The peek a boo puppies of Democracy

The whit house sit on top of the largest open air free masonic temple in the world. It is part of the 200,000 acres that comprises the district of columbia. The enitire central (downtown) area of washington D.C. is a perfect square set on its side. When veiw from a street map (randall-mcnally) you can clearly see the lines that deliniate the temple and its ritualistic components. Some people call this the "Talisman of the United States". The stones were laid by George Washington himself way back in the 1790's George bought the land and forced the capital to be moved from philidelphia to a more sacrosanct and pure place.
When the corner stones of D.C. were set in place, free masonic rituals performed by Washington took place. Several talismanic or iconic symbols were included in the layout of D.C.'s streets. these symbols include pentacles, truancated pyramids, 33.3 degree angles to mark the sulstice, Horus depicted on his throne (an owl like image standing on top of a pyramid), a skull and cross bones and several other notable symbols of a ritualistic secret society.
That same secret society graduates men into places of power. Very little research, research that could be performed by a ten year old can lead the interested person to countless offerings about the topic of secret societies and how they influence global events. It is beyond circumstancial evidence the amount of coincidences that exist between the suspected reasoning behind administratioon policy and the edicts of these same secret societies.
Whether the United States public is willing to admonish any sincere questioning of the practices and suposed goals of these societies is shortsighted by the journalist. To often the intensity in which "conspiratorial" questions get rebuked by the press is astounding and seems counter intuitive to my journalistic mind....

I wonder if Helen Thomas and her cronies ever felt compelled to not ask certain important questions for fear of sounding like a crazy?

From reading the third and fourth chapters I was able to ascertain that Helen Thomas is heavy on the who's who and giving them just credit for their roles in what she paints is a game of charades. I don't want to read a book of accolades and downfalls of the press seceratary. Waxing poetically about how it used to be is nice and all, but don't disclaim an entire chapter of your book by saying that your not concerned with being nostalgic and then you unload a dumprtuck of acadamy awards for those who cheated the public out of a presidential office (from a jeffersonian anti-federalist perspective).

Back in the day when law was law they used to convict anyone who was aware of conspiracy to commit a crime, this is called cooberation. I wonder when and where and why we stopped protecting ourselves by living by the law? I don't wish to persecute, tri and convict my brother journalist.... no I would hope that editors and peers of these people would just fire them like they did to Linus.

If Helen Thomas' was trying to clear the air on the role of the press corp. or "thundering herd" (as she claims kennedy called them) then she failed. To be completely honest this book reads like a treatise on complacency and conformaty. If "the truth, rather than an agenda, should be the goal of a free press" then you failed, your friends failed, your president failed. The example you set and this load of nostalgic apologetics is only going to breed more failure.

About press secerataries.

"Faced often with this dilemma and with job survival at stake, most press secretaries have opted for political rule: to get along is to go along with whatever the president or his top aides want publicly said-whether it is right or wrong.
Unfortunately, too few who have served that exalted office have risen to the occasion and been willing to defy the Oval Office in the interests of honesty. Integrity,credibility, perhaps a good conscience, and definately a sense of humor are the qualities that make a great press secretary, in my opinion. That is why there have been so few."

I got some questions for this sycophantic worshipper of the iconoclast.
If you are the journalists... you and your buddies, who are employed by the editors of magazines who are intentured to the advertisers and the public... and you know the press secretariy is a lier or dishonest or imorral or a politico. Then why do you attend his briefings? why don't you circumvent him and go straight to the president? why don't you hold him more accountable by asking him harder questions? Is there not some sort of colaberation occuring if the press secretary delivers a load of bullshit and you turn around and write about how noble a posiion the press sec. is and how you just adore those cute ties he wears and "oh yeah I met him at a ball once he really is a sweet heart".

Helen Thomas is an interloper not a journalist.