Note: Opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of Liberty Conservatives as an organization.

It is deeply troubling and disappointing that as a culture, we’ve now arrived at the point in which a person who believes in the importance and cultural significance of traditional marriage (1 man + 1 woman = marriage), a position even Barack Obama shared until his recent “evolution”, is now expected to defend their position on the grounds that it is discriminatory, bigoted and homophobic. During the 2008 campaign, at a forum held by Pastor Rick Warren at the Saddleback Church in California, then-Senator Obama declared: “I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, for me, as a Christian, it is also a sacred union.” There is no doubt that his expressed views have changed since that time due to political expediency and opportunity. There is also no doubt that his “change” reflected his truest beliefs on the subject. His opportunism was sufficient to increase his share of the GLBT vote in the 2012 election, and presented Newsweek (a defunct magazine) an opportunity to proclaim his beneficence on their cover.

Unsurprisingly, the views of numerous other politicians have also changed as opportunity and expediency have presented. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Senators Harry Reid, Rob Portman and Bob Casey have all undergone an “evolutionary” change. Speaking of which, the term “evolution” being used in conjunction with one’s position on same-sex marriage (SSM) is deeply insulting and offensive. The term implies the progression from lower to higher form; ergo, anyone opposed to SSM is lower, less evolved than those who support it. This hateful conceit allows SSM proponents to dismiss any arguments by the opposition which may raise valid points, because by their logic anyone opposed to SSM is a mentally deficient, misogynistic, sexist, patriarchal, racist, bigoted superstitious, religious fanatic, one step removed from Neanderthal, whose opinions are not worthy of a hearing.

It seems that only a short time ago the mere idea of gay marriage was so unconscionable, so out of the mainstream, so completely out of line with traditional values, morals and beliefs, that to merely speculate about it was to engage in a thought exercise immediately dismissed as impossibly alarmist. I remember bringing it up in high school (less than 20 years ago) and being laughed at as needlessly worried about something “that will never, ever happen in a million years”.

This is the age of rejection, refutation and repudiation. We’ve arrived at the point at which all we have taken as given, as clearly demonstrated fact, as natural and logical and good, has become outmoded, outdated, turned upside down and rejected – not because they’ve been proven false or inadequate – but because they do not conform to modern tastes. While the idea that someone who believes that marriage is defined as a union between a man and  a woman is a bigot, ignorant, hateful and backward is ludicrous on its face, many people are finding that now, in everyday conversations, they are viewed as being rabidly prejudiced if the conversation turns to the issue, and they voice their opinion that the implementation of same-sex marriage fundamentally alters traditional family values, religious freedom and American culture in ways that cannot be counted as positive or beneficial. The question “What is wrong with them?” becomes the standard sneer of apparatchiks, progressive talking heads, and liberal lawmakers.

However, this concern is not limited to the unwashed, uneducated masses populating the flyover country, clinging to guns and God. During the recent oral arguments at the Supreme Court challenging Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage, Justice Samuel Alito made his disquiet clear when he described gay marriage as newer than such rapidly changing technological advances as cellphones and the Internet, and appeared to advocate a more cautious approach to the issue. “You want us to assess the effect of same-sex marriage,” Alito said to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. “It may turn out to be a good thing. It may turn out to be not a good thing.” For SSM supporters, this question in and of itself is nonsense because they hold their point of view as sacrosanct and in no need of defense.

Unsurprisingly, proponents of the redefinition of marriage ignore or distort historical precedent in an attempt to bolster their argument. They compare the fight for SSM to the Civil Rights struggle, holding up the Stonewall bar riot as equivalent to Rosa Parks refusing to move from her seat on the bus, drawing the ire of patriots who marched with Martin Luther King, Jr., or they try to form a corollary by clutching desperately to the fact that the court likewise ventured into the unknown in 1967 when it struck down bans on interracial marriage in 16 states (failing to mention that interracial marriage had existed for centuries globally and was widely accepted in much of the United States and across different cultures). Worse still is that throughout history (Dennis Prager makes this case expertly), not one eminent philosopher, religion or cultural system (across the ideological spectrum) has ever endorsed the concept or even the mere idea of same-sex marriage – not one.

Throughout human history, marriage was and has been always understood and accepted as a relationship between a single man and a single woman. Not one philosophical and / or religious leader – not Jesus, not Confucius, not Mohammed, not Buddha, not Gandhi – ever even considered the idea. Yet modern gays and their supporters have arrived at the conclusion that the most radical and disruptive restructuring of society is not only possible, but necessary. They have decided (within the last 40 years, ignoring the previous 9,960 years of human civilization) that the bedrock foundation of social norms and values must be destroyed and rebuilt in order to implement their agenda of redefining the most fundamental, most ideal social institution the world has ever known. As author Mark Steyn has noted, “I think there is something absurd and ridiculous in an appellate court defining an institution that pre-dates the United States by a couple of millennia.”

There exists today no other challenge to the fabric of society that carries more dangers and more potentially destructive force. With the national implementation of SSM we will inevitably, with the inexorable force of a tsunami, slowly but surely arrive at a point in which religious freedom, parental sovereignty, and freedom of speech will all be effectively curtailed, if not eliminated outright. A minister will be unable to preach his faith’s view against homosexual acts without the threat of prosecution. Parents will be unable to decide for themselves what views their children will be taught on the role of gays in society. Citizens will be unable to express their opinions freely without fear of recrimination, or charges of “hate speech” being leveled against them, chilling discourse. Sadly, these things are happening already.

We consider normal those things that happen most often, those things that are most universal. That does not necessarily entail a judgment that the normal is superior or good and the abnormal is inferior or bad. But – when the normal is good –  it does entail an acceptance of the historicity and preponderance of the normal, and not its dismissal or refutation. Even more importantly, when the normal is the most important part of a foundation, part of the critical support structure that undergirds a system built upon it, to change, alter, destroy or remove the normal by necessity changes, alters, destroys or removes the structure built upon it.

With the change, alteration, destruction or removal of the normal comes a change in its historical perception. Our view of the Founding Fathers, Christopher Columbus, and the Pilgrims have all been subtly altered over time by liberal, secular, humanistic cultural changes which gradually have come to paint these historical figures in a negative light, based not in their actions in the context of the times, but based on the changed mores, values, and beliefs of the new generation. We have come to hate them because they do not mirror us as we are now. With this changed perception comes a loss of reverence for these figures, their accomplishments, their values. Rejection of those values is rejection of the Constitution they created, rejection of the battles they fought, rejection of everything they cherished – including their God. What comes in its place? What fills that void? Inevitably something that is not equal to the task. This change affects society even to the degree that the immediately preceding generation may also be considered tainted and becomes necessarily disregarded. For most Americans, their parents’ generation may well be considered one day to be the “Last Bigots”. Their accomplishments, their dreams and their contributions will all be measured and found lacking by their refusal to accept that which their children embraced. What then of family cohesion, pride and tradition?

The implementation of SSM fundamentally alters the relationship between people and their families, their speech, their history and their religion. Look north to Canada, where pastors and churches are being prosecuted for preaching the same message they’ve given for the last 2,000 years. Regardless of their faith, most adherents believe that their doctrine embraces the traditionally and historically understood definition of marriage. If SSM becomes the law of the land, whether through legislatures or by judicial fiat, where will this leave religious groups who do not accept the redefinition? Will they be attacked for bigotry? Will they be endangering their tax-exempt status? Will they be targeted by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center as “hate organizations”? Will they be vilified by political radicals? Will their members be harassed by government agents and activists? Will they be forced to close their doors or go underground for preaching a faith that does not embrace the new view of marriage? Will they inexorably be changed, degraded, and ultimately destroyed by a society that views them as outdated, out of touch, and out of time? Sadly, it seems increasingly likely that the answer to all these questions is yes.

Doubtless, the intolerance and persecution will not stop at a citizen’s front door, as has already started happening in other countries. What happens to the child (and her parent) who has the temerity to say at school that she and her family believes in traditional marriage? What happens to the parent who does not want his child participating in “Gay Week” at school? What happens to family that believes that a Biblical view of morals does not embrace the alternative lifestyles? What happens to the teacher who doesn’t want to expose young children to such loaded topics such as “GLBT Rights”? What happens to the homeschooling parent? What happens to the Boy Scout troop? Not only are none of these questions are being answered – is it considered bigoted and homophobic to merely ask them.

It may very well be inevitable that SSM will become legal across the nation. If so, the rationale that went into its implementation have other consequences that are yet unseen, or have yet to be perceived or acknowledged. For example, if the rationale for “marriage” may be construed as “being with the one you love”, what is to prevent changing laws and statutes that would allow a mature woman to marry her equally mature father, brother, or son? What is to prevent the changing of laws and statutes that would allow a man to enter into a consensual sexual relationship with a minor with the approval of the child’s parents? What is to prevent the changing of laws that would allow a person to simultaneously have multiple spouses of varied genders? If the only impediment to these changes is the existence of laws that could be overturned, by what standard are we to judge the moral certitude of human relationships? Are we instead to remove all values, all morals, all strictures designed and intended to structure marriage and human relationships in ways that ultimately benefit society, produce families that are grown over succeeding generations and which contribute to the development of communities and humanity at large? Do we simply become “beings” that interact as we choose with other “beings” and all other distinctions are lost to the mists of time?

As a nation that prides itself on valuing the “voice of the people”, let us do just that – listen to the people. In those states in which voters have decided that the protection of the traditional, historical definition of marriage is paramount to such a degree that it has become enshrined in their state constitutions, let us not impose by fiat the converse. In those which have elected to allow SSM, let us see what develops. Over time, events and circumstances will shine a light on the benefits and drawbacks of SSM, its impact on families and society at large, and allow us as a nation to move past the hypothetical stage. Only this approach will serve to dampen the hot rhetoric, cool tempers on both sides, and encourage the natural development of a workable solution. Anything else will create a situation in which conflict will flourish. Above all else, we must be honest with ourselves about the enormous challenge of fundamental, transformative changes to a cornerstone of society which has existed for at least the last 10,000 years.

Proponents of same-sex marriage arrogantly claim that they are on the “right side of history”, but are they on the right side of humanity? Are they on the right side of families, of faith, or freedom? The evidence thus far is murky at best and alarming at worst. We are entering dangerously uncharted waters, with foreboding precedents. A society as large and diverse as ours, with the range of individual liberties we hold sacred as rights has never before undertaken such a drastically profound and monumental change as the redefinition of a cornerstone of society. We would do well to stop and think. We would do best to stop and reconsider.

With the 2016 presidential primary races seemingly just around the corner, one new face that has begun to emerge on the Sunday shows and all over the political commentary sites as of late has been Rick Perry. Perry seemingly began to lay the groundwork for a 2016 bid with a rousing speech at CPAC, where he literally brought the entire room to their feet with an impassioned cry to get the US economy back on track, and has followed this up recently with his high profile meetings surrounding immigration with President Obama.

Perry has begun to capitalize on this publicity by attempting to stake out his position in the 2016 field, and in a recent Washington Post article Perry took several shots at the foreign policy of current GOP frontrunner Rand Paul. Among these shots was the declaration that Rand gets the Ronald Reagan record on foreign policy wrong. Perry claims that Reagan confronted the Soviet Union in every theater (including, supposedly, on the battlefield) and paints a very confrontational picture of the Reagan presidency. However, when you look at the record of Ronald Reagan it is hard to square this chest puffing interventionism he supposedly engaged in with the facts of our military engagement record during his presidency.

The United States was engaged in direct military offensives with other nations for a total of four days of the Reagan presidency. These interventions were limited to a three day ground war against roughly 1,500 Grenadian militia and a one day bombing campaign on Libya in response to the bombing of the Berlin discotheque. This is a fact that is often brushed aside by many avowed interventionists who like to use Reagan as a false prophet of their foreign policy, but Ronald Reagan was among the most reluctant interventionists in our nations post World War 2 history. When compared to the major ground wars of Bush’s 41 & 43 as well as the many smaller interventions (not to mention major troop deployments in war zones) of Clinton and Obama, there is a rock solid case to be made that Reagan was a less interventionist president then any of his successors. He preached a policy of peace through strength that put peace first, and resisted many opportunities to become involved in foreign conflict.

Probably the greatest demonstrator of Reagan’s cautious approach to foreign policy was his consistent neutrality during the 1982 war in the Falklands. The British and Argentinians had both claimed ownership of the Falkland Islands, and many in the Reagan administration backed the calls to intervene on Britain’s behalf.  Reagan resisted these calls and several others throughout his administration. Reagan even made the decision to remove US troops from their base in Beirut in response to attacks on the barracks, saying that we could not understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. When neoconservatives in his administration pushed to invade Nicaragua, Reagan sternly objected, saying ““Those sons of bitches won’t be happy until we have 25,000 troops in Managua,and I’m not going to do it.”  Can you imagine the “cut and run” jeers that would be launched upon him by the neoconservatives of today? This demonstrates that Perry’s take on the Reagan foreign policy is a revisionist one, and not one grounded in reality.

The reality of the Reagan foreign policy is that it is very similar to the one which Rand Paul has been advocating for; peace through strength. Reagan was not one to use military force as a tool to impose our will on other governments, provided they were not harming us. Therefore it should be no shock that Ronald Reagan’s son Michael gave a glowing commentary of Rand’s thoughts on his father, claiming that Paul “gets it” when it comes to his dad. Those who believe that Reagan’s foreign policy was the same as the careless policy of Rick Perry and George W Bush are simply unable to reconcile their views with the facts of the Reagan presidency. If Rick Perry is going to attempt to offer a substantial foreign policy challenge to Rand Paul when the presidential debates come around, he had better make sure that he has a better example than Ronald Reagan to attack him on, because he will find himself on the wrong side of history should he decide to go down this road again.

Too often, Liberty-minded conservatives make the mistake of claiming certain leaders to be neocons without truly understanding what this means. Obvious answers on who are neocons can be agreed upon by all: John McCain. Lindsey Graham. Eric Cantor.

But the Liberty Movement must rethink certain issues and consider having allies. That does not mean compromising our values but being willing to consider certain issues from a different perspective.

First, we need to stop calling anybody who supports sanctions on certain countries neocons. While some may argue justifiably that sanctions are unnecessary and costly to the United States, they are a more peaceful alternative to going to war. Consider sanctions liked dealing with a schoolyard bully by refusing to make any interactions with him. That is a preferred action to punching him which is the equivalent of going to war.

Does that mean that if you oppose sanctions you should support them? By no means. But do think carefully before you begin calling anybody who supports sanctions a neocon. They are in truth looking out more for the safety of the United States.

Read more about economic sanctions here: Link

Another area in which some in the liberty community have attacked leaders for being neocons have been in the area of their words. They claim that blasting nations for being evil and committing crimes against humanity will lead to war. Never should we intervene and send troops or invest money or weapons in an area where the United States role is not clearly defined. But neither should we refuse to call evil what it is: evil.

The Liberty Movement is truly the movement of freedom and sane foreign policy. But we must learn that a sane foreign policy does not just include a refusal to be involved in foreign entanglements, but must also allow respect for those who call out against the evil in this world. Women and children are getting killed in the Middle East. Boko Haram is on the lose kidnapping girls and forcing them into their radical religion. Latin American drug cartels are causing chaos on the streets. There are evil leaders and terrorists around the globe, and while we cannot and should not be involved in all areas, we must not condemn those who speak out against this evil.

Some may cry peace, peace, but is there peace for the women, children, and people in this globe who are ruled by ruthless leaders and caused grief by the actions of terrorists?

Neocons seek to invade lands and kill more than they save. They want to build nations and will always refuse to find ways to get us out of these countries.

National Defense Conservatives may not be members of our movement, but we must keep them as allies and not drive them away. Because truly, they will be the ones to prevent us from going to war while calling for peace in the world.

Refusing to recognize this difference will be the detriment of our movement. We do not have to compromise our values, but we must consider the views of our allies if we are to succeed.

It may seem rather unbelievable, but we are only 7-8 months away from the 2016 primaries starting to ramp up, with several candidates saying they will begin to make their decisions in early 2015. Though we have the most wide open field the Republican Party has ever seen at this juncture, it would not be a stretch to say that Rand Paul is the current frontrunner for the GOP nomination. Indeed, through all of his recent actions Paul is showing both the vision and the ability to put together the kind of organization that is necessary for him to win the nomination and the presidency. This has given libertarians and constitutional conservatives alike plenty of reason to be excited for the future.  

Though the polling can obviously change, as it stands in late June Rand Paul is leading the plurality of early national polls for the GOP nomination. Both the latest CNN/Opinion Research and ABC News/Wash Post polls have Paul winning by 2 points and 1 point, respectively, and the Real Clear Politics polling average has Paul up by 1 point. What is even more incredible is the consistency in Paul’s polling. He has been at least within 1 point of first in each of the last 5 polls, and has not finished below third in any poll since February. Yet another amazing revelation is that if you look in the crosstabs of the polling, Rand has appeal to both the very conservative and the moderate, to both the Republicans and the Independents, it appears his appeal reaches across the spectrum. Between this and Rand Paul’s first place finishes in the last 5 New Hampshire polls, there is quite a bit of reason for optimism in Rand’s camp from a polling perspective. There is also reason to believe that Rand Paul is the candidate best suited to take on Hillary Clinton based on early polling. Paul was the only candidate polled to beat Hillary Clinton in 2016 polling for Colorado, New Hampshire and Kentucky, and even got 29% of the black vote in the Kentucky poll (compared to 13% when he ran for Senate in 2010). I believe any Republican can likely expect to win Kentucky, but the fact that Rand wins those two other left leaning states demands the attention of Republicans who vote based on “electability”. The electability voters have been the coalition which has won out both of the last two elections and will likely be even stronger in 2016 after the two big losses we had in 2008 and 2012. It may be that this voting bloc is already recognizing the early polls, which could explain some of Rand’s high polling numbers among moderates. If Paul can continue to convince the base that his new path forward for the GOP will be the best way to win a national election I fully expect that trend to continue. Beyond the polling, Paul has some other unique advantages that put him at the forefront of the fight for the GOP nomination.

The major advantage Paul possesses is the liberty grassroots that will give him a huge get out to vote team for the primaries. He is perhaps the only guy in Iowa with a large political team already in place, and his organization figures to be one of the states best. Another major advantage is the explosive growth in that libertarian grassroots since Ron Paul’s run in 2012. This was demonstrated at CPAC 2014, where Young Americans for Liberty brought 486 liberty activists from around the country to participate, and it was a major success. YAL has also trained over 1,100 activists in 2014 at state conventions around the country in political activism tactics. The Paul campaign will be able to turn to many of these same activists when 2016 comes around to make the trips to Iowa, New Hampshire and be active in their state primaries. YAL was created as an outgrowth from Students for Ron Paul, and in 2012 most YAL chapters converted into Students for Ron Paul chapters. This is very likely to be the case for Rand as well, but there are 527 YAL chapters today compared to 389 in 2012, and 186,000 activists in todays YAL network.

Rand Paul has also built a 50 state activism network that is made up of many large donors and experienced political people from the Paul world and the establishment alike. Paul has reached out into the tech world, and figures to have an incredibly potent fundraising base in Silicon Valley to help him compete with the Wall Street money that will flow to his establishment rivals. Between this outreach and the grassroots network that funded his fathers $40 million campaign, his fundraising prowess figures to be prolific. This will allow Rand to compete in every single primary and give him a potent group of bundlers for fundraising outreach. The closer to 2016 we get more activists will be mobilized and more money will be raised, and Rand’s army will continue to grow.

Rand Paul has been able to garner popularity among the youth like no other for a myriad of reasons, one of the biggest of which has been his massive social media presence. It is no secret that the youth are very engaged on social media, and there is no candidate with a larger presence on this platform. Rand Paul has over 1.75 million facebook likes, a “Rand Paul 2016” page with over 140,000 facebook likes and a 50 state network of pages supporting his 2016 candidacy (every state from Alabama to Wyoming has a “*State* for Rand Paul 2016” page). This benefitted Rand massively during his #StandWithRand filibuster, and will continue to assure his outreach into the youth demographic will remain unmatched. Though even if Rand did not hold these advantages, his positions on the issues would still dictate that he is the most popular among a youth generation that has grown increasingly libertarian. Rand Paul’s hard line against war and spying as well as his soft approach towards gay marriage and marijuana has broad appeal in virtually all polling. With the exception of marriage, these are also all areas where Hillary Clinton is vulnerable due to her positions, which are contrary to both Rand and the American people. Rand Paul is the only candidate in a position to take advantages of these views, and this is reflected in the fact that he has tied her in some polls among the youth demographic, including the poll where he defeats her in New Hampshire.

There is a lot to look forward to in 2016 if you are a libertarian or a constitutional conservative, and soon it will be time to organize ourselves for the campaign! Buckle your seat belt folks, this is gonna be one hell of a ride.

Dr. Dave Brat truly embodies what it means to be a Liberty Conservative. This libertarian-leaning economics professor, Tea Party activist and family man recently achieved the greatest political upset of the decade in a historic primary challenge against the third most powerful elected Republican in the United States, Eric Cantor, and his $2 million war chest.

Brat has humble roots. He grew up a devout Protestant in Detroit, the son of a medical doctor and a social worker. He then travelled to Virginia and Princeton for college and earned degrees in divinity and business administration along with a doctorate in economics, before going on to serve as a professor at a liberal arts college in Richmond, where he stood true to his faith in God and the free market, despite strong intellectual opposition from the collegiate elite. He was finally appointed to advise Virginia Governor Tim Kaine on economic policy, a surprising move for a liberal Democrat such as Kaine.

While by no means a radical, Brat is an adherent to the ideas of Milton Friedman and his Chicago School of Economics, as well as being heavily influenced by the writings of the individualist philosopher Ayn Rand. He believes that the only way to guarantee prosperity to Americans is to provide them with minimal government and maximum freedom. He’s opposed to socialism and crony-capitalism alike, standing firmly with small businesses and entrepreneurs over special interests. This stance was a stark contrast to the views of Eric Cantor, who frequently pandered to these interests who in turn contributed to his campaign, and had little aversion to collaborating with the Democrats in enacting their progressive agenda for America. Virginians in the 7^th district woke up to the fact that though Eric Cantor claimed to be a conservative Republican – for less spending and reducing the debt – in reality he was little different from the rest of his colleagues in the establishment of both parties.

Though Brat, as a Calvinist, is uncompromising in his religious views, he tries not to let them influence his stances on political issues. He opposes attempts by those on the right “to enforce morality in gambling and homosexuality” and calls for an end to the government’s “monopoly on violence” and “coercion”. While he somewhat diverges from the libertarian line on the issue of immigration, the majority of his statements show a deep and thorough understanding of libertarian theory that will prove vital in shaping his voting record in Washington.

Dr. Brat has shown himself to be learned, politically able and eloquent and is sure to be a rising star within the liberty movement and the Republican Party in the years to come. To doubt him would be to make the same mistake Congressman Cantor did.

Liberty Conservatives is  honored to announce our endorsement of Rep. Jack Kingston to be the next senator to represent Georgia. Throughout his career, he has a consistent record of cutting spending, passing bills to stop radical government encroachments, and defending our civil liberties.

His runoff opponent is a liberal RINO who proudly supports “fixing” Dodd-Frank instead of repealing it, raising taxes (2), and defending Common Core. We cannot afford this radical leftist in Georgia.

Jack Kingston has not been perfect, and we have squabbled with him on some appropriation bills. But on the Appropriations committee, he was recognized as one of the most conservative members, with RedState even endorsing him for the chairmanship. And we are confident with a review of Kingston’s record that he will protect the sanctity of life, defend the 2nd Amendment (unlike his runoff opponent), oppose the Patriot Act and the NSA, fight tax increases, and cut spending.

First, Rep. Jack Kingston has always been a favorite of Conservatives and Tea Partiers throughout the country. In 2010, tea partiers supported Kingston’s bid for Appropriations Chairman in the House.

Tea partiers who listened to Reps. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) and Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) on a conference call Monday night overwhelmingly favored Kingston to head the House Appropriations panel.

81 percent of the members of the Tea Party Patriots group who voted on the call said they wanted to see Kingston as committee chair, while 15 percent said they supported Lewis. Just five percent of the callers said they wanted to see longtime earmarker Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) lead the panel.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1110/Tea_partiers_pushing_for_Kingston.html

 

While Kingston sponsored or co-sponsored nearly $67 million in earmarks in fiscal year 2010, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Georgia Congressman has better marks on spending issues than his competitors: he scored a 74% rating from Citizens Against Government Waste, compared with 39% for Lewis and 38% for Rogers. In a telephone town hall this week held by the group Tea Party Patriots, more than 80% of respondents lined up behind Kingston.

 

“If fiscal conservatives want to get control of federal spending, we must first get control of the Appropriations Committee. And Jack Kingston gives us the best chance to accomplish that goal,” Chris Chocola, president of the fiscal-conservative organization Club for Growth, said in a statement. 

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2034767,00.html

RedState’s Erick Erickson stated,

Into the runoff, I will support my friend Jack Kingston. Jack is with us a thousand percent on every social issue out there. Jack has just been on the Appropriations Committee and his fiscal votes over the years have not been as good as I thought Handel’s would be. So why not David Perdue?

First, I think CEO’s in the Senate tend to be terrible. They make great executives, but build temperaments poorly suited for the legislative branch. Second, Kingston has never been the insiders’ guy. His run for Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, which RedState supported, showed that. He’s always been a relative outsider while on the inside.

Perdue’s record, however, has consistently shown him to be the insiders’ favorite sort of outsider. Kingston may have a history of earmarks, but Kingston is far removed from the label of “crony capitalist.” I think he will be with us far more and far more consistently in the Senate than Perdue. In short, Jack will have our back and I can’t say that about David.

Finally, after all these years of knowing and liking Jack Kingston, I’ll have the pleasure of voting for him.

Conservative Sean Hannity stated,

“I have known Jack Kingston for 20 years. He’s a solid Ronald Reagan Republican and my choice in the Georgia Senate race. Jack will join the conservative coalition in the U.S. Senate.”

 

And Karen Handel, whom I endorsed in the primary, endorsed Rep. Kingston for the runoff stating:

Today, I am formally endorsing Jack Kingston, the conservative choice for U.S. Senate.

I have had the unique opportunity over the last year to get to know all of the candidates very well, under the difficult circumstances and significant pressures of a statewide race.

What I’ve seen in Jack is a man of integrity who is devoted to his family. A man who is fiercely dedicated to the conservative principles that are the foundation of the Republican Party. A man who has represented the people of the 1st Congressional District honorably and effectively for more than 20 years.

When you are trying to decide who to support in the runoff, think about this: when Election Day came last week, the people Jack serves every day gave him an outstanding job performance evaluation. The 74% of the vote he received there speaks volumes about how well Jack has served the people in his district.

Now, he wants to go to work for all of Georgia. More than ever, we need a workhorse — not a show horse.

We need our new U.S. Senator to be a person who is extremely knowledgeable about the complicated issues Congress faces every day. We need a consistent conservative who brings the experience to be an effective member of the Senate from day one. And, we need a U.S. Senator who understands that the American Dream is for every Georgian no matter what their circumstances.

Friends, Jack Kingston is that person. I hope you’ll join me in returning to the polls on July 22 and voting for the man who has spent the better part of his life serving Georgia and who will continue to serve us well in the United States Senate – Jack Kingston.

And many more leaders from Rep. Tom Price to the Atlanta Tea Party leader, Julianne Thompson to Rep. Phil Gingrey to Steve Forbes and Brent Bozell have all endorsed Kingston. Liberty Conservatives is proud to give Rep. Kingston our endorsement, and we will strongly support him through the runoff and general election!

Help Rep. Jack Kingston 

Recently Steve Deace, a man for whom I have tremendous respect and admiration, had some very poignant questions as to Rand Paul’s commitment to upholding liberty principles. As a person in the liberty movement who supported Ron Paul and now Stands with Rand with conviction that runs just as deep, I had some immediate thoughts on how to answer the questions posed.

Deace asks of the liberty movement “Is it a movement to advance a slate of issues/principles, or is it a movement intended to get Rand Paul elected the next president of the United States? The truth is if it’s the latter, that’s precisely how Rand will never win—as the civil rights and Religious Right movements of yesteryear can now attest. Once the acquisition of power replaces the mission the vision becomes compromised, and so does the movement.”

I would start by stating, unequivocally, that the liberty movement is not about one man nor has it ever been, despite how the media attempted to portray us as the “cult of Ron Paul” for so long. That being said, the greater point here is that advancing our most prominent champions political chances does not have to come at the expense of principle. There will always be the question of how much progress is enough, and that is a hotly debated topic in the liberty movement, but in every policy initiative Rand Paul has put forth he has called for a gain in liberty and not a reduction. The minute that changes, I am off board and so are most other libertarians. Does he moderate his rhetoric? Yes, but has he moderated his positions? No.  The moderation of rhetoric gives me hope that Rand can broaden our reach, which brings us to Steve’s second question.

“While the movement is making inroads with younger voters, it has also shown it has electoral limitations in its current form. So how do you cast a wider net without betraying your first principles? What are the right hills to die on? Is this about building on Ron Paul’s legacy to expand it, or do you have to diminish Ron Paul’s legacy in order to mainstream it?”

I think this is the most important question for the liberty movement to answer, and I think that Rand’s responses to this have been nothing short of brilliant in 2013. For example, in the case of Rand Paul’s March filibuster we saw a bold, principled maneuver which caused a massive shift in public opinion and launched Rand to the national prominence he enjoys today. In a more recent example of this, Rand Paul’s economic freedom zone act (which include a 5 percent flat tax and suspension of Davis-Bacon wages among other things) has even won the support of the man Steve so appropriately refers to as Ditch McConnell. This has not been nearly as prominent in the eyes of the public as the filibuster, but it does represent a very important part of Rand Paul’s strategy, which is making liberty ideas attractive to opportunist politicians. I think anybody who looks at his record knows McConnell is not conservative enough to push for a plan as principled as Paul’s free market stimulus on its merits, so why does he do it? He does it because it is a huge success with the Republican base.

By using rhetoric that appeals to a wider audience Rand is actually making libertarian policy popular to non-libertarian politicians and voters. In Rand Paul’s crusade against NSA spying he has taken a program which once had overwhelming  Republican support and (along with the fact that we have a Democrat president) turned it into something Republicans overwhelmingly oppose. This culminated in a vote to stop NSA spying that got the support of 94 Republicans and lost by only 12 votes. Almost everything Rand has done in the past year has made the libertarian position more attractive to Republicans, which will continue to grow our movement.

On the flip side, Rand has avoided some serious landmines that appeared tempting to engage in, but ultimately would not have benefited the movement. Though his voting record and public statements have consistently demonstrated he is personally in favor of defunding Obamacare, Rand consistently voiced that he did not want to shut down the government, which had major public opposition. Seeing the outcome of this shutdown deliver a major hit to the popularity of both the GOP and Ted Cruz made me glad that this was not the hill Rand chose to die on, as there are several examples of liberty issues (such as Audit the Fed) that have a high level of support and will broaden our movement. Picking our battles is indeed a huge question, and I would argue it’s the one Rand has done best with, of all the questions Steve asks.

Steve goes on to ask “Who are the movement’s shepherds? Is it a grassroots-led effort that speaks for itself, or is it in the name of “Paul” the movement lives and breathes? Since you need champions to advance your cause in our representative republic, and the movement really had no modern champion before Ron Paul, does the movement now take its cues top-down from his son as successor, or does the movement anoint and select its own champions? Is it an aristocracy or a meritocracy?”

I don’t think this is a situation where either Rand Paul is the successor to Ron Paul or the liberty movement anoints its own champions. The truth is that the liberty movement has anointed its own champions, and the leader of them is Rand Paul. I am not so naive as to believe that this has nothing to do with his last name, but being the only libertarian senator also makes Rand the most nationally recognizable libertarian in the country right now. He has used this influence to push a budget that balances in 5 years, cuts 4 departments, literally cuts the EPA in half, cuts corporate and personal income taxes to a 17 percent flat rate, repeals Obamacare and repeals Dodd-Frank. If that does not make you a champion of liberty, I do not know what does. The liberty movement is a meritocracy, and Rand Paul has demonstrated tremendous merit in his time as a senator.

Steve’s final question posed was “As a successor to his father’s throne, is Rand Paul another Reheboam or another Solomon?”. Now, I am not a Christian, so I am not too familiar with the bible, but the way I understand this is that Solomon was the son of King David who built the first temple in Jerusalem and Reheboam was the son of Solomon who caused a civil war between Israel and Judah. So the fundamental question behind the metaphor is “is Rand Paul building up the liberty movement, or is he splitting it apart?” I think that the answer to that question can be found in the explosive growth of Young Americans for Liberty (or YAL) and Campaign for Liberty, groups founded by Ron Paul and supported heavily by Rand Paul. YAL now has over 500 chapters on college campuses all over the country (compared to just 150 before Rand was elected), and has utilized Rand heavily as an instrument to promote their organization.

At CPAC 2013, Young Americans for Liberty may have been the most visible organization in attendance, handing out “Stand with Rand” signs and T-shirts for hours leading up to Rand’s speech. They were instrumental in his straw poll victory. Rand has also sent fundraising letters for YAL, spoken at their national convention twice and been at the heart of their organization for a long time. The relationship of Rand Paul and a pro-liberty group helping each other rise in stature has also existed with Campaign for Liberty, who have used Rand as a major source of funds on a myriad of issues. Rand has written enough emails for Campaign for Liberty to fill my inbox 10 times. In return, Campaign for Liberty uses their resources to advocate for many of the bills Rand has proposed.

Through this emphasis on movement building via promotion of these organizations, Rand Paul’s legacy is cemented. He could leave politics tomorrow forever and still have made a major impact on the liberty movement by helping these organizations grow into the large, well funded pro liberty groups they are today. Young Americans for Liberty has trained literally thousands of activists at becoming effective advocates for our ideas, and Campaign for Liberty is the major pro liberty group lobbying for our ideas in DC. Having them both grow as much as they have is nothing short of critical for our movement.

Have there been times when Rand has said something that I do not agree with? Yes. Has he misphrased things in interviews and caused it to appear he has contradicted himself? No  doubt. Do these things concern me as someone who wants to see a united liberty movement defeat the establishment? Undoubtedly. But when you look at the things Rand has been questioned on, the common theme that arises is that he is always advocating a pro liberty position, even if he is taking a pragmatic approach towards advancing that issue. When the Snowden “few years in jail” controversy arose, it was in the midst of his NSA lawsuit. When the “thousands of exceptions” misstatement was made, it was because he was introducing the Life at Conception Act. When he said that an attack on Israel should be treated as an attack on the United States, he did so in a trip where he openly called to end foreign aid to Israel in Israel.

The point here is that Rand may have used moderate rhetoric at times, but at the end of the day the issues he is advocating for clearly demonstrate that his cause is liberty, and so long as that is the case, I will continue to Stand with Rand.

Read more at SteaveDeace.com