We Must Always Honor Our Dead, Even if We Disagree With Why They Died

I serve on the board of Honor Flight Upstate, an organization that serves to take our state’s World War II and Korean War veterans to Washington. We charter an American Airlines jet and fly approximately 100 veterans per trip to D.C. to see their war memorials. It is a day filled with patriotic fervor and appreciation of our military men and women. Recently, we decided to transition into also carrying Vietnam veterans on our flights. To me, this is the best decision our organization has made to date.

I love the Greatest Generation, and am so honored to have been part of eight flights full of these American heroes, but everyone agrees that World War II veterans are worthy of our honor and our thanks. Unfortunately, too many Americans still do not honor the veterans of Vietnam because they disagree with the policies of the war. As such, millions of brave Vietnam Veterans have never received the welcome home they deserve. Those American soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice in Southeast Asia also never received the outpouring of support they are due.

In the years that have passed since September 11th, 2001, many Americans have grown impatient and frustrated with the pace of progress in the war on terrorism. In their frustration, some fringe individuals and organizations have protested military funerals and memorial services. The heretical
members of the Westboro Baptist Church, which by no means represents the Christian community, have even gone so far as to picket military funerals with atrocious signs that read “God loves dead soldiers.” This kind of rhetoric is reprehensible, and ought to be repulsive to all Americans.

As we observe Memorial Day this week, we must mark this holiday not only with backyard barbecues, but with solemn remembrance of those who gave their lives for our freedom to have fun. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance,” this vigilance costs the lives of Americans in times of war. We modern Americans need to treat Memorial Day as our forefathers did before us, by honoring the dead even if we disagree with why they died. Memorial Day began as Decoration Day in the aftermath of the Civil War. It was called Decoration Day because Americans in the South and North decorated the graves of their war dead, in remembrance of their sacrifice. Union or Confederate, dead soldiers were honored and their graves were memorialized.

On this Memorial Day, we should put aside the politics of military campaigns that have cost American lives and honor those who have died for our freedom. It is truly American to debate political decisions and military actions, but we must equally honor those who died to make these debates possible. We must honor the sacrifice of our soldiers, even if we oppose the politicians who sent them to war.

God bless all who have given their lives for our country. God bless the United States of America.

The post We Must Always Honor Our Dead, Even if We Disagree With Why They Died appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

America Would Do Better to Arm Jordan than Saudi Arabia

A new attack on innocent civilians in Manchester, England ought to serve as a definitive wake-up call to the western world. In an apparent terrorist attack, extremists targeted little girls attending a pop concert in the heart of the United Kingdom. Security experts have said that the attack has “all the markings of a Sunni Muslim terrorist act.” That’s code for ISIS, the world’s largest Sunni Muslim terrorist organization. The terrorist army once derided as JV by Barack Obama has wreaked havoc the world over, and all with the financial support of many Sunni governments. It is past time for the United States and our allies to oppose virulent Islam in all its forms, regardless of sect.

There is a civil war inside Islam, from which America would do well to avoid becoming ensnared. In the world today there are two primary radical Islamist elements that engage in acts of terror: Shia radicalism led by the Ayatollahs in Iran, and the Sunni extremism advanced by ISIS and Al Qaeda. The Shia-Sunni divide traces back to a schism following the death of Muhammad in A.D. 632. A dispute arose between factions of Islam as to the rightful successor as caliph of the Islamic community following the death of their prophet, and the conflict continues to this day. While these warring factions of Islam resent one another, they do share a common hatred of America, Israel, and the West.

During President Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia this weekend, the United States sought to put pressure on the Shia regime in Iran by strengthening ties with Sunni Saudis. While this may seem like a smart move in the short-term, there are long-term implications if Saudi Arabia does not change. While Saudi King Salman and his senior officials do not openly finance terror, there are many members of the Saudi Royal family who have provided financial aid to Sunni radical organizations. As the conservative Cato institute pointed out as far-back as 2001, “The Saudi government has been the principal financial backer of Afghanistan’ s odious Taliban movement since at least 1996. It has also channeled funds to Hamas and other groups that have committed terrorist acts in Israel and other portions of the Middle East.” While we can certainly do with Saudi Arabia’s help in checking Shia extremists in Iran, we must be ever mindful of Saudi Arabia’s deep ties with Sunni extremists as well.

To better achieve the President’s noble goal of “cutting-off the cash flow” to terrorism, the United States would do better to sell weapons to King Abdullah’s Jordan than to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Jordanian King has fought radical Islamic terrorists of both sects, equally standing-up to ISIS and Iran. By supporting the Jordanians as well as the Israelis, the United States would send a powerful message toward governments of goodwill, and good behavior, in a deeply troubled part of the world. Radical extremists must be confronted no matter their sect, or the identity of their financial backers.

There is a dual war within the Islamic world: a civil war over theology, and an external war waged by both factions against free people. The United States must not engage in the Islamic civil war, but, instead, must defeat the threat to our civilization posed by both strains of extremism. When we arm would-be enemies because they are the current enemy of a worse enemy, we almost always regret it later. Case in point: the United States government armed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to repel the Soviets in the 1980’s, and by the mid-1990’s the Mujahideen had become the Taliban that harbored Al-Qaeda. The enemy of our enemy is our enemy if they espouse a radicalism all their own.

Radical Islamic terrorism must be defeated in all its forms, and the United States must align ourselves with true allies who do not smile to our faces while funding extremists behind our backs.

The post America Would Do Better to Arm Jordan than Saudi Arabia appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Betsy DeVos is Not a Bigot; School Choice is a Civil Right

The Left is gunning for Republicans who are including and courting conservatives of color. If you don’t believe me, just ask Betsy DeVos. DeVos tried to deliver the commencement address last week at Bethune-Cookman University in Daytona Beach, Florida, which is a Historically Black College or University. The Secretary of Education’s address to the graduates of BCU was hopeful and uplifting, congratulatory toward the students and appreciative of their alma mater. Yet, many of the students, who have since been lionized by the liberal media, booed her and turned their backs toward her during her remarks.

The media have portrayed the disrespect shown toward DeVos as noble and necessary, given her political stances. Since DeVos supports school choice and traditional marriage, the NAACP has called her a civil rights failure. Since when did supporting school choice and traditional marriage become a civil rights violation? The NAACP, of all organizations, should support school choice as a civil right, not oppose those who do as bigots. The very college at which Secretary DeVos spoke was founded during the era of segregation primarily because there was no such thing as school choice for African-American students who could not attend whites-only schools.

The Left has hijacked the phrase Civil Rights and turned it into a hobby horse to promote their liberal agenda. Any time a conservative, like DeVos, attempts to speak about free-market ideas and freedom to people the Democrat establishment takes for granted as part of their fiefdom, the drum-beat against them begins. Just ask South Carolina U.S. Senator Tim Scott how “inclusive” the left is when they do not get their way. Scott, a Republican, is the first African American U.S. Senator from my home State. He is a consistent conservative on issues from life to school choice, and he has been roundly attacked by liberal organizations for being a conservative. When Scott first became a Senator in 2012, the then-head of the NAACP said that Scott “doesn’t care about Civil Rights,” and this past winter when Scott cast a confirmation vote for Betsy DeVos, a liberal on Twitter attacked him with a racial slur.

As inclusive conservative activists continue to make inroads into urban and minority communities with a message of freedom and hope, we can only expect the shrieks of the left to grow louder and louder. Entrenched special interest groups like the National Education Association, one of the largest labor unions in America, view school choice as the Kryptonite to their forced funding stream; they will seek to destroy the reputation and dignity of anyone who stands in their way, regardless if they are a private citizen or the Secretary of Education.

Conservatives must not be be intimated and they should never cower. The cause of school choice is a true Civil Rights campaign, as millions of students, many of them minority students, are trapped in a failing single-payer school system. In the case of school choice, those shouting-down supporters of educational freedom as opponents of Civil Rights are, themselves, the true civil rights offenders. School Choice empowers parents and their children, regardless of race or creed. To say otherwise is a gross and self-serving misrepresentation.

The post Betsy DeVos is Not a Bigot; School Choice is a Civil Right appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Was President Trump’s Religious Liberty Order Worthless? Not in the Long Run.

On Thursday, the National Day of Prayer, President Trump appeared in the Rose Garden alongside social conservatives for a signing ceremony. After being introduced by social conservative champion, Vice-President Mike Pence, the President declared that the “threat against the faith community is over.” After the executive order was signed, however, the debate over its significance began. Leaders on the right and the left are asking if it really means anything or was just a giant photo op.

Trump’s order essentially consists of three sections: section I affirms enforcement of existing Federal religious liberty protections, section II states that the Administration is ordering the Treasury Department not to enforce the Johnson Amendment, which has been used as a battering ram to push pastors and pulpits out of political discourse, and section III directs agencies to consider re-issuing Obama-era contraception mandates that has been used to bully businesses and religious charities. While all of these items sound good to conservatives, they are heavy on symbolism and light on substance.

Section I just affirms those laws which are already on the books. That’s still an improvement over the Obama Administration, which essentially trampled religious liberty laws with its employer healthcare mandates and support of discrimination against Christian business owners who did not tow-the-line with the LGBT agenda. Sections II and III are good, but they effectively are a policy proclamation not a policy change. The Johnson Amendment would have to be repealed by Congress, which Congress should do immediately, and section III recommends a “softening of the blow” of the contraceptive mandates, which will be formally overturned when Congress completes is repeal of Obamacare anyway.

I am neither in the camp that loves this executive order, nor am I in the camp that trashes it. The mere issuance of a religious liberty executive order is an improvement over the last 8 years of the Obama Administration, and is a step in the right direction. At the same time, the Trump Administration must view this current order as a starting point, not mission accomplished. Following the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision mandating same-sex marriage, Christian business owners have been prosecuted for not participating in same-sex marriage ceremonies. The Cline family out in Oregon lost their business and were fined $150,000 for not baking a wedding cake for a lesbian couple who demanded it. The Trump Administration must protect the right to conscience for millions of Americans who hold deeply held religious convictions on marriage and the family. Religious liberty protections are not a license to discriminate; they are a shield against discrimination for people of faith.

I applaud the Trump Administration for taking a necessary first step toward religious liberty protections with the President’s order last week. As my friend Penny Young Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America, stated after the signing ceremony “I think it’s yet to be determined how effective the religious liberty order is, but if it doesn’t work out, you can bet we’ll be right back there asking the administration to go further.” I agree with Penny. This order is the beginning of great things to come for religious freedom in America, not the end of the line.

The post Was President Trump’s Religious Liberty Order Worthless? Not in the Long Run. appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

The Heritage of Jim DeMint

The rumored departure of Jim DeMint from the Heritage Foundation is a shot across the bow to Constitutional conservatives. My friend, the former U.S. Senator from South Carolina, is one of the key reasons that we have complete Republican government in Washington today. DeMint was Tea Party before Tea Party was cool, and he began the Conservative wave that elected Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Marco Rubio. By being a voice crying in the wilderness for freedom and free-markets, Senator DeMint embodied the effort to oppose the Obama Administration’s rush toward secular socialism. In short, without Jim DeMint, there would be no President Trump.

I remember distinctly standing on the steps of the Bi-Lo Center in Greenville, SC, in 2009 when Senator DeMint spoke to 10,000 South Carolinians who came-out to protest the Federal government’s take-over of healthcare. It was DeMint who, after growing frustrated with GOP leadership’s unwillingness to strongly challenge the Obama agenda, founded the Senate Conservative’s Fund to fund constitutional conservatives who ran in Republican primaries against moderates and liberals. As a result of SCF, Marco Rubio beat liberal GOP Governor Charlie Christ, who is now a Democrat congressman, Rand Paul won in Kentucky, Mike Lee took Utah, and Ted Cruz defeated moderate David Dewhurst in the Lone Star State. These elections helped move the United States Senate toward a body of conviction, not just of shallow political maneuvering.

When Jim DeMint left the Senate in 2012 to go to the Heritage Foundation, many South Carolina conservatives were dismayed. I was one of them. We had just reelected Senator DeMint in 2010, and were looking forward to 6 more years of his principled fight in the Senate. I am a friend and support of his successor, Senator Tim Scott, as well, but Jim DeMint was a hard man to see leave office. His rationale at the time, as he stated on my radio program, was that he could make more of a difference at Heritage than in the Senate. I respectfully disagreed, but supported the Senator nevertheless.

At Heritage, DeMint set-out to do what he said he would do as president: energize the conservative movement. Under DeMint, Heritage provided policy briefings and resources to every 2016 GOP presidential contender. Once Donald Trump became the presumptive nominee, it was Heritage that stood by him, helped him woo conservatives, and put-together the famed list of Supreme Court justices that included Neil Gorsuch. Such were Jim DeMint’s efforts that President Trump gave him a personal shout-out at last year’s NRA convention during the general election.

Now that rumors suggest that Jim DeMint is departing from Heritage, folks are trying to rewrite some history. There are tales of a combative DeMint who did not play nice with others, the former Senator who did not know how to be a CEO, and a political operator who hijacked the Heritage Foundation. From my personal knowledge of Jim DeMint’s character, this is all bunk. DeMint is a humble leader who knows how to build collaborative teams, who was a CEO before he was a Senator, and who moved Heritage to the next level.

If DeMint does leave Heritage because the Board wants a policy-wonk less politically active, they are making a tremendous mistake. Policy foundations are only effective if they can put their ideas into practice. There is no point in a think-tank that cannot translate its write-ups into reality. Jim DeMint did at Heritage what he has done everywhere else he has gone: he has been a conservative warrior fighting for the soul of America.

Don’t stop fighting, Jim, come what may.

The post The Heritage of Jim DeMint appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

City University of New York Hires Terrorist to Give Commencement

Most of us cannot imagine hating the President of the United States so much for his political positions that we would invite an enemy of the United States to speak at a conference. Yet, that is exactly what the City University of New York decided to to when it invited anti-Israel, radical Islamist advocate Linda Sarsour to speak at its commencement this year. Sarsour, who was a leading organizer of the anti-Trump Women’s March in January, is a Sharia Law advocate who has ties to radical Islamist groups and family members who are in jail in Israel for participating in Hamas terror attacks against Israeli civilians. So much for the free-thinking American university.

Public universities have become hotbeds of anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-freedom sentiment while calling themselves enlightened and progressive. It is more than a tad ironic that Saraour helped led the Women’s March, presumably because she thinks Trump is a misogynist, yet she supports Sharia Law, which basically treats women as the property of Muslim men. Leftists oppose what they claim is misogyny on the part of pro-life conservatives, while actually embracing the misogyny and bigotry of Islamic Sharia Law. What this invitation amounts to is a shining example of liberal intolerance of the Judeo-Christian Ethic that is the foundation of Western Civilization.

If there are any conservative students and faculty members at the City University of New York, they should be yelling at the school administration like liberal students and staff do every time a conservative gets an invite (just without the fire bombing and street riots). Racial bigotry, misogyny, and hate have no place on college campuses, which is why terrorist sympathizers like Linda Sarsour should never stand on stage at a commencement ceremony. American higher education has lost its way, and this invitation is just the latest example.

Parents should carefully weigh where they are sending their students, and their money. Many boosters and donors support their alma mater without asking what their money actually supports. Many schools that were once academic villages replete with learning opportunities and freedom of expression have become colleges with “free speech zones” that hire radical Islamic terrorists to speak at diversity day. Colleges and universities should embrace true free speech, equality, and inclusion, not just the pretense of these values.

The post City University of New York Hires Terrorist to Give Commencement appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

America Must Stop Trusting China to Contain North Korea

China has long dreamed of being the global power that dominates the Asia-Pacific realm. For decades, the Communist regime has worked to ramp-up defense spending, secure supply chains of natural resources from Africa and South America, and build man-made islands in the South China Sea. All of these efforts have been in the pursuit of one primary goal: to supplant the United States as the leading power in the Pacific. This reality is now the backdrop of China’s desire to be the diplomatic “go-between” between the United States and North Korea.

Presidential Administrations since Richard Nixon’s have looked to China to act as a check on the North Korean regime. Since Nixon’s famous 1972 visit to Chairman Mao Zedong, the Communist Chinese government has used North Korea as a geopolitical chess piece that keeps it relevant in global affairs. Since the Kim dictatorship began with Kim Il-Sung in North Korea following the end of WWII, with communist backing, the government of China has been the lifeblood of the regime.

China has kept the Kim dictatorship in power for over 70 years. Over 80% of North Korea’s food and foreign aide comes from China, which has staved-off a coup against the Kims. At the same time, China has assured America, and the rest of the world, that they are worried about the actions of the madman in Pyongyang. They try and have it both ways; China’s communist government enables North Korea’s recklessness, and then steps-in to tamp it down when it is politically advantageous.

This trend has been on full display in this latest round of North Korean aggression. As Kim Jong-Un has been test-firing missiles and threatening the United States, China has reprised its role as the power broker. It’s a tired theme that is becoming unbelievable. If China is serious about containing the threat of North Korea, they should cut off foreign aid until Kim agrees to abandon his nuclear weapons program. China will never actually hold North Korea accountable, however, because it serves a vital national interest to China: preventing the unification of the Korean Peninsula.

South Korea is an American ally. A thriving country committed to democratic ideals, free-market principles, and religious liberty, South Korea is a threat to Chinese dominance of the region. If the North Korean dictatorship collapses, and Korea unites under a free government, China’s influence will be checked. As such, China will never seriously pressure North Korea to end its recklessness so long as it acts as a check against China’s fear of a United Korea.

American policy must reflect this reality if we are ever going to actually neutralize the threat of North Korea. We should stop seeking Chinese intervention as the primary check on North Korea and, instead, pressure them directly by economic and military might. In order to check the Chinese communist party’s propping-up of this tin-horned dictator, America should reaffirm our commitment to Taiwan (also known as free China) as a check on communist attempts to unify China under communist rule. This will make the Chinese government rethink its dangerous triangulation game involving North Korea.

President Trump’s decision to send an “armada” to the North Korean coast is a strong and welcome step. This resolve must now lead to a renewed U.S. Naval presence in the Asia-Pacific realm along with renewed American economic leadership in the region. By reaffirming America’s resolve in Southeast Asia, while strengthening our alliances with democratic countries like South Korea, we can neutralize the threat of North Korea without playing into China’s plan for superpower status.

The post America Must Stop Trusting China to Contain North Korea appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Washington Hates the White House Budget Director, Which is Why I Love Him

White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney has the hardest job in Washington: he’s the guy whose trying to keep America from going over the fiscal cliff, and it seems that almost everyone is fighting him. The shrieks are the loudest in the Capital City, where last week Washingtonian Magazine ran a headline criticizing Mulvaney’s proposals that read “Proposed Budget Would Leave D.C. Area ‘Pretty Screwed.’” That’s a bit ironic given that most of the budgets coming out of Washington usually lead to the rest of America being screwed. Turnabout is fair play as the expression goes, Washington has lived-large off of everyone else’s money, and now the sky is falling when the White House actually cares about Americans living outside the beltway.

The sentiment expressed in the Washingtonian is one of the symptoms of what is known as “Potomac Fever.” Potomac Fever is something that infects most political insiders who spend too much time inside the D.C. Beltway. The disease gives its victims an unshakable belief that the capital is the center of the universe, and that government spending drives the economy. Government spending is the lifeblood of Washington, and it has made it near recession-proof for decades. Even after the financial crisis of 2008-2009, the Washington metro area continued to grow and thrive off of stimulus spending.

There is nothing wrong with any city or state being prosperous; we should want every area of our country to thrive and succeed. The problem with Washington is that it is too dependent on government largess for its stability. Too many members of Congress, and other government officials, who spend too much time in Washington start to lose perspective. They make the mistake of assuming that the prosperity of D.C. is a proxy for the rest of the country.

The Washingtonian piece, directed to members of a Congress, states that “President Trump’s ideal budget would have him overseeing the biggest reduction in the size of the federal workforce in more than 70 years. And cutting $58 billion from non-defense discretionary spending will likely have debilitating impacts on the Washington area.” This is a tacit admission that Washington’s spending addiction is driven by bloated domestic spending programs that are driving the country deeper into debt. The primary function of the federal government is to defend the homeland and provide for our national defense. Spending on art projects and cell phones aren’t critical to the country’s commerce.

Director Mulvaney is right to propose large reductions in non-defense discretionary spending. While we hear liberals hand-wringing about the loss of government jobs, where is their concern for men and women across the country who have been unable to find good Manufacturing jobs, or other jobs in the private sector? Where are their tears for families who are fighting to keep food on the table because government regulations and programs have put their businesses or their employer’s businesses out-of-business? Our national economy can not be propped-up by federal spending, and no longer can Washington’s.

The right pro-growth policies, which include eliminating Obamacare, repealing Dodd-Frank, cutting taxes across the board, and de-regulation will help all areas of America to thrive. Mick Mulvaney and the budget team at the White House are doing the right thing by thinking of the whole country. A Washington-centric domestic policy agenda over the last 8 years led D.C. to unparalleled levels of prosperity, while the rest of the country fought to keep its head above water.

The post Washington Hates the White House Budget Director, Which is Why I Love Him appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Why BRICS Are Bad for America: Inside the Effort to Undermine U.S. Predominance

When most of us see the word BRICS, we simply assume that it is a misspelling of the word for building materials. Few of us think of it as an acronym for an emerging alliance of nations seeking to subvert U.S. influence, challenge NATO, and prop-up organized crime syndicates. Nevertheless, the so-called Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South African Alliance has emerged as a significant geopolitical threat to the United States and our allies. BRICS is a Chinese-Russian led coalition that is quickly seeking to serve as an authoritarian counterbalance to Western Democracy.

Many market analysts have described the member nations of BRICS as an emerging economic block ripe with profitable opportunities. For those of us who study foreign policy, however, the actions of the BRICS alliance are alarming. Whereas member states of NATO, led by the United States, cherish the rule of law, democratic governance, and individual rights, the nations comprising BRICS are largely led by authoritarian and / or communist regimes that limit individual rights, stifle democracy, and do not adhere to free-enterprise ideals. In fact, many of the member nations of BRICS have economies in which a disturbingly high level of economic activity is derived from illegal activities ranging from money laundering to human trafficking. All the while, leaders like China’s Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin turn a blind eye to corruption and illicit activity taking place in their emerging economic block.

The United States must continue to strengthen its global leadership and economic predominance to check the emerging economic and military threat posed by BRICS. While America has been focused, rightly so, on dealing with the threat of radical Islamic terrorism in the Middle East over the past two decades, the Russians and the Chinese have appeased them and sought to enhance their power while America has been preoccupied. It is now time for the United States to rebuild our military predominance and reaffirm our leadership of the NATO Alliance, while enhancing our bilateral relations with nations like Israel, Great Britain, and Jordan. Counterbalancing the growing authoritarian BRICS alliance is in the economic and national security interests of the United States.

By creating a stronger pro-growth economic environment here at home, the United States can reaffirm its position as the leading world economic power. By rebuilding our military capabilities, particularly the U.S. Navy, we can continue to protect our trade routes and affirm our status as the world’s sole remaining superpower. If America is not strong, then the cause of freedom will not be championed. If America is not strong, then authoritarianism and economic collectivism will continue to make gains on the global stage. While I support keeping our country from becoming bogged-down in decades-long ground wars and constant military engagements, I do oppose isolationism that will allow our enemies to undermine our influence. Only through American economic and military leadership on the world stage can we continue to protect our homeland, ensure our economic vitality, and champion human freedom.

I pray that President Trump will “Make America Great Again,” and will use our power to protect our own vital national security interests by defending our deeply held values on the global stage.



The post Why BRICS Are Bad for America: Inside the Effort to Undermine U.S. Predominance appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

SC-5 Special Election Will Shape the Future of the Conservative Movement

We are at a crossroads of the conservative movement, and the path we choose from here will have profound consequences for the future of our country. The modern conservative movement has been defined by a coalition brought together by Ronald Reagan consisting of fiscal, social, and national security conservatives. This is the winning coalition for conservatives, and is the philosophy to which I personally subscribe. The Republican Congress will govern best when it adheres to this agenda that has endured for over three decades.

For this reason, I am closely watching a special election for the 5th Congressional District here in my home state of South Carolina. The vacancy created by Mick Mulvaney’s appointment to White House Budget Director has set-off a wild, eight-way primary fight for the GOP nomination. The SC-5 special election has become a test of the continued power of the conservative coalition, as the candidates run the philosophical spectrum. One candidate, Tom Mulliken is, in spite of Rick Santorum’s endorsement, an Al Gore Democrat who recently donated to Democratic U.S. Senator Kay Hagan. Two of the others are veteran members of the SC House of Representatives, both of whom are moderates critical of the House Freedom Caucus. Only one serious candidate in the race represents a consistent conservative: Chad Connelly.

Connelly is the former Chairman of the SCGOP, who recently served as the first-ever Faith Outreach Director of the RNC. He is a consistent, Reagan conservative who cares about fiscal, social, and national security issues, all of which recently earned him the endorsement of conservative champion Congressman Jeff Duncan. If Connelly prevails in his bid to become Mulvaney’s successor in Congress, I will feel good about the state of conservatism in South Carolina and the country. We cannot keep the conservative movement together if we do not equally continue to adhere to the three columns of conservative conviction.

As goes SC-5, so goes the conservative movement, and as goes the conservative movement, so goes the country. In order to preserve American culture, defend the free market, rebuild our military, revive our economy, and defend religious liberty, we need candidates like Chad Connelly not only to run, but to win. In the fight for the future of our country, there is no substitute for conservative victory.

If Republicans cannot deliver conservative reform with control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, then the future is bleak. The American People voted for less government and more freedom, and that is what Republicans must deliver. If 2018 comes around with Obamacare still in place, the deficit still sky-high, and taxes left untouched, then Nancy Pelosi will have her best shot in nearly a decade to reclaim the Speaker’s gavel. If a conservative warrior like Chad Connelly is elected to Congress, however, her chances will dim considerably. I pray the voters of South Carolina’s Fifth District do Freedom a favor by sending my friend Chad Connelly to Capitol Hill.

The post SC-5 Special Election Will Shape the Future of the Conservative Movement appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State