Just realized that this isn't really worth it because brains seem to shut down or go tribal when one so much as says "They're Jewish." Lol. So... putting it here.

Second, I did not realize until yesterday that Dr. Frieden is a political hack appointed by Obama. I assumed, like most people, that he is a career medical expert that rose through the ranks at the CDC. False. Dr Frieden is an ideologue appointed by Obama after an embarrassing stint under Mayor Bloomberg in NYC.

You cannot say this but I can.  Not only are Bloomberg/Frieden/Klein Jewish, they also tend toward the Jewish perspective that no borders can be allowed for the goyim/tribes.  (Aka known as the wretched refuse according to Emma Lazarus...  yet the goyim celebrate that.  Supposedly she didn't really mean that people were like trash, I guess.) 

I'm not sure if they're hypocrites.  People often do not really think about their own cultures.  Here we go again, huh? As if it's my fault that a culture of tribalism, ethnocentrism and nepotism has negative effects on the American government or is often an aspect of the so-called news in America, from Lois "I didn't discriminate against Christian nationalists." Lerner to Donald"I'm not a racist." Sterling.

Whatever being Jewish means to anyone that falsely perceives themselves as members of an international tribe that transcends borders and all the forms of nationalism and tribalism of the goyim/tribes...  it's an angle on stories and the news.  It's a perspective.

It's also the lens through which you're often seeing the so-called news as it merges with other forms of entertainment (Jon Stewart, Bill Maher). Not that there's anything wrong with that, except when there is.  For example, well... never mind, it's not worth it.  Enjoy your favorite forms of entertainment, as the show must go on! 

On a side note, that Mason that comments here is probably correct in some ways.  Not that I have much use for secret societies of Sion, etc.  But at least those full of engineers and inventors at a base level (Having fun with geometry and so on, ooga booga...) often seem interested in finding solutions to actual problems in what most people perceive as the "real" or physical world.

Perceptions vary.  In this case, perceptions about what the problem is vary: 

Pianka's acceptance speech for the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist Award from the Texas Academy of Science resulted in a controversy in the popular press when Forrest Mims, vice-chair of the Academy's section on environmental science, claimed in the Society for Amateur Scientists e-journal The Citizen Scientist that Pianka had "endorsed the elimination of 95 percent of the human population" through a disease such as an airborne strain of the Ebola virus.   Mims claimed that Pianka said the Earth would not survive unless its population was reduced by 95% suggesting that the planet would be "better off" if the human population were reduced and that a mutant strain of Ebola would be the most efficient means.   ....
 Dr. Kenneth Summy,[19] an Academy member who observed the speech, wrote a letter[20] of support for Mims' account, saying "Dr. Pianka chose to deliver an inflammatory message in his keynote address, so he should not be surprised to be the recipient of a lot of criticism from TAS membership. Forrest Mims did not misrepresent anything regarding the presentation."  ....
As a consequence of the controversy, Pianka and members of the Texas Academy of Science have received death threats.   According to Pianka, his daughters are now worried about his and their safety, and his life has been "turned upside-down by 'right-wing fools'."  --Wikipedia

  Lol.  Turns out he does care about human life, huh?

It's not a "death threat" when you say, "Well, Ebola will probably bring about balance in nature... I'm not saying that we should work for the military industrial complex to weaponize it and target certain genomes.  I'm just saying, it's bound to happen naturally anyway... or somethin'."  Etc. 

But it is a death threat when you say, "Fine, I'm going to form an informal conference to debate the topic of killing you and your family as a threat to my own.  We're just evolving randomly and forming little academic conferences based on natural selection to debate the nature of your death.  Don't worry.  Official sources.  Official studies.  I just peer reviewed and certified this other guy from scientists.gov here.  Nothing to see, move along..."  Etc.

Not only do perspectives vary...  apparently they change a lot when the nature of a "death threat" is turned around on those that fancy themselves as elites. (Or the chosen race.... etc., they have their own versions.  I think it was PNAC factions that were debating biological weapons to target genomes.  Fact is, they can't even pull off so much as an anthrax attack without bungling it.  But I know, none of you can admit that the follow up to 911 was utterly bungled.  "Here's some CIPRO, oops."  Etc.)

"... the art of warfare ... will be vastly different than it is today ... 'combat' likely will take place in new dimensions ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool" (PNAC, 2000).

  A more humorous and less sinister version of that idea:

Almost sixty years ago, the US developed a nauseating 'bathroom odor' chemical for use as a weapon. But according to the Army, the old malodorant will not work outside of the US and Western Europe, because "it was found that people in many areas of the world do not find 'fecal odor' to be offensive, since they smell it on a regular basis." Therefore, according to the Army, new agents are needed for overseas missions. These new malodorants are to be specifically adapted for their victims. According to a 1998 document: "The objective of this work is the development of a comprehensive set of [malodorants] that can be applied against any population set around the world to influence their behavior." (See the source of this and other quotes [PDF].) ....
 A group of subjects selected "based on a diversity of geographic origins and cultural heritage" is systematically exposed to candidate malodorants to develop "culture-response data" based on ethnic categories. That data is aggregated into "odor response profiles" that suggest the types and quantities of malodorants necessary to "elicit a favorable behavioral response" (i.e. incapacitation, panic, or flight) when used for crowd control on a particular ethnic group.
....
The documents generally do not include details about research subjects and how researchers categorize them. Some experiments have been conducted outside the United States, or on immigrants. A February 2000 draft report refers to testing on "a group of South Africans" (See this page of the report).

  This is the loony toons type stuff that scientists.gov* are sometimes into, sometimes with nary a whistle blower in site.  They're almost as bad as Scientists Inc. sometimes.  Anyway... merely Google "The documents generally do not include details about research" or any part of that text to trace it back to the references and documents found through FOIA requests by actual investigative journalists and so on. 

There's no excuse at this point not to be a so-called "truther" or to at least take a look at a so-called "conspiracy theory" angle on everything.  As well as the oligarchic or Zionist angle, given that's often the governing culture of this troupe of clowns and witless wonders running the American government at this point.

Perspectives vary... but the evidence does not.  

Too bad for many Americans, all they want is more freedumb!  More TV.  More corporate media.  More entertainment.

With respect to the "national scene" of the "Sunday Political Talk Shows"....  why are you still watching that crap?  Is it not fairly clear that it's pretty much meaningless, at this point?  You do realize that David "son serves in the IDF" Brooks speaking in a serious voice doesn't really mean much just like Judge Jeanine ranting over at Fox News has her own cultural background, yes?  What are all of their cultural backgrounds and perspectives?  Does it matter that Moseley is a conservative Christian Zionist?   

Of course it does.  If he was producing "news," then that would be the perspective (rather clumsily) forced on it.  Nothing against you Moseley...  sometimes you make a good case if things align with your perspective.  

Point being, it's usually not merely "the national news" that's been "covered" for you after you watch it.  It's often different perspectives on whatever actually really happened.