Officials at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston (MFA) canceled a proposed attraction featured a kimono after protesters deemed it a ” latter-day form of racist minstrelsy.” The event, entitled “Kimono Wednesdays”, invited visitors to try-on a museum-owned kimono and pose for a picture in front of Claude Monet’s painting “La Japonaise”, featured the artist’s wife wearing a kimono. One protester held a sign reading, “Try on the kimono, learn what it’s like to be a racist imperialist !!!today!!!”

In response to the protests, the MFA proposed a “scaled-back” version of the attraction in which visitors could interact with the kimonos, but not try them on. Apparently, it was not enough to satisfy those who found it offense, as nearly a dozen protesters gathered to hand out flyers and speak to the crowd (at the request of security guards, the protesters did not hand out their flyers).

Kimonos were introduced in Japan from a Chinese-style as early as the 5th Century AD. The kimono remained a popular style in Japan until the Meiji Restoration, resulting in the overthrow of the Tokugawa Shogunate in 1868. Emperor Meiji, having witnessed the technological advancement of Western powers when American Commodore Matthew Perry arrived in Japan in command of numerous warships, sought to end the Tokugawa Shogunate’s isolationist policies, kicking off a civil war; upon coming to power, Emperor Meiji opened Japan to formal trade with the West. Ultimately, the kimono was replaced with traditional Western attire as the most popular clothes for everyday wear in Japan.

The incident at the MFA is just one example of political correctness running rampant in the United States.

– In May, 2015, the Morgan Hill, California Unified School District sent home several students who wore shirts with the American flag on Cinco de Mayo; the administrators claimed they acted to prevent an outbreak of violence between white and Mexican-American students. The Supreme Court rejected a free-speech appeal from the parents of several of the students sent home in a decision that Los Angeles-based lawyer William Becker said, “opens the door for a school to suppress any viewpoints that are opposed by a band of vocal and violent bullies.”

– In April, 2014, the Alpha Phi sorority and Phi Delta Alpha fraternity at Dartmouth Collegecanceled a proposed “Phiesta”  fundraising event after several students voiced concerns about the party’s “possible cultural insensitivity.” One student wrote, “As a Mexican-born, United-States-raised, first-generation woman of color, it was sadly unsurprising that a culturally-themed party was seen as a casual venture for such a privileged institution such as Dartmouth.”;

– In July, 2014, a blogger for a private English Language Learning Center in Provo, Utah was fired after writing a blog describing “homophones” (words that sound the same, but have different spellings and meanings); the blogger claims he was let go after his boss informed him the word homophone was too closely linked to “homosexual”;

– In April 2013, Washington Governor Jay Insleesigned into law a bill to rewrite state laws using “gender neutral” vocabulary; the word “penmanship” was replaced by “handwriting”, while “fisherman” was replaced by “fisher”;

– In August 2013, government workers in Seattlewere advised that the terms “citizen” and “brown bag” were potentially offensive and could no longer be used in official documents or discussions;

– Also in August 2013, a rodeo clown in Missouriwas banned for life after dressing up as President Obama, and the Missouri State Fair implemented mandatory “sensitivity training” for its remaining clowns;

In his novel “1984”, George Orwell envisioned a totalitarian society where freedom of speech and thought were greatly restricted. The fictional totalitarian state Oceania created its own language, called Newspeak, to limit freedom of thought and restrict concepts that would pose a threat to the regime; concepts such as freedom, individuality and self-expression. Any type of thought or expression outside the ruling party’s norms were considered a “thoughtcrime”.

It is frighteningly clear that the United States has moved away from a free and open society to one more akin to George Orwell’s supposedly fictional Oceania, where people are punished for, or made to feel guilty about, their supposed bigoted thoughts. We are becoming a society so afraid of offending each other that most choose to remove themselves from almost all societal interactions with the hope they will not be labeled a bigot; however, we are all being taught to view ourselves as internally racist, sexist, homophobic, etc – “thoughtcrimes”.

We are a little over one month away from the first Republican Primary debate, and one of the major storylines developing is which candidates will find themselves on the wrong side of the “debate bubble”. The top 10 candidates in an average of five polls will make it into the August 6th Fox News GOP Primary Debate, and right now there are some prominent figures whom it appears will not be on the stage. According to the Real Clear Politics polling average, Rick Perry is the candidate polling in 10th, while Chris Christie and Rick Santorum are on either side of him at 9th and 11th, with Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina being the next two at 8th and 12th. In order of most likely to appear to least, here is the current debate bubble picture:

Ted Cruz
RCP Polling Average: 8th Place, 4.8%
Polls Outside of Top 10: Zero
Chance of being left out: 5%
Analysis: Cruz has been harmed by the rise of Donald Trump, Ben Carson and a slew of other candidates and seen his polling position deteriorate as a result. That being said, barring a sudden surge by Rick Perry and/or Chris Christie, a debate stage without Cruz is nearly unimaginable. Right now I would say the seven candidates ahead of Cruz in the polling average are locks to make the debate, and Cruz himself is a near lock as well.

Chris Christie
RCP Polling Average: 9th Place, 3.8%
Polls Outside of Top 10: One of last five
Chance of being left out: 35%
Analysis: Christie is a wounded candidate who has suffered mightily from the rise of Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush. He still holds some sway in New England, but Christie is a Rick Santorum surge away from having his spot on stage challenged. If there is a major religious liberty controversy in the weeks leading up to the debate, Christie could find himself on the outside looking in as evangelicals boost the numbers of Perry and Santorum.

Rick Perry
RCP Polling Average: 10th Place, 3.4%
Polls Outside of Top 10: Two of last five
Chance of being left out: 30%
Analysis: Mistakes made during Perry’s last campaign have lead to a credibility gap nationwide, and it has endangered the chances of a governor with a very strong record on jobs and economic growth. This being said, though he is currently the “bubble man” who is in 10th place, I believe Perry has a better chance of staying on stage than Chris Christie does, as his campaign dynamics are far better suited for a Republican Primary. Perry has the advantage of being in the largest state that is overwhelmingly Republican, being a governor and having a deceptively effective stump speech. There is a chance Perry is left off stage, but I do not think it is a major one.

Rick Santorum
RCP Polling Average: 11th Place, 2.6%
Polls Outside of Top 10: One of last five
Chance of being left out: 60%
Analysis: Santorum is both the most qualified and highest polling candidate who figures to be left out in this arrangement. Though the Pennsylvania senator has been outside of the top ten in only one of the last five polls in the RCP average, he was tied or in sole possession of 10th place in the other four. Now, there is a path forward for Santorum to sneak into the debates, and it involves capitalizing off of his strong response to the Supreme Court ruling on marriage, which should galvanize social conservatives to look again at his campaign. If Perry is asleep at the wheel or Christie slips in the final weeks before the first debate, Santorum could find himself as the 10th man on stage.

Carly Fiorina
RCP Polling Average: 12th Place, 2.0%
Polls Outside of Top 10: Four of last five
Chance of being left out: 75%
Analysis: Fiorina has gained a little bit of notoriety in this race as being both the only woman and the most persistent Hillary Clinton attack dog. Her problem is that she hasn’t been able to distinguish herself in any other way, and in such a diverse field it has lead to a lack of traction in the polls. The RNC wants her on stage, but the polling requirements in these debates makes that quite unlikely. Barring a major push in the next month, I see Fiorina being relegated to the minor candidate debates and forums that will be before the Fox News and CNN debates.

John Kasich
RCP Polling Average: 13th Place, 1.8%
Polls Outside of Top 10: Five of last five
Chance of being left out: 85%
Analysis: Kasich’s puzzling decision to not announce a campaign until July 21st coupled with his relatively light national profile has put him in a precarious position polling wise. Only in one of the last five polls does he come close to 10th place, and that was the poll taken least recently. Perhaps he can capitalize on a campaign launch boost to get to 10th place and into the debates, but I see that as very unlikely.

Bobby Jindal
RCP Polling Average: T-14th Place, 1.2%
Polls Outside of Top 10: Five of last five
Chance of being left out: 90%
Analysis: Jindal’s campaign launch generated the weakest buzz of any of the 2016 candidates other than George Pataki, and he just seems to be off the radar of most people in the 2016 race. His penchant for making provocative statements may create a miracle surge to get him on stage, but at this point Jindal is relying on a hail marry pass.

Lindsey Graham
RCP Polling Average: T-14th Place, 1.2%
Polls Outside of Top 10: Five of last five
Chance of being left out: 95%
Analysis: Graham’s primary purpose in this race appears to be as a counterweight to the foreign policy of Rand Paul, but with him polling at 1% in 4 of the last 5 polls there appears to be very little hope for him to be on the same stage as the Senator. Unlike Governor Jindal, Graham has a very reserved approach that is unlikely to generate many waves. His chances of being in the debates are very, very slim.

Off the bubble: Governor George Pataki
RCP Polling Average: Not listed
Polls Outside of top 10: Five of last five
Chance of being left out: 99.9%
Analysis: Pataki’s quixotic bid has made no noise at all during the presidential campaign, and one wonders how long he will stay in the race. When you aren’t even being listed in national polls, there is very little chance you will be included even in the minor candidate debates that Jindal, Graham and Fiorina are more or less guaranteed to make. I suspect Pataki’s bid will end soon after the debates begin.

As Americans across the country prepare to celebrate the anniversary of the birth of our nation, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security have issued a bulletin warning of a potential attack on law enforcement officers and the military during the holiday season.

“Particularly with the upcoming July 4th holiday, here in the United States the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI continue to communicate with state and local law enforcement about what we know and see,” Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson said in a statement. “We are encouraging all law enforcement to be vigilant and prepared. We will also adjust security measures, seen and unseen, as necessary to protect the American people.”

The terror alert bulletin comes on the heels of three separate terror attacks in France, Tunisia and Kuwait

In France, police arrested four individuals in connection to a brutal attack in which 35 year-old Yassin Salhi smashed his vehicle through the gate of the Air Products factory outside Lyon, France, hitting several gas canisters which caused an explosion. The married father of three then murdered his 54 year-old boss at the factory, chopped his head off, and pinned the severed head to the American-owned company’s factory gates. The man’s severed head was found with Arabic writing across the forehead surrounded by two flags bearing the Shahada, the profession of the Muslim faith.

In Port el Kantaoui, a popular beach resort outside Sousse, Tunisia, a gunman dressed in shorts opened fire on beach goers, as well as guests inside the nearby Imperial Marhada Hotel, killing at least 37 people and injuring 36 others. The gunman, a young student who was previously unknown to authorities, was shot dead by police.

In the capital of Kuwait, Kuwait City, a suicide bomber linked to the Islamic State (ISIS) struck worshipers attending a Shiite mosque, killing at least 27 people. Many view the attack in Kuwait as significant because it marks the first such terrorist attack in the predominately Sunni Gulf State in nearly twenty years.

The three terrorist attacks occurred after Abu Muhammad al-Adnan, a spokesperson for ISIS,released a statement calling on its followers to step up terror attacks during the ongoing Muslim holy month of Ramadan. The message itself, however, did not mention the attacks in France, Tunisia or Kuwait specifically.

It is highly suspect that the FBI would release an extremely vague “terror alert” threatening law enforcement and the military in the United States, and claim the three terrorist attacks overseas had nothing to do with the alert’s release. Since 9/11, the United States government has used the supposed threat of terrorism to systematically erode our fundamental rights and develop a massive surveillance state, under the guise of “keeping us safe”. As Americans plan to commemorate the anniversary of the birth of our country this July 4th, it is sad to see how far our country has drifted away from what our Founding Fathers fought to create; it is sad to see the gradual erosion of the fundamental rights and freedoms the Founding Fathers risked their lives to pass on to us.

The SCOTUS decision in King v Burwell is like this:

On the eve of the Super Bowl, the most respected and experienced analysts declare that not only will the underdog team from the small-market city lose badly, but that their ability and skills are amateurish, their quarterback is ugly, their coach is a lunatic and their team’s owner is filthy degenerate.

How will this affect the team’s performance? Will they hang their heads in shame, agree with the assessment, and inquire about the possibility of forfeiting the game in order to not impose their mediocrity upon the spectators?

Or will they use the disrespect, the insults, and the disdain as fuel for the inner fire, motivating them to righteous anger and stoking their competitive spirit?

In 2012, when the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare under the Federal Government’s authority to implement and enforce taxes, Justice Roberts said the following:

“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

At the time it seemed clear what Roberts was saying; Americans had elected a Leftist president and had given him a Leftist congress in order to enact his Leftist agenda. It was not the role of Roberts to stop Obama legislatively. Rather, Americans had to decide that if they desired a change in the ideological direction of the country, it was in their power to do so. Americans responded by electing Republicans to office in increasing numbers in both 2012 and 2014, while still failing to dislodge the Obama regime.

Now, with a 6-3 ruling in King v Burwell, Justice Roberts and the Court have given the Obama regime yet another short-term victory, one which they well and should savor, because the sweetness is fleeting. By contrast, Roberts and the Court have given Republicans an enormous boost to compete in the upcoming 2016 election.

At stake is the contest to determine the successor to the Obama regime with all the attenuating baggage thereof. Rather than being caught in the untenable position of having no plan to replace the failed behemoth and having to answer how they have failed to provide a comprehensive plan acceptable to the majority of the party, Republicans have been liberated to continue attacking Obamacare and working on its repeal.

Candidates can now fundraise off the SCOTUS decision, highlighting the failures of the Obama regime’s signature highlight. Candidates can give speeches on the need to ensure truly conservative justices are appointed to the court, and elect additional members of Congress. The eventual nominee will at some point come up with a plan that upholds the morally valuable idea of universal coverage while ensuring that the plan remains true to free market principles. Thanks to Roberts and the Court, the issue of Obamacare remains on the campaign table.

The American people know they were sold a bill of goods, which is one reason they are so adamantly opposed to Obamacare and want it to be repealed, or at worst, fixed. Through a smoke screen of lies, they were made promise after promise that they would love Obamacare. They were promised they would “save $2500 for each family.” A lie. They were told that if “they like their doctor and their plan they can keep it, period.” Another lie. They were promised that Obamacare would reduce the deficit. Yet one more lie.

Through the implementation of Obamacare, the health coverage plans of millions of Americans have been cancelled numerous times. Their premiums have doubled, tripled, or more; their deductibles sometimes quadrupled. The inescapable fact is that Obamacare hurts middle class Americans, hurts American business and hurts American values.

The Republican nominee who makes this point most effectively and emerges with a plan acceptable to the majority of the party and America will become the next President of the United States.

Thank you, Chief Justice Roberts.

“So Rand Paul,   you’ve been beating your wife all these years,  when will you stop beating your wife?”   It’s a fair question, if you are a leftist media hack who just wants to score points for your cultural Marxist team, rather than engage in intelligent discussion.   On Rand Paul’s  initial announcement of his presidential candidacy, the leftwing media was out in unison trying to smear the biggest threat in the GOP primary to their top contender, Hillary Clinton,  who Rand is outpolling in key swing states.

Rand Paul handled himself masterfully in his interviews  and if I were advising him I wouldn’t change a thing and here’s why:   When  Savannah Guthrie of leftwing MSNBC  goes into her interview by trying to frame the discussion with misleading and false information Rand doesn’t allow her to control the discussion and makes sure he gets time to answer.  That is what he needs to do in every discussion with interviewers who have an agenda no matter what names the media may call him because how you frame the story will change the story.  Like most Americans,  I hate interviews that are biased and I hate being  lied to by the media, whether they are on the right or the left.

When you are on target, you will get hit by flak.  It’s a great sign when you as the anti-establishment candidate become a target of the left and right establishment.  What other candidate has two punk  neocon republicans,  John Bolton and Lindsey Graham, decide to run just to be a foil against you?  Which other candidate can get Buzzfeed, Mediate , MSNBC , The Guardian and CNBC to try to make much ado about nothing so much as a disagreement between a reporter and a candidate?  This is why we must stand with the only candidate who  can defeat the corrupt vast left and rightwing conspiracy that seeks to tarnish brave men like Rand Paul who are patriots, not politicians.

While Fox News’s Megyn Kelly was a little condescending in her advice to Rand Paul on how to handle the media, she  at least allowed him to point out flawed neocon foreign policy in Syria and and she defended him against the silly charge that Rand can’t handle strong female reporters.  Rand is an intelligent man and doesn’t let any reporter get away with biased reporting.   As one of the few interesting Republican candidates willing to  talk to leftist media outlets, he has to make sure that his dukes are up and ready to jab back if they decide to go hostile.  This  serves notice to reporters,  keeping  them honest as they will be  less likely to slant a future interview.

Now If you saw your fellow man being mauled by a bear or rabid dog, you would surely do something to intervene.  Today with the new media, Twitter, Facebook, comment sections etc. we the people can intervene  against a corrupt media and put them back in their place by flooding their comment sections and educating our friends and family as to the truth when it comes to Rand Paul.  Calls  to boycott advertisers of a Buzzfeed or an MSNBC and hammer them in the alternative media with winsome arguments can win over many a voter.  Rand Paul is going to need an army of internet warriors to help him in the battle of public opinion.  While the press is the only industry specifically protected in our Constitution as an important check on our government, when it runs amok, we the people must  be a check on our corporate media as we become the “new media” that Andrew Breitbart made famous.  Will you join the fight?

Reagan showed courage in standing up to leftist media who are  at war with the American people when he challenged the newspaper moderator who wanted to shut down his microphone.    Rand too shows great courage by being  ready to point out unprofessional media  behavior.  The media has turned much of our political process into a nasty meat grinder that purges  populists like Rand in favor of their  corporate anointed royals Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton.   Rand will help return America to its more genteel  roots  by pushing back when the leftist media attacks, but he needs your help.  Will you answer Rand’s call and speak up for liberty and help to “defeat the Washington Machine and restore the American Dream?”

Senator Rand Paul became the first candidate to launch a direct attack on Hillary Clinton Sunday morning, releasing an ad excoriating her as “the worst of the Washington machine”. The ad claimed that the “Washington Machine is destroying the American dream”, and admonishes Hillary Clinton’s arrogance and corruption. The ad then takes a dramatic turn, claiming “it is time for a new leader and a new way” before launching into a list of policy proposals which Paul would enact as president, set to a clip of his recent announcement in Louisville, Kentucky.

This ad no doubt attempts to play to Paul’s electability argument, attempting to convince Republican Primary voters that he is the man who can defeat Hillary Clinton. The ad certainly hits Clinton hard and will no doubt hook Republican Primary voters in with the charges it levies against her in the first 25 seconds. Paul’s attempt to leap the primary field and go straight to a general election attack is a departure from the strategies employed by most of the candidates in the 2012 campaign, and is very much in the mold of the innovative campaign the Senator has run to this point.

Paul has also started a social media campaign titled “Liberty, Not Hillary”, with facebook profile and cover photos as well as a hash tag. Paul’s social media team has been very active since his launch, and this is a continuation of that activity. More importantly, however, it is an attempt by Paul to brand Hillary as an anti liberty candidate to a young generation which increasingly is growing more libertarian. Will it pay dividends should Rand face Hillary in November? It will be a fascinating question to watch the campaigns answer.

Senator Rand Paul made official today what most of us have been anticipating for a long time, declaring his intentions to run for President of the United States. Paul spoke in front of a raucous crowd of his vision for America, outlining several bold proposals in his 25 minute speech. Paul spoke of a need to elect somebody who would not dilute their principles, and of the need to elect a candidate who would stand up to the Washington machine.

The most notable thing about Paul’s speech was the number of policy proposals he spoke of in the duration of it, a notable contrast to Senator Ted Cruz’s red meat filled announcement. Particularly ambitious were the proposals outlined for criminal justice reform, with Paul stating “I see an America where criminal justice is applied equally, and any law that disproportionately incarcerates people of color is repealed.” Paul spoke of an undercurrent of unease in the country which would be better restored by policies which advanced liberty, and of his proposal to implement economic freedom zones in impoverished areas.

This announcement was only the beginning of a five state announcement tour. The next stop for Rand Paul will be Hampshire, followed by South Carolina, Iowa and Nevada. With his announcement day moneybomb going strong and the tour to look ahead to, this week will be a major opportunity for Rand Paul to gain momentum heading into the heat of the 2016 elections.

Youth-Driven #LibertyKaraoke to Host 50+ Events for Rand Paul for President Announcement

Grassroots Effort Hopes to Engage Young Voters Across the U.S.

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – Young supporters of Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who is expected to announce his 2016 presidential campaign on Tuesday, April 7, will host #LibertyKaraoke fundraising events in at least 50 cities across the United States the evening of Paul’s announcement.

“I think Senator Paul is uniquely positioned to capture the youth vote for the Republican Party for the first time since 1988,” said Matthew Hurtt, an organizer who helped launch #LibertyKaraoke in Arlington in 2013. “It is my hope that these events excite young people and give them a venue to support Senator Paul’s campaign financially.”

#LibertyKaraoke started unofficially as a weekly gathering place for young liberty activists in the D.C.-area more than five years ago. During the 2014 cycle, Hurtt monetized the events and targeted pro-liberty candidates for Congress, raising more than $20,000 for Reps. Justin Amash (MI-03) and Thomas Massie (KY-04), as well as then-candidate Igor Birman (CA-07).

“These events show that Republicans know how to loosen our collars and have a good time,” said Cliff Maloney, another #LibertyKaraoke organizer. “Young people don’t have the disposable income to donate large amounts to candidates, but we can afford $10, $20, or $35, which is what we’re asking attendees to donate.”

Donations will be made directly to the official Rand Paul 2016 presidential campaign committee. #LibertyKaraoke does not bundle or otherwise process contributions directly.

“I think this is a great fundraising model going forward for young Republicans,” said Hurtt. “These events mix politics and fun and empower young people to make a difference by investing in the political process.”

To see a full list of events, go to www.libertykaraoke.com

For regular updates, follow #LibertyKaraoke on Twitter: www.twitter.com/liberty_karaoke

To host a #LibertyKaraoke event in your town, please contact event organizer Matthew Hurtt: [email protected]

The 2016 race has begun to heat up in recent days for the Rand Paul campaign, with several key hires having been made and an April 7th announcement date scheduled to declare his candidacy for president. With over a dozen rivals expected to challenge Paul for the Republican nomination, one of his major challenges is going to be convincing the American people that he is the man with the vision to restore American greatness. Fortunately for his libertarian fans, Rand Paul has a budget plan that would cause an economic boom by utilizing core economic principles that conservatives and libertarians alike agree on. This bold vision for America would create millions of jobs by instituting the first real spending cut we have seen since World War 2 ended, a major tax cut that would leave billions of dollars in the economy, and a regulatory reform plan that would simplify the process of dealing with a treacherous federal government for American families, businesses and individuals everywhere.

The budget begins with a $411 billion cut year one, paving the way to a balanced budget in five years. It accomplishes this by eliminating four federal departments (Education, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, and Energy), repealing Obamacare and block granting welfare programs (Medicaid, SCHIP, food stamps, and child nutrition) to the states. These cuts would not only mean not paying for four federal departments and several federal welfare programs, but would also create an important reduction in the amount of regulation being imposed on Americans under the Obama administration. The departments of Education and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in particular have encroached on the basic liberties of the American people for far too long, and we must have a president who is ready to eliminate them. The Paul plans elimination of these departments will cause an end to federal takeovers like Common Core and plans to socially engineer our communities via HUD. The elimination of four federal departments will create a regulatory climate that is easier to navigate than it has been in many decades. We now have a federal government that spends recklessly and a national debt that is approaching $19 trillion, and we can no longer afford to elect Republicans who talk about cutting spending in vague ways and then fail to follow through. The Paul plan creates meaningful strides towards shrinking government.

The budget would create the first significant regulatory reductions in many years by creating a two year sunset on all existing regulations. This would force the congress to debate regulations periodically and justify their existence to the American people. The plan would include repealing Dodd-Frank, instituting the REINS Act (which would require Congress to approve every regulation which has an annual economic impact of $100 million or more) and creating a single flat tax rate on all individuals and businesses. This would significantly reduce the regulatory burden on every day Americans and help to address the trillions of dollars in compliance costs that overregulation imposes on our economy every year. The effect of this is that trillions of dollars can be spent in the productive sector, creating jobs and making peoples lives better. Through passage of the REINS Act, the Paul plan would also take the power to regulate things such as greenhouse gasses and the internet away from unelected officials in the EPA and FCC and return them to the congress, where elected officials can be held accountable for their vote.

This all being said, the boldest and most exciting part of the Paul plan in this author’s opinion is the plan to reduce America’s tax burden. Rand Paul would institute a flat tax rate on both individuals and corporations of 17%, less than half the current top rate. For such a major cut at the top, however, the Paul plan may create even better outcomes for those in the middle and at the bottom. His plan to provide generous standard deductions for both individuals and dependents would create a situation where the effective federal tax rate on a family making $50,000 a year was a mere 0.3%. According to the plan, a family filing jointly could receive $35,000 for a standard deduction and $6,800 for each dependent. This will have the effect of freeing up billions of dollars in capital to create tens of millions of jobs. The large standard deduction will also help to make sure the employees of these companies are not being punished for getting increases in their pay, as has become standard operating procedure under Barack Obama. According to the plan, the flat tax would also completely eliminate the repugnant practice of double taxation, which often imposes irrational burdens on capital gains, estates, dividends and interest. The tax burden imposed on the citizens of this country is the greatest barrier to economic growth, and the Paul plan doesn’t just address this, it provides a comprehensive solution to the problem.

Over the course of the 2016 Republican primary you will hear many candidates boldly declaring themselves to be what America needs to get our economy back on track. Before you commit to any candidate, make sure they have a budget plan that will actually fix some of the issues that have been holding our economy back for the last two presidencies. Several of the candidates have talked about cutting spending in a vague way, but in order to ensure our nations future we must insist on the specifics. Failure to elect a candidate with a true vision for economic growth, a vision rooted in conservative principles, will either lead to the election of Hillary Clinton or another big government Republican, sending young people down the road to becoming a lost generation.

The Tompkins County GOP Executive Committee has issued a vote of no confidence in the leadership of House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The resolution states that the party “Has no confidence in the “leadership” of House Speaker Boehner and Senate Majority Leader McConnell, and requests the respective Republican congressional caucuses to move to substitute new leaders who will vigorously contest the President’s and executive branch’s unconstitutional or overreaching executive orders and actions.”

As one of the ring leaders of the resolution who debated passionately in favor of it, this author can attest to what a major victory it was to pass this resolution. This no confidence vote sends a message that is loud and clear. A message that should resonate with Republicans across the state and the country. We demand that our elected officials abide by the Constitution and the Republican Platform. This resolution was a major win for conservative activists who have been fighting hard against the GOP establishment, and I hope it will inspire others to take the fight to the establishment at their local GOP committees.

Below is the resolution posted in its entirety.

1. Will Rand Paul 3-peat, and by how much?

Senator Rand Paul has had a very good showing at his first two CPAC conferences as a potential presidential candidate. Paul won the conferences annual straw poll narrowly over Marco Rubio 25-23% in 2013, and ran away with the straw poll in 2014 with 31% of the vote, nearly triple the 11% 2nd place finisher Ted Cruz. These performances make Paul the clear favorite to win the poll, and anything less than that would be seen as a loss for the senator in his 2016 presidential campaign.

2. Can Scott Walker capitalize on recent momentum?

If there has been one major shift in the early landscape of the 2016 elections, it has been the emergence of Scott Walker as a major contender for the nomination. He is polling very well in the early states as well as nationally, and at CPAC 2015 Walker will have a serious chance to continue his positive momentum with a strong showing. His showing at the CPAC 2014 straw poll was surprisingly strong, tying for 5th place at 7%, surprising because he was the only strong finisher to not attend the conference. He will likely make a play to win the poll, though he will ultimately likely have to settle for 2nd or 3rd place. That being said, the larger question for him is if he will deliver the sort of speech at the conference that keeps his momentum strong. If he does, it will go a long way towards convincing the conservative movement that he has the charisma necessary to win a general election.

3. Will the Draft Ben Carson movement have a large presence?

One of the big surprises of CPAC 2014 was the strong showing for Ben Carson in the straw poll, taking 3rd place with 9% and coming just 2 points out of 2nd place. Carson brought supporters in on a bus and gave them signs, which they prominently displayed during his speech and the poll results. His momentum has only grown stronger since this point, and I think he has every reason to expect a strong showing.

4. Does Ted Cruz falter?

With the emergence of Scott Walker and Ben Carson as viable conservative alternatives, Ted Cruz has been put in a real bind in terms of where he fits in a 2016 campaign, and that may very well be reflected in the CPAC straw poll. If Cruz tumbles to 3rd or 4th in this years poll it could mean that the media brands him as the “loser” coming out of the conference. Considering his 2nd place finish last year came directly after his government shutdown stand, which was the height of Cruz’s profile, I think there is reason to expect him to slide a bit this year.

5. Does Mike Huckabee’s CPAC snub harm him?

If there is one top tier candidate who has consistently had difficulty winning over the CPAC audience, it is former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. Huckabee drew an abysmal 2% at the 2014 CPAC straw poll, after putting up such a poor showing in 2013 that he actually fell into the “Other” category of votes. Huckabee has criticized CPAC in the past as being too libertarian, and curiously declined to speak at this years conference. Will this lead to him losing momentum in polls and media coverage? Will it harm him with the conservative base? Furthermore, will it give his opponents an opening to bite into the social conservative base?

6. Will Rick Santorum have yet another strong showing?

One of the things that has been interesting to me in the last 2 CPAC polls has been the strong showings of former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. His “Patriot Voices” group has had a noticeable presence at both gatherings, and will be likely looking to put on a strong show in 2015. In 2013 Santorum came in a distant 3rd in the poll with 8%, and tied for 5th in 2014 with 7%. With Mike Huckabee not attending this year, Santorum may well be the star social conservative of the conference. Can he remain in the top 5 this year, or will it be the year that he finally slides down to the lower tier?

7. Can Chris Christie and Jeb Bush inspire conservatives?

One of the biggest questions going into CPAC is whether or not presumed top tier candidates Jeb Bush and Chris Christie can present a case that they have sufficient conservative appeal to be the Republican nominee. This is Bush’s first major speech in front of a conservative audience in some time, while Christie’s performance at the Iowa Freedom Summit received mixed reviews. A strong performance here for either one would go a long way in an “electability” argument, a crucial talking point for establishment candidates in particular.

8. Will CPAC’s libertarian streak continue?

Since the rise of Ron Paul in 2008, the CPAC conference has been the most visible annual display of the growth and power of the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. This seemed to hit a real turning point at CPAC 2014, where the libertarian candidate got 3 times the votes of any other, and libertarian organizations and panels were prevalent. This was not the CPAC crowd that fought with libertarian activists at previous conferences. This CPAC crowd WAS libertarian. But with the rise of ISIL, will we see that tide turn? Or will it continue?

9. Has the popularity of non interventionism seen a setback?

As mentioned in the last point, the rise of ISIL presents a challenge for libertarianism that will be tested at the CPAC 2015 conference. In the last couple of years a strong non interventionist voice has shown up at the conference, with the majority of straw poll voters wishing for the US to carry out a less interventionist foreign policy. Does ISIL put the interventionists back in the majority? Or will the libertarian movement continue to flex its muscle?

10. Will Young Americans for Liberty take over CPAC?

One of the things that has aided the libertarian dominance of CPAC has been the explosive growth and continuously growing presence of the campus based activist group Young Americans for Liberty (YAL). YAL has assisted many students and non students alike in getting to the conference in previous years with subsidized tickets and hotel rooms, and had a massive presence in the CPAC Hub (where organizations set up information booths) at CPAC 2014. Many news publications have written about the huge libertarian presence at the previous two CPAC conferences, and YAL is largely to thank for that. Will their growth at CPAC 2015 be even more evident than in previous years, and if so how does that impact the narrative coming out of the conference?

11. Has the power of the NSA issue faded?

The NSA spying issue was unquestionably one of the major themes of the CPAC 2014 conference. There were many parts of the conference which addressed the NSA; the straw poll asked a question on the issue, Rand Paul made it a central part of his speech, and there was a fiery panel where constitutional attorney Bruce Fein and former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore went at it over the issue. But this has not been in the news as much as it was at that point. It will be very interesting to see if the NSA issue is once again a major theme of CPAC, or if it takes a backseat to other pressing issues.

12. Will there be a CPAC controversy?

It seems that nearly every year, there is some sort of controversy involving either a CPAC speaker, audience member or organizational choice. Last year it was the disallowance of the American Atheists from setting up a booth at the conference, where in 2013 CPAC’s major controversy happened when a man stood up and began a bizarre racist rant in the middle of a panel about reaching out to minorities. Will we see a more explosive controversy like in 2013, or will there be a different point of contention coming out of the conference?

13. Can conservatives accept gay marriage?

With the disproportionate representation of young conservatives at CPAC, and young Republicans favoring the legalization of gay marriage by a small majority, one major chasm that has emerged is how to address the marriage issue. Polling seems to indicate that acceptance of same sex marriage is at an all time high, and is increasingly growing amongst Republicans. CPAC has a panel on marriage this year, and it will be fascinating to see if the crowd reacts more favorably to the traditional Republican arguments, or the libertarian arguments that have gained more traction in recent years.

14. Does Sarah Palin flop again?

Very few people have had a rougher few weeks then former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, who delivered a bizarre, rambling speech at the Iowa Freedom Summit which many said disqualified her from running in 2016, something she’s expressed interest in. Palin’s keynote speech at CPAC 2014 was nearly as bizarre, as she delivered a Dr Seuss esque poem about Obamacare and generally was lacking in substance. Will her speech this year remind us of what John McCain saw in her back in 2008, or will it be a repeat of the Freedom Summit flop?

15. Will CPAC 2015 have an impact on the 2016 election?

This all being said, perhaps the biggest question of all whether any of this matters to begin with. The debate surrounding the significance of the conference as it relates to the presidential landscape is debated every year in the weeks before and after CPAC. While the conferences profile in the media seems to grow every year and candidates spend more time and money every year to make their case, one wonders if that trend will continue going into what organizers call the “most important CPAC ever”.

Liberty Conservatives will be covering the whole thing live, and we hope you folks will stick with us throughout CPAC weekend for the exciting coverage!