It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why do Politicians and Political Commentators Hate Good Kids?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 11:01 AM
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 time.

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 towards all.

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 this?

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 state.

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 sense.

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, concerning Obama.

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 majority's, however.

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

posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 12:36 PM
Empathy is portrayed as a weakness these days and a deeper social understanding is not promoted in the decision making process. The influence of money on the decision making process and this form of control is what is being promoted. Some economic philosophy believes that as long as everyone looks after themselves, society benefits. This is not the case as the fall of many previous civilisations have demonstrated with the tragedy of the commons. With 9/11 going on without resolution, a detached and scared culture is growing that is unable to confront many realities and being reduced to a state of unemotional, personal survival.

Underneath all these issues I do see a confrontation going on over the rights of self determination and social order managed through emotion and reason or through power and control.

posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:04 PM
Double post
edit on 31-7-2011 by kwakakev because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:20 PM
Thank you for your insightful response. I know others are seeing it too.

I could not agree more, and I think it shows who the real target audience must be, and who the desirable (considered important?) power block(s) of voters are.

Finding out who this pertains to is really important, I think. Knowing the mind of the enemy is invaluable information in any conflict.

Let us see:

The person who would not be offended by this callousness would be whom?

No kids, probably. I shudder to think there are loads of parents out there who could tolerate this kind of cruelty.
Biologically, it bothers one. So my guess is people who, as a significant group, do not have kids, and those who do not want kids for one reason or another.

Another thread here on ATS mentioned "no kids" trends, as well, just within the last couple of days.

In light of the Norway violence, I just can't believe Beck and others are so brazenly open about it. This indicates that it is acceptable to his peers and his target audience.

So, our question is, who is behind this trend? Is it a natural consequence of all the cold-hearted _____ running everything in this country? Probably.

But still, who cares about other people's kids enough to be so bold? Most people I know who don't believe in having kids make that decision out of love for kids, and pity for them coming into a cruel and crazy world. They are kind and loving people, who really would make the best parents.

I just don't get it. Is it against parents for having kids? This seems more likely to me.

Quickest way to being a tool without your consent? Have kids.
edit on 31-7-2011 by Copperflower because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:45 PM
Op, to be very honest with you. I am not exactly sure what the actual intent of your post is. You seem to have an issue with the separation process between parent and child. Also you accuse the UN of inhumane agenda's and have a problem with abortion?

The whole post in my optic reads like a conglomeration of disconnected pieces. What is it exactly that you are trying to bring across?

I admit, English is not my first language, so this might be the cause of my not-understanding.

You bring across the notion of empathy. You point out the importance of treating children with empathy and teaching them such values.

In my inability to fully understand your op I will give my view on empathy in relation to abortion. Just because this issue truly fascinates me. Fascinating to me is the opposition against abortion. I myself am absolutely 100% pro-abortion. First of all, I am a male, so I really do not feel to have any say over what a woman does with her body. But looking at it from a different perspective. A more social-driven and individual concerning perspective. When doing that, concerning yourself with the individual in question, that being the mother, I always feel that by leaving the mother absolutely free in her decision to do abortion, you are showing what real empathy means. And more than that you are showing empathy not only to the mother, but also the possible future-child. In my opinion, a mother could be successful in her motherhood task only if she is fully committed and ready for it. Only free will can assure that. It's ugly to force a woman to undergo motherhood only because she got pregnant.

I truly believe abortion is one of the major signs of a civilized society and I am very proud that this is acknowledged here in Holland. I know a few woman who have done abortion and it has been a very emotional and painful decision for them, but it made them happier persons. And that is what counts to me.

posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 05:55 PM
reply to post by dadgad

Sorry for the confusion, it was a lot of information.

There seems to be a coldness towards the kind of empathy both you and Kev mentioned.

It seems to be key to the NWO, if in fact it does exist.

It bothers me because it is becoming more promoted here in the States.

Abortion, for example. Continually, here, we are pressured by leading questions on our opinions. We are supposed to choose one of two sides. We are not given an opportunity to share deeper things about this sensitive issue and the respect necessary to handle the whole matter, as you so eloquently put it.

Morals have slidden and every day we get more proof. Journalism (although it didn't deserve it) has been our greatest asset in democracy, but a free press? I don't think we have ever really had it.

What do we have in place of it? Mockumentaries, and loudmouths showing their butts, with no fear of repercussion. Vague fearmongering, and shallow news.

Now we have prominent personalities hating on children in public.

I want to know what this says about them. It is not the opinion of the majority here, I feel confident in saying.

(Please correct me if I am wrong, any readers who support or can explain or justify these attitudes?)

Hope that clears things up?
As far as the UN, read the Declaration on the Rights of the Child, and tell me if your parents could have met the criteria for the rights of children, as decided by the UN, and ratified by all nations except two, the US being one.

My parents would not have consented to being told they could not take me to church, even as a small child. If a kid doesn't want to obey their parents, they cannot be disciplined. They are to be given the same basic rights as an adult in decision-making.

I find this ridiculous, and designed to play on the natural friction between parents and kids. It sets legal precedents for the removal of children from their parents for any number of reasons I doubt you would agree with! Here is the text of the 1959 document, ratified by the UN General Assembly.

No wonder the US hasn't signed it!

posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 05:59 PM
reply to post by dadgad

The reason for the posting is that I am sick of seeing kids beaten up and shot by police, and those they are supposed to trust.

People who are paid to serve continue to fail, abuse others, and it continues. I do not understand, short of real conspiracy, how this is going on and on? By now, enough people have been mistreated, enough police, teachers, etc, fired and disciplined, so how is it still occurring, now even from "journalists"?

Instead of diminishing, it is increasing. With only intelligence, but no empathy, where are we headed in a few more years?

Kids are growing up with acceptable violence against them. This cannot fail to produce ever more.

posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 06:03 PM
It probably starts at home, being abused by a cruel mother. Have you seen the clips from the daytime show "The Talk" concerning a hideous crime by a wife against her husband?

Only one, a young woman, protested the callous, hateful, inflammatory remarks these "prominent" women made about the victim, and their sickening laughter and support of the woman who drugged and castrated him.

It was beyond belief, and stirred up so much hatred and anger on YouTube that the videos of it were pulled.

I sent a protest letter to their network myself!

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 08:44 PM
reply to post by dadgad

It didn't make sense to me either, but now it is somewhat clearer.

Nancy Schaefer was to be a guest on Alex Jones' show and bring extremely explosive new proof of corruption and child trafficking financed by the government.

Here is a video of her speaking out for children and parents being destroyed for nothing but money for state budgets to shore up their bottom lines.

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 08:47 PM
As many know, she and her husband were murdered shortly before she was to release this information and proof.

Here is another piece of the puzzle:

Judges admit selling 5000 kids to private prisons.
edit on 17-10-2011 by Copperflower because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 08:53 PM
Social workers tell the truth at last after a three-year investigation by a Kentucky news station.

It is almost beyond belief, really.

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 09:12 PM
Did you just do a mind dump of mostly unrelated things with lots of emotion and no central point?: The essential point of it being hand wringing but-what-about-the-children?

Families are known to be the best place for children to grow up. However, the state cannot force you to not be an idiot, so they have to act on behalf of society to make up for all the parents who frankly suck.

If you don't like that, join one of the groups that is trying to promote how to be a good parent, and how to keep, make a good marriage and how to manage less optimal times.

A couple of less religious groups doing this from a more rational standpoint might have more impact on modern youth.

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 09:55 PM
reply to post by dadgad

What an incredibly understanding attitude you have about abortion and the mother's situation. You have a rare and beautiful insight, the kind that makes a woman take courage and try.

Respect and gratitude!

new topics


log in