Advertisements

A Woman Challenger Rises to Primary Lindsey Graham

Insiders and grassroots activists are starting to zero in on a primary challenger to face off against embattled incumbent US Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Graham has become extremely unpopular due to his votes on taxes, the NDAA, gun rights and his position on drones. He recently came out against Rand Paul’s filibuster, which created National backlash against him and is refusing to support Paul’s efforts to filibuster Obama’s attempt at Second Amendment restrictions.

Nancy Mace Vs. Lindsey Graham?

Nancy Mace Ready to Challenge Lindsey Graham? 

The Challenger? Nancy Mace, daughter of Brigadier General Emory Mace (US Army Retired), and first ever female graduate of The Citadel Military College of South Carolina. Holding a Master’s of Mass Communication and Journalism, and a Bachelor’s of Business, she is also the author of In the Company of Men: A Woman at The Citadel . In addition, Mace owns a successful small business called The Mace Group LLC, which is a public relations and marketing firm out of Charleston where she is married with two children. Mace is a contributor to multiple national media outlets such as The Hill and The Daily Caller. Having these ties makes her dangerous to Graham as many primary candidates struggle to get National media attention.

State Senator Lee Bright’s name has been thrown around to run. However, many in the state do not want Bright (R) to run and feel he cannot win against Graham. State Senator Tom Davis (R) who was elevated to grassroots fame during the 2012 GOP Presidential primaries for endorsing Ron Paul was also eyed to run against Graham. Many were hoping he would. However, Davis tells us that he is focused on South Carolina legislation right now. Davis is actually now endorsing Mace’s efforts and pushing her to run. With Davis’ blessing, Mace seems placed to take on the challenge. Mace told TheLibertyPaper.org:

I believe we need a credible candidate who can challenge Graham. Someone who can bring together the liberty movement, the tea party, those who covet our second Amendment rights and the right to life, those who want to see greater economic freedom and prosperity brought to our nation through individual liberty and the free market. We need someone who believes in constitutional principles. We need someone who will not believe increasing taxes are suitable while ignoring out of control spending. What we are doing in Washington today is clearly not working. I am flattered by all of the attention. This is David vs. Goliath and it will take conservatives from across the movement to be successful.

Mace is popular in the Liberty movement and the Tea Party in South Carolina. Mace has confirmed that advisers are now helping guide her decisions and Super PACs are starting to eye her intentions ready to throw in their support for her.

Rand Paul Never Voted for Indefinite Detention in 2013 NDAA

Libertarians began to abandon Rand Paul (R-KY) in droves after he voted for the 2013 NDAA. Many of them believed that this legislation included indefinite detention of US citizens. However, it did not. Many of them have sworn to never vote for Rand Paul again. These misguided libertarians are upset over nothing. Rand Paul explains:

I have noticed that many are confused by my vote for NDAA. Please allow me to explain. 

First, we should be clear about what the bill is. NDAA is the yearly defense authorization bill. It’s primary function is to specify which programs can and can’t be funded within the Pentagon and throughout the military. It is not the bill that spends the money—that comes later in an appropriations bill. 

Because I think we should spend less, I will offer amendments to cut spending. I will likely vote against the final spending bill. This wasn’t it.

This bill also isn’t about indefinite detention. This year’s bill did not contain the authorization for indefinite detention.   

That provision was in last year’s NDAA bill. 

Rand Paul

Rand Paul (R-KY)

The bill this year contained the amendment I supported which sharply limited the detention power, and eliminated it entirely for American citizens in the US. While it is only a partial victory, it was a big victory. Particularly compared to what passed last year. Even so, I will continue to fight to protect anyone who could possibly be indefinitely detained.

I would never vote for any bill, anywhere, that I believed enhanced the government’s power to abridge your rights and detain people. This goes against every principle I hold dear and the Constitution I took an oath to uphold and protect.

Government power and the many associated abuses have been piling up for years. We will not win all our liberties back at once. But we did win one battle this year, and we should be pleased that we did while also realizing the fight is really just getting started. 

I hope you will keep fighting alongside me.”

Long time friend and Congressional ally, US Representative Justin Amash  provided the following statement: 

Senator Rand Paul is correct in his description of the 2013 NDAA. It’s the 2012 NDAA (not 2013) that authorizes indefinite detention without charge or trial. There’s much more to be done to protect our rights and undo the harm of the 2012 NDAA (which doesn’t expire), but thanks to the efforts of United States Senator Mike Lee and Sen. Paul, we are making significant progress in (re-)advancing the principle that all people in the United States have a constitutionally protected right to full due process.”

With Super PACs already forming to support a Rand Paul for President 2016 ticket if the liberty movement hopes to advance it would seem that Rand Paul is their best chance in decades. However, with liberty focused alternative media smearing Rand’s name without warrant over his vote on the 2013 NDAA the  movement is not making their case any easier to win. 

GOP Pushes Rubio 2016 Ticket as the Only Ticket

Senator Rubio (FL-R) was selected by the GOP mainstream to deliver the rebuttal to the President’s State of the Union address. This was swiftly followed by Time magazine naming Rubio, “The Republican Savior.” He has been pushed by the mainstream GOP as a Tea Party candidate who can bring the party together. However, upon review of his voting record many problems arise. Does the liberty title stick?

Marco Rubio, “We choose more government instead of more freedom” (RNC Speech, 2012). It is hard to imagine what reaction our founding fathers would have had to Rubio’s speech. Even more disappointing to them would have been the thunderous applause he received only a few seconds after he dared to utter those words. Rubio is of course referring to Americans having their constitutional rights stripped away by the Patriot Act and the NDAA.  The NDAA being the legislation that allows for indefinite detention of US citizens without right to trial, due process, etc. Obama’s own judge ruled it Rubiounconstitutional. Obama of course said that the ruling was unconstitutional and was an attempt to override the power of his presidency. So Obama appealed the ruling. Rubio’s Senate vote on the NDAA provision to unconstitutionally detain you? Senate Amendment 1126 was introduced to prohibit the federal government from detaining US citizens without due process and trial. Rubio voted Nay. Here is the full Senate vote. It is interesting to note that more Democrats voted against President Obama than did Republicans. Proving that the GOP is indeed in no way currently in a position to call themselves champions of the Constitution. Rubio gave a foreign policy speech that essentially proves he’s eye-to-eye with Obama in regards to blatant disregard of the Constitution when it comes to war. He may even have more radical views on policy than did Bush junior. When Senator Rand Paul, KY-R) introduced Senate Bill 3576, which if passed would have stopped the federal government from handing billions of dollars to the very people that attack us, Rubio refused to vote, which is essentially voting not to support it. Here is the full Senate vote. Rubio’s lack of support for this bill only proves his inability to respect and understand the Constitution of this country.

One must look to the mistakes of 2012 to see why the GOP lost. They could not secure the youth vote, or the liberty vote. Propelling a candidate who does not have a solid record on the Constitution will only continue to split the GOP. We haven’t heard of many Libertarians or Tea Party goers that believe in choosing more government instead of more freedom. Karl Rove has recently declared a war on the Tea Party and all liberty candidates promising to quite them with his money and the mass of donors he has gathered. However, how Tea Party is Rubio if Rove and the very unpopular mainstream Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) tried to push him as the 2012 VP running mate to Romney? One must wonder why Rubio is not under fire from Rove as is the rest of the Liberty movement.

Breaking: NDAA Indefinite Detention of American Citizens is Back

Chairman Levin and John McCain

The 2012  NDAA passed by Congress has held language that the Federal Government can detain any US  citizen without warrant, without charge, without the right to trial, indefinitely. This is obviously unconstitutional. Senator Feinstein (D-California) offered  Amendment 3018 to the 2013 NDAA which provided the following provisions: “An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.” This amendment, although it should have been unnecessary in the first place, protects Americans citizens. The amendment had multiple co-sponsors such as Senator Rand Paul and passed with strong bi-partisan support because of the unconstitutional implications had it not. It seems that the language of the amendment may have been too ambiguous though. There has been some talk that the amendment did not do enough to protect US citizens and that there were loop holes.

Regardless of interpretations of the language or loop-holes at least the Feinstein amendment offered some sort of protection to US citizens. Last night (Dec. 18th, 2012) the amendment was completely axed. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) made the announcement. However, it has not been replaced with anything, loop holes or not, to protect US citizens. The conference committee simply dropped the amendment and the ban on indefinite detention of US citizens and now the NDAA is up for a vote again on December 20th, 2012 with indefinite detention of US citizens. John McCain’s words on the new NDAA, “I hope that President Obama will pass it.”

It is absolutely crucial that federal representatives are contacted within the next 24 hours to voice your support of voting against indefinite detention of US citizens. You may look up your representatives here. http://house.gov/  http://senate.gov/

Republicans Poised to Repeat 2012 Mistakes on 2016 ticket: Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan

Not even a week after the 2012 Presidential election and GOP names are being floated for the 2016 ticket. Who is on the top of the list so far? To name a few of the top 5, none other than New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, and Wisconsin Congressman, 2012 VP GOP pick Paul Ryan. What do they all have in common? None of them are conservatives and have voted against the constitution

Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio 

many, many times.  This comes as no surprise seeing as how the GOP seems unable to understand that the only way to get back their base and attempt to gather new attention is to stick to the constitution. After all,  the Libertarian,  constitutionalist  movement is the fastest growing in the country. This movement is the very thing that made the Republic great. Yet, establishment Republicant’s are missing out on millions of energized young voters, and they don’t seem to mind.

Let’s Break them down:

Marco Rubio, “We choose more government instead of more freedom” (RNC Speech, 2012). It is hard to imagine what reaction our founding fathers would have had to Rubio’s speech. Even more disappointing to them would have been the thunderous applause he received only a few seconds after he dared to utter those words. Rubio is of course referring to Americans having their constitutional rights stripped away by the Patriot Act and the NDAA.  The NDAA being the legislation that allows for indefinite detention of US citizens without right to trial, due process, etc. Obama’s own judge ruled it unconstitutional. Obama of course said that the ruling was unconstitutional and was an attempt to override the power of his presidency. So Obama appealed the ruling. Rubio’s senate vote on the NDAA provision to unconstitutionally detain you? Senate Amendment 1126 was introduced to prohibit the federal government from detaining US citizens without due process and trial. Rubio voted Nay.  The media has completely blacked out the NDAA, so if you were hoping that maybe a conservative media source such as Fox News would be reporting on this big government, unconstitutional overreach you will have to look elsewhere. Since most Republicans are voting in favor of destroying the constitution you will have to do a little digging to see just how they voted on allowing the government to detain you. Here is the full Senate vote. It is interesting to note that more Democrats voted against President Obama than did Republicans. Proving that the GOP is indeed in no way currently in a position to call themselves champions of the Constitution. Rubio gave a foreign policy speech that essentially proves he’s eye-to-eye with Obama in regards to blatant disregard to the Constitution when it comes to war. He may even have more radical views on policy than did Bush junior. When Senator Rand Paul, KY (R) introduced Senate Bill 3576, which if passed would have stopped the federal government from handing billions of dollars to the very people that attack us, Rubio refused to vote, which is essentially voting not to support it. Here is the full Senate vote. Rubio’s lack of support for this bill only proves his inability to respect and understand the constitution of this country.

Jeb Bush. The name alone is enough to send shivers down the spine of any young voter. Those who grew up during the Bush Jr. years are so turned off to the idea of anything remotely close to do with the Bush family that it’s essential suicide to even think about propelling another Bush into office. Republicans lost faith in them, Democrats never liked them to begin with, and the youth are terrified of them. Of course, that won’t keep Karl Rove and his powerful friends at Fox News  from propelling the name. After all, we’re told that war-time manufacturers and black gold, and the Federal Reserve can be pretty persuasive these days. Oh, you didn’t know that his great-grandfather served as a chairman for the unconstitutional Federal Reserve? If that’s not enough for you, let’s consider the following. Jeb said that the banker bailout that gave failed banks over 700 billion dollars of tax-payer money was “The right thing to do“. Interesting position for someone to take who has a family tied to the Federal Reserve. Let us also not forget that every war we have been involved in since WWII has been unconstitutional. Wars that the family started. Additionally, it was his father George H.W. Bush that brought Agenda 21 and all of its unconstitutional, anti-American demands to America. This is the agenda that seeks to end National sovereignty, end private property rights, and contains language such as this “Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective”. 

Chris Christie has consistently supported unconstitutional legislation that has destroyed NJ citizen’s 2nd Amendment rights. He has insisted that illegal immigrants coming to America is not a crime and essentially refused to prosecute illegals. He even now seems prepared to support illegals in-state tuition breaks at local colleges and universities. Furthermore, he now believes climate change is indeed real, which can only result in him supporting the unconstitutional EPA, which destroys millions of American jobs and even people’s lives.

Paul Ryan, begs for bailout? Wait, not Paul Ryan… He’s a real conservative, right? Wrong. Ryan seems to have no problem with voting against his principles. Ryan is an absolute champion of corporatism; and although his speech has some mighty fancy rhetoric in it make no mistake that giving wall-street billions in bailouts has failed. If he understood economics and the free-market capitalist system that made this country great, like he says he does, then why would he vote against his own claimed principles? If that’s not enough, Ryan is also parallel to Rubio when it comes to the NDAA. He believes that the federal government should have the right to detain you without trial, without due process, without your constitutional rights, indefinitely. So, he voted to make it happen. Furthermore, Ryan voted in favor of CISPA, which will allow the federal government and large internet companies (more corporatism) to exchange your private information and monitor you in an obviously unconstitutional manner.

So there you have it. Just a few of many unconstitutional, non-conservative things these men have championed for. You may find yourselves asking: How did these guys make it to the short list when even Democrats are voting more conservative than they are? Why are they being championed as some of the most conservative members in government? Who else is on the list? Anyone at all that can end this madness and keep the GOP from repeating their 2012 mistakes? If there is, it’s Kentucky US Senator Rand Paul (R) who is listed at number six. Paul is the only one who has consistently voted for the constitution and supported the American people on all of the above discussed issues. He is the only one who seems to know the difference between capitalism and corporatism, while at the same time remaining wildly popular with an energetic base who are poised to advance him into office. If the GOP has any hope of taking the White House in 2016 that hope is in the hands of Rand Paul.