on the right track in preventing another ‘Fall of Rome’ by ensuring US citizens having the Right to dismiss parts of their own government (or the whole thing) and the means necessary to accomplish that, if ever needed. So far, it’s working. For sure, time will tell if Deep State pushes too far (even farther?), but should it choose to continue down the current path there are enough ummm, ‘prepared people’ to ‘communicate back’ the errors of their ways – if you catch my drift.

  17. In their servitude to the federal governing bureaucracy, the corporate statists who own and run ABC will do what they will to serve the medical-industrial complex’s propaganda. If the complex says the science is settled, then it’s settled. If the complex says a vaccine is safe, then it’s safe. And when the complex says it is too few who suffer medical adversities to warrant concern and that everyone should accept it and just move on, then most do faithfully oblige and just move on.

    For some time now Kennedy has been sharing the rest of the science for the benefit of those interested in knowing all of the science. Kennedy will surely keep on sharing what he knows, but for ABC at least it appears his sharing has been enough. Time to shut it down so not to risk losing any further hold on its dutiful and unwavering base.

  18. Joseph Biden is, to use the words of Don Lemon, ‘past his prime.’ His slide began in 1987–88 during his unsuccessful run for the presidential candidacy — Al Gore was the much better candidate but the Dems chose Dukakis — politics is a strange game. Joe Biden is way way past his prime — RFK, Jr. is in his prime, and it’s obvious.
    The ABC broadcasting organization should be censured and/or fined by the FCC for its violations of the law.

  19. There is no time in history where the people who were censoring speech were the good guys. Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

    Prove him wrong.

Leave a Reply