Friday, January 1, 2016



Brother Rice High School President John Birney -- (WXYZ screengrab)


Catholic High School Creates ‘Sacred Space’ for Muslim Students to Pray

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

A Michigan Catholic high school run by the Christian Brothers of Ireland is under fire for the creation of a “sacred space” for its Muslim students to worship during school hours.

“We don’t discriminate based on race, creed, color,” said school principal John Birney in defense of his decision to maintain the non-Christian prayer space despite the school’s official Catholic status.
Although the majority of the student body is Catholic, the all-boy Bloomfield Hills school accepts students of other faiths and currently some 12 Muslim boys study there.
Parents of several of the school’s students have protested the measure, with one mother claiming it was “unconscionable” and would undermine her son’s Christian education. Parents pay the school $11,750 in yearly tuition for their children to study in a Catholic environment.
According to local television station WXYZ, “a dozen or so angry parents” have expressed their disapproval of the school’s move to formalize a non-Christian prayer room on a Catholic school’s property.
Birney defends the decision, saying that making accommodation for non-Catholic students is in line with the thinking and teaching at the school, and that “all the Catholic hospitals in town do this.”
“Is [the prayer room] something that compromises our faith and identity, or is it in fact consistent with the respect that we have? We are Catholic in the sense that we share the ‘good news.’ We are not Catholic in the sense, ‘Hey, if you’re not Catholic, don’t bother coming here,’” Birney said.
“When the question was, ‘Is there a place that I can pray?’ the answer that evolved was yes,” he said. “We have this sacred space available for you if you want it.”
Birney also said that Muslim students in the school are required to conform to the Catholic curriculum for all students, and since they respect the Catholic faith the school should respect theirs.
In a statement released last week regarding Muslim immigration and religious liberty, Detroit Archbishop Allen Vigneron declared: “Fifty years ago, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council taught that the Catholic Church treats with respect those who practice the religion of Islam. And for these past 50 years, Catholics and Muslims in southeastern Michigan have enjoyed warm relations marked by a spirit of mutual respect and esteem.”
Birney said that a handful of boys use the prayer room on a regular basis, including one Tibetan Buddhist. “I guess the way I would view it, we’re a Catholic school; we continue to teach the Catholic faith and continue to celebrate our faith but we have other faiths here,” he said.
Brother Rice is not the only Catholic school to create a non-Christian prayer space. In 2012, a Catholic high school in Ontario, Canada, created an Islamic prayer room.
A spokesman for the Detroit Archdiocese told the Huffpost in an email that Birney had reached out to them for guidance.
“The Archdiocese of Detroit has provided Brother Rice High School with information in regards to the precedent in the Catholic Church for respecting the religious liberty — including the ability to pray — for non-Christians who are present at a great number of Church institutions worldwide, including schools, universities, hospitals, soup kitchens and shelters,” archdiocesan spokesman Joe Kohn said.
“Such respect for non-Christian people of faith is in keeping with what the Church teaches and what the Church Fathers put forth at the Second Vatican Council,” he said.
(Friday Church News Notes, January 1, 2016,,, 866-295-4143) - 
An official report published by Rome says that Jews (and everyone else) are saved, and Jews should not be the target of evangelism. The document, “The Gifts and Calling of God are Irrevocable,” was published by The Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, one of Rome’s many ecumenical ventures that began with the Second Vatican Council. The fifth chapter of the report “emphasizes that through Jesus Christ--and through his death and resurrection--all people have a part in salvation, all are saved. Although Jews cannot believe in Jesus Christ as the universal redeemer, they have a part in salvation, because the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.” The sixth chapter deals with evangelism, and urges Catholics to “refrain from attempts at conversion or mission toward Jews” (“Summary of ‘The Gifts and Calling of God,’” Vatican Information Service, Dec. 10, 2015). If Jews are saved by means of the covenants of God without faith in Jesus Christ, why did Christ Himself call upon them to repent and believe (Luke 13:1-5), and why did He warn them of eternal judgment when they rejected Him (Matthew 11:20-24)? The Roman Catholic Church is the heart and soul of Mystery Babylon, and she is uniting with all of her daughters today. Note that this latest document says that ALL men have a part in salvation. It is impossible to be more ecumenical than that. “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way” (2 Thessalonians 2:7).
"Another Mary Who Is Quite Contrary"
by Mike Gendron, Ex Catholic
In its refusal to submit to God's Word as the supreme authority in matters of faith, the Roman Catholic Church worships another Jesus, teaches another gospel, and is deluded by another spirit (2 Cor.11:4). However, those soul-condemning errors are only the tip of the iceberg. Her deceptive practices and ungodly traditions also include the veneration of another Mary. The Mary of Catholicism is a twisted distortion of the Mary revealed in Scripture who also gave birth to James, Joseph, Judas, Simon, and their sisters (Mark 6:3). Rome rejects the Scriptural proof of Mary's other children by infallibly declaring she remained a virgin throughout her life. This counterfeit Mary is said to be another sinless mediator who is the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 494).

The exaltation of the virgin Mary by Catholics is completely unfounded in Scripture. Outside of the Gospels, Mary's name is mentioned only once and that is when she is praying with her other children and other believers in the upper room (Acts 1:14). Information about Mary in the Gospels is also very sparse. After the narratives related to the birth of Jesus, there are only three other references to Mary. The first is at the wedding in Cana (John 2:1-5). Next is when she and the brothers of Jesus desired to talk to Jesus. Jesus responded that His mother and brothers are those who do the will of God (Mat. 12:46-50). One other reference is given when a woman in the crowd calls the mother of Jesus blessed, but Jesus does not affirm her. Instead He said blessed are those who hear the Word and observe it (Luke 11:27-28).
Roman pontiffs have created a Mary that shares the divine attributes of the Lord Jesus Christ. They say she was conceived without sin, lived a sinless life, was bodily assumed into glory, is the mediatrix of all grace, is our advocate, and now reigns as Queen of heaven alongside the King of kings. Pope Francis declared, "The Immaculate 'Virgin' becomes the sublime icon of Divine Mercy that conquered sin. To her I entrust the Church and all humanity, especially the city of Rome."

The idolatry associated with the Catholic Mary is evidenced in many ways, but primarily in the ungodly practice of praying to her. Prayer is one of the deepest forms of worship because it acknowledges the divine power of the person to whom we pray. This is why we never see any God-fearing man praying to anyone other than God in the Bible. Yet thousands of Catholics pray to Mary, at the same time asking for her help. The only way Mary could hear and answer those prayers would be if she were omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Yet, she is only human like all of us.

Mike's Comment: As Christians, we esteem Mary as blessed among women, but to ascribe divine powers and attributes to her is blasphemous and idolatrous. Satan will use anything to persuade people to take their eyes off Jesus. Just as he deceived Eve by his cunning, Catholics who idolize Mary will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ (2 Cor. 11:3). Our dear Catholic friends and loved ones need to be warned of how God hates idolatry. We must call them to turn to God from idols to serve the living and true God (1 Thes. 1:9). John MacArthur does an excellent teaching on the Catholic perversion of Mary. Listen to the message here.
False Prophet Points to a Door Not the Cross
by Mike Gendron
Pope Francis has commenced the Jubilee Year of Mercy by offering a plenary indulgence for the remission of the punishment for sins. All those who pass through the Holy Door in St. Peter's Basilica will receive the indulgence. This is the first time the Holy Door has been opened since the Great Jubilee in the year 2000. 
The opening of the door is meant to be symbolic of the "extraordinary path" toward salvation. The pope opened the door on December 8, the feast of the Immaculate Conception. In his homily he said, "Not only does God forgive sin, but in Mary he even averts the original sin present in every man and woman who comes into this world." In closing he prayed, "May the Blessed Virgin, the first fruits of the saved, the model of the Church, holy and immaculate Bride, loved by the Lord, help us to rediscover the mercy of God more and more, in a way characteristic of Christians." Read more
Mike's Comment: If Catholics were abiding in God's Word, they would be asking the pope, "Why do we have to go through a door instead of coming to the cross of Christ with empty hands of faith?" Why go through a wooden door made with human hands when the eternal Christ is the only door by which sinners must enter to be forgiven (John 10:9). The apostle Paul wrote, "God made [believers] alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This He set aside, nailing it to the cross" (Col. 2:13-14). The eternal sin debt was cancelled when the perfect High Priest offered Himself, the perfect sacrifice to a perfect God who demands perfection. Then Jesus cried out, "It is finished!" (John 19:30). There are no more offerings for sin because by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified (Heb. 10:14).

Vatican’s liturgy chief contradicts Pope Francis on Communion for non-Catholics

BY John-Henry Westen
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

ROME, November 30, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- The Vatican’s cardinal in charge of liturgy and the sacraments has strongly defended the Church’s tradition on reception of Communion in the wake of Pope Francis’ comments to a Lutheran woman suggesting she could choose in conscience to receive.
Speaking with Aleteia reporter Diane Montagna, Cardinal Robert Sarah said, “Intercommunion is not permitted between Catholics and non-Catholics. You must confess the Catholic Faith. A non-Catholic cannot receive Communion. That is very, very clear. It’s not a matter of following your conscience.”
In responding to a Lutheran woman seeking to go to communion with her Catholic husband, Pope Francis said, “There are questions that only if one is sincere with oneself and the little theological light one has, must be responded to on one’s own. See for yourself.”  The pope, who was speaking to a Lutheran community in Rome November 15, added that both Lutherans and Catholics believe the Lord is present in Holy Communion, and that while there are “explanations and interpretations” that may differ, “life is bigger than explanations and interpretations.”
Pope Francis concluded it was not within his competence to allow a Lutheran woman to receive Holy Communion with her Catholic husband, but to answer her question, she should, “Talk to the Lord and then go forward.”
But Cardinal Sarah, who serves as prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, contradicted this suggestion.  “It’s not that I have to talk to the Lord in order to know if I should go to Communion,” he said. “No, I have to know if I’m in accord with the rule of the Church.”
“It’s not a personal desire or a personal dialogue with Jesus that determines if I can receive Communion in the Catholic Church. How can I know that the Lord has really said: ‘Come and receive My Body.’ No. A person cannot decide if he is able to receive Communion. He has to have the rule of the Church: i.e., being a Catholic, being in a state of grace, properly married [if married].
The cardinal warned that if Holy Communion is not received correctly it would not be a benefit to unity, but quoting St. Paul he said, “We will eat our condemnation.”
See the full interview at Aleteia here.
Catholics and Orthodox Seek Unity 
(In Apostasy)
by Mike Gendron:
    Pope Francis calls for the re-unification of Catholics and Orthodox in a message to Patriarch Bartholomew I. In his message he spoke of "the conditions necessary to journey towards re-establishing the 'full communion of faith, fraternal accord, and sacramental life which existed during the first thousand years of the life of the Church.'"     The pope continued, "Having restored a relationship of love and fraternity, in a spirit of mutual trust, respect and charity, there is no longer any impediment to Eucharistic communion, which cannot be overcome through prayer, the purification of hearts, dialogue and the affirmation of truth. Indeed, where there is love in the life of the Church, its source and fulfillment is always to be found in Eucharistic love. So too the symbol of the fraternal embrace finds its most profound truth in the embrace of peace exchanged in the Eucharistic celebration. In every context of Church life, relations between Catholics and Orthodox must increasingly reflect the logic of love that leaves no room for the spirit of rivalry. Theological dialogue itself, sustained by mutual charity, must continue to examine carefully the questions which divide us, aiming always at deepening our shared understanding of revealed truth. Motivated by God's love, we must together offer the world a credible and effective witness to Christ's message of reconciliation and salvation."
Pope tells Bartholomew I that the necessary conditions for the restoration of unity between Catholics and Orthodox exist
Francis issues a message for the feast day of Saint Andrew, patron of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Although not all the differences have been overcome, "there is no longer any impediment to Eucharistic communion" between Catholics and Orthodox, “which cannot be overcome through prayer, the purification of hearts, dialogue and the affirmation of truth."

Vatican City (AsiaNews) – Pope Francis sent Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I a message as part of the traditional meeting of delegations for the feast day of their respective patron saints, Saints Peter and Paul on 29 June in Rome and Saint Andrew on 30 November in Istanbul.
For the pontiff, “there is no longer any impediment to Eucharistic communion,” and progress “towards the full communion” can “draw inspiration from the gesture of reconciliation and peace by our venerable predecessors Paul VI and Athenagoras I,” who lifted the mutual excommunications of 1054.
Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, delivered Francis’ message as the head of the Holy See delegation. The pope also sent the patriarch his greetings from Bangui, Central African Republic.
“While not all differences between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were brought to an end, there now existed the conditions necessary to journey towards re-establishing the ‘full communion of faith, fraternal accord and sacramental life which existed among them during the first thousand years of the life of the Church’ (Joint Catholic-Orthodox Declaration, 7 December 1965). Having restored a relationship of love and fraternity, in a spirit of mutual trust, respect and charity, there is no longer any impediment to Eucharistic communion, which cannot be overcome through prayer, the purification of hearts, dialogue and the affirmation of truth. Indeed, where there is love in the life of the Church, its source and fulfillment is always to be found in Eucharistic love.  So too the symbol of the fraternal embrace finds its most profound truth in the embrace of peace exchanged in the Eucharistic celebration.
“In order to progress on our journey towards the full communion for which we long, we need continually to draw inspiration from the gesture of reconciliation and peace by our venerable predecessors Paul VI and Athenagoras I. At all levels and in every context of Church life, relations between Catholics and Orthodox must increasingly reflect the logic of love that leaves no room for the spirit of rivalry. Theological dialogue itself, sustained by mutual charity, must continue to examine carefully the questions which divide us, aiming always at deepening our shared understanding of revealed truth. Motivated by God’s love, we must together offer the world a credible and effective witness to Christ’s message of reconciliation and salvation.
“The world today has great need of reconciliation, particularly in light of so much blood which has been shed in recent terrorist attacks. May we accompany the victims with our prayers, and renew our commitment to lasting peace by promoting dialogue between religious traditions, for ‘indifference and mutual ignorance can only lead to mistrust and unfortunately even conflict’ (Common Declaration, Jerusalem 2014).



Rep. David Cicilline Assault Weapons Ban 2015 Press Conference




republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes

On December 16, Rep. David Cicilline and 123 other Democrat members of the House of Representatives introduced H.R. 4269, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015, a bill virtually identical to S. 150, introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) in the Senate in 2013. 
For the moment, the ban has little chance of passing. Feinstein’s legislation was defeated in 2013, no similar legislation was even considered in the House at that time, and Feinstein’s two attempts to push the ban this year—most recently after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino—failed as well.
However, things could change in 2016. The leading contender for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton, is campaigning on the most anti-gun platform of any candidate in American presidential history. Meanwhile, though the leading candidates for the Republican Party’s nomination are far friendlier to the Second Amendment than Clinton, support has not yet galvanized behind the one who will ultimately be selected to carry the party’s banner going into Election Day.
It is important to note that H.R. 4269, like other federal “assault weapon” bills introduced over the last decade, would not “reinstate” the federal “assault weapon ban” of 1994-2004. Gun control supporters have been using the word “reinstate” to mislead the American people into thinking they are proposing to renew the ban that expired in 2004. However, nothing could be further from the truth.
The 1994 ban allowed manufacturers to produce AR-15s without flash suppressors and one or two other external attachments, and to make similar adjustments to other firearms. As a result, the number of AR-15s made and sold during the 10 years the ban was in effect was a quarter of a million greater than the number produced and sold during the preceding 10 years. Additionally, 50 million magazines capable of holding over 10 rounds were allowed to be imported while the ban was in effect. CBS 60 Minutes reported that the first year of the “ban” was “the best year for the sales of assault weapons ever.”
For these reasons, the Violence Policy Center, which in 1988 urged anti-gun activists to focus on “assault weapons” as a “new topic” to “strengthen the handgun restriction lobby,” described the 1994 ban as a “fictional ban,” “a ban in name only . . . [and a] “charade.”
The new ban proposed in H.R. 4269 is another story. It would prohibit the manufacture of most detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles, numerous semi-automatic shotguns configured for defensive purposes, any semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine over 10 rounds (except for a tubular magazine .22), any semi-automatic pistol like the HK SP-89, any semi-automatic pistol with a fixed magazine over 10 rounds, revolving cylinder shotguns, various other named and described firearms, frames and receivers of banned guns, and ammunition magazines over 10 rounds, except those for tubular .22 rimfire rifles.
Two weeks ago, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that the American people oppose an “assault weapon” ban by a 53%-45% margin. Presumably, if the American people knew the vast differences between the 1994 ban and the one currently being proposed, that margin would widen considerably.
Published on Dec 26, 2015
H.R.4269 Latest Title: Assault Weapons Ban of 2015 Sponsor: Rep Cicilline, David N. [RI-1] (introduced 12/16/2015)  BILL TEXT (I suggest clicking on PDF for reading) WOLVERINE 007 - Backup Channel



SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Published: Thursday, December 31, 2015

House Speaker Paul Ryan, Montana House member Ryan Zinke, and other phony conservative Republicans have written Barack Obama a blank check for EVERYTHING he wanted in the 2016 Omnibus bill. (Thank you, Montana Senators Steve Daines (R) and Jon Tester (D), for voting against this egregiously evil bill.)

Despite all the conservative rhetoric proceeding from the mouths of the Republicans in Congress, the GOP passed a $1.1 trillion spending bill that grants Barack Obama EVERYTHING he requested. Remember, the House of Representatives completely controls the purse strings of the federal government. The White House can spend absolutely NOTHING without the House of Representatives signing the check. And that's exactly what Speaker Ryan, Rep. Ryan Zinke, and the other phony conservatives in Congress did: they wrote Barack Obama a check for EVERYTHING he wanted.

In his nationally syndicated radio talk show on December 17, longtime Republican apologist Rush Limbaugh said, “Everything Obama wanted, everything he asked for, he got.  You go down the list of things, it's there.

“And this is causing some people to wonder if they just dreamed all that stuff about Boehner resigning.  And then other people are wondering if they even dreamed all that stuff about the Republicans winning the largest number of seats they've had in Congress since the Civil War.  We had two midterm elections in 2010 and 2014, which were landslide victories for the Republican Party.  The Democrat Party lost over a thousand seats nationwide in just those two elections.  People went to the polls in droves wanting exactly what was rubber-stamped last night (or what will be) stopped.

“And instead they showed up in record numbers and they it turned out and they just defeated Democrats down the ballot. In the process, they elected Republicans to stop this.  And now the Republicans have the largest number of seats in the House they've had in Congress since the Civil War.  And it hasn't made any difference at all.  It is as though Nancy Pelosi is still running the House and Harry Reid is still running the Senate.  ‘Betrayed’ is not even the word here.  What has happened here is worse than betrayal. Betrayal is pretty bad, but it's worse than that.

“This was out-and-out, in-our-face lying, from the campaigns to individual statements made about the philosophical approach Republicans had to all this spending.  There is no Republican Party!  You know, we don't even need a Republican Party if they're gonna do this.  You know, just elect Democrats, disband the Republican Party, and let the Democrats run it, because that's what's happening anyway.”

See the transcript here:

Here is a partial list of what Obama requested and received from this so-called Republican congress:

1. Funding for Obama's executive amnesty program
2. Funding for “Sanctuary” cities
3. Funding for all of Obama's refugee programs
4. Funding for all of Obama's immigration programs
5. Funding for Obama's illegal alien resettlement programs
6. Funding for the release of criminal illegal aliens imprisoned in the United States
7. Funding for tax credits for illegal aliens
8. Eliminates spending caps
9. Funding for Planned Parenthood abortion services
10. Funding for ALL of Obama's climate change programs
11. Funding for Obamacare
12. Funding for INCREASED government spying on U.S. citizens
13. Funding for ALL of the U.S. wars around the world
14. Funding for the increased militarization of American police agencies and the growing federal Police State

The list goes on and on.

Rush was right: there would have been absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in the Omnibus bill that passed Congress had Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the Democrats been in a majority. No difference at all.

The two-party system is a JOKE. No! It's more than a joke: it is a total and absolute SHAM.

You know things are bad when longtime Republican disciple Franklin Graham quits the GOP and when the quintessential Republican apologist Rush Limbaugh says the GOP should  “disband.”

Elections have become moot. No matter which party assumes control of Congress and the White House, the Constitution is ignored and trampled and the American people are betrayed and sold out.

I’m wondering if the last chance America had at redemption was the candidacy of Ron Paul in 2012. Christian people, especially, vehemently rejected Ron’s message of constitutional government, sound economics, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. So-called conservatives nominated big-government neocons the last two presidential elections: John McCain and Mitt Romney. And then they wonder why the liberal Democrat Barack Obama was elected and re-elected. DUH!

Rank and file conservatives are MAD! They are sick and tired of being betrayed and sold down the river. They are sick and tired of trading neocons like John Boehner for neocons like Paul Ryan. That, in a nutshell, explains the surging candidacy of Donald Trump.

Trump has dared to call out the Republican leadership for the establishment, big-government hacks they are. And he has enough money to run a viable national campaign without groveling before the GOP donor class.

While I truly like the anti-establishment character of Trump’s campaign, I believe the desperation of conservative voters is being channeled in a dangerous direction. I have heard nothing to suggest that Donald Trump has any inkling of, appreciation for, or fidelity to the U.S. Constitution. In fact, much of his campaign rhetoric--and, unfortunately, much of the rhetoric that has made him so popular--is blatantly unconstitutional.

Trump is the owner and CEO of a mega international business conglomerate. As such, he snaps his fingers and subordinates jump. His word is law. That’s all well and good for a private business, but that’s NOT how a constitutional republic operates.

In a desperate attempt to break free from the neocon establishment ensconced atop the Republican Party, conservatives appear willing to embrace anyone who will challenge the insiders--even if that someone runs roughshod over the Constitution.

In America, when we elect civil magistrates, there is only ONE criterion we should look for: will he or she faithfully "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” It's as simple as that.

Listen to Thomas Jefferson: "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

Instead, most Americans are consumed with political parties and personalities. They need to be consumed with the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

When one wants to identify a phony dollar bill, he doesn't study the counterfeits; he studies the original. The Constitution is the original measurement by which ALL candidates and incumbents should be judged.

The reason our politicians from BOTH parties have taken us to the precipice of the abyss is because the citizens of this country have failed to hold them accountable to the Constitution. It shouldn't matter whether the candidate or incumbent has a "R" or "D" behind his or her name, or whether they call themselves "conservative" or "progressive." All that should matter is, will they "preserve, protect, and defend” the U.S. Constitution.

Learn the Constitution and Bill of Rights (and Declaration of Independence), and gauge every magistrate or would-be magistrate by that standard. Try it.

What you will learn is just how few of our politicians and political candidates have even the remotest idea of what the Constitution says. And neither do they give a rat's hindquarters about what the Constitution says. That's why they never mention it on the campaign trail, don't read it, don't plan to enforce it when elected, and are, thereby, disqualified from public office. They are COUNTERFEITS--no matter how likeable they are or from which side of the political aisle they hail.

Right or left, conservative or liberal, Christian or non-believer: forget it. "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

There is a quick remedy for what ails America: elect constitutionalists to public office. In my view, Rand Paul is the only constitutionalist candidate for President in 2016 from either major party.

First, I believe the biggest threats to liberty we face have nothing to do with Islamic terrorism. We have far more to fear from those miscreants in Washington, D.C., and from the international bankers at the Federal Reserve than any radical Muslim. Hence, all of the fearmongering about Muslim jihad and Sharia Law in America only plays into the hands of the globalists who are orchestrating all of this madness.

The words of Daniel Webster are especially fitting at this point:

"There is no nation [or group of terrorists] on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence. I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men and become the instruments of their own undoing."

Second, I am absolutely convinced that the greatest threats to our liberty are: 1) the neocon wars of aggression around the world--especially in the Middle East, and 2) a burgeoning Police State here at home.

I have now had plenty of time to examine the candidates regarding his or her commitment to defeating these two great threats to our liberty, and there is only ONE Republican candidate that sees these threats and would use the power of the Oval Office to defeat them--or at least curtail them: that candidate is RAND PAUL.

I know that Rand is not his dad. And I am not nearly as excited about Rand as I was Ron. And there are several issues with which I disagree with Rand. But I firmly believe Rand gets the whole neocon war issue and would put a stop to it if he were President. In this regard, Rand might be the ONLY major party presidential candidate who could potentially avert WWIII. I further believe Rand gets the Zionist issue and would not be a patsy for the Israeli lobby--his trip to Israel and that photo at the Wailing Wall notwithstanding.

I also believe Rand truly sees the growing Police State in this country and would rein in these out-of-control federal departments of [In]Justice and Homeland [In]Security. And, yes, Rand voted AGAINST the 2016 Omnibus bill.

In my view, none of the other candidates would do anything significant to change America's foreign policy or to rein in the growing Police State in our country.

By giving Donald Trump so much negative publicity, the mainstream media is actually propelling his campaign. The candidates that the media truly despise and want to defeat are the ones they ignore--which is EXACTLY what they did (as much as possible) to Ron Paul’s campaign--and are doing now to Rand Paul’s campaign. That, by itself, speaks volumes.

The neocons within the GOP (I’m not talking about Donald Trump here) are no better than liberal Democrats. In fact, in some ways they are much worse. Phony conservatives like House Speaker Paul Ryan and Montana House member Ryan Zinke are as much a threat to our liberties as liberals Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. The blank check these neocons gave to Barack Obama is only the most recent example of this reality.

Absent a presidential victory by a constitutionalist such as Ron or Rand Paul, the preservation of liberty is going to eventually come down to free and independent states reclaiming it for themselves, or possible secession and/or a regional breakaway from Washington, D.C., or some kind of direct intervention from Heaven. But what the passage of the 2016 Omnibus bill absolutely proves is that it will NOT come from the national Republican Party.