Dozens of Americans currently targeted for assassination by president Bush

Oh, I mean president Obama. Sorry, I get the two confused. The only difference is Obama* is a bigger killer. And he has a Nobel Peace Prize.

Well anyway, as it turns out, Obama's assassination list may include "dozens" of American citizens.

Glenn Greenwald asks a good question:

“I’ve written at length about the reasons why targeting American citizens for assassination who are far away from a ‘battlefield’ is so odious and tyrannical, and I won’t repeat those arguments here,” Greenwald wrote. “Suffice to say — and I’m asking this literally — if you’re someone who believes, or are at least willing to acquiesce to the claim, that the U.S. President has the power to target your fellow citizens for assassination without a whiff of due process, what unchecked presidential powers wouldn’t you support or acquiesce to?”

*To clarify, when I say "Obama" and "Bush" I don't mean to judge the character of either man. It is the spiritual powers behind the actions of these men that need to be warned against, so that God's children don't fall prey to Satan's lies. Who knows, I might one day share a street in the New Jerusalem with Obama or Bush; this isn't about these two men. But what is clear is that Christians should have no business identifying with or supporting people who head the biggest imperial machine in history. We should call the kingdoms of this world what they are--satanic. And we should turn our eyes to Jesus and enjoy full citizenship in the Kingdom of Heaven. So again, the point is not to critique men, but to oppose the satanic philosophy of a "power over" kingdom. "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Eph 6:12). Also, I should note that if Christians didn't have a tendency to associate with Satan's kingdom thereby giving Christ a reputation for being like Satan, then I wouldn't be running this website. The mission here is to call Christians to put not their trust in princes, but instead to look to Jesus; to shun the sword and cling to the cross.

Pat Tillman was probably murdered by U.S. Military

Read Prison Planet's analysis of the Tillman incident and watch the trailer for the forthcoming documentary exposing the government cover-up.

If your enemy strikes you on the right cheek, grab him by the throat

Calling all Christians! Since fidelity to the teachings of Jesus is a scarce resource within the church today, great efforts are required in order to counter the toxic Christian militarist doctrine that so fundamentally reverses and destroys the identity of Christianity. The Way, the Truth and the Sword is my small contribution, especially chapters three, four, five, six and seven.

What will you do to counter the latest satanic rhetoric masquerading as Christianity? Perhaps this article will have an effect in restoring the name of Jesus in the world.

This latest outrage comes from the pen of Cal Thomas, who is a child of God for whom I have infinite love. What he has written, though, comes from the mind of Satan. Anything that does not love its neighbor and even its enemy is not of Christ. Cal Thomas states,

To win in Afghanistan, and make such things possible, our “rules of engagement” must change. American casualties have increased because of self-imposed restraints when encountering Taliban who hide behind civilians.

You can’t win a war by hesitating when the enemy is at a disadvantage. To paraphrase a familiar admonition: Grab them by their throats and their hearts and minds will follow.

Where to begin with this. First, since he is a prominent and openly Christian writer, and he is using the pronoun "our," it is assumed that he is speaking on behalf of Christ and Christians. He refers to "our rules of engagement."

The rules of engagement for the Christian are taught clearly and unmistakably by Jesus and the apostles. "If your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him something to drink" (Romans 12:20). "Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your father in heaven" (Matthew 5:44-45). "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:39).

Mr. Thomas, those are the rules of engagement for the Christian. Those are "our" rules of engagement.

Unfortunately, Cal Thomas wants the American empire to "win" in Afghanistan. He believes that if only the military were a tad more like Satan and even further from the ideal of Christ, if only we were willing to indiscriminately kill more innocent children, then Afghanistan will finally have a government just like America's! (What a scary thought that is.)

Also notice that Thomas is primarily concerned about American casualties over the lives of innocent Afghanis. This thinking betrays a nationalistic worldview that is part of the kingdoms of this world rather than the Kingdom of God. Where in Christian teaching is a Christian instructed to value the life of an American soldier over the life of an Afghani child? If anything, our sympathies would be greater tied with the innocents in a country that has been invaded and occupied by the largest military empire in history. After all, Christianity is a religion that was founded and oppressed in occupied territory under the boot of the most powerful empire in the ancient world. Certainly, we can empathize with victims of aggression.

I do not mean to judge Mr. Thomas' heart or evaluate his standing with God. But the teaching that he advances here is not of God.

Where Jesus said to love our enemies, apostate Christianity says to kill them.

Where Jesus loved his enemies and died for them, apostate Christianity seeks to kill its enemies.

Where Jesus taught and modeled "turn the other cheek," apostate, militarist Christianity says "grab him by the throat."

Could the distinction be clearer?

The purpose of exposing this false Christianity is not to raise controversy or claim to have all the answers. We're all on a journey of discovery of God's character and biblical truth. The purpose is to draw for the world a clear distinction between that which carries the name "Christian" but advances the worldview of Satan versus the true faith of Jesus rooted in the ultimate truth that God is love.

If we want to be "sons of our father in heaven", in other words, if we want to be like our father in heaven, then we must love our enemies. To the extent that Christians continue to support militarism, victory for the U.S. Government will mean defeat of the reputation of Christ in the world.

Andrew Napolitano on the oil spill

Fluoride

It's so good and nutritious for you. Governments have decided to mass medicate the population by putting fluoride in the water because they care about you and your children having healthy teeth. Drink lots of water from the tap, and in fact, take fluoride tablets to give yourself a healthy, white sparkling smile.

OK, enough silliness. Now learn the truth about fluoride.

Obama, "it's ok for you to kind of act like a dictator."

Ed Shulz wants Obama to act like a dictator in response to the BP situation. He stated on MSNBC the following words: "It's OK to kind of act like a dictator."

Add this to the amazing statements from MSNBC, such as "Obama is sort of God," and "when the president speaks" to Congress, it is a "religious experience."

These people are dead serious. They're not being sarcastic at all. At least when our previous dictator was president, it was obvious that his "dictator" comment he made was a joke (though it must have reflected his true feelings to a certain degree). Stated King George Bush: "If this were a dictatorship, this would be a heck of a lot easier. Just so long as I'm the dictator."

To many servants of the state in the circles of mainstream media power (particularly at MSNBC), we have a latent or actual god-emperor in America--or a god-dictator, if you will. (And ditto that for Fox Propaganda--I mean Fox News--during the Bush years.)

Lieberman: The Communists are doing it, so we should too!

Senator Joe Lieberman: “Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too.”

Communist China's Internet censorship is not used "in case of war," but is used on a daily basis to deflect dissent.

Great idea! Entrust the emperor of America with power to shut down the Internet.

Read Prison Planet's analysis of Lieberman's amazing suggestion.

Ron Paul comments on trust in government to solve oil leak

Why are taxpayers expected to shield giant corporations from liability?

Soldiers ordered to slaughter civilians

Reports OpEd News: Wikileaks Soldier Reveals Orders for "360 Rotational Fire" Against Civilians in Iraq. This is not an article you want to miss. Warning: strong obscenity by leaders in America's Christian military. The Wikileaks story is even worse than you thought. But, really, the article holds good news, as another soldier is repenting, as these did.

(I say "Christian" military, because that's the message that churches send to the world during this season. On Memorial Day, a church by my house put on its sign "Remembering Our Heroes." That's where the church is at today, apparently. I've left those churches and I'm happy that at my church we don't celebrate the military as our form of worship. Yes, it's unfortunate that the height of heroism in the church today is joining the military. And it's very sad that the military is perceived as "Christian" by association.)

Drug decriminalization in Portugal

You've heard that the Christian position on drug laws is to favor the war on drugs. We are supposed to favor "tough" drug laws and wage the drug war with "strength." The Christian position, it has been said, is to favor "moral values" legislation, such as the efforts by the federal government to stamp out drug use. However, the question must be asked, what would Jesus do? Would Jesus have his followers advocate the violent use of the political power of the kingdoms of this world in order to make society more moral? Should we really be supporting the use of militarized SWAT teams to invade peoples' houses and break up families because people are using drugs? What business is it of ours that non-Christians are using drugs other than alcohol and nicotine? Shouldn't we be trying to win them to Christ, rather than violently seize them and their property and lock them up in cages? Just asking.

But if Christians didn't support the war on drugs, and if the hippies took over and legalized drugs, this would lead to social chaos, right? Watch...

Bush: War is good for the economy

Bush adhered to an old authoritarian economic fallacy. See Hazlitt chapters 2 and 3 for a brief debunking of this wicked idea.

Yes, Bilderberg does set global policy

A Bilderberg attendee has admitted it. See Paul Watson's article on the subject here.

Beck and Savage jumping on the bandwagon

When I first awakened to the realities of global politics about eight years ago, discussion of the new world order including the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Skull and Bones Society and the Bohemian Grove was discussed only in "conspiracy" circles on the edges of the media (the New American Magazine, Alex Jones, etc.). Even spell-check, as I write this, does not acknowledge the existence of such a word as "Bilderberg." Anyway, during the entirety of the Bush years nearly all of the air time on the Glenn Beck and Michael Savage shows was spent on neo-con propaganda--and I listened to a lot of these two in particular.

During the Obama administration, though, Glenn Beck has become--at least on the surface--a neo-con-turned-libertarian. He talks about the new world order on his show now. It's definitely good for ratings. "Conspiracy" is now en vogue. Beck is pretty much taking Alex Jones' and the John Birch Society's information and presenting it to a mainstream audience.

Likewise, Michael Savage is now finding it to be worthwhile to expose the Bilderberg Group, the secret societies, and the Rockefellers. This is an eye-opening segment from his radio show:

Gulf Oil leak raises questions

Is it possible that the oil spill is a staged event? I wouldn't put it past them. Prison Planet reports:

As we highlighted yesterday, on page 37 of British Petroleum’s own investigative report into the oil spill, it is stated that the Hydraulic Control System on equipment designed to automatically seal the well in an emergency was modified without BP’s knowledge sometime before the explosion.

Highly suspicious stock and share trades by people connected to BP before the explosion indicate some extent of foreknowledge.

Goldman Sachs dumped 44% of its shares in BP Oil during the first quarter of 2010 – shares that subsequently lost 36 percent of their value, equating to $96 million. The current chairman of Goldman Sachs is Bilderberg luminary Peter Sutherland, who is also the former chairman of British Petroleum.

Furthermore, as reported by the London Telegraph on June 5th, Tony Hayward, the current BP CEO sold £1.4 million of his shares in the fuel giant weeks before the spill.

On April 12th, just over one week before the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, Halliburton, the world’s second largest oilfield services corporation, surprised some by acquiring Boots & Coots, a relatively small but vastly experienced oil well control company.

Halliburton is named in the majority of some two dozen lawsuits filed since the explosion by Gulf Coast people and businesses who claim that the company is to blame for the disaster.

Halliburton was forced to admit in testimony at a congressional hearing last month that it carried out a cementing operation 20 hours before the Gulf of Mexico rig went up in flames. The lawsuits claim that four Halliburton workers stationed on the rig improperly capped the well.

More here: http://www.prisonplanet.com/evidence-points-to-bp-oil-spill-false-flag.html

Glenn Beck on Hayek (starring the great Tom Woods)

Enjoy the back-to-back clips from this great Glenn Beck episode. Obligatory disclaimer about Beck: I don't trust this guy at all. But what he says in this episode is solid in my opinion.

Ron Paul predicted Obama Iraq withdraw lie

Coverage of the elite once-secret Bilderberg Meeting 2010

Rather than posting extensively on the subject, I'll simply link to Prison Planet's page on the subject of Bilderberg 2010 (see below). However, this article is particularly important and worth mentioning, as it highlights the failure of the elites, the increased exposure of the secret Bilderberg meetings, and most significantly, their plans for an attack on Iran.

Bilderberg 2010 - Prisonplanet.com Master Page

Obama's Global Secret Murders Expand

Two of the three most hated nations in the world have both been indicted in the news as of late. As the hated government of Israel has been under criticism lately, now the U.S. regime also has been exposed for (no surprise here) running a global murder machine. Of course, the mainstream media don't talk about the innocents that are being killed, and they whitewash the American empire with an "expose" about how they're secretly killing "terrorists" in 75 countries. In the American tradition, however, an individual cannot be executed unless they are proven to be guilty.

Israel-Gaza

This first clip is a good debate over the issue of Israel and Gaza. (Also listen to this great discussion on Israel and Gaza with good background.) I might add that it is tragic that what is widely known as the Christian church is largely responsible for the evils of the government of Israel.

Ron Paul reminds us that Israel FOUNDED Hamas. The U.S. and Israel have both engaged in deliberately radicalizing Muslims. The U.S. created al Qaeda and Israel created Hamas. A good, radical enemy goes a long way.

Last of all, Ron Paul reminds us of the wisdom of non-intervention and the folly of U.S. support of Israel.

A true war hero

Israel and the humanitarian aid flotilla

How Israeli propaganda shaped U.S. media coverage of the flotilla attack

BY GLENN GREENWALD

YouTube screen shot

It was clear from the moment news of the flotilla attack emerged that Israel was taking extreme steps to suppress all evidence about what happened other than its own official version. They detained the flotilla passengers and barred the media from speaking with them, thus, as The NYT put it, "refusing to permit journalists access to witnesses who might contradict Israel's version of events." They detained the journalists who were on the ship for days and seized their film, video and cameras. And worst of all, the IDF -- while still refusing to disclose the full, unedited, raw footage of the incident -- quickly released an extremely edited video of their commandos landing on the ship, which failed even to address, let alone refute, the claim of the passengers: that the Israelis were shooting at the ship before the commandos were on board.

This campaign of suppression and propaganda worked to shape American media coverage (as state propaganda campaigns virtually always work on the gullible, authority-revering American media). The edited IDF video was shown over and over on American television without question or challenge. Israeli officials and Israel-devoted commentators appeared all over television -- almost always unaccompanied by any Turkish, Palestinian or Muslim critics of the raid -- to spout the Israeli version without opposition. Israel-centric pundits in America claimed, based on the edited IDF video, that anyone was lying who even reported on the statements of the passengers that Israeli fired first. In sum, that the Israelis used force only after the passengers attacked the commandos became Unquestioned Truth in American discourse.

But now that the passengers and journalists have been released from Israeli detention and are speaking out, a much different story is emerging. As I noted yesterday, numerous witnesses and journalists are describing Israeli acts of aggression, including the shooting of live ammunition, before the commandos landed. The New York Timesblogger Robert Mackey today commendably compiles that evidence -- I recommend it highly -- and he writes: "now that the accounts of activists and journalists who were detained by Israel after the raid are starting to be heard, it is clear that their stories and that of the Israeli military do not match in many ways." As Juan Cole says: "Many passengers have now confirmed that they were fired on even before the commandos had boots on the deck. Presumably it is this suppressive fire that killed or wounded some passengers and which provoked an angry reaction and an attack on the commandos."

Whether the Israelis fired at the passengers before or after landing on the ship matters little to the crux of what happened here. The initial act of aggression was the Israeli seizing of a ship in international waters which was doing nothing hostile; that action was taken to enforce a horrific, inhumane blockade and, more generally, a brutal, decades-long occupation; and whatever else is true, at least nine civilians were killed by the Israeli Navy, only the latest example of Israel (and the U.S.) using massive military force against civilians. [...]

Read the rest here.