Doubling down on a strategy that saw Paul make waves with a well-received speech at the University of California, Berkeley in March, the presidential hopeful just took a big step toward using the Golden State as a touchstone of his reformist approach. In a one-two punch, Paul used last weekend’s California GOP Convention to road test tones and themes of his presumptive campaign for president, then confirmed his plans for a new office in the overwhelmingly Democratic city of San Francisco.

Seizing an opportunity

Paul’s address to the state party convention took advantage of a political opening that is wider in California than many other states. The Republican agenda in Midwest or Mid-Atlantic states such as Wisconsin or New Jersey has been dominated by classic 20th century industrial issues like jobs and energy. Meanwhile, the personalities of popular but divisive governors such as Wisconsin’s Scott Walker and New Jersey’s Chris Christie have left little limelight to spare for other leadership figures on national tour.

The same is true of Texas, the other focal point of national Republican momentum. There, Gov. Rick Perry has consistently touted his state’s record on jobs and energy. Plus his own likely presidential ambitions have made the state inhospitable for competing contenders such as Paul.

What’s more, Perry’s own political strategy has availed itself of California in its own way — as a constant point of negative comparison. By pitting Texas against California, Perry has impressed many Republicans with the idea that the GOP can prove its mettle as a party capable of guiding large, diverse states toward broad-based prosperity.

For Paul, a quiet urgency has permeated his recurring, high-profile trips to California. In accordance with one of the simplest rules of presidential politics, Paul had to find and build a base of support — not just ideological, but cultural and financial. Despite his success in weaving his insurgent brand of libertarian conservatism into the fabric of the Kentucky political establishment, Paul had to set out across the country in search of a constituency large and powerful enough to leverage a presidential campaign.

That was where California came in. Unlike the libertarian-leaning Mountain West and Southwest, California includes large, wealthy and cosmopolitan areas where political influence is increasingly up for grabs. Although Paul used his convention appearance to publicly endorse gubernatorial candidate Neel Kashkari, Paul has clearly defined himself as a reform Republican with a pedigree and an agenda that differ from Kashkari’s.

Unlike Paul, Kashkari’s East Coast ties and Wall Street affinities have long run deep. Also unlike Paul, Kashkari has had little reason to emphasize the foreign policy and national security issues that catapulted Paul to national prominence.

At the same time, however, both Kashkari and Paul represent factions of the GOP that have quickly come to covet Silicon Valley support. Especially in recent years, the area’s tech titans have become increasingly disillusioned with Democratic leadership, whether at the state or national level. That has widely been seen as an opportunity for Republicans.

Importantly, influential Silicon Valley denizens have begun to split markedly on their own interests in political reform. While some seek to support corporate-friendly, status-quo Republicans, others prefer more free-market libertarian conservatives. Kashkari has set out to cultivate support in the former group, while Paul has focused on the latter.

Deep in blue territory

A key part of that strategy has required Paul to establish a physical presence within easy reach of Silicon Valley power brokers and potential donors. In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle conducted immediately after his keynote address, Paul described his acquisition of a San Francisco office as “in the process.”

He also took the opportunity to play up his friendship with web entrepeneur Peter Thiel, teasing a possible announcement concerning Thiel’s political support. “There’s a lot of smart people in Silicon Valley,” he said, “and we want to use their brains to figure out how to win.”

In another conversation with Breitbart News, Paul confirmed that a formal announcement about his presidential candidacy would likely come as early as Spring 2015.

Political and tech observers alike have agreed these are early days for a realignment of Silicon Valley voters. Nevertheless, the titans’ interest in GOP candidates and causes — and the corresponding dissatisfaction with the current Democratic administration in Washington — have created a stir in the fast-moving world of fundraising and interest group-driven electioneering.

Silicon Valley traditionally has been measured by its most outsized personalities, a habit that has now begun to work in the GOP’s favor. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg made a recent stir by hosting an event for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Now, libertarian-leaning Silicon Valley heavyweights have started to make regular political news.

Bold names, big headlines

Though venture capitalist Tim Draper’s Six Californias initiative has run aground, his activism has powerfully reinforced the idea that leading tech figures have given up on the status quo.

In another striking example, leading entrepreneur David Welch rocked California with his victory in the Vergara case challenging teacher tenure protections. Now he has decided to “fund and coordinate” a Vergara-like suit brought by the New York City Parents’ Union.

Then there’s Napster founder Sean Parker, whose financial support for Democrats has given way to a tide of dollars for Republican candidates. As Politico reports, Parker’s fire hose of funds was aimed squarely at moderate-to-liberal Republicans, especially those fending off primary challenges like the one endured by Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss.

Those spending patterns cut against the grain of other Silicon Valley fixtures like Peter Thiel. The PayPal founder’s brand of entrepreneurial libertarianism has been associated more closely with insurgent figures like Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

An ideological reshuffle

For California Republicans — and national Republicans who put racking up votes first — the changes have called to mind the old adage that beggars can’t be choosers. GOP officials have bemoaned the diminishing pool of swing voters in the Golden State, which has become a virtual one-party state.

The pressure has driven deep fissures into the California GOP, which has become sharply divided between pro-business social liberals and red-meat reform conservatives. Gubernatorial candidate Neel Kashkari dispatched with relative ease his primary challenger, Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks. But doubts remain whether Kashkari’s candidacy against Gov. Jerry Brown could flip enough Democrats away from sticking with the incumbent.

Developments in Silicon Valley suggest time may at last be on Republicans’ side — with implications that go well beyond California. As the liberal analyst Peter Lawrence Kane put it, “The best replacement to fill a Tea Party-shaped hole in the conservative coalition is the tech industry, whose place in the Democratic fold is starting to grow uncomfortably awkward.” Kane noted a “natural” alliance between Silicon Valley and the GOP could “lead to a wholesale reconfiguration of the American political landscape. … The party has performed dramatic 180s before.”

Longtime Republican operators have positioned themselves to welcome that kind of change with open arms. Even insiders who have cultivated conservative bona fides, such as influential Republican National Committeeman Haley Barbour, made a point to speak well of Silicon Valley’s not-so-reformist billionaires. Talking to Politico, Barbour suggested Parker liked how Republicans “had a plan that was indicative of the kind of U.S. senator that Thad Cochran is — somebody who has represented all 3 million Mississippians with dignity and class.”

The more Silicon Valley money pours into Republican coffers, the more likely Republicans could be to hear that kind of exaggerated big-tent language.

On the other hand, few have underestimated the anti-corruption movement spearheaded by the likes of Sen. Paul and Peter Thiel. Although they have yet to amass the cash reserves of the big business wing of the party — and its sympathetic billionaires — the reform libertarians have developed important inroads of their own into the Washington establishment.

Paul has met privately with both Zuckerberg and Parker. In what could prove to be even more portentous an encounter, Grover Norquist, the enormously influential head of Americans for Tax Reform, returned from his first trip to the quasi-utopian Burning Man festival with glowing reviews of its spontaneous, free-form productivity. The festival is dedicated “to the spirit of community, art, self-expression and self-reliance.”

“A community that comes together with a minimum of ‘rules’ demands self-reliance – that everyone clean up after themselves and help thy neighbor,” Norquist wrote. “Some day I want to live 52 weeks a year in a state or city that acts like this. I want to attend a national political convention that advocates the wisdom of Burning Man.”

With an establishment attitude like that, after so many years in the wilderness, the fortunes of California Republicans may change sooner than once imagined.

And no, it’s not a car.

Liberty is something we often hear about, but isn’t exactly a topic of discussion at dinner parties. If we don’t really know what liberty is, how will we know when it is taken away, or if it is being taken away? Unfortunately, it often takes tyranny to make liberty more precious.

The purpose of liberty is to allow human life to flourish. Are we flourishing in California and the rest of America in 2013? What will liberty look like in 2014?

Are Americans prepared to fight for liberty?

Government serves the people

John Locke, a 17th century English philosopher and physician, regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers, said government is morally obliged to serve people, namely by protecting life, liberty, and property. He explained the principle of checks and balances to limit government power. He favored representative government and a rule of law. He denounced tyranny. Locke insisted that when government violates individual rights, people may legitimately rebel.

Locke said the only legitimate governments are those that have the consent of the people. Therefore, any government that rules without the consent of the people can, in theory, be overthrown.

These views were most fully developed in Locke’s famous “Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government.”

Locke said that if, either through an abuse of power or an impermissible change, these governing bodies cease to represent the people and instead represent either themselves or some foreign power, the people may–and indeed should–rebel against their government and replace it with one that will remember its trust.

“All men are naturally in a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man,” said Locke.

What Locke identified are the three but interconnected keystones of a society of free men: Liberty, Rule of Law, and Legislative Power by consent of the governed.

The people work for the government

Americans are burdened by a labyrinth of government policies, procedures, rules and regulations. Our federal government, once limited to basic core functions, now dominates virtually every area of American life. States, local governments and municipalities, and private businesses are increasingly overwhelmed by federal programs and influence. And as government expands its influence, our liberties recede.

The Left has been engaged in a century-long attack on the first principles of America, the Constitution, and the culture that supports liberty and freedom. However, the Left, steeped in ideology and control, always eventually oversteps, and has done so once again.  The recklessness of government, and the arrogance of officials, appear to have finally awakened a sleeping giant, in a nation that has been too long asleep. Many Americans have been jolted awake and are beginning to recognize the imperative to save our Republic.

Compared to the Founding era, more and more power is now being centralized in the national government. Today, for example, many policies that affect local public schools are made in Washington. As creeping centralization slowly overcomes the Constitution’s federal design, the national government has begun to restrict the freedom of religion that is an indispensable element of the American founding.

The Constitution, the supreme law of the United States, is under assault. First Amendment speech rights are being challenged by Congress. Some members of Congress want to limit the definition of the press to only those who work for large, established news outlets. They want alternative media and bloggers quieted.  Yet the First Amendment is very clear: Congress cannot interfere with an individual’s religion or speech. It cannot restrict a citizen’s communication with others to form community by worship, publishing, gathering together or petitioning the government.

President Obama and the Constitution

In 2013, President Barack Obama targeted Second Amendment gun ownership rights, and tried to impose sweeping federal gun control legislation. It failed, but he and the Left have made it very clear, they will attempt this again. Yet the Second Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep their own weapons.

One of the most egregious centralizations of power in U.S. history was ushered with President Obama’s health care overhaul in 2010. The law dictates what patients must buy, what insurance companies must offer, orders employers to provide health care coverage for employees, and and what the insurance must cover. Obamacare offers no way out, and no choice. This is a staggering loss of liberty.

Religious freedom under assault

“Religious freedom requires that the government does not interfere with religious faith and the charitable works it inspires,” the Heritage Foundation explained. “If a government is truly limited, friction with religious institutions and individuals will be rare. Of course, occasionally, tensions between faith and state may arise even under a limited government. The Founders counted on these tensions to keep the state in check.”

While we still have religious freedoms in America, the Left continually wages attacks on religion, and specifically Christianity. And they do it legislatively.

Attacks on the Boy Scouts of America are based on the Scouts’ inclusion of religion in their scouting practices and oath.

Public schools across the country are no longer allowing school facilities to be used by groups with religious affiliation.

Catholics have come under assault for standing their ground on the Obamacare contraception mandate. Religious employers are going to be forced into providing contraception, abortions, and sterilization procedures to their employees.

A judge recently ruled that a bakery owner violated the law when he refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.

As government grows, liberty decreases

It was Thomas Jefferson who warned, “The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases. The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground.”

Jefferson also had plenty to say on liberty: “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

What will you do to save and restore liberty in 2014?

By Steven Greenhut

SACRAMENTO — A Sacramento area family is mourning the death of their mentally disabled son, who was shot to death by a sheriff’s deputy after the family had called the sheriff’s department for help in restraining him. Newspaper accounts suggest the deputy ordered the young man — a severe germophobe — onto the ground, which sparked intense struggling. After a tussle, the deputy shot the man in front of his family.

As is typical, the sheriff defended the officer and said that he was well within his rights to use deadly force, which is no doubt true given that current law gives officers wide latitude to restrain and even kill people. Comb through newspapers across the country and one will find many incidents of officer-involved shootings and aggressive behavior by the authorities, who, as an aside, increasingly look like paramilitary rather than community officers. Police say society has become more dangerous, but crime rates are falling even during tough economic times. The number of officers killed on duty is at record lows.

In my view, the reason for the incidents is the nature of policing has changed. Following the 9/11 attacks, officers have convinced themselves that every member of the public is a potential threat. Every local police department is awash in grants from “Homeland Security” to buy the latest toys and weaponry. Attitudes have changed and the local police aren’t your friends any more.

Calling the cops

From a practical standpoint, these incidents remind us to think carefully before calling for police help. From a policy perspective, it’s time for a wide-ranging debate about use-of-force issues that’s not dominated by police unions and their political courtiers.

This is from the Los Angeles Daily News this week: “Abdul Arian, the 19-year-old Winnetka man killed in a hail of police bullets on April 11, was buried Tuesday at the Pierce Brothers Valhalla Memorial Park in North Hollywood. … [M]any attendees who knew Arian expressed anger about the way he died, following a car chase through the San Fernando Valley that ended on the 101 Freeway … .” Arian is pictured nearby.

I’ve written about such shootings at the hands of deputies and police officers. Sometimes they are justified, but often the killings leave me wondering whether those officers would have reacted as they did had it been their child driving the car or their mentally ill son squirming on the ground.

Many people have been outraged at the tragic killing of Trayvon Martin in Florida and liberal critics have blamed those “stand your ground” laws that allow the use of deadly force by ordinary citizens when they are under attack rather than forcing them to retreat before defending themselves.

Such laws might embolden people, but I wish these critics — who insist on putting a racial tilt on a matter that has far broader implications — would also look closely at government-sanctioned use of force. If “stand your ground” laws embolden armed citizens, what happens when armed officials are given the broadest legal latitude to kill and also are protected by their departments and their unions?

Police officers sometimes have to use deadly force. We all understand that. It’s an oftentimes tough job. But we keep seeing the fruits of America’s slide down that slippery slope toward a police state: 6-year-olds searched at airports, armed police patrolling the halls of junior high schools, drones deployed over U.S. skies to crack down on crime, SWAT teams arresting the sellers of unlicensed raw milk, armed agents shutting down peaceful medical marijuana clinics, code officers and other regulatory agents granted the powers and weaponry of peace officers, trigger-happy police who seem to reach for their weapons before trying other, less-deadly alternatives.

We’ve become a society of checkpoints and searches and increased surveillance wherever we go. We have federal officials who monitor bank accounts and gain added powers to snoop on us, broad anti-terrorism laws that allow the authorities to detain citizens indefinitely without due process. Many conservatives applaud these expansions of power because of their concern about terrorist threats and street crime. Liberals applaud them also, given how eager they are to use government to “improve” our society. The more laws and regulations one passes, the more authorities one needs to enforce them.

Where’s the criticism?

Whatever happened to civil libertarians, who must be in hiding somewhere? Why aren’t Christians — who are more than willing to flex their political muscle on gay marriage and other issues — talking about the impact of these policies on the least among us, or thinking seriously about those in jails and prisons?

We’re creating a brutal and inhumane society. This is from a recent Los Angeles Times article: “A Los Angeles County commission investigating jail abuse heard tearful testimony … from clergy and civilian monitors who worked in the lockups and said they witnessed deputies assaulting inmates and bullying witnesses to keep quiet. One jail monitor broke down as she recounted being intimidated by a deputy whom she said saw beat an unconscious inmate. A weeping jail chaplain described deputies calling him a rat after he reported another beating.”

When officials misbehave so egregiously, it undermines our society and our form of government in deep and disturbing ways.

Ultimately, it is up to we, the people, to push the pendulum back in a more sensible direction. Since 9/11, Americans have placed their security over their freedom, but I’m sensing an understanding of the problem among serious people from all political perspectives.

When Americans think about public employee issues these days, they think about the pension crisis.

But as serious a problem as that is, the biggest public-employee issue relates more directly to who we are as a people and what kind of society we want to live in. We need to demand that the authorities behave more like members of our community and less like an invading army.