Well, so what are their plans?

First of all, they want to prop up the liberal-dominated mainstream media and newspapers.

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that the Obama administration is conducting "a major internal study" intended to design a major government rescue plan for America's newspapers.

So why not let newspapers that nobody wants to read anymore simply die?

Well, that is just not the "liberal" way.

After all, most of those newspapers constantly spew liberal propaganda.

So what are some of the proposals in this major internal study?

Well, according to the Los Angeles Times, the following proposals are being considered....

*Major changes to the copyright law, including government licensing provisions

*Government pilot programs to investigate potential new media business models

*Antitrust changes to allow media companies to unite on imposing online pay walls

*Establishing a journalism division of AmeriCorps with government underwriting the training of young journalists

*Tax incentives per news employee

*Increased funding of public broadcasting

*A 5% tax on consumer electronics and assessments on users of public airwaves

*Allowing taxpayers to direct a portion of their taxes to a specific media institution as payment for media services rendered

Perhaps you read those proposals and you think that they are utter insanity.

Well, the truth is that we live in insane times.

Secondly, the Obama administration is looking for ways that they can get away with shutting down conservative and libertarian news outlets.

There have been a number of suggestions from officials in the Obama administration that the "Fairness Doctrine" should be resurrected in one form or another.

Implementing the "Fairness Doctrine"  would mean that conservative radio shows, television broadcasts and Internet sites would have to give "equal time" to liberal points of view.

Of course liberal sites and broadcasts would likely not see much enforcement against them since they would be considered to be so "balanced" and "reasonable" already.

But even if the "Fairness Doctrine" is not brought back to life, liberals are looking for many other ways to "regulate" what we see and hear.

In fact, a coalition of more than 30 far left organizations recently sent a letter to the FCC arguing that the Internet has made it harder for the public to separate "the facts" from "bigotry masquerading as news".

Of course they define "bigotry" as anything that disagrees with Barack Obama.

The truth is that the liberals working for the Obama administration are evaluating what they can legally get away with in terms of media censorship. 

The temptation is far too great for them to resist.

They simply cannot leave well enough alone.

So we are likely to see an increasing number of attempts to "regulate" speech on the radio, television and Internet for the "good" of the American people.

 Enjoy your freedom of speech while it lasts.

Only 36 percent of those polled agreed with this statement: "some of the government's proposals will go too far in restricting the public's civil liberties."

So are Americans really this stupid?

Have they really been brainwashed into willingly giving up their essential liberties just so they can feel a little safer?

Maybe they have.

After all, a new USA TODAY/Gallup poll says that 78 percent of Americans approve of the new full body scanners that the U.S. government wants to install in all U.S. airports.

So almost 4 out of 5 Americans are perfectly fine with letting airport security officials gawk at their naked bodies just so they can feel a bit safer from terrorists.

How sick is that?

The truth is that when Americans allow themselves to become so wimpy and so fearful that they are willing to throw many of their most important freedoms out the window, those responsible for the terror scares have won.

In fact, Amerika (formerly America) is very quickly becoming a brutal police state where privacy is a thing of the past and where free speech and alternative points of view are openly repressed.

For example, in a 2008 academic paper President Barack Obama's appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs advocated "cognitive infiltration" of groups that advocate "conspiracy theories".

Infiltration of groups with alternative viewpoints that the government doesn't like?

Do we live in East Germany?

Apparently we do.

Americans do not care about their freedoms and liberties anymore, so now they are being taken away.

And apparently the message of the most recent polls is that Americans are perfectly fine with that.

An earlier version of the Copenhagen climate change treaty can be found here.  However, the version of the treaty now being circulated in Copenhagen is not available to the public at this point. 

Fortunately, there are some officials who have seen the latest version and who are willing to speak out.  One of them is Lord Christopher Monckton - a former official in the Thatcher administration.

We already knew that the Copenhagen Treaty was going to be incredibly bad, but according to Lord Monckton it is going to be even worse than we anticipated.

So just what is this horrific treaty going to do?

#1) A World Government

The Copenhagen Treaty is going to be a gigantic step towards world government.  Lord Monckton recently said the following about what the drafters of this treaty are trying to do.....

"Once again they are desperately trying to conceal from everybody here the magnitude of what they’re attempting to do – they really are attempting to set up a world government."

The wording of the treaty creates governmental bodies with a vast array of power over environmental affairs.  The treaty gives these new governmental bodies tremendous power over the lives of every man, woman and child on earth.  It even grants these new governmental authorities authority over the U.S. government and the U.S. Constitution.

When you have world governmental authorities that can micromanage the smallest details of our lives and that can trump the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Constitution, what do you have?

World government.

#2) Brutal New World Taxes

The Copenhagen Treaty will also establish crushing new taxes which will further devastate the economy of the United States and which will transfer massive amounts of wealth to developing nations.

This is what Lord Monckton had to say about the taxes in the Copenhagen Treaty.....  

"Tax the American economy to the extent of 2 percent GDP, to impose a further tax of 2 percent on every financial transaction….and to close down effectively the economies of the west, transfer your jobs to third world countries – all of that is still in the treaty draft."

To illustrate just how massive these new taxes would be, he pointed out that they would amount to at least half of the entire U.S. defense budget.

That is huge.

So where would all of this money go?

It would be transferred to third world nations to help them build "green" economies and it would go towards running the new socialist world governmental bodies.

This would be a blow that the U.S. economy may never recover from.  Already the U.S. economy is coming apart like a house of cards.

What would these new taxes do to it?

#3) Creation Of 700 New Bureaucracies To Enforce The Treaty

According to Lord Monckton, the Copenhagen Treaty will create 700 new bureaucracies to enforce the provisions of the agreement.....

"We’re looking at a grab for absolute power and absolute financial control worldwide by the UN and its associated bureaucracies and 700 new bureaucratic bodies."

This would not mean 700 new officials.

This would mean 700 new bureaucracies.

700 new organizations that would be crawling all over the world micromanaging the lives of every man, woman and child - making sure that they are adhering to the edicts of the new environmental world laws.

Lastly, perhaps the most ominous provision of this treaty is that it states that once a nation has signed on to it, it may not ever cancel its membership without the approval of all the other member nations.

Do you understand what that means?

It means that unless every single other nation agrees, the United States can never, ever get out of it.

Ever.

No future president would be able to do anything.

No future Congress would be able to do anything.

The United States of America would be under the thumb of this treaty forever.

We would be obligated to pay their world taxes forever.

We would be obligated to transfer our wealth to other nations forever.

We would be obligated to submit to the extremist regulations of world environmental bodies forever.

Are you starting to get the picture?

The website, "Organizing For America", is regularly used by Obama and his staff to rally his supporters to take action in support of the administration's agenda. For anyone in Obama's organization to equate conservatives, Republicans and opponents of Obamacare with al-Qaeda and other murderous terrorists is something to be taken very, very seriously.

After all, what happens to terrorists? Well, they are rounded up off the streets, detained in secret locations with no rights and they are tortured and abused for months or even years in an effort to extract information from them.

Is that what should happen to you for objecting to Obamacare?

The reality is that the inflammatory rhetoric by the left has gotten way, way, way out of control.

The same article below asks supporters to help "defeat anti-democratic forces of hate".

Anti-democratic forces of hate?

Are they serious?

Some may be tempted to ignore such hateful language, but as we saw all too often in the last century, very hateful political language by ruling government authorities often leads to violent and repressive actions by that same government.

So if you are against Obamacare, perhaps you should take a few minutes to consider what Barack Obama's organization is saying about you.....

When opponents of Obamacare are called "terrorists" by Obama's own organization, the reality is that the First Amendment is in jeopardy. 

If you do not think that government power cannot be used to repress political opposition in America than you have not been paying attention.  Already, the Pentagon has asked Congress to give the Secretary of Defense the authority to post nearly 400,000 U.S. military personnel throughout the United States in the event of an emergency or a major disaster.

And who defines what an "emergency" or a "major disaster" is?

Barack Obama.

Not only that, but throughout the presidential campaign Barack Obama spoke of the need for a civilian national security force that is just as strong and just as well funded as the U.S. military.

Does not such a scenario sound like a police state to you?

Are you ready for secret police and national security forces to patrol the streets outside of your home?

Are you ready to be labeled a "terrorist" for opposing the policies of the ruling administration?

The truth is that the America that we all knew if dying, and whether or not America can still be referred to as "the land of the free" is very much in question.

Seriously.

On the official website of the White House, officials in the Obama administration are asking their supporters to inform them of any viewpoint on Obamacare they see or hear that they consider to be "fishy" - even if it is in casual conversation with their own family and friends:

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

A YouTube video produced by members of the Obama administration that explains this new informer program is below.....

What in the world?

Since when did it become acceptable for the president of the United States to recruit "informers"?

Do we still live in the United States of America or has this nation now become Nazi Germany?

Senator John Cornyn of Texas was so upset when he heard about all of this that he actually wrote a very strong letter to Obama. Cornyn correctly recognized that this type of "flagging" of individual citizens sets a very dangerous precedent:

"By requesting that citizens send 'fishy' emails to the White House, it is inevitable that the names, email addresses, IP addresses, and private speech of U.S. citizens will be reported to the White House."

But Cornyn is not the only member of Congress that is seriously concerned about this by a long shot.

"If you get an e-mail from your neighbor and it doesn't sound right, send it to the White House?" Fox News quotes Senator John Barasso from Wyoming as saying. "People, I think all across America are going to say is this 1984? What is happening here? Is big brother watching?"

So is all of this concern just an overreaction?

Sadly it appears that the answer is no.

The reality is that already a number of Democratic activists have been more than eager to "flag" even their own family and friends.

Just check out the following quotes from the Democratic Underground website.....

"Just sent one from my whackadoo cousin"

"Forwarded her msg to the flag email address while I copied her on it....BURN!"

"I turned in my sister. That felt good."

Here are some more quotes from another location on that same Democratic website.....

"Enough of the talk...we need to get busy and start putting together a databank of healthcare opponents."

"I sent in two flags and found two others to send in flags as well."

"The more reports sent to the White House the better!"

Even many in the mainstream media are going completely insane.  In the video below, Chris Matthews of MSNBC actually suggests that officials should strap town hall protesters down and inject them with truth serum to see if they are racists or not.....

Whether you are in favor of Obamacare of not, this type of activity should be extremely troubling to you.

When the White House asks people to "flag" their friends and neighbors and people start doing it with enthusiasm, it shows that the United States is much closer to Nazi Germany or the U.S.S.R. than any of us would dare admit.

It may feel good to "flag" someone else, but how would it feel if you got "flagged" and put in a government database forever?

The reality is that this type of thing opens the door to great evil.  If you cross that line and you start "informing" on your friends and family, then you have gone over to a very dark place.

Don't do it.

H.R. 2749 has been given this very deceptive name: "The Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009", but the reality is that it has very little to do with food safety. Instead, concerns about food safety are being manipulated by big agriculture to push through a law that will devastate their smaller competitors.

You see, every major case of food contamination in recent U.S. history has come from large-scale industrial agriculture - not from small farms.

But who will this new law hurt the most?

Small independent and organic farmers.

In fact, these proposed new regulations are so overwhelming and so draconian that they will even discourage people from growing family gardens in their own backyards.

The reality is that this bill is an effort by the big agricultural corporations who control 90% of the food production in the United States to crush their remaining competition. The losers in all of this will be the American consumers who will have fewer and less healthy food choices.

You can find the full text of the bill here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-2749

The following are just a few of the ridiculous provisions in H.R. 2749.....

-H.R. 2749 mandates that an annual registration fee of 500 dollars be imposed on any "facility" that holds, processes, or manufactures food.  For the major corporations this is nothing, but on a smaller farmer this is a very substantial charge.

-H.R. 2749 gives the FDA absolute power to regulate how crops are raised and harvested.  In other words, even our small and organic farmers will now be forced to farm exactly how the federal government tells them to.  So under this bill many organic farming methods will be banned as "unsafe", farmers may be forced to use GMO animal feed, they may have to shoot their animals up with unsafe drugs and hormones, and they may be forced to use petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides.  It will all depend on what the federal government defines as "safe" farming. 

-H.R. 2749 will give FDA the power to impose a quarantine on a specific geographic area.  This would even include "prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area."  Stopping the movement of all food basically means imposing martial law.  Should the FDA have the power to impose martial law?

-H.R. 2749 would even give the FDA the power to conduct warrantless searches of the business records of small independent and organic farmers, even if there has been no evidence at all that a law has been broken.  Of course nobody in Congress even reads the bills they pass anymore, so they probably don't even know that this law violates the United States Constitution.

-H.R. 2749 also would impose draconian criminal and civil penalties.  How draconian?  Prison terms of up to 10 years and/or fines of up to $100,000 for each violation.  So just one could destroy a small farmer and put him or her out of business forever.

In addition, this new bill would impose on small farmers massive amounts of paperwork and administrative burdens that the big corporations can handle but they can't.

You see, that is how you put a horde of small competitors out of business - you get the government to pile on the rules and burdens and regulations until they collapse.

That is why Monsanto desperately wants this bill to become law. They hate the small farms and they want to take them out of the picture.

Why in the world do you THINK Monsanto is so in favor of this bill?

Why would Monsanto WANT more regulations placed on them?

Why?

Because it would give them a radical competitive advantage.

This bill would be another huge step towards corporations such as Monsanto gaining a stranglehold on the food supply of the United States.

This bill is a direct assault on the independence and security of American family farms and small organic growers.

Any member of Congress that supports this bill should be voted out of office in the next election.

No exceptions.

Please contact your Senators and tell them that you DO NOT support this bill.  If this bill is not stopped it will change farming in America forever.

So who is he?

His name is John P. Holdren, and he co-authored a book in 1977 in which he advocated mass sterilizations using the food and water supply, mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children, forced abortions for American couples trying to have too many children and a global police force to enforce population control.

Seriously.

This is Barack Obama's top science advisor.

Holdren advocated these horrific proposals in the 1977 book entitled "Ecoscience", which he co-authored with Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich.

When reports of Holdren's book first started to surface, they were quickly dismissed by many because it just seemed so unbelievable that the top science advisor to the president of the United States would hold such bizarre beliefs.

However, once one blogger posted pictures of the pages of Holdren's book up on the Internet, people started to realize that Holdren really did write these things.

Let's take a look at some of the more shocking quotes from Holdren's book.

On page 837,  it is written that compulsory abortion would be perfectly legal under the Constitution of the United States:

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

On page 786, the book says that single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government and that they could be forced to have abortions if the government decides that is best:

“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”

On pages 787 and 788, the book advocates the mass sterilization of humans by putting drugs in the water supply:

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”

On pages 786 and 787, the authors discuss sterilizing women after their second or third child:

Involuntary fertility control

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

On page 838, the authors state their belief that there is nothing wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size:

“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”

On pages 942 and 943, the authors call for the development of a “planetary regime” that would control the global economy and enforce population control measures:

Toward a Planetary Regime

“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.”

“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”

On page 917, the authors advocate the surrender of national sovereignty to an armed international police force:

“If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”

The truly frightening thing, however, is that Holdren is not just one isolated nutjob.  Rather, his views are an accurate representation of what is commonly believed among the global elite.  They believe that the earth is way too overpopulated, and that if totalitarian measures are not taken it will have catastrophic consequences for the planet.

Those scientists who advocate eugenics and radical population control are funded and promoted by the global elite.  In fact, prior to becoming Obama's top science advisor, Holdren was the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

The truth is that the global elite are absolutely obsessed with reducing the population of this planet, and it would be a huge mistake to underestimate their obsession with population issues.  If you have any doubt about this fact, then you should read this article which we posted on a sister blog.

It is NOT acceptable for a member of the president's administration to believe in mass sterilization, forced abortions for American women and a global police force.  Please contact your representatives in Congress and ask them to call for the resignation of John Holdren.