Rand Paul: The Next Ronald Reagan


A cavalryman depends on a strong-willed beast. US Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), the equestrian-soldier is riding a sick horse. When the beast becomes too ill, and is determined medically futile the soldier places a bullet in its head. This act is not an easy task to carry out, but the soldier knows a sick horse is a dead horse, which is better put out of its misery.  For a cavalryman in the battlefield it is quick. In Washington, Paul will have to take his time- just as Reagan did. Reagan destroyed the GOP mold of his time. Many wonder, will Paul follow in his steps?

Ronald Reagan and the Paul Family during Reagan's 1976 Presidential bid. Ron and Rand to the left of Reagan.

Ronald Reagan and the Paul Family during Reagan’s 1976 Presidential bid. Ron and Rand to the left of Reagan.

It is quite remarkable that America has already had a Libertarian-leaning Republican, but the establishment GOP wouldn’t dare let you know about it. This man is more quoted, and revered than any other GOP politician in history. His name was Ronald Reagan, and he once said, “The heart of my philosophy is libertarianism.”  You will never see Lindsey Graham or John McCain utter this quote, but come election year they will claim themselves Reaganites. In 1976 at the GOP convention Rand’s father, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX, Retired), was one of only 4 republican congressmen to support Reagan that year. Reagan lost. In 1980 Reagan tried again, Paul still at his side, but this time Reagan won by a landslide. Reagan’s win marked the beginning of what many recall as the “Reagan Revolution”. The “Revolution” is a purposeful parallel that the Senior Paul carried on into his presidential bids. However, the two Pauls play a remarkably different battle plan. The Senior Paul’s battle was an ideological one. The Junior Paul’s battle plan is a strategic ground game. A game poised to not only win hearts and minds as his father did, but votes as well.

Paul will be able to pull together conservatives and independents from across the spectrum just as Reagan did. He can turn blue states red with his stance on droneswiretappingmedical marijuana and other civil liberties. He is the leading name in the 2016 GOP bid as of now. He has won every recent straw poll his name has been in, and has visited every early primary state multiple times. Also, he is winning the social media race with more than 1 million Facebook fans. There are also multiple support, and “Presidential Draft” pages for Rand Paul with hundreds of thousands of fans. No other potential candidate has this social media force. Look to the Obama presidential wins and we know that elections are now dependent on social media force. Furthermore, one super- PAC has been working feverishly on a draft effort raising thousands of dollars to send out “Paul for President” campaign garb.

This aside, the truth is that Reagan would never be elected in the modern day Republican Party without one hell of a fight. Thirty years has changed the game of American politics with the establishment GOP backed by war lobbyists, big agriculture and the pharmaceutics industry. Paul’s battle will be one against the largest machine yet known to man. Although the establishment holds more events, fundraisers and marketing in the name of Reagan than any other GOP politician in history they do not believe what Reagan believed. The grassroots will support Paul, many state legislators will follow and he will also bring in endorsements from many leading conservative think-tanks such as the Heritage Foundation headed by former US Senator and ally, Jim DeMint. Regardless, make no mistake; he will be met with great resistance in 2016. He stands headstrong against the modern day GOP on many things such as foreign policy and aide, and the establishment’s lack of bite when it comes to not raising taxes and protecting the Second Amendment.

Expect to see Paul square up against types who are marketed to the American people by the establishment as being “Tea Party candidates”.  Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan seem to stand out as these types, and are losing popularity with the actual Tea Party as they continue to align more with the establishment. The Republican Party hasn’t put one of their own in office since 1980 with Reagan. Is Paul the next Reagan? Paul can stand on his own merits, and no one should underestimate this. However, we also cannot underestimate the power of Reaganism.

For a ‘Revolution’ to occur, something must come to an end.  The question is will Paul be able to place the metaphorical bullet in the GOP’s head as Reagan did decades ago? If Paul does win- the Republican Party we know today will die. Many believe that is more than a fair trade.

BREAKING: House Committee Will Not Allow IRS Worker to Plead the 5th

A republican lead House committee passed a resolution today that declared IRS official Lois Lerner gave up her right to plead the 5th after making an opening statement that she had “done nothing wrong” on a May 22nd hearing. lois

Representative Darrell Issa, (R-Calif.), chairman of the committee, said at the opening of  Friday’s meeting that, “I believe Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment privileges.”

Judge Napalitano weighed in on Lerner’s opening statements last month saying that she had put herself in a position to waive her Fifth Amendment rights because she volunteered to say that she had done nothing wrong, broke no federal laws, or violated IRS regulations before she stated she wanted to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights. Napalitano says that if she refuses to answer any questions on those three subjects then she could go jail. Furthermore, that she is not allowed to tell her side of the story and then refuse to answer any other questions by invoking the Fifth. 

It now seems that Lerner will be forced to answer questions by the committee in regards to the IRS scandal, or face criminal penalties. 

Nullification Goes Mainstream: Tenth Amendment Center Celebrates Anniversary

TenthOp-ed: by Tenth Amendment Center‘s National Communications Director, Mike Maharrey

A rainy April day in downtown Lexington, Ky. changed the trajectory of my life.

It was 2009, and I stood with several hundred people at one of the early Tax-Day protests that ultimately sparked the “Tea Party” movement. I don’t really remember specifics, although I do recall some fiery speeches and some pretty clever signs.

But I do vividly remember looking out over that crowd and thinking, “Wow, this is all well and good, but I need to DO something. Standing in the rain holding a sign just isn’t going to get it.”

I went home that afternoon and I simply couldn’t escape this deepening sense that it was imperative that I get personally involved in the political system. I didn’t want my kids or grandkids to ask me one day, “Daddy, what did you do when America was in the middle of its collapse?” and find that the only answer I had was “I stood in a park and then I voted.”

That day put me on a path that ultimately led me to the Tenth Amendment Center (TAC). I started out as the state chapter coordinator in Kentucky and eventually moved on to take the role of national communications director.

I’m thrilled to say, I found a place that DOES something and an organization that affords me the opportunity to DO stuff.

This week marks the Tenth Amendment Center’s seventh anniversary and I am simply awed at how far the organization has come in the three years I’ve been part of it. When I first started working for the TAC, we were pushing a few Tenth Amendment resolutions and trying to convince newspaper reporters we weren’t a bunch of racists. Today, as the AP recently reported “about four-fifths of the states now have enacted local laws that directly reject or ignore federal laws on marijuana use, gun control, health insurance requirements and identification standards for driver’s licenses.”

Nullification has entered mainstream political discussion. Recent polls show that a growing number of voters support states nullifying unconstitutional federal legislation. And the Tenth Amendment Center can proudly take a large amount of credit for making that happen.

At the TAC we DO stuff. And we equip others to DO stuff too. The organization not only provides tools to educate, it equips Americans to activate. From legislative tracking to action alerts, the TAC plays an integral role in getting nullification legislation not only introduced, but passed. Slowly but surely, we are putting a giant monkey-wrench in the federal governments exercise of unauthorized power.

All this becomes even more amazing when you consider the TAC’s humble beginnings. Seven years ago, Michael Boldin had the foresight to purchase the domain name. As he tells it, he just hoped to reach a few people and make them aware of federal abuses of power. From that vision, the website grew and has since hosted millions of visitors. From a living room blog, a national organization sprung up and grew, becoming a political force…so much so that we’ve endured attacks from Rachel Maddow, the Washington Post, Southern Poverty Law Center and the Wall Street Journal. We must be DOING something right!

Personally, I’ve found exactly what I sought: an avenue to DO something. The Tenth Amendment Center afforded me the opportunity to speak to thousands of people, write two books and actually see my efforts rewarded with tangible success at the state and local level.

This week, I celebrate the birth of the TAC. I am proud to be part of this organization. And I’m excited about the future. Over the next months, we will roll out some things with will make it possible to DO even more.

If you are looking for a place to get involved for the cause of liberty, I can tell you from personal experience, you won’t be disappointed if you plug in to the Tenth Amendment Center. We have plenty to DO and we need your help.

Consider volunteering. You can find ways to get involved HERE. And if you are looking for an organization to support financially, I can assure you, no organization DOES more with less. Click HERE to become a member or HERE to make a donation.

-Happy Birthday to you Tenth Amendment Center! Happy Birthday to you!

And many more…


Mike Maharrey  is the National Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He holds a B.A. in Mass Communications and Media Studies from the University of South Florida St. Petersburg. He has covered local and state politics for several publications in both Kentucky and Florida, and won two Kentucky Press Association awards as a sports writer in 2009. He is also the author of Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the lost path to liberty. He is married with three children living in Lexington, KY.

Liberals & Conservatives Wrong on DOMA Ruling

Liberals: Now is not a time to rejoice. The Supreme Court has changed its ruling on multiple cases in the past. View Lochner v. New York (1905), Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923), Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), Adler v. Board of Education (1952), Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), Pace v. Alabama (1883), Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (1990), Oregon v. Mitchell (1970), Wolf v. Colorado (1949), Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) and Plessy v. Ferguson. Furthermore, although unlikely, the states could adopt a constitutional amendment to define marriage between a man and a woman. Why then should gays and lesbians place their faith in a handful of arbitrary people who are rotated through every decade or so? Also, the ruling still does not grant gay couples all rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples. Adoption is a good example of this. Gay couples will still not be able to adopt in many states due to state laws. Additionally, there are still many states with constitutional amendments preventing gay marriage.

Conservatives: How often do republicans quote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (US Declaration Ind.)? One cannot call themselves champions of limited government while at the same time advocating for that same government to become so expansive, and intrusive that it has its nose in the bedroom of American citizens. Two consenting adults have the right to do as they please in the privacy of their own home. Individual discretion is a core principle of liberty. The fact is, and always has been that gay and lesbian Americans are treated as sub-human with regard to taxation, hospital visitation, spousal rights, etc. in the eyes of the law. Is justice bind, or is it not? SCOTUS

Solution?– Marriage is a long standing religious paradigm and government has placed its nose where it does not belong– In religion. The ruling could open the door for individuals to sue the church for not allowing them to marry. This is a dangerous path to walk as the State begins to look more like America’s church.

Mike Maharrey, National Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center, tells

“Look, I understand the emotional positions held by folks on both sides of the gay marriage issue. But let’s take a step back and consider the absurdity: we’ve essentially empowered five judges to define one of societies most basic relationships for all 350-plus million people in the United States. Not too many years ago – my marriage would have been illegal (Note this was a construct of the state. ) Many people still don’t approve of interracial marriage. I don’t care. I don’t need the Supreme Court, the state of Kentucky, or quite frankly – you – to validate my relationship. While we debated “separation of church and state” across the political aisle, we turned the state into a church, with federal courts sitting in judgement as the supreme ecclesiastical authority.”

If the federal government wishes to make a statement that marriage should be neutral perhaps it should realize that marriage is not one of the 22 enumerated powers granted to it by the Constitution. A worthy cause for both sides would be to shrink the size of the federal government, and rein in the powers, which legislate from the bench. Conservatives would benefit from the downsizing of bureaucracy and government. Liberals would benefit from having ambivalence forever removed from the equation.

Islam in America: From the Eyes of an Iranian-American


In 1986 my father came to America from Iran. He found himself alone, broke and isolated in the southern United States. He couldn’t speak a word of English, had $75 in his pocket and one bag of belongings. He would soon meet a southern belle from Savannah who I would grow up to call mom. My father came to America to escape the Islamic Revolution. He is a man of strong conservative convictions and a thirst for freedom, liberty and justice. These values are reflected strongly in me. Most in my family are Christian. Many of those still in Iran do not claim Islam as their religion, but would in fear of persecution. Some are Muslim, but there is an undeniable dichotomy in Islam where extremism lives, and does not.

Religion has long been a scapegoat for extremism. It is the perfect vector in a sense because it is often protected from legislative action in America. I will start by saying that I know many Muslims who are friends, neighbors, co-workers and peers. Many are peaceful and are shameful of the behavior that is exhibited through Islam. However, the cover-up of the core direction of Islam in America cannot be ignored. At the Democratic National Convention in 2012 Democrats tried to remove God and Israel from the party’s platform. Once this hit mainstream media the chairman allowed for the rules to be changed to allow for an amendment. An amendment was made to reinsert God and Israel into the party platform, which required a 2/3 vote for approval. The vote was clearly not in favor of adding God and Israel back into the platform, but in a video a woman is seen telling the chairman to ignore the delegates and approve it anyways. In the same video of the event, Muslims are seen furious with the adoption of the amendment. Also assess the fact that Benghazi was blamed on an anti-Islam video by the Obama administration and not a premeditated attack by Muslim radicals. Through the Benghazi hearings we now know this to be a lie. Many defend Muslim prayer in public schools, and will simultaneously condemn optional bible courses. How does this hold salt?islam

An innate difference between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions exists, and it is that many Muslims are radicalized through the Islamic liturgy. Also, it is essential to understand that Islam is not only a religion, but a form of government. This is not so for the other two Abrahamic religions. In 2003 a young man named Carlos Bledsoe moved from Memphis, TN to Nashville to attend Tennessee State University (TSU). Carlos’ father, Melvin Bledsoe, says that Carols became involved with radical Islam professors and groups at TSU and started attending the Islamic Center of Nashville. Here he was radicalized and changed his name to Abdulhakim. Now he sits in a federal prison for the murder of Army PFC William Long. Abdulhakim (Bledsoe) said in an interview, “It was not murder, murder is not justified. What I did is justified under Islamic law. It was justified by common sense. We believe we have to strike back.”

I am of the libertarian-republican strain, and therefore I hold in high regard freedom of religion and the First Amendment. Let it be understood though that when people come to America to use our rules against us, chaos is bred. Recently in Tennessee the Obama/Holder Justice Department sent Bill Killian, U.S. attorney, to warn citizens that they could be persecuted for exercising their first Amendment rights to speak out against Sharia law in America. What the Obama administration and radicalized Muslims fail to understand is that religion may be exercised freely, but it may not supersede constitutional law in this country. Floyd Abrams, one of America’s most respected First Amendment attorneys, is quoted as saying of Killian: “He’s just wrong. The government may, indeed, play a useful and entirely constitutional role in urging people not to engage in speech that amounts to religious discrimination. But it may not, under the First Amendment, prevent or punish speech even if it may be viewed as hostile to a religion. And what it most clearly may not do is to stifle political or social debate, however rambunctious or offensive some may think it is.”

Examine any religious script and you can find a case for rape, murder, polygamy, incest, mass-killings and more. However, we do not practice this, and encroach upon the liberty of others because these scripts say in the name of God it is acceptable. A line does exist. In Syria, where the line does not exist, a rebel recently cut out the heart of a soldier and ate it. The rebel is quoted claiming the act in the name of Allah.

Tolerance of those who wish to pursue peace, liberty and tolerance themselves should always be encouraged in America no-matter the channel. Challenge and opportunity meets any individual willing to take on this endeavor. However, it is important to understand that in countries where Islam is the majority, minority rights are not allowed. In these countries women, Christians, homosexuals, etc. are all persecuted under Islamic law. Meanwhile, in countries where Islam is the minority those of the extremist class demand “rights” to implement laws contrary to those of the Founders, which protect individual liberty.

###  Michael Lotfi is a Iranian-American conservative commentator, campaign consultant, and legislative lobbyist living in Nashville, TN.

Anti-Govnmt Search Engine Rises to Challenge Google

Necessity is the mother of invention, and one company is ahead of the curve. Are you worried about the Federal Government tracking your activity online? may be your new search engine of choice, and if you value your privacy it may have to be. Google is fast becoming too big for its britches. Their new privacy standards, or lack there of, which have drawn scrutiny from the tech world, and privacy advocates leave much to be desired. According to Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who is co-chairman of the Congressional Privacy Caucus, “The new Google privacy policy is: You have no privacy.” Combine this with Google recently handing over more than 11,000 individuals’ personal information to the government, NSA spying by the feds, the IRS scandal, the AP/Fox Scandal, and Senator Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) comments that he would censor US citizens’ mail, and you have an American public that is suddenly remembering the need for their Fourth Amendment rights. In the legislative branch US Senator Rand Paul R-KY has begun the process for a class action lawsuit against the federal government, but what can the free-market accomplish to complement Senator Paul’s efforts? growth growth chart

DuckDuckGo was launched in 2008, but only recently has it become viral so to speak. According to online traffic reports DuckDuckGo’s traffic has skyrocketed in the past few months, and especially the past few days in the face of multiple privacy scandals under the Obama administration. Starting in January of this year the site averaged 1.6 million searches/day. As of this month the site is averaging 2 millions searches/day. This last week alone has been the most successful for the search engine since data began recording in April of 2010 (39k searches/day) with more than 2 million searches each day. Why the growth? DuckDuckGo promises an escape from the eyes of big brother. Their privacy policy states that they will not track you, filter bubble you, record you, report you, store your information, spy on you, sell your information, etc. There are many great features available, which includes one that allows you to integrate the search engine onto chrome and other browsers. Perhaps what makes DuckDuckGo so dangerous to its competitors, especially Google is that it provides something no other company does- the promise of privacy in a world where it is in short supply. The free-market at its best.

Lindsey Graham’s World

Op-ed by, Nancy Mace

The Constitution. The Bill of Rights. The Declaration of Independence. To some these are little more than historical documents, but to conservatives these are the law of the land. It is clear as one reads them, the foundation of our country was built with limited government and the free market in mind.

However, Washington is out of touch. Special interests throw money at career politicians. These same politicians fail to lead and simply react to the latest controversy to gain a spot on Sunday morning talk shows.

With congressional approval at an all time low, it’s easy to understand why some would prefer to appear on television sets rather than face their constituents back at home.Immigration reform

President Reagan once said “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction,” that we must fight for it, protect it and hand it down to future generations.

Yesterday South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham endorsed President Obama’s intrusive arm of big brother regarding the collection of data and phone records:

“I’m a Verizon customer. I don’t mind Verizon turning over records to the government if the
government is going to make sure that they try to match up a known terrorist phone with somebody in the United States. I don’t think you’re talking to the terrorists. I know you’re not. I know I’m not. So we don’t have anything to worry about.”

Senator Graham went on to challenge Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. In his attack, Graham leads us to believe that “In Senator Paul’s world” those who value the constitution would leave America in a weakened position against its enemies. However, true conservatives believe that we can follow the constitution and defend our country against the enemy without sacrificing our freedom.

One week Senator Graham wants to debate the rights granted in the Second Amendment and another he questions the First Amendment rights of American citizens. And yesterday he tells us it’s ok for the government to search our phone records even if we are law abiding citizens.

Most would agree with Senator Graham that radical Islam is the foremost threat to our nation’s security. However, if we are truly protecting Americans from this grave threat, then how does it make sense to supply arms and aid to countries who support radical Islam, bring harm to our allies, burn our flag, hate our culture and allow terrorists to plot against the United States and her friends?

In Senator Graham’s world, arming al-Qaeda in Syria is a good idea.

In Senator Graham’s world, your rights as an American citizen are granted by the ruling political class and not by our Creator.

In Senator Graham’s world, government should always be trusted but never the American citizen.

In Senator Graham’s world, the Constitution doesn’t exist.

In Senator Graham’s world, the entire Bill of Rights is negotiable.

In Senator Graham’s world, our constitutional rights seem constantly up for debate.

In Senator Graham’s world, he says we’re fighting for freedom but is the first to surrender all of them.

In Senator Graham’s world, America is going broke, and taxing hard working Americans while spending more money the country simply does not have.

In Senator Graham’s world, I am concerned about the future of our country.

Maybe Senator Graham has been living in a world of his own for too long.

Nancy Mace is the first woman to graduate from The Citadel, the military college of South Carolina. She is the author of In the Company of Men published by Simon and Schuster. She is a small business owner of a public relations and marketing firm, The Mace Group, based in Charleston, South Carolina.