We all know how the mainstream media loves to portray Al Gore - the visionary "eco-prophet" who shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his climate advocacy. But is Al Gore truly such a selfless do-gooder? What does it say about the motives of an environmental crusader when that person stands poised to rake in billions of dollars from the very carbon credit trading scheme that he is tirelessly advocating?

That is exactly the position that Al Gore finds himself in. The leading advocate of the theory of "man-made global warming" is also one of the people who would likely benefit the most financially from the implementation of a "cap and trade" carbon credit trading scheme.

You see, Al Gore is chairman of Generation Investment Management. David Blood, the former chief executive of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, is the CEO.

Thus the nickname - Blood and Gore.

Wikipedia describes Blood and Gore this way.....

Generation Investment Management LLP (GIM) is a London-based investment management firm with an investment style that blends traditional equity research with a focus on sustainability factors, including social and environmental responsibility and corporate governance.

It all sounds very noble, doesn't it?

But the bottom line is that GIM is about making money.  GIM owns a 10 percent stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange.  The Chicago Climate Exchange owns half of the European Climate Exchange.

Thus if the United States and Europe adopt a "cap and trade" carbon credit trading scheme Al Gore could potentially rake in billions of dollars.

If they don't, Al Gore's investment in these ventures could end up being worthless.

When asked about the financial incentives that Gore has to promote carbon trading in an appearance before Congress, Gore did not back down one bit.....

"Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?" the New York Times quotes Gore as telling Congress. "I am proud of it. I am proud of it."

Gore insists that he is completely committed to solving the problems caused by "climate change" and that he is not ashamed of being ready to make tons of money off of those solutions.....

"I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it."

But is Al Gore ready to back real environmental solutions which would not make him money? 

Apparently those kinds of solutions don't appeal to him as much.  Just consider the following passage from a recent Newsweek article.....

"If we feed the biology and manage grasslands appropriately, we could sequester as much carbon as we emit," says Timothy LaSalle, CEO of the Rodale Institute, who presented at two summits. The political clash is this: if you tell people soils can be managed to suck up lots of our carbon emissions, it sounds like a get-out-of-jail-free card, and could decrease what little enthusiasm there is for reducing those emissions—as one of Gore's assistants told LaSalle in asking him to dial down his estimate. (He didn't.)"

One of Gore's assistants actually asked LaSalle to "dial down his estimate"?

What in the world?

Perhaps LaSalle's idea could really work.

But apparently since it would not make Al Gore any money it is not as good as the "cap and trade" carbon trading scheme which would dramatically raise energy prices for American consumers and which would further wreck the U.S. economy.

The truth is that Al Gore is going to keep positioning his money to take advantage of "green" legislation and he is going to keep using his political clout to tirelessly advocate for that same legislation.

As Al Gore's firm, Blood and Gore, starts to rake in billions of dollars as middle class Americans struggle to pay their power bills, perhaps it will be then that many Americans will finally learn the true meaning of this Al Gore quote..... 

"Reality does have a way of knocking on the door."

There has been a very disturbing new trend among world leaders who are also "global warming" activists.  Increasingly, these world leaders are openly discussing the need for "global governance" to fight "man-made global warming".  To them it appears obvious that a global problem requires a global solution.  In fact, the December summit in Copenhagen is being hailed by these world leaders as one of the most important moments in human history.  They claim that if we do not act on a global level now to stop "climate change" that we will be facing a catastrophic future of unprecedented magnitude.

First of all, let's quickly deal with the ridiculous claims that man is causing global warming.  The truth is that "global warming" is caused by the sun.  A few years ago when the sun was experiencing record sunspot activity, the entire solar system experienced "global warming".  Now that the sun has entered a period of very low sunspot activity the earth (and the rest of the solar system) is actually cooling. 

But carbon dioxide levels continue to increase.  If carbon dioxide was causing global warming temperatures should have continued to rise.

But they didn't.

In fact, scientists tell us that there have been periods when the earth has had much higher levels of carbon dioxide.  It is one of the key components of life.  The more carbon dioxide, the better crops do and the more life on earth thrives.

But now many of these world leaders have decided that we need to radically reduce the level of carbon dioxide on earth.  This will hurt plant life all over the globe and crop yields will go down.

But this serves the depopulation agenda of the global elite very well.  You see, the global elite have decided that there are way too many of us.  In fact, they openly discuss the need to reduce population levels by up to 90 percent.  If you doubt this, just read the following article that we recently authored on our sister site: The Radical Population Control And Eugenics Agenda Of The Global Elite.

So do these global elitists really believe in the global warming agenda?  Some probably have drunk the Kool-Aid.  However, whether they actually believe in the agenda or not, they all seem to agree that more "global governance" is needed.

For example, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon recently penned an editorial in the New York Times entitled "We Can Do It".  In his article, Ban Ki-Moon made the following statements.....

"All agree that climate change is an existential threat to humankind."

"A deal must include an equitable global governance structure."

"All countries must have a voice in how resources are deployed and managed."

All agree that climate change is an existential threat to humankind?

I sure don't.

Actually recent polls indicate that about half of all American people do not, and the trend among these polls is for Americans to increasingly reject the theory of man-made global warming.

And what in the world is "an equitable global governance structure"?

Is that supposed to be a less threatening way to say "global government"?

Apparently under global governance "all countries" will have "a voice in how resources are deployed and managed".

So that means all other countries will have a voice in how American resources are deployed and managed?

Ronald Reagan must be rolling over in his grave.

But Ban Ki-Moon is not alone in calling for global governance.

Former Vice President Al Gore declared in July 2009 that the climate bill currently being rammed through Congress will help bring about "global governance".  Gore's exact quote is below.....

"But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements."

Excuse us Mr. Gore, but there are still tens of millions of Americans who want absolutely nothing to do with global government.

And to think that that guy came thisclose to becoming president of the United States.

But it is not just about some misguided environmentalists trying to save the world.

It is about global elites trying to set up a world government to control humanity.

As MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen has explained: "'He who controls carbon controls life. It is a bureaucrat's dream to control carbon dioxide."

In fact, in December 2007 the United Nations climate conference in Bali proposed the adoption of a global carbon tax system that would represent "a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations."

So how close are we to a "global government" that will control the whole world through carbon regulations and carbon taxes?

Much closer than you may have thought.

This past October 14th, Lord Christopher Monckton (a former science advisor in the Thatcher administration) gave a stunning presentation to students at Bethel College in St. Paul, Minnesota.  During his presentation, Lord Monckton issued a dire warning regarding the "United Nations Climate Change Treaty" that is to be signed in Copenhagen.  An excerpt of a portion of Lord Monckton's remarks as reported by Canada Free Press is posted below.  Monckton is absolutely convinced from his reading of this treaty that it will create the groundwork for a global government.....

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.

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.

Video of Lord Monckton making these remarks is posted below.....

The truth is that all of this global warming hysteria is being used as a pretext to drag us into a world government.  The United States is about to lose large portions of its sovereignty, and Barack Obama and the U.S. Congress is very happily going along with the whole program.

We just thought you might want to know.

In a previous post we detailed how Barack Obama wants to reduce the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal to just a few hundred nuclear warheads.   Now it has come out that Barack Obama recently shifted the authority for approving sales of missile and space technology to China from the White House to the Commerce Department.  There has been very little fanfare regarding this move, but critics are claiming that it could make it much, much easier for China to acquire advanced missile technology. 

Of course officials at the Commerce Department are claiming that the move will not cause controls to be loosened regarding the export of missile and space technology to China, but we all know that is a joke. 

After all, what does the Commerce Department know about national security anyway?

Not a whole lot.

But unfortunately, the problem is not just Obama.

The whole national security regime in Washington seems oblivious to the reality that Islamic terrorists are not the number one national security threat that we face.

Rather, it is Russia and China.

But instead of embracing that reality, the U.S. national security establishment is pretending that they are our newest best friends.

For example, China's second-ranking military officer will travel to Washington later this month and U.S. military officials are promising to "show him a great deal of how our military operates in this country".

Obama is also negotiating an agreement with Russia that would allow the Russians to inspect U.S. military nuclear sites.

Someday there will come a time when the United States will seriously regret this openness with Russia and China.   Let's just hope that that day of reckoning does not come any time soon.

Not only are school children singing songs of praise to Barack Obama across the United States (see our last post for examples), but now singing school children have been exploited on national television to promote specific points on Barack Obama's socialist agenda. In a graphic exhibition of CNN's pro-Obama bias, they recently had a group of singing and dancing children on their network who performed a lively song which exalted the benefits of Obamacare and which dumped on Republican Joe Wilson.

The children are cute and the performance of the song is actually quite delightful, but those are not the issues.

The issue here is that these school children are being used as pawns to promote Barack Obama's socialist health care agenda on national television.

Perhaps CNN was afraid that their pro-Obama bias was falling behind other networks and that they needed to take things to ridiculous new extremes.

To illustrate how ridiculous this is, just try to imagine CNN having a conservative group of school children on who are singing a song about how incredibly bad Obamacare is.

Would that ever happen?

Not in a million years.

We will gladly retract those words if CNN ever proves us wrong.

But they never will.

CNN has lost all remaining shreds of objectivity by putting stuff like this on the air.

Watch this video for yourself and let us know what you think.....

How would you feel if you learned that your children were being taught to sing songs of praise to Barack Obama in the classroom at your local public school? Would you be upset? Would you be outraged? Would you think that having school children sing songs of praise to Obama is more than a little creepy?

Well, the truth is that it is happening. Not just in one or two isolated cases either. But thanks to the Internet we have video of some of these songs, and we have posted 6 of them below.

This first example is freshly discovered video of school children praising Obama in a classroom setting.  It was apparently created in February 2009 after Obama was inaugurated.  The lyrics to this disturbing song are posted after the video.....

----

The Obama Song ("Proud American")
By Mr. B and the students of Room 8
February 2009

Obama is the President!
First African America in history
44th president of the United States
The ground has shifted
The world has changed!

CHORUS:
Oooo I’m a proud American
Oooo yes yes yes yes YES WE CAN!

Im going to study really hard just like Barack
Learning never ever stops
Gonna set my goals HIGH and graduate
You might be looking at the President of 2048!

We are a nation of a thousand colors, look at me
Our strength is our diversity
Walking hand in hand we sing
Each a day a little closer to the dream of Dr. King

(Exerpt from MLK's "I Have a Dream,” 1963)

Together we walk
Me and you
So so much work
Left to do.

----

This next example is the video that has been showing up all over the mainstream news lately.  It is apparently loosely based on "Jesus loves the little children".

This very creepy song contains the very chilling line: "Red, Yellow, Black or White - All are equal in his sight".

All are equal in Obama's sight?

What in the world?

This video was reportedly filmed on or around June 19th, 2009 at the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, New Jersey.  The lyrics to the song are posted afterwards.....

----

Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be clear today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said Red, Yellow, Black or White
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
Yes
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama

Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all [do? doth??] say "hooray!"
Hooray Mr. President! You're number one!
The first Black American to lead this great na-TION!
Hooray, Mr. President something-something-some
A-something-something-something-some economy is number one again!
Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you!
And the same for all Americans [in?] the great Red White and Blue!
So something Mr. President we all just something-some,
So here's a hearty hip-hooray a-something-something-some!
Hip, hip hooray! (3x)

----

The next example is a well known video that exploded on to the scene during the 2008 presidential election.  The girl at the beginning of the video has a very beautiful voice, but one can only think of how horrified she will be one day to realize that she was used as a propaganda tool for Barack Obama.....

This next example has been called an "Obama Youth" video that shows students at a middle school in Missouri performing military style drills while chanting a song about how great Obama is.....

Even up in Canada kids are singing Obama's praises.  This next video features teenagers in Toronto, Canada performing a song for Obama in school.....

Lastly, this newly discovered video entitled "Kids Rock for Barack" was apparently filmed during the 2008 presidential election campaign.  It features school children holding up pictures of Obama and singing a very creepy song about how wonderful he is.....

After watching those videos how do you feel?

We would love to get your reactions in the comments section below.

Also, please get these videos out to everyone that you know.

We have seen videos like this before, haven't we?

Do they not bring to mind the kind of mindless praise that we have seen in the propaganda campaigns for the major socialist and communist movements of last century?

The truth is that almost every time there is a major socialist or communist revolution there is a "cult of personality" built around a "grand leader".  Just think of any nation on earth that has adopted socialism or communism and you will see that this is true.

It is sickening for American school children to be taught to sing songs of praise for any political leader.  If you know of any other videos like this, please leave a comment and let us know.  This type of manipulation of the next generation is yet another sign of how far we have fallen as a nation.  Let us hope that the American people wake up soon.

Five months ago in Prague, Barack Obama called for a world free of nuclear weapons during one of his first major foreign policy speeches.  It turns out that he was actually serious about this absurd proposal.  In fact, Obama is demanding that the Pentagon conduct a "radical review" of the U.S. nuclear weapons program in preparation for deep cuts to America's nuclear stockpile. 

What kind of deep cuts?

Well, the United States currently has approximately 2,600 nuclear warheads deployed, with about another 2,500 in reserve and 4,000 more that are waiting to be dismantled.

The Obama administration has been negotiating a deal with the Russians to reduce both nuclear arsenals to 1,500 warheads, but Obama views this as simply a "first step".

According to the Guardian, Obama completely rejected the Pentagon's first draft of the "nuclear posture review".

Why did he reject it?

Well, apparently it was "too timid" for Obama.

You see, Obama does not just want to trim the U.S. nuclear arsenal, he wants to gut it.

Instead of an arsenal with thousands of deployed nuclear warheads, the Obama administration envisions a U.S. nuclear arsenal with only a few hundred deployed nuclear warheads, with a goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether.

The Guardian quotes one anonymous European official as saying the following about Obama's mindset: "Obama is now driving this process. He is saying these are the president's weapons, and he wants to look again at the doctrine and their role."

Since when did America's strategic nuclear arsenal become "his" weapons?

The reality is that possessing a very strong nuclear arsenal has kept America safe for decades.  Without it, the United States and Europe would have been vulnerable to invasion from the Soviet Empire and their much larger conventional forces.

But isn't the "Cold War" over?

That is what most Americans think, but the truth is that not only has Russia made a dramatic comeback, but China is now a bigger power than they ever have been before.

If the United States dramatically reduces their nuclear arsenal, the odds of war with Russia and/or China dramatically increase. 

Most Americans think that such a thing is impossible, but such a scenario could play out something like this.....

Russia and/or China would figure that they could take out most of our nuclear arsenal in a surprise first strike (most likely using sub-launched first strike weapons) and that they could weather the limited number of warheads that we would be able to launch in return.  Afterwards they would launch a devastating invasion with their much larger conventional forces.

In addition, terror-supporting nations would have much less to fear from a United States that has eliminated or drastically reduced its nuclear arsenal.

Just think about it.  In high school did the 250 pound muscle-bound jock get more respect than the 105 pound weakling on the playground?

Of course.  The 105 pound weakling usually was the one who got picked on and pushed around.

Now Obama wants the U.S. to willingly disarm and become much weaker strategically.

What in the world is Obama thinking?

It would be wonderful to have a world without nuclear weapons, but the truth is that worldwide strategic threats are seemingly multiplying by the day and there are more nations out there today who hate the United States than there ever have been before.

To openly declare to the world that you want to dramatically cut your nuclear arsenal is absolute strategic madness.  It makes the United States much less secure and it will only embolden those who wish to do harm to this nation.

Millions of Americans are furious about Obamacare, but this issue could ultimately prove to be much more serious.  Tell your representatives in Congress that you do NOT support radical cuts to America's nuclear arsenal.

Before Congress runs off and adopts Barack Obama's bizarre health care reform plan, perhaps they should ask doctors what they think.  A stunning new poll has revealed that approximately 2 out of every 3 American doctors oppose Barack Obama's health care reform plan, and 45 percent of them would consider shutting down their practices or retiring if Obama's plan is ultimately adopted.

Just exactly HOW is Obamacare supposed to work without any doctors?

A new IBD/TIPP poll of American doctors is putting an entirely new spin on the health care debate.  Most people realize that there are way too few doctors to begin with, and if hundreds of thousands of them suddenly left the profession, what would that do to the state of health care in the United States?

This data flies in the face of bizarre claims by the White House that the majority of the medical profession is behind Obama's plan.

The reality is that the medical profession is disgusted by the prospect of Obamacare.

The scientific IBD/TIPP poll sampled 1,376 practicing physicians chosen at random throughout the United States.  If the poll numbers are accurate, then the implications are staggering.

Currently, there are about 800,000 doctors practicing medicine in the United States.  If 45 percent of them DID retire or quit when Obamacare is implemented, that would mean that 360,000 doctors would suddenly leave the health care system.

That would be a medical disaster of unprecedented magnitude.

So why are the doctors so upset?

Well, according to the poll, increased mandates, lower pay and less freedom to practice are some of the greatest concerns.

Doctors don't want the government to tell them how to practice medicine.

Doctors don't want the government to limit them and their patients to treatment options that are "efficient" and "cost effective".

Doctors don't want to work more hours seeing more patients for lower pay.

Doctors don't want the government to tell them who they are going to see and how much they are going to get paid for seeing them.

Doctors don't want computerized systems that tell them what drugs and treatments the government thinks are "appropriate" for their patients.

Doctors don't want layer after bureaucratic layer of government officials enforcing new rules, watching everything that they do, and burdening them with mountains of paperwork.

If Obama is under some delusion that America's doctors are going to put up with all of this nonsense, then he is in for a rude awakening. 

The truth is that Obamacare would be an absolute disaster that the American medical system may never recover from.  Perhaps all of us should listen to what the doctors are saying before a mistake is made that all of us will regret.

Over the past few days, two prominent Republicans have been absolutely reviled in the liberal media for telling the truth about Obamacare.  The first, Sarah Palin, has been ripped for writing an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal that explains how Obamacare would give unelected officials life-and-death health care rationing powers.  The second, Joe Wilson, is being treated as if he was Osama Bin Laden for shouting "You Lie" during Barack Obama's major health care speech to Congress.  But you know what?  They are both right.

First of all let's consider Sarah Palin's claim that Obamacare would create "death panels" that would make life and death decisions for the chronically ill. The following is a brief excerpt from Palin's Wall Street Journal article.....

Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He's asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of "normal political channels," should guide decisions regarding that "huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . ."

Sarah Palin is absolutely correct about this.  Barack Obama's health care reform package would not only allow unelected government bureaucrats to decide what treatments are the most "cost efficient", but it would also give them the power to decide whether it is "cost effective" to treat someone at the end of their life at all.

This is what happens in other nations (such as the U.K.) where health care decisions are placed in the hands of unaccountable government bureaucrats.  In the name of "cutting costs", Americans simply will not have the option of getting whatever health care they want whenever they want it any longer.  They will have to settle for whatever is "cost efficient".

Sarah Palin did not mince words in her article as she described the implications of Obamacare.....

Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans.

When Obama uses terms like "controlling costs" and "improving efficiency" what he really is talking about is health care rationing and the loss of health care freedom.  Health care choices are to be curtailed for the good of American society in Obama's twisted vision of the future.

In fact, what most Americans do not realize is that a big step towards this kind of rationing was already passed in the economic stimulus bill.  That bill established "The Federal Coordinating Council For Comparative Effectiveness Research", and Obama has already appointed the 15 members of that council (including Rahm Emanuel's brother).  We reported on this very troubling development here:

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/health-care-rationing-and-death-panels

The New York Times described the purpose of this council this way.....

Under the legislation, researchers will receive $1.1 billion to compare drugs, medical devices, surgery and other ways of treating specific conditions.

Compare them for what purpose?

For the purpose of choosing what is most "cost effective" and "efficient" of course.  Ultimately the goal is to impose those "choices" on American citizens so that the entire health care system can "control costs".

Shifting gears, let's talk a look at U.S. Representative Joe Wilson's outburst.  He is being absolutely vilified in the mainstream media for yelling "You Lie" during Barack Obama's health care address to Congress.  Video of this incident is posted below..... 

First of all, it needs to be recognized that George W. Bush was treated in a similar manner by the Democrats and there was never any outrage in the liberal media.  So this is clearly blatant hypocrisy by the liberal media.

But setting that aside, was Joe Wilson right?

Was Barack Obama telling a lie?

Well, the truth is that last month, by a vote of 23 to 18, the House Ways and Means Committee defeated an amendment which would have explicitly excluded illegal aliens from the health care reform bill.

But why would such an amendment be necessary?

Last month the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan policy research arm of Congress, issued a report that indicated that without a citizenship verification system, illegal aliens would receive health care subsidies.

The executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, Mark Krikorian, told CNN that the CRS report "undermines the claims of the president and others that illegal immigrants would not be covered under the House version of the bill."

In addition, the reality is that illegal immigrants already receive free health care in emergency rooms throughout the United States.  As Newsweek explains..... 

Hospitals simply aren't allowed to refuse treatment in emergency situations, regardless of the patient's immigration status.

Due to the failed immigration policies of Clinton, Bush and now Obama we now have approximately 30 to 40 million illegal aliens absolutely swamping the health care system and driving many hospitals to the brink of bankruptcy.

Nothing in Barack Obama's health care plan does anything to fix this.

The truth is that it has now become clear that Barack Obama is a habitual liar.  Very, very few statements that he makes are 100 percent pure truth.  Instead of listening to his rhetoric, Americans need to read the health care bills for themselves as they are developed.

The reality is that the American health care system is about to be fundamentally changed, and if the American people do not want to wake up someday to an absolute health care nightmare they better urge their representatives to do something about it while they still can.

Barack Obama's own website recently had an article that referred to opponents of Obamacare as "right-wing domestic terrorists". Fortunately the article was quickly taken down once an uproar over it erupted, but the reality that such demonization of millions of peaceful Americans would occur on Obama's own website is more than a little troubling.

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.

Through their various news outlets including NBC News, MSNBC and CNBC, NBC has been the most shameless of the shameless when it comes to promoting Barack Obama.  Now, NBC's parent company G.E. stands to reap billions of dollars in stimulus funds and cap and trade contracts as a reward.

All the way back to the presidential campaign, the reporting out of NBC news outlets was so over-the-top pro-Obama that it was beyond embarrassing.  In an era when most media organizations have left objectivity far behind, NBC has taken things to such an extreme that CNN looks "conservative" in comparison.

This goes far beyond Sarah Palin being skewered on Saturday Night Live or Obama being treated with kid gloves by Jay Leno while Republican candidates are raked over the coals.  No, as will be demonstrated below, what is going on at NBC is nothing short of a major media organization promoting a political candidate for the benefit of their parent corporation.

G.E., which owns NBC, lobbied for and is receiving stimulus funds, and now that troubled corporation could end up with literally billions of cap and trade dollars if Barack Obama's cap and trade scheme is implemented.

You see, back in 2007 a number of large corporations formed the "Climate Action Partnership" (or CAP) was formed by several corporations to come up with a way to reduce greenhouse gases.  G.E. is one of the largest corporations in CAP.  This joint venture now stands to manage billions of cap and trade dollars.

G.E. has also invested very heavily in "clean energy", and if cap and trade is fully implemented, other corporations will likely spend billions on G.E.'s "green technology" as other forms of energy suddenly become too expensive.

It certainly helps G.E. that their CEO has a direct line to the president.  After doing such a great job getting him elected, Obama named G.E. CEO Jeffrey Immelt to his Economic Advisory Board.  This is quite ironic considering the fact that G.E. has performed much worse since Immelt took over as the CEO.

So considering the very cozy relationship between G.E. and Obama, the reality is that Immelt and his cohorts are not going to accept any criticism of Obama on their networks.

According to recent allegations, Immelt and key NBC executives actually told CNBC to stop criticizing Obama's economic policies. 

In fact, it is rumored that CNBC's Rick Santelli was so offended by this that he said that it was like being sent to a "re-education camp".

But of course we will probably not ever know if Santelli really did say this, because if he came out and said it publicly he would probably be instantly fired.

But it's not like NBC's Obama bias is any sort of a secret.  Every night on their networks "anchors" such as Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews sing the praises of Obama and engage in such hateful name-calling of Republicans that it would be almost comical if all of this was not so serious.

Now it has come out that NBC, along with ABC, has refusedto air television ads critical of Barack Obama's health care reform program.

The ads by the League of American Voters are certainly not outrageous at all.  They feature a neurosurgeon who warns that Obama's proposal will lead to the rationing of health care procedures and medicine.  These ads are running around the nation but NBC and ABC refuse to touch them.

Why?

We all know why.

Not only that, but NBC is now featuring Barack Obama merchandise in their online store!

Talk about ridiculous.

NBC has Barack Obama dolls, collectible coins and other memorabilia for sale.  Just see for yourself:

http://www.nbcuniversalstore.com/detail.php?p=84186

Now if they had also sold a George W. Bush doll all of this might not look so bizarre. 

But the truth is that NBC can no longer be regarded as an objective network. 

But why should they?

After all, Jeffrey Immelt is on the board of directors of the Federal Reserve and as we documented in a previous article, Obama is not about to stand up to the international bankers who control America's currency and who have brought us all to the edge of financial disaster. 

Most Americans simply do not understand the sick relationship that exists between big money and America's politicians.  Obama was not made president to serve the American people.  He was made president to serve big corporations such as G.E. and big financial interests such as the Federal Reserve.

It is time for the American people to wake up and start realizing how the world really works.