I find this disturbing on a deep level, being a mother, and having been involved in journalism, mainly concerning politics and ethics, for quite some
Disclaimer: I work for you, and will not be in the pay of any mainstream publications, ever. Walked away as a young up-and-comer, and whenever I
look back, I know it was the only correct choice for a REAL journalist.
Now, back to my peers who stayed in, and those we are supposed to be monitoring and analysing, our public officials.
Shouldn't sympathy for kids be our primary emotion at this point, i.e. Norway's victims? And Arizona's tragic shooting (Gabriel Gifford, and the
other victims, one of which was a 9-year-old girl who had recently won her school election) should also have us in a sympathetic and protective mode
But the kids getting involved today? Why the hate?
My instinct and choice is to support and shape them to a good and attainable form of ethics, that struggles ever more to find solutions that increase
our reach and grasp as human beings, and supposedly civilized ones.
Why wouldn't these more prominent people do the same? What is provoking this type of animosity? How dare we call ourselves civilized if we tolerate
Obviously, the negative attitude here makes no sense, and yet it is palpable. So how come these folks are not afraid to act this way on TV?
Is it because this is the general attitude of our federal government? If it is, it has to trickle down over time, to other officials in the state
governments, and may explain why some states have close ties to Washington, while others make it a point to be more independent, and not in
Washington's pocket, amongst their local constituents. I am speaking of governors here, as opposed to the reps and senators and lobbyists of each
Jesse Ventura most notably comes to mind.
Here are the links with a brief description of each:
The first is from the New Yorker. Please note the comments, much more in line with the Norweigan PM than Glenn Beck, and some call him out for what
he apparently chooses to flaunt, callousness.
These comments reflect the more common attitude, which I mentioned above. Here is the anger. Here is the truth. Here is the sympathy that makes
So Glenn Beck is an oddball. Not popular amongst most folks, since he finds a way to offend even his own supporters at one point or another. In other
words, not mainstream
Children are precious, and non-negotiable. Is Glenn Beck's network really this unafraid to push this agenda? What makes them believe it is
acceptable? Why are they unafraid of ratings drops? Most Americans draw the line at their own kids. Is it important to the NWO to separate people
from parents, because they are the key to feeling special, secure, important, and valued as an individual? Research on the UN says, yes. Parents,
in their opinion, seem to be the whole problem. Solving it would require separating the offspring from its primary support, which happens to nurture
a child as an individual. It is this individuality that creates opposition to any sort of programming, or giving up of rights.
So I do think it is all of a piece. Every evil regime is careful to do the same. If the UN is promoting an inhumane agenda, it must do the same
somehow, perhaps gradually, over time. Not to make the same mistakes as the past, and snatch the kids outright, but to condition them away,
eventually making them tired of their own kids, and willing to hand them over. Life breaks them, or they just forget how to love, like many today,
who have not been loved themselves.
Back to the networks airing this, and paying these horrible people to pose as journalists.
From 2009, audio available at link. Norah O'Donnell berates young girl at Palin book-signing.
Also note that O'Donnell was promoted recently to White House correspondent, in a move that was referring to as "stunning," and given a spot on a
major political talk show. Why was she promoted so prominently? Why is it a shock even to the media community?
Is it because she truly reflects the government's attitude toward our most promising offspring?
Further, if you were a Palin supporter, wouldn't this horrify you? Is it brazen social programming at its worst, or what?! Makes no sense in common
terms, and must indicate a deeper trend.
If commercial success is not a priority, then they may as well fly a flag reading, "State-sponsored TV."
As coldly as Obama has spoken of his own kids (remember the abortion comments he made-see below), this hints at a truly frigid attitude in Washington.
How can we trust these people to ensure a future, when the citizens of that future are treated like dirt for all to see? He never mentioned what the
daughter in question might need or want, and only referred to unplanned pregnancy as a "mistake." There was no reference to any other choice or
option besides abortion, no mention of his daughter's feelings, rights, choices, or anything. That is the thing that turned me off way back when,
I found this quote in a blog, and the blog is not the point, it is the quote, so please be aware and don't be entangled in the blog itself. I am not a
Catholic, and do not have anything against anyone who is, so there we go. It was just the first copy of the quote I found. I support pro-human
agendas, lol. The right to choose, and the option to not have to, as well. That is fair, and balanced. Justice and mercy. Why give up either?
It is also of note, however, that most responses do not identify with this cold attitude, which is his choice, of course. It does not appear to be the
Also, just a handy visual aid to show who O'Donnell wishes to be seen as, not very professional, but quite lovely and provocative. Interesting. Most
female journalists would attempt to call little attention to their bodies, in fear of being taken less seriously, but things have been changing for a
while now. Since we can work in the mainstream media now, without opposition, we decided to use our "advantages" to run it now? She is certainly not
afraid to lose credibility, and so that must not be the point. So what is left? Nothing good!
Who is distancing themselves politically? Is there no one who is afraid to be inhuman in public?
Why even run if one does not take a definitive stance against this attitude? They are showing their hand, in my humble opinion, and at this point,
are not worried about popularity. This alarms me greatly, since it is the main method, uh, forever, of getting elected, selling ad space, and affects
both news outlets and the politicians they identify with.
Help me out, someone.
edit on 31-7-2011 by Copperflower because: Correction