Monday, January 24, 2011

No U-Turns on the Road to Serfdom?

 No U-Turns on the Road to Serfdom?
The “anti-terrorist” witch-hunt and the future of America
by Justin Raimondo, January 24, 2011 
In a series of raids last year, the FBI raided the homes and offices of antiwar activists in Minneapolis, North Carolina, Chicago, and California. They seized boxes of materials, cell phones, documents, and other private property, and issued subpoenas to a number of individuals, 24 at last count, demanding their appearance before a federal grand jury. The focus of this fishing expedition is ostensibly the “solidarity work” engaged in by the Antiwar Committee of Minneapolis, and sympathizing organizations, in Palestine and Columbia, but the history of police repression against these groups and individuals goes back years, specifically involving their work in organizing a march on the Republican and Democratic national conventions: in the Twin Cities, the “RNC Welcoming Committee,” which planned the protest, was of particular interest to the authorities. The local cops, working with the FBI, actively worked to recruit informants, and – using information gleaned from these infiltrators – conducted a weekend-long reign of terror in early September 2008, breaking down doors, manhandling protesters – including journalists – and rounding up dissidents in anticipation of violence they claim “might” have occurred had the authorities not acted. 

In reality, of course, the RNC Welcoming Committee was engaged in perfectly legal activities protected by the First Amendment, and there was no evidence presented that violence was forthcoming – but, under the terms of the post-9/11 legislative assault on the Constitution that culminated in the “Patriot” Act and subsequent acts of Congress, the First Amendment is no longer operative in this country.

If you’re an Influential Person, however, you can get away with almost anything. Let’s say you’re Michael Mukasey, Bush’s former Attorney General, who recently traveled to Paris with Tom Ridge, former Homeland Security chieftain, Fran Townsend, President Bush’s former chief adviser on Homeland Security and counter-terrorism, and former New York City mayor and spectacularly failed presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, to endorse the continuing effort by the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), or People’s Mujahideen, to get off the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations

MEK is an Iranian Marxist-turned-neocon Iranian exile group, with a weirdly cultish orientation, that has murdered US diplomatic personnel and was instrumental in the 1979 takeover of the US embassy in Tehran. They lost out in the power struggle following the overthrow of the Shah, and fled to Iraq, where they were succored by Saddam Hussein: MEK brigades fought on the Iraqi side during the Iraq-Iran war, and carried out terrorist acts against civilian targets – a strategy they would very much like to carry out with US assistance today.

Over one-hundred members of Congress, who recently signed an appeal to the State Department to take MEK off the terrorist list, are angling for this, and the prominence of the US delegation to the Paris confab is part of the continuing campaign by the War Party to legalize these somewhat nutty cultists – whose unquestioned leader, Maryam Rajavi, has already declared herself the “President” of Iran – and get the group funding. The idea is to use them, as the Bush team used the Iraqi National Congress, to get “intelligence” – of similar quality – to gin up another war, this time against Tehran.

Can you imagine the outcry in official Washington if the FBI invaded the offices of Mukasey, Giuliani, Ridge, and Townsend, searching for evidence of “material support” to a foreign terrorist organization – the same crime the Minneapolis defendants are potentially facing? Such laws, however, aren’t written in order to target such people: it’s only those without power who suffer such a fate. If you’re in any way associated with WikiLeaks, government agents are quick to stop you at the airport, question you, and seize your laptop, but if you’re Rudy the Lout, on the way back from a tête-à-tête with terrorists – the good kind, rest assured – you’re escorted to the VIP line and whisked through security.


Sunday, January 23, 2011

Killing Politicians

By Larken Rose

A story is now circulating around about a Massachusetts blogger who, regarding the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, said "one down, 534 to go" (referring to the total number of federal congress-critturs in the House and Senate). He also added that it is "absolutely unacceptable to shoot indiscriminately," and suggested that people "Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone."

Of course, the average citizen, who worships the ruling class as if they're a bunch of infallible deities, will think the blogger to be the lowest scum in the world. How dare he even discuss killing the High Priests of the cult of "government"? What blasphemy! Well, I want to take issue with the guy's comments, but for a very different reason.

(As an aside, what the guy said was protected speech under the First Amendment. Not that what any "court" says is actually legitimate, but the U.S. dress-wearing, god-complex "judges" have admitted that even advocating revolution or violence is protected, unless it constitutes either an actual threat, or a direct, specific incitement for someone to commit violence. Look up the Supreme Court case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, for an example of just how nasty speech can get before it can be considered "criminal"--again, within the definitions of the control freaks. The fact that the Massachusetts jackboots decided to steal the blogger's guns because of his comments is an obvious attempt to create a "chilling effect" on his political expressions.)

Many people like the mantra, "Violence is never the answer." But they're wrong. If an armed thug breaks into your house, and tries to kill your family, violence is the answer. If you were a Jew living in 1940's Germany, and the SS came knocking, violence would be about the best answer available.

Ironically, most of those who say "violence is never the answer" nonetheless advocate constant, widespread violence via "government." They don't recognize it as such, because in their minds, when "government" uses the initiation of violence, it is inherently legitimate, and doesn't count as violence. Meanwhile, defending against such "legal" aggression is, in the eyes of the indoctrinated statist, the most horrible sin imaginable. When the superstition of "authority" is involved, the attacker with a badge is the good guy, and the defender without a badge is the bad guy. Gack.

So why do I disagree with the blogger? Let me put it this way: if killing 535 god-complex politicians would result in an end to the many thousands of casualties caused by their war-mongering, it would be just fine with me if someone killed them. But it wouldn't. If knocking off Congress would end the draconian, fascist, heinously evil "war on drugs," and free the millions of non-violent people now living in cages, I would be all for it. But it wouldn't. Every year, a whole lot more than 500 innocent people die as a direct result of what the politicians do, so I think such a trade would be well worth it. In short, if killing the tyrants du jour would lead to freedom, I'd be all for it.

But it wouldn't.

Why not? Because the gang of thieves and murderers that infests Washington is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. The underlying problem resides between a couple hundred million pairs of ears. If the general public desperately believes that a coercive ruling class is necessary and essential to civilization, as they have been brainwashed to believe, then knocking one narcissistic megalomaniac off the throne will only result in a new one taking his place. It's like the mythical Hydra: chopping the heads off doesn't do anything, because it will grow new ones; you need to hit the heart of the beast. And the heart of this problem is not a person, or a group of people, but a belief.

I'm not saying it's never justified to hack off a tentacle here and there, if you're being attacked. I can think of lots of situations in which "law enforcers" deserve to be shot, and "criminals" deserve to escape (when the "law," not the "criminal," is the aggressor). That might save one person now and then, but hacking at the branches will never solve the problem; only yanking the root out can do that.

And even among many of the most ardent pro-freedom advocates, the root of the problems is still firmly planted inside their own heads. Those who continue to campaign, and vote, and petition "government" to change its evil ways, are completely missing the real problem. To get slightly mystical, let me put it this way: Chances are, you are the one feeding the horrible beast you see before you, the monster you seek to destroy; you helped bring him into being, and you are the source of his power.

Hmmm … I think rather than explaining what I mean, I'll leave people hanging, and tell them to buy my new book, "The Most Dangerous Superstition." (Yes, that was a cheap trick, but I'm not sorry.)

Statism's Assembly Line

Friday, January 14, 2011

Celebrate MLK Day: Disobey an Unjust Law

From The Militant Libertarian

Celebrate MLK Day: Disobey an Unjust Law

by George Donnelly
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is coming up on Monday, January 17th and it’s about time someone celebrated it RIGHT. No more of this Orwellian “day of service” nonsense. Martin Luther King is about freedom and conscience. ‘Service’ is a code word for servitude, or slavery. How daring of the government to turn an African-American crusader for freedom into an icon for slavery! It’s up to us to reclaim the true legacy of Martin Luther King and show it to the world in its proud, spin-free glory.
I’ve set up a website called I Disobeyed an Unjust Law where people can learn about civil disobedience. There’s a twitter campaign, comments and I’ll interview dozens of good people who disobey bad laws live on Civil Disobedience TV. You can watch it right from the website.
January 17th to the 23rd is Civil Disobedience Week. Not only do we kick it off with Martin Luther King Day, but the 19th is Lysander Spooner‘s birthday! Are you doing something for these events? Let’s stay in touch via this mailing list.
If all goes well, I plan to repeat this every 3 months. April 13 is Thomas Jefferson’s birthday. July 12th is Henry David Thoreau’s birthday. And October 2nd is Mohandas Gandhi’s birthday. More, perhaps now than ever, there is a pressing need for the disobedience of unjust laws and illegitimate authority. We are dying from a police state – in the form of the DEA, ATF, TSA, cops and mercenaries – that knows no bounds and a financial cartel – in the form of the Federal Reserve – that could soon collapse our very livelihoods. If not now, when? People must recognize the difference between natural law and statutes passed by mere men – and act accordingly.
If you’re not sure how to participate, here’s a list:
  1. Read MLK’s Letter from Birmingham Jail.
  2. Disobey an unjust law and tell us discreetly.
  3. Tweet with #IDisobeyedAnUnjustLaw.
  4. Video or text blog or podcast about unjust laws.
  5. Comment, post on Facebook, Stumble, etc.
  6. Write a letter to the editor or call a radio show.
  7. Treat others as you would like to be treated.
  8. Read Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience.
  9. Watch Civil Disobedience TV as we interview those who disobey unjust laws.
  10. Tell your friends about this cause.
If your organization wants to promote this or work on this, there is the possibility of linking back to you with an image from the footer of the website. Email
Find out more at I Disobeyed an Unjust Law dot com.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

So Who ARE the Violent Ones?

More great insight from Larken Rose

By Larken Rose
The ongoing discussion of the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords makes an outstanding example of the utter insanity and profound hypocrisy which the belief in "government" creates. Specifically, nearly all the related discussions about violence have turned reality upside-down, backwards, and inside out. Leftists are having conniption fits about the political ads by Sarah Palin, showing Giffords in "crosshairs," screaming that that counts as advocating violence. There are several ways in which this complaint is completely batty.

1) Leftist constantly advocate violence. "Taxation," as one example, is the forced confiscation of wealth backed by the threat of violence. Those who timidly cooperate with the mere threat never see the violence in their face, but take it from someone who has had his home forcibly invaded by armed IRS agents: "taxation" is backed by men with guns, who are quite willing to use violence to get their way. When all those leftists who support the very system of "taxation" that resulted not only in an armed invasion of my home, but in me being caged for a year, whine about a stupid political ad, the level of hypocrisy makes me want to vomit.

2) Right-wing statists, like Sarah Palin, also constantly advocate violence, in the form of various "laws" and authoritarian actions. Gabrielle Giffords herself was part of the federal war-mongering committee, which constantly advocates a double-dose of violence: violence used to force all Americans, including pacifists, to fund overt violence overseas. Bizarrely, instead of being criticized for that--instead of being taken to task for advocating aggression against hundreds of millions of Americans and the murder of lots of foreigners--Sarah Palin is being attacked for a stupid campaign ad. Holy smokes, people! Could your priorities and perspectives possibly be any more screwed up?!

3) There is a moral difference between aggressive force--initiating violence against someone who hasn't threatened or harmed anyone--and using defensive force. The vast majority of "government" violence, advocated by the "left" and the "right," is unjustified, immoral aggressive force. But again, statists from both sides, being believers in the cult of "government," don't think it counts as violence, because in their eyes, it's not being committed by mere people, but by the mystical, magical, superhuman entity known as "government." And most people imagine that it has the right to do things which mere mortals do not.

Defensive force, even deadly force if necessary, is both moral and justified. And whether it's "legal" or not makes no difference. What this means is that, when the thugs wearing the label of "government" commit aggression, resisting them by any means necessary is absolutely justified. As a practical matter, I would almost always advise against it, because resistors will almost always be caged, and often killed, for daring to resist "legal" aggression. But whether it's a good idea in practical terms (which it usually isn't), and whether it's moral (which it is), are different issues.

The end result is that I'm watching the insane national argument over the Giffords shootings, as one who believes that defensive force--even if "illegal" and even if used against "law enforcers"--is justified. Meanwhile, both groups of people who are constantly advocating the use of aggressive violence are arguing over something that was not an example of advocating violence (political rhetoric and ads). It's just too weird to take.

Gabrielle Giffords herself was directly involved in exerting aggressive violence, overseas and here, against non-violent people, via war-mongering, "taxation," forcibly interfering with the medical industry, and so on. She was not an innocent. She was an advocate of widespread, perpetual, forcible aggression. But being a devout statist, I'm guessing that she truly believed that the violence she was helping to commit didn't count as violence, because it was called "law," and done in the name of "authority." That's a perfect example of what The Most Dangerous Superstition leads to: basically good people do evil things, and don't even notice.

So one set of people who constantly advocate violence (Democrats) are complaining about another set of people who constantly advocate violence (Republicans), based on something that is not the advocacy of violence (the political ads). It's like one gang of thieves criticizing another gang of thieves for committing a crime they didn't actually commit. How weird can it get? Statists, "left" and "right," advocate constant, wide-spread violence against millions of people, but they genuinely imagine, having been indoctrinated into state-worship, that it doesn't count as violence because it is being done by the deity called "government," which they imagine to be exempt from human morality.

As if that wasn't looney enough, there has also been the predictable clamor of people who say that the Gifford shooting proves that we need more "gun control." The belief in "authority" allows otherwise rational people to openly declare that they abhor violence, while saying they want guns "outlawed." They fail to notice the glaring contradiction therein.

Every "law" ("gun control" or otherwise) is not a suggestion, or a request, but a threat of violence, which will be enforced by men with guns. Putting it in question form makes "gun control" advocates squirm: If I keep a firearm even when it's "illegal" to do so (and I would), so that I can protect my family from aggressors, what do you "gun control" proponents advocate be done to me if I get caught? Do you advocate that someone give me a stern talking to? Do you advocate that people ask me nicely to disarm myself? Or do you advocate that I be forcibly captured and put in a cage? And if I resist that--which I would--do you advocate that I be killed? If you don't mind, please don't advocate that I be murdered, while claiming that you abhor violence. And don't advocate someone shooting me, while saying you hate gun violence. Doing so is both immoral and insane.

 "Gun control" is violence enforced with guns. In other words, so-called "gun control" is gun violence. Ask a Branch Davidian about this, if you can find one who the feds haven't murdered yet. Or ask Randy Weaver. Ask him how compassionate and peace-loving "gun control" is. If you don't know what I'm talking about, turn off your statist-controlled TV long enough to do an internet search, and see "gun control" in action.

To be blunt, the opinions of the average American regarding morality, violence and justice are warped and twisted to the point of being about as backward as they could possibly be. The good news is that this is not the result of individual stupidity or malice. It is the result of life-long indoctrination into the cult of "government." If you love humanity, and consider yourself peace-loving, I dare you to read "The Most Dangerous Superstition." You may find that your good intentions and noble virtues are being used against you, to the extreme detriment of humanity. You may find that all the pain and suffering that you see in the world, all the injustice you want to end, is feeding off of you. If that were the case, would you want to know? Or would you rather cling to whatever you already believe, regardless of the harm it may be doing to others? Again, I dare you to read the book

Monday, January 10, 2011

Natural Law and the Giffords Shooting

Natural Law is Retaliation Law

Many have asked what I thought about the Giffords shooting in light of The Michael Collins Gambit. First, this was WRONG period. Talion law and Michael Collins proscribed the involvement and harming of innocent parties period! This event was not one of lawful retaliation, it was not commensurate with whatever the first cause injury was, it harmed innocent bystanders, it was not the use of nor the practice of Nature's Law of Retaliation. This was the action of a lone emotionally disturbed man who had already started to show signs of his dysfunction and little was done to treat his condition. It is a saddening occurrence for the families involved and I wish that it had not happened. I am also sure that the authoritarians will use it to suppress dissension of their ongrowing police state. I could say more but why, when Larken Rose's says it so well.

The Giffords Shooting: Unpleasant Truth

By Larken Rose

(Let me start with a disclaimer: I say what I mean. If what I actually say offends you--and for a lot of people, it will--then you probably need offending. But don't bother being offended at things I didn't say, but which you imagine I meant. If I meant it, I would have said it. - Larken Rose)

The national news is full of reports of the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. Considering how inconsistent the reports have been, even from the beginning, I don't know what happened, or why. Maybe I never will. Whether the guy was simply a looney, whether there was some political motive, whether it was another false flag propaganda stunt (which wouldn't surprise me a bit), I could only guess. And since my guess would be essentially worthless, at least right now, I won't bother.

Instead, I want to quickly address several things about the way in which the story has been reported in the media. Be warned, when there has been bloodshed and death, people get emotional, and bluntly discussing literal realities upsets people. Tyrants specialize in manipulating emotions, in order to defeat reason and understanding. That's why stating the truth is most important when people don't want to hear it. So here goes.

The death of Mrs. Gifford was not a huge national tragedy, any more than the hundreds of other murders that happened the same day. Mrs. Gifford was not a great public servant. In fact, she was not a public servant at all. She was not serving you, or me, or anyone else, other than the elite ruling class. She did not "represent" the people. She was a member of the parasitic American ruling class. She was not working for the people.

What she did, along with her fellow political parasites, was use the threat of violence to subjugate, control and extort the general public. Like every other member of Congress, she produced nothing of value, neither product nor service. As a "legislator," her entire job consisted of coming up with new ways to use the coercion of "law" to forcibly control you and me, and use the products of our efforts to serve the agenda of the parasite class.

Did she mean well? How should I know? And frankly, I don't particularly care. As far as I can tell, Hitler meant well, and so did many of the thugs who carried out his megalomaniacal ideas. Did that make him good? Did that make it a "national tragedy" when he died? No. The tragedy was that a human being could ever imagine that forcibly subjugating the human race is the way to make a better society. Whatever her intentions, it was a bigger tragedy that Mrs. Gifford ever became a member of the professional criminal class, than it was that she was shot. (If I ever suddenly decide to embrace the love of dominion, and seek to use brute force to dominate and subjugate innocent people, I hope someone does me the favor of shooting me.)

Notwithstanding the fact that "legal" thuggery, extortion, aggression and violence is hidden under many layers of euphemisms, rhetoric and propaganda, the blunt truth is that Gabrielle Giffords is (or was) a professional bully and parasite. What "law-makers" do is enact "laws." And "laws" are neither suggestions nor requests. They are commands, backed by threats of violence. Obama's commie- care, for example, for all the fluff and B.S. that was used to promote it, was--like all "laws"--a threat of violence. However complicated and convoluted it was, essentially what it did was tell doctors, patients, insurance companies, and others, "You must do this, and you may not do that," and prescribed forceful retaliation against any who were caught disobeying. That's what every "law" is. (As a mental exercise, trying making up a "law" yourself that is not a threat of violence. You will fail.)

Politicians do not "serve" the public, or "represent" the public; they forcibly dominate, control, and extort the public. Despite all the patently inaccurate rhetoric about "public servants," "representative government," and other statist dogma (which will be the subject of upcoming videos), the relationship of every "government" to its subjects is a master-slave relationship. They tell you what to do, and they take your money, and if you resist, they send men with guns to hurt you. To think they're doing that for your benefit is insane.

With that in mind, perhaps the most telling statement in all the reports of the incident were the comments of another parasitic tyrant, John Boehner (R), who said that “[a]cts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society." Wow. The hypocrisy is astounding. Everything--absolutely everything- - -that Boehner, Giffords, and every other member of the parasitic ruling class do, constitutes "threats of violence," often against you. (Try disobeying one of their "laws," if you don't believe me.) Yet they become outraged if one of their victims does to them what they do to millions of people on a daily basis.

(Incidentally, Boehner also said, "An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve." That one sentence all by itself, with the lies it implies and the psychosis it exhibits, deserves its own article.)

Am I suggesting that people go out and shoot the politicians? No. Even if it were justified, it wouldn't result in freedom. If anything, it would only serve as an excuse for authoritarian control freaks to increase their power, and further infringe on the liberty of others. (You can already see the push towards this in the aftermath of the shooting of Giffords.) As much as I bash the god-complex parasites who infest DC, the individual politicians are not the real problem. The real problem is that the victims of tyranny continue to imagine it to be legitimate, when thuggery and aggression are cloaked in pseudo-religious political rituals. As long as the people bow down at the altar of "government," getting rid of one parasite--by vote or by bullet--will accomplish nothing, as a new parasite will step right in. On the other hand, when the people outgrow their superstitious addiction to "authority"- worship, no election or revolution will be needed to remove the parasite class. "Government" exists only because the people imagine that it exists. When the people rid themselves of their statist indoctrination, and see reality for what it is, the parasite class will be ignored out of existence.

On that note, I can't resist mentioning the release of "The Most Dangerous Superstition." If you think that the people in power are the real problem, and that another election, or even a revolution, is the solution, I implore you to read the book. You might find that your own beliefs and assumptions, and your own perceptions and actions, are feeding the beast that you fear, the beast that is eating you.

Friday, January 07, 2011

An American Vigilante - Green Hornet

Set your DVRs; Next Tuesday, January 11, SyFy is running what looks to be the entire Green Hornet series starring Van Williams and Lloyd Gough, all narrated by William Dozier! Sweet! Oh, some guy named Bruce Lee is in them, too.
Tuesday 01-11-11 SyFy 10:00am - 11:00pm

The Green Hornet TV series ran for 26 episodes in 1966/1967.

10:00 AM The Ray Is for Killing
Someone is demanding $1,000,000 for the return of Reid's art collection.

10:30 AM Programmed for Death
Phony diamonds and a killer leopard await the Hornet as he investigates the death of a reporter.

11:00 AM Crime Wave
A computer offers evidence against the Hornet, who has been accused of a jewel theft.

11:30 AM The Silent Gun
The Hornet tries to destroy a silent, flashless revolver before the underworld puts it to use.

12:00 PM The Frog Is a Deadly Weapon
The Green Hornet tries to find Casey, who was abducted while investigating a gangland leader.

12:30 PM Give 'Em Enough Rope
Mike Axford tries gathering evidence to expose a wealthy racketeer.

01:00 PM Eat, Drink and Be Dead
The Hornet and Kato come to the aid of tavern owners who have been forced to buy bootleg liquor.

01:30 PM Beautiful Dreamer - Part 1
Reid tries to link a professor's murder to a health club.

02:00 PM Beautiful Dreamer - Part 2
A racketeer sets out to double-cross the Green Hornet (Van Williams).

02:30 PM The Preying Mantis
The Green Hornet and Kato try to smash a Chinatown protection racket.

03:00 PM The Hunters and the Hunted
The Hornet investigates a band of hunters who are killing the city's top racketeers

03:30 PM Deadline for Death
Reid tries to clear Mike Axford, who has been jailed on a murder charge.

04:00 PM The Secret of the Sally Bell
The Hornet must recover narcotics from a freighter undergoing demolition.

04:30 PM May the Best Man Lose
The Green Hornet must outwit a paid assassin, whose next target is the DA.

05:00 PM Freeway to Death
The Hornet aids Mike in a probe of a construction-company racket.

05:30 PM Seek, Stalk and Destroy
Three ex-soldiers plan to use a tank to bust a buddy out of prison.

06:00 PM The Hornet and the Firefly
The Green Hornet and Kato try to stop an arsonist who is terrorizing the city.

06:30 PM Corpse of the Year - Part 1
Reid tries to expose the culprit who's posing as the Green Hornet.

7:00 PM Corpse of the Year - Part 2
The Hornet tries to nab his impostor, whose crimes include murder.

07:30 PM Ace in the Hole
Britt Reid dons his Hornet mask to cause a gangland double-cross.

08:00 PM Bad Bet on a 459-Silent
The Hornet, wounded by a bullet, must get medical attention without revealing his identity.

08:30 PM Trouble for Prince Charming
Prince Rafil is given a choice: abdicate or his fiancée faces murder.

09:00 PM Alias 'The Scarf'
The Hornet searches for a strangler who uses a white scarf to kill his victims.

09:30 PM Hornet, Save Thyself
Reid tries to prove that he did not gun down an old enemy.

10:00 PM Invasion from Outer Space - Part 1
The Hornet tries to stop an electronics wizard from using an H-bomb to conquer the world.

10:30 PM Invasion from Outer Space - Part 2
Dr. Mabouse gains possession of an H-bomb

Sunday, January 02, 2011

News of Interest

From:  THINKonline!

A mother in Oklahoma is charged in the faith-healing death of her nine year old son. He suffered from diabetes and could have been easily treated but he also suffered from a superstitious Bible believing Christian mother.

A mother in Indiana kills her three year old son while trying to get demons out of him. (I'd say it's time for Deism to replace the "revealed" religions! The editor)

Muslims in Iraq and Egypt are killing Christians. In Egypt, the Christians are striking back and attacking Muslims.

Christian billboards proclaim Jesus is coming back on May 21, 2011! This prediction will be as accurate as Jesus' own prediction in about his return in Matthew 24:34 !

The Pope and his lame excuses for pedophile priests.

After being blamed for resisting rules to stop money laundering, the Pope signs a new Vatican law which will allegedly correct the problem.

A Catholic priest in Oregon is suing Mount Angel Abbey because he was sexually assaulted by a priest when he was a student there.

U.S. politicians abandoned efforts to stop Israel from stealing land from Palestinians for Jewish settlements. This helps people to see that Obama is nothing but a politician and his speech to the Islamic world was nothing but meaningless talk.

Argentina recognizes Palestine within its 1967 borders. If American politicians had not sold their country and their souls to Israel's lobby , the U.S. would also recognize Palestine within its 1967 borders.

An aid caravan with over 300 tons of aid is on its way from India to Gaza. Israel will probably not allow it into the Israeli concentration camp for Palestinians known as Gaza.

Rabbis forbid their congregation from viewing a website which reports on sexual abuse against children by the Jewish clergy.

Christian investors will probably get tax breaks for a new Christian theme park.

Astronomers in Australia discover where giant stars are born.