On October 14th of this year, Lord Christopher Monkton gave a speech about the December 7th UN “ Climate Change Convention” During this conference Monkton stated that there will be a treaty presented to all of the nations that are in attendance. “At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it. Now normally this would be no big deal. Treaties are meant to be broken; right? Wrong. Not in this case at least. This time someone , Lord Monkton, actually took the time to read the 200 something pages( imagine that! If only we could get congress to do that…) and this is what Lord Monkton discovered,

“I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” — because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.”

Wow. That’s crazy. Not only are we signing a treaty about something that doesn’t exist, we are signing a treaty that will create laws, and then those laws will be governed and enforced by the UN: A one world government. Let me ask you guys this: Do you think that our founding fathers would approve of a world government? “”Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” George Washington. Well at least good old George Washington didn’t think so!! America was founded on five basic principles of government. One of those principles is Limited government—Government is not all-powerful and may do only those things people have given it the power to do.
“There is nothing more corrupting…than the exercise of unlimited power.” William Henry Harrison. There you have it. Government isn’t supposed to be a big and powerful force. Just like Washington said, its dangerous.

It just came to my attention , as I was writing this in fact, of a quote by SEIU president Andy Stern “ “We have to recognize that in real, 21st-century terms, ‘Workers of the world, unite,’ can’t be just a slogan,” Now this doesn’t necessarily mean that he is supporting world government. A world joining together. Which falls in line with world government.

Now why am I bringing that up? SEIU has nothing to do with Obama’s decision right? One more, wrong. Obama has close ties with SEIU. Its all coming together. There are way many ties that the White House has with people that they shouldn’t even be remotely close to. And now, the consequences are showing. We are one more step closer to a World Government. America needs to wake up an stop this insanity that is happening in our country. Lord Monkton on world government

With every passing week, we are uncovering new connections between members of the Obama administration and left-wing  radicals. Take for example, White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn.During President Obama’s campaign, her husband, Bob Bauer,  who was at that time part of the Obama campaign’s General Council, sent threatening letters to several news organizations in Ohio and Pennsylvania, demanding that they stop airing NRA (National Rifle Association) ads that expose President Obam. One of these letters, sent on September 23rd, 2008, said this:

“You need not air this advertisement… You have a duty to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising.. We request that you immediately cease airing this”

Bauer also threatened these news organizations by saying that their FCC(Federal Communications Commission) license would be taken away if they didn’t stop airing NRA ads.

The Obama appointed chairman of the FCC, Julius Genachowski, who said that he does not support enactment of the Fairness Doctrine, appointed Mark Loyd to be the FCC diversity Czar. In an Leadership Conference on Civil Rights in November, 2009, Loyd said in regards to the FCC’s position on the Fairness Doctrine:  “What we are really saying is that the fairness doctrine is not enough.” Loyd also mentioned putting “hard structural rules in place that will result in fairness.” Genachowski also has ties to the radical organisation  called Free Press. So what is Free Press? The following is an excerpt from the Free Press website: “Free Press is a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization working to reform the media.”

So how exactly do they propose that we go about “reforming the media”? Craig Aaron, the Senior Program Director for Free Press, says that the Government will need to play a role in media reform. I don’t know about you, but I really don’t think that complies with the First Amendment. For example, the Fairness Doctrine (which was created by the FCC in 1949 but later repealed when the world realized that it was a piece of junk), would force news gathering organizations to present both sides of any controversial issue that they touched on. That sounds fair, but where in the Constitution is it said that we have to exercise our speech in a “balanced” way? The First Amendment gives us the right to exercise our freedom of speech in any way that we see fit. The Government has absolutely no right given by the Constitution giving it the power to enforce “balanced” reporting amongst the media.
This is not the only problem with the Fairness doctrine. Another one is this: Who decides what is fair? Will it be some Czar in Washington? Seeing as that many of these Czar’s are commies, or otherwise oppose the free market, or in some cases, admire Mao Tse Tung, one of the most ruthless dictators of the 20th century and a contributor to Marxism/Leninism,and Communist Policies, I don’t think I trust their view of balanced reporting. Besides, what I think is a balanced view of a certain political issue may not be the same as yours.My view of balanced reporting comes from my presuppositions that make up my worldview. For example, I know that God exists, that he created the universe, and that he is a personal God who is involved with the events of history.  I know that the Son of God walked on the Earth two thousand years ago, and that he is coming back someday to bring those who follow him into heaven to live with him for eternity. My view of a balanced opinion will naturally derive form that. No one in the realm of politics is unbiased, no mater what they say.
Of course there is a difference between approaching politics with presuppositions, and being unfair in my reporting. But how do I know that the government will understand the difference? I don’t. The government should not be in the business of telling people what they can and cannot say. Edmund Burke, a British statesman who lived in the 18th Century said that “People never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” Thus it is with the Fairness Doctrine. The liberty that is being jeopardized is freedom of speech, and it is being done under the illusion of fairness and the expulsion of rumors and distortions.