Fact Check: Does Rand Paul support amnesty, or did the media lie about his position?

There is a rampant online rumor, primarily circulating among Tea Party circles, that Rand Paul supports amnesty.

What exactly is amnesty? Generally, people seem to agree that amnesty means offering illegal immigrants citizenship, which would reward them for breaking the law and would put them ahead of those who have applied to enter the country legally.

Does Rand Paul support amnesty? No, he does not.

So why do people believe he does? Two articles/headlines in particular claimed that he did, but they were not accurate.

One was a Breitbart article, titled "Rand Paul: Let's Compromise on Amnesty."

But it turns out that Rand Paul never said what was implied. In actuality, Rand Paul said he was open to compromise on immigration reform (which can mean many things), but he has never supported granting citizenship to illegals.

In response to this misleading headline, Rand Paul said this: "I will not let sloppy journalists characterize my position as “amnesty.” It is simply untrue."

Another article was created by the Associated Press and widely redistributed under various titles. It claimed that Paul supported a pathway to citizenship, citing a speech he gave. And yet, he never mentioned a pathway to citizenship in his speech.

Not only were the two articles about Rand Paul wrong, but they fly in the face of what Paul has supported legislatively.

In 2013, during the Gang of Eight bill debate, Paul offered an amendment to prevent a pathway to citizenship.

VERDICT: Rand Paul opposes amnesty, and the media lied about his position.

To learn more about Paul's position on immigration, watch the video below:

Five Ways Rand Paul Is Like Conservative Hero Jack Kemp

Senator Rand Paul is a unique and rising star in the Republican Party. His establishment opponents would like to portray him as odd and out of the mainstream. And yet, many of Paul's ideas were also shared with conservative Congressman Jack Kemp, who in 1996 was the GOP nominee for Vice-President.

Below are five areas in which they are similar:

Tax enterprise zones

Rand Paul has championed the idea of tax enterprise zones as an alternative to bailing out failed cities like Detroit. In his own proposal, Paul quoted Kemp, who popularized the concept:

“By giving people access to capital and allowing them to take ownership of assets, entrepreneurship will be encouraged and the cycle of poverty can begin to be broken. All persons should have the opportunity to go as high as their merit and determination can carry them…” 

The flat tax

Even before he announced his run for the presidency, Rand Paul had come out in favor of a flat tax. Jack Kemp was also a fan of the flat tax. In fact, the Kemp Commission concluded that the current income tax should be replaced by the flat tax.

The Iraq War

While other GOP candidates were struggling to answer whether invading Iraq was a good idea in hindsight, Rand Paul beliefs it was a mistake from the beginning. So did Kemp, who wrote an op-ed opposing the war in 2003.

The Federal Reserve

Like his father, Congressman Ron Paul, Rand Paul believes that the Federal Reserve is out of control. Accordingly, Paul has pushed strongly for auditing the secretive institution. He has also supported a new gold commission. Kemp himself supported a gold standard. He once said:

“America needs a dollar that is once again an honest dollar, as good as gold.” 

Minority outreach

Rand Paul has taken it upon himself to grow the Republican party. He has reached out to groups that normally wouldn't consider checking the GOP box. Kemp was similarly a lone wolf in his efforts to reach out to minority communities.

Rebutting the misleading Examiner.com article on Rand Paul, Medicare, Social Security, and tax cuts

It's the article that doesn't die.

In 2010, Ryan Witt of Examiner.com published the following article: Rand Paul concedes he will cut Medicare and Social Security to pay for tax cuts

To this day I see it popping up ever now and then on the web, and the headline generates the fury of even alleged conservatives in Rand Paul's directions.

But let's take a step back for a moment. The article is basing its claims on an interview that is not embedded within at this point, if it ever was. So we are taking the author's word for it.

First, we need to address the subject of the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts (passed between 2001 and 2006) were essential for growing the economy in the Bush years. They have been extended continuously since they were first set to expire in 2010.

Most Republicans, and even some Democrats, support making those tax policy changes permanent. They benefit the economy. And if taken away, the economy would suffer severe consequences. Even with the Bush tax cuts in place, the United States is still at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world from a tax policy perspective.

Now, many assume that the Bush tax cuts must be paid for with spending cuts. That is simply not the case. Every dollar left in the private sector is a dollar better spent. Dollars left in the private sector allow for economic growth, and economic growth leads to greater tax revenues. If the Bush tax cuts were taken away, the economy would take a hit, and so would the federal budget. Kennedy and Reagan understood this principle when they proposed their historic tax reductions.

Second, we need to address the subject of entitlement reform. The greatest drivers of our debt are the entitlement programs. There is simply no way around it. Every Republican supports reforming entitlements because to not do so means terrible things for seniors.

Entitlement reforms, like all government programs, have structural problems. Medicare and Social Security are costing more money on an exponential basis. As our deficit and debt continue to grow, the more we must tax, borrow, and spend. All of those actions take from the private sector and weaken our economy.And as our interest payments on the debt continue to increase, that means less money can be devoted to programs benefiting seniors in the future.

So, it is imperative that we reform our entitlement programs. Here is what that does not mean: It does not mean cutting benefits from seniors currently dependent on those programs. It does not mean cutting benefits from the poor and hungry. It does not mean pushing grandma off the cliff.

It means things such as means testing, so that the very wealthy do not receive benefits they do not need. It means that as we live longer and longer, future generations will have to work a little longer before they can draw benefits. It means targeting fraud, waste, and abuse. It also means encouraging younger people to invest in private means of investment, where the returns are higher and their money benefit the economy, rather than hurts it.

You can read Paul's specific plans for Social Security and Medicare, HERE and HERE.

No senior has any reason to oppose what Republicans like Rand Paul are opposing. Their proposals do not hurt seniors, but they do help younger generations.

Misleading articles like the one posted by Examiner.com are plaguing our political process, and that is why this rebuttal was written.

Conservatives Who Have Met With Al Sharpton (PHOTOS)

It seems lately that having your picture taken with Al Sharpton is a grave offense. That is, if you are considered a conservative Republican.

So which conservatives have associated themselves with Al Sharpton? See the pictures below:

FOX News Host Greg Gutfeld Suggests Ben Carson/Rand Paul Ticket For 2016

 

FOX News' Greg Gutfeld, host of RedEye and co-host of The Five, filled in for Bill O'Reilly shortly before the Christmas holiday and was able to land an interview with Dr. Ben Carson. Near the conclusion of the interview, the following conversation took place:

GG: See, I have a suggestion if you decide to run you should choose another doctor because you're an MD. You should make Rand Paul your Vice-President, so you have two doctors and your motto/slogan can be, "America: It''s a time to heal." You can have that. Gotta go doctor Ben.

BC: Hey, we can have that? Thanks!

 

This combination is not beyond the realm of possibility. Carson has already stated that he is a fan of Rand Paul:

Dear Rand Paul: Stop trying to lose the GOP primary

Rand Paul, or more likely his advisers, are putting the proverbial cart before the horse. They are focusing more on winning the general election than the primary, but that is in reverse order of what a sensible campaign would do.

To be sure, there is nothing wrong with reaching out to non-Republican voters well ahead of the general election. But do it in a way that actually reaches out to them. (For the most part, he is doing a good job of this.) And don't alienate the conservative base in an attempt to reach out to those non-Republican voters.

I will support Rand Paul for President, but I want him to win. He has done some things lately that have just left me exasperated. So I am going to offer two pieces of constructive advice to Rand:

1. Do not meet with Al Sharpton. Meeting with Al Sharpton will not gain you any votes. Anyone who remotely likes Al Sharpton will never vote for you. He will not support you either. Meeting with Al Sharpton will not improve race relations. No one in the black community causes more racial strife than the despicable Sharpton. He isn't interested in peace or a colorblind society. His own means of existence is dependent on stoking the flames of the racial fires. And for heaven's sake, don't pose for a picture with him, especially if you are going to keep your eyes closed.

2. Do not go boost the Mississippi Republican Party. There are 50 state GOP parties, and you have to pick the one that torpedoed Chris McDaniel. Come on. I won't criticize you for not endorsing McDaniel during the primary, though I think you should have. But I understand why staying neutral makes sense. But under no circumstance should you have gone to help those scumbags. Scumbags who used the race card, intellectually progressive arguments, and downright lies to keep Thad Cochran in office. That, in the eyes of observant voters, is taking sides. All you emerged from the meeting with was a nice picture of you with a good chunk of the "stars and bars" in the backdrop. The MS GOP cronies will not support you either, but they will gladly use your name to fund raise.

If Rand wants to win the primary in 2016, he needs to retain his father's libertarian base while at the same time be able to draw substantially from the conservative base. The conservative base shot Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum to heights of success in 2012, but if he wants the conservative base to remain with him throughout, Rand will need to demonstrate that he is not their enemy or a politician with his finger in the wind, but someone who stands with them.

Rand Paul Defends Rick Perry In Response To Politically Motivated Indictment

Texas Governor Rick Perry was indicted by a grand jury in liberal Travis County for allegedly abusing his power. The truth is that Perry threatened to veto funding for the Public Integrity Unit headed up by drunken and belligerent Travis County DA Rosemary Lehmberg unless she resigned.

The Texas Constitution gives Governor Perry the authority to utilize the line-item veto. As such, the indictment has been panned as a political witch hunt by observers on both sides of the isle.

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who recently feuded publicly with Perry over foreign policy, joined his father and other potential 2016 rivals in defending Perry, a likely 2016 candidate himself.

The Washington Post reports:

 As Paul left for Guatemala last weekend, Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry, another potential 2016 presidential contender, was indicted by a grand jury on charges he abused his office and tried to coerce an elected official to resign. Despite past differences with Perry – most recently on military operations in Iraq – Paul sought to defend the governor against what he considers politically-motivated charges.

“You know, Travis County has a history of politically-motivated stuff,” he said of the county prosecutor’s office that sought Perry’s indictment. “They did it to [former House Majority Leader] Tom DeLay as well. I haven’t really read that much about it other than to think that you could be indicted for doing a veto? I don’t know how that could even pass the laugh test, really.”

By the way, you can read more about Rand Paul's Guatemala trip, during which he performed charity eye surgeries, at Rare Magazine.

Rude Illegals Interrupt Rep. Steve King And Sen. Rand Paul From Eating

On Monday, as Congressman Steve King and Senator Rand Paul were taking a break from the campaign trail to grab some burgers.

Just as they were able to sit down, however, two illegal immigrants approached the pair and introduced themselves.

Realizing that they were about to get into a shouting match with King, who is known for being an immigration hardliner, Paul wisely left the situation.

The two illegals, primarily the woman, proceeded to engage in theatrics with King, who was having none of their melodramatic nonsense.

See the video of the confrontation for yourself:

Rand Paul And Tom Woods Endorse Senate Candidate Greg Brannon

Constitutional Conservative Dr. Greg Brannon, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in North Carolina, has just received two important endorsements from influential individuals within the liberty movement.

The first comes from Senator Rand Paul. Read the press release below:

SENATOR RAND PAUL ENDORSES GREG BRANNON for U.S. SENATE

“Dr. Brannon will stand up against the Washington establishment”

Raleigh, NC – Today, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) announced his endorsement of Dr. Greg Brannon for U.S. Senate in North Carolina.

“I enthusiastically endorse Greg Brannon for U.S. Senate because he’s a true constitutional conservative who will join me in fighting against business as usual in Washington.”

“Americans are looking for leaders who will honor their oath of office by fighting to ‘protect and defend’ the Constitution and Greg is the clear choice for conservatives in North Carolina.“

“The American people don’t want more politicians in the U.S. Senate who will continue to expand the size of government. We need Greg in the Senate to provide vital reinforcements to help reverse out-of-control spending, restore constitutional limitations on our federal government, and fight back against President Obama’s agenda.”

“And as Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and I showed clearly in our campaigns, when you run on principle and excite the grass-roots Republicans, and Independents and even Democrats hungry for a change, you win. That’s why I support Greg Brannon, and expect him to be North Carolina’s next Senator,” concluded Senator Paul.

Senator Paul’s endorsement is sure to take the Brannon campaign’s momentum to an all new level as conservative support from across the state has surged in recent weeks.

The pro-life Obstetrician’s campaign has energized conservatives who are excited to have an anti-establishment candidate in the race who will oppose the Big Government, big spending status quo in both political parties.

“I urge conservatives in the state of North Carolina and across the nation to rally around Greg Brannon by contributing generously to his campaign and joining the grassroots volunteer effort to ensure that there is a strong Constitutional conservative Senator from North Carolina,” said Paul.

Brannon thanked Senator Paul for his endorsement.

“I’m honored to receive the endorsement of Senator Paul, a true champion for liberty in Washington. Senator Paul has shown principled leadership in the U.S. Senate and I look forward to the opportunity to join him in this fight,” said Brannon.

The second comes from Tom Woods, author of eleven books including two New York Times bestsellers. Woods discussed his endorsement in this video:

Sen. Paul to Introduce ‘Trust but Verify’ and Additional Amendments to Immigration Reform Bill

Senator Rand Paul is attempting to correct many problems in the “Gang Of 8″ immigration bill by offering up four amendments to be voted on.

Below you can click on the links to view the full scope of what the amendments cover:

Senator Rand Paul’s “Trust but Verify” Border Security Amendment

Senator Rand Paul’s “Secure the Treasury” Taxpayer Protection Amendment 

Senator Rand Paul’s “Secure the Vote” Amendment

Senator Rand Paul’s “No New Pathway to Citizenship” Amendment

In my judgement, there are two other lingering issues with the immigration bill: arbitrary restrictions on agricultural workers, and provisions leading to a National ID Card.

Greg Brannon Responds to Thom Tillis’s Entrance Into Senate Race

(Above: Greg Brannon)

In a press release Saturday, Dr. Greg Brannon, the first person to announce his candidacy for Senate in North Carolina, responded to the entrance of NC State House Speaker Thom Tillis into the fold:

Greg Brannon Welcomes Thom Tillis To The Race
Says The Race Will Offer a Clear Choice Between
Establishment Insider and Anti-Establishment Change Agent 

Raleigh, NC - Today, Dr. Greg Brannon, North Carolina's anti-establishment Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, who is running to oppose the Big Government, big spending status quo in both political parties, welcomed Thom Tillis to the race to challenge Senator Kay Hagan next year. 

"If Republicans in this state would rather be represented by a political insider, heavily influenced by special interests, who has taken liberal positions on legislation in the North Carolina State House, including Ferry Tolls, Interstate Toll HOT Lanes and the protection of telecommunication monopolies at the expense of smaller free market competitors, then Mr. Tillis has certainly proven he is willing to compromise on our core conservative principles to benefit his friends," said Brannon. 

Brannon added, "Mr. Tillis is the poster child for why I'm in this race. I represent conservatives that are fed up with crony capitalism, special interests, political compromise and excuses. Mr. Tillis is yet another in a long line of career politicians eager to take the next step on the ladder of political power." 

Mr. Tillis has recently been under fire from conservative activists across the state. Many believe he has used his leadership position in the State House to defeat Republican candidates in party primaries in favor of Democrats who switched parties or were part of his personal circle of political allies. 

As recently as this week, the Craven County GOP Executive Committee voted to censure the Speaker, listing numerous grievances against him and his leadership. Other counties have expressed their interest in doing the same. 

The Republican primary between Dr. Brannon and Mr. Tillis reflects the larger debate going on in the Republican Party nationwide. North Carolinians will have to decide if they want to bring change to Washington or if they are satisfied with more of the same. 

"Those who know me know I'm a straight forward guy. Are they looking for an uncompromisable ambassador from the sovereign State of North Carolina, who will immediately join Senators Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Mike Lee by standing firm against all infringements by the federal government into the lives of North Carolinians? 

If they're looking for that kind of Senator, then I'm their candidate. This primary will give Republicans the opportunity to choose the candidate who best represents the conservative values we say our party stands for. I intend to be just as steadfast in challenging my opponent in this primary to walk the walk as I will my colleagues in the U.S. Senate. Mr. Tillis, welcome to the race," finished Brannon. 

Dr. Greg Brannon is a hard-working, dedicated physician, not a career politician. His entrance into politics is indicative of his life’s work: a desire to diagnose problems and provide practical solutions. He encourages conservatives who believe that our problem is a lack leadership and not a lack of compromise, to visit www.GregBrannon.com to learn more about his campaign and sign up to get involved.

Tillis is starting his campaign on a sour note, as he is currently being censured by the Craven County GOP.

Greg Brannon's profile is rising throughout the state, despite never holding public office. The February PPP poll pegged him at 5%, and the May PPP poll has placed him at 7%. Incidentally, Tillis earned 3% and 6% in those polls respectively.

Brannon recently announced his state House Party Tour, as well as his statewide Constitutional Government Coalition made up of many prominent Tea Party leaders.

He has the potential to be the next Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, or Mike Lee. All he needs is a little outside help and I believe he will take off. Republicans want champions of principle, not creatures of government like Thom Tillis.

(Below: Thom Tillis)

Rand Paul: You Will Be Voting To Fund And Send Arms To The Allies Of Al-Qaeda

Despite objections from Senators Menendez (D-NJ) and Rubio (R-FL), Senator Paul (R-KY) stood staunchly today against a bill which would arm Syrian rebels, citing the danger to Christians enjoying protection under Assad, and the links between the rebels and Al-Qaeda forces.

Intervention into Syria would contribute to further instability in the Middle East if Egypt and Libya are any indication, as despots are not nearly as dangerous as radical religious extremists. It would also contribute to the growing federal deficit which cannot not afford to grow any larger.

Observations on the Sanford/Colbert-Busch debate (SC-1)

The debate between the candidates for the seat of the 1st Congressional District of South Carolina, Mark Sanford and Elizabeth Colbert-Busch, was painful to watch.

First of all, the crowd was rowdy, resembling British soccer hooligans. And while both candidates had their share of supporters, the supporters of Colbert-Busch stood out as extremely rude.

This blog has endorsed Sanford, and it is no surprise to us that he ran on his excellent record without shifting his positions. Colbert-Busch, on the other hand, noticeably presented herself as a centrist in contrast with her true progressive views.

For example, after taking a tough stance on illegal immigration in terms of tone and words, she completely erased credibility by saying she would support the Graham immigration proposal, which only promises border security and grants citizenship to illegals.

Another example is in regards to Colbert-Busch's response to ObamaCare. While criticizing it for increasing costs on businesses, she then went on to support certain parts of the bill. What she did not mention was that those portions are policies which increase costs on businesses.

Colbert-Busch did a poor job responding to the outside money from liberal organizations pouring into the race. Her defense was all she could reasonably say, which was that she would not listen to special interests. That did not make it any more believable. By contrast, Sanford has been abandoned by national groups, and will not owe anybody anything if he pulls out a win.

Sanford successfully defended his record on port funding, Social Security reform, and school choice and was also able to rebut low-blow attacks in regards to his 2009 affair debacle. He was wonky and sincere, while Colbert-Busch relied on imagery and positioning. 

With the news that Rand Paul will follow his father's footsteps and endorse Mark Sanford, hopefully late momentum will propel him to victory and allow him to join the growing pro-liberty contingent in the House.

Here is the video of the full debate, below: 

Ted Cruz: GOP Senators yelled at the "top of their lungs" at Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee

Senator Ted Cruz, while referring to the recent Senate gun debate, claimed that established Republican Senators yelled at him, as well as Senators Paul and Lee, for upholding their oath of office and defending the Constitution.

As Cruz said of the Senators who feared political ramifications as a result of opposing the gun bill: 

"You could just not be a bunch of squishes"

Who are the probable offenders? Probably the likes of Lindsey Graham, Lamar Alexander, John McCain, and Susan Collins.

More on the internet sales tax

From the Wall Street Journal, an excellent Q&A on what the internet sales tax entails.

The Senate is considering legislation that would effectively end tax-free shopping on the Internet. Here’s a closer look at some of the many wrinkles in this complex debate.

Q. How did we get here? Why don’t I have to pay sales taxes now on many online purchases?

A. Under a 1992 Supreme Court ruling, out-of-state retailers generally don’t have to collect sales tax for your state unless they have some physical presence in the state, such as a store or warehouse. In practice, many online and catalog retailers do have a physical presence in a lot of states, so they already collect the sales tax. But the Supreme Court ruling has encouraged explosive growth in online sales by retailers that have few physical facilities around the country. That lets them avoid collecting and remitting the sales tax, giving them a price advantage over brick-and-mortar retailers. Some online retailers argue that they still have to charge shipping costs, so the advantage is reduced or eliminated.

Q. What are “use taxes” and am I supposed to pay them?

A. Use taxes are a complement to sales taxes; if you don’t pay sales tax on an item – for instance, by buying it from an out-of-state online retailer – you’re generally supposed to pay the use tax. In practice, few people do pay use tax on items that escape sales tax. And states don’t do much to collect them. As Sen. Dick Durbin(D., Ill.), one of the prime sponsors of the legislation, said on the Senate floor this week:

“In my state of Illinois, you’re supposed to pay it when you file your state income tax. There is a line [on the tax return], `How much do you owe for sales and use taxes for purchase, remote purchases, or Internet purchases?’…One out of 20 people in Illinois fill out that line. Here we have some 95% of the taxpayers in my state that put zero. You just know that it’s more than 5% of the people living in Illinois that are purchasing over the Internet, so this tax is not paid.”

Q. If my state has a sales tax and I buy from an online retailer in another state, what rate would I pay under the new legislation? And what happens if one of the states has NO sales tax? (Basically, how will retailers calculate the tax owed?)

A. Assuming the legislation becomes law, the rate you pay will be based on where the item is shipped. Generally, that’s where you live. If you buy something and ship it to yourself, and your state and local jurisdiction don’t charge sales tax, you won’t pay any. If you buy an item and ship it somewhere else, you pay the tax based on the state where the item is shipped.

Q. Why did Amazon start supporting the legislation?

A. The 1992 Supreme Court decision has created a legal environment where many big Internet retailers have avoided locating physical facilities – such as warehouses or computer servers – in high-population states that levy sales taxes, because it would trigger a tax-collection duty for that state. Instead, they tend to locate facilities in smaller states. For a long time, Amazon followed this pattern. But Amazon has started same-day delivery in 10 cities, and expanding the service would require many more physical facilities around the country. So if it’s going to have to collect sales taxes, it wants everyone else to do so, experts say. Amazon says it doesn’t comment on its future plans.

Q. Will smaller retailers/eBay sellers be at a disadvantage?

A. Many of them think so, even though the bill has a number of protections for them. It requires participating states to simplify their sales-tax systems, and also provide software and services to help businesses collect and remit the tax. It would exempt businesses with less than $1 million in annual remote sales from any tax-collection responsibility. But advisers say it still could cost affected small businesses a lot of money to integrate the new software with their billing systems. Small businesses also dread the prospect of state audits. They worry that the new tax responsibilities will create another cost advantage for big retailers that can afford to have big in-house accounting and legal shops.

Q. Is this legislation likely to pass, and why now?

A. It’s still unclear that the legislation is going to become law anytime soon. Many conservatives are adamantly opposed, viewing it as a potentially large expansion of state taxing authority and an undue burden on small businesses. That argument could have a bigger impact in the GOP-run House of Representatives, where the bill would go after passage by the Senate. Polls also suggest that many voters are opposed. That, too, could have a bigger impact in the House, where members must face voters every two years.

But opposition in Washington appears to be weakening. Some conservatives take the view that the current system creates an undeserved tax subsidy for online sellers. Republican governors also have taken up the cause of online sales tax, giving GOP lawmakers more political cover. The bill also draws support from many non-retail businesses who are worried about the continued impact of Internet sales on Main Streets around the country.

Q. What about these court precedents I have heard about?

A. They are still around, and it appears that even if some version of the Marketplace Fairness act passes, it would be challenged. The high court in 1992 said it would create too much of a burden to make businesses comply with complex tax rules for thousands of different jurisdictions. Opponents say the new protections in the pending legislation still don’t do enough to ease that burden.

Senators Coburn and Paul try to kill the bill:

 A handful of amendments drafted by GOP Sens. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Rand Paul of Kentucky to the online sales tax collection bill would have the effect of killing the entire legislation should it ever reach the House. While the underlying measure doesn’t actually affect federal income taxes, the amendments do change the tax code. Such measures must begin in the House to avoid running afoul of the Constitution’s origination clause. 

And watch Democratic (surprise!) Senator Ron Wyden slam the bill on the Senate floor:

Joe Miller forms exploratory committee for possible Senate run

Former United States Magistrate Judge, U.S. Army Captain, Tea Party favorite, and 2010 Alaska Republican Senatorial nominee Joe Miller has launched an exploratory committee in order to consider the viability of another run for Senate in 2014.

Miller, whose website Restoring Liberty is the second most read news site from Alaska, lost his bid for Senate due to the insurgency of Republican incumbent Lisa Murkowski, whom successfully mounted an independent write-in campaign to gain reelection. Still, Miller had a strong showing in the general election and finished ahead of the Democratic candidate.

In 2014, Democratic incumbent Mark Begich is considered extremely vulnerable. Alaska is primarily a red state, and Begich won on the pro-Obama/anti-Bush wave as well the fact that his opponent Ted Stevens was facing federal felony charges for campaign finance misconduct.

No Republican candidate has made an official announcement of entry yet, however Lieutenant Governor Mead Treadwell, who is firmly entrenched in the establishment camp, has also formed an exploratory committee.

Hopefully Miller does indeed declare and wins this time. We agree with him that:

We need a candidate in 2014 who will join reformers like Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz to confront President Obama, not one who will cut a deal to negotiate the terms of our surrender to his radical socialist agenda.

Run Joe, Run!