Professing Jesus Christ isn't enough in politics

Professing Jesus Christ isn't enough in politics.

It's too low a bar to hop over, no matter how authentic the statement.

Pro-life politics aren't enough either.

What's needed is a full-orbed Christian philosophy: one that understands foreign policy, monetary policy, welfare (not welfare statism), the role of the government, the role of churches (and private organizations), and the role of individuals and families, for starters, from a Christian perspective.

(The candidate who has the most of this is Rand Paul, by the way)

Rubio, Trump, Cruz, et al. have a full-orbed something...it just ain't Christian.

Same goes for Hillary and Bernie.

I write this mainly because I saw a few Christians get excited about Marco Rubio, who, quite winsomely, confessed Christ while speaking to an atheist concerned about Rubio running for "Pastor in Chief." I was very convinced of Rubio's authentic love for the Lord.

But Rubio's hegemonic foreign policy -- his neoconservatism -- is in direct conflict with the claims and aims of the gospel. And remember, the president is Commander-in-Chief. It's one of the few explicit presidential duties delineated in the U.S. Constitution. Who he believes should be bombed is a big deal.

One day the wolf will dwell with the lamb, and Rubio's vision veers away from that tremendously.

Say No to Rubio and the "New American Century"

The first thing I noticed back in April when Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio announced his run was the banner with the words "New American Century" in the background.

This is code word for a defunct think-tank by the same name which provided the intellectual ammunition for George W. Bush's disastrous Iraq foreign policy.

One writer describes the defunct Project for the New American Century as desiring and demanding "one thing: the establishment of a global American Empire to bend the will of all nations."

I agree.

The Project for the New American Century was a place warmongers turned to hear the intellectual justifications for their warmongering and hawkish foreign policy. This organization was started by neoconservative William Kristol, who is currently an editor of the neocon Weakly Standard.

Dick Cheney, Vice President under Bush II, is a founding member.

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is a founding member.

Not that Rubio is hiding hawkish views, as you might see in the debates, but his selection of "New American Century" is very telegraphic of the kind of people he would place in his administration.

The next thing I noticed was that Mitt Romney's former aides embraced him.

This should tell you all you need to know.

We don't need a Latino George Bush. Say no to Rubio.

Vote Rand Paul.

Reason #2 Why I want to see Rand Paul Vs. Bernie Sanders

Picture Courtesy of POLITICO

My second reason for wanting Senator Rand Paul and Senator Bernie Sanders to win their parties' respective presidential nominations is also defensive.

Hillary Clinton, the only other person to have a chance at winning the Democratic presidential nomination, will advance the Bush/Obama march toward war in the Middle East. PCR says Clinton will ignite nuclear war.

She is way too dangerous.

Trump ought not win because as much as I like his non-interventionist foreign policy -- he believes Muslim countries should take care of ISIS -- he is a buffoon when it comes to both domestic and international economics. He touts protectionist economic claptrap that has been refuted centuries ago.

He will aid in the destruction of our economy.

The latter criticism -- foreign policy and all -- applies to Sanders, too. But socialism was only refuted fairly recently in 1991. Democratic socialism, which Sanders advocates, clearly hasn't been refuted in the eyes of the public.

Read Rand Paul's Best Debate?!?

Get a free E-book on Bernie Sanders here.

Watch Senator Rand Paul discuss his Vision For America

Reason #1 Why I want to see Rand Paul vs. Bernie Sanders

Rand Paul vs. Bernie Sanders.

That is who I want to see going head to head against each other on the Republican and Democratic sides.

Both are the strongest candidates on each side. And, because I'm no coward, I want nothing less than the best to go against each other.

Paul is the candidate for peace and an economic recovery.

Sanders is the candidate for peace and exacerbated economic depression.

One out of two isn't good enough.

We deserve so much better than what we are getting.

Get a free E-book on Bernie Sanders here.

Watch Senator Rand Paul discuss his Vision For America

Rand Paul's Best Debate?!?

The always reliable American Conservative says that the fourth Republican Presidential debate was Senator Rand Paul's best.

This is great news. I missed the debate last night.

Just a few weeks ago I was ready to tell him to quit and save his Senate seat. I provided the above video as a rebuttal to the views of Kasich, Cruz, Rubio, et al.

On Paul:

Overall, this was Paul’s best debate by far, and he was finally playing the role that many people thought he could play in these debates by opposing some of the more ludicrous and reckless foreign policy statements from the other candidates. He pushed back on the hawks’ endorsement of a “no-fly zone” in Syria (though he erred a bit in later statements by saying Iraq when he meant to say Syria), and corrected Trump on the TPP. He had a crowd-pleasing line about that we shouldn’t “arm our enemies,” but if you didn’t already know that U.S. arms sent into Syria and provided to the Iraqi government have ended up in the hands of ISIS and the Nusra front it might not have made much sense. There was still not enough scrutiny of the hawkish candidates’ statements on their support for “no-fly” and safe zones in Syria, and none of them was pressed to answer who would be defending these safe zones on the ground. They were permitted to propose much more aggressive policies without being called out on it with the exception of Paul’s criticisms.

On the neoconservative Rubio:

Rubio showed off his reflexive interventionist side much more last night than he has in previous debates, and resorted to using the dishonest, misleading label of “isolationist” when he asserted that Paul was a “committed isolationist.” Besides being untrue, it confirmed how shallow his arguments against realist and non-interventionist Republicans have always been. As he usually does, he framed other states’ actions in terms of U.S. “weakness,” because he apparently can’t grasp that other states have interests unrelated to our action or inaction and will pursue them for their own reasons. He mentioned that ISIS has a foothold in Libya, but neglected to mention that he was a supporter of the war for regime change that helped make that happen.

Regrettably, the audience at the debate responded well to a lot of his rhetoric, but he makes it very easy for people to see him as a neoconservative factional candidate and nothing more. 

On Bush:

Bush repeated his line that the U.S. won’t be the “world’s policeman,” but that it will be the “world’s leader,” which for all practical purposes amounts to the same thing. 

He assumes that the U.S. has to respond to every crisis and conflict, and that if it doesn’t it creates an unacceptable “vacuum.”

On Fiorina:

Fiorina advocated once again for her program of needless provocation of Russia. Her position on a “no-fly zone” in Syria implied that she thought the airspace of all countries in the world rightly belongs to the U.S.: “We must have a no fly zone in Syria because Russia cannot tell the United States of America where and when to fly our planes.” 

On Kasich:

Kasich manically listed all of his bad and questionable foreign policy views at one point that included endorsing a Syria “no-fly zone,” embracing the Sisi dictatorship in Egypt, and praising the Saudis as “fundamentally our friends.” The first position is obviously dangerous, the second is misguided, and the third is delusional. Kasich also predictably said that the U.S. has “no better ally” in the world than Israel, which will come as news to all of the actual treaty allies that the U.S. has around the world.

Read the original article here. 

Thoughts and notes on Occupy Peace

On September 20, 2015, the Occupy Peace movement was underway in Kingston, NY. The Occupy Peace movement is an anti-war movement started by trends forecaster Gerald Celente.

There were a lot of good spoken gems.

I will not distinguish between speakers, but here are a few excerpts from an Occupy Peace article:

"Where do you start occupying peace? You have to start in your heart and soul. Even those bad guys who bomb and do horrible things — they're just unhappy and frustrated and confused . . . they're misguided and so they continue doing bad stuff."

"We should not be like them. We shouldn't hate them. We can be angry with them and forcefully oppose them, but not with hatred in our hearts."

"We should not be like them. We shouldn't hate them. We can be angry with them and forcefully oppose them, but not with hatred in our hearts."

One of the most dangerous positions a person can find themselves in is in a hospital bed, he said.

"The number one cause of death in America is American medicine," he said. Between 560,000 and 700,000 people die every year of preventable illnesses and conditions. Ten million more a year are injured.

The trouble is, anti-war sentiment and activities have become partisan.
Sheehan said she'd been "harassed" and criticized by a fellow leftist for attending the Occupy Peace rally and somehow undermining the anti-war movement "by consorting with libertarians and with Ron Paul people." 

"First of all, I told this guy "what anti-war movement are you talking about?"
I'll go anywhere, I'll speak to anybody, as long as they are saying crush the empire." 

She, like Null, was critical of liberal Democrats in power:

"I can guarantee you, if Romney had won, if McCain had won, and they were doing what Obama is doing, there would be millions of people in the streets."
She said she agreed with Gerald Celente that the country needs a peace movement "with teeth," but one that remains non-violent. 

"It's been really lonely since Obama became president," she said. "It's because the anti-war movement is mostly partisan. They make excuses for their leaders instead of demands. So they're not comfortable with me, because I make the same demands on the Obama regime that I made on the Bush regime. And I'll do the same to the next regime until people of good conscience, revolutionaries like us, take over our communities."

"Less than one percent can turn this country around," he said. It was a point he made repeatedly throughout his hour-long presentation.

When it comes to modern weaponry, Nader said "enough is never enough" for the country's major armaments contractors.

He gave as an example a single Trident submarine, armed with multiple warhead missiles, could vaporize within 35 minutes 200 cities in a nuclear strike.

And when it comes to fighting terrorism, the U. S. is recruiting more converts to the Taliban and ISIS than they can convert themselves. What started off as a handful of men in Northeastern Afghanistan has grown to tens of thousands of fighters after the U.S.'s relentless insistence on bombing suspected terrorists, which have included thousands of innocent civilians.

"They call it 'blowback," Nader said. 

Nader urged the crowd to follow up on the rally by doing what earlier war resisters did — gather in living rooms and talk about what could be done.

Read the rest here

Judging from the footage, what was lacking from this crowd was youth. Not one speaker was young.

Yet this is supposed to gain ground as a national movement.

Judging by the photos and video, a lot of grey hairs were in attendance. This is concerning because a long-lasting movement usually has a lot of youth involved. The people in attendance at this rally don't have that many years. They are going to have to pass on their values to their adult children or else the movement suffers. In contrast, Black Lives Matters is filled with the youth. It will be around for a long time; at least as long as it needs to exist to accomplish its goal.

Luckily for Occupy Peace, people are more anti-war than ever before.

Let's call it, "social empiricism." Or "foreign policy empiricism."

We've seen war presented as a solution before and it doesn't work. The high mark of this anti-war sentiment was the Obama election, which was an outright rejection of the Bush presidency, foreign policy, and all. Apparently, this turned out to be only a rejection of Republican foreign policy, as evidenced by Obama supporters silence on the president's current agitations overseas.

However, because Americans loved him, and trusted him, Barack Obama successfully furthered the Bush agenda in many ways, and did what George Bush could not do on the foreign policy front. But he also did at least one thing that I couldn't imagine the neoconservatives let happen under a Bush Presidency: Obama made the Iran Deal. But now he is putting  "boots on the ground" in Syria to fight ISIS.

I see no crowds in the streets.

So for the most part, at the time, the same people who opposed the Iraq War are largely the same people who supported Barack Obama -- and he pacified their anti-war sentiments.

I hope that the election of a Democrat won't do the same next time around.

We know that the election of any Republican minus Rand Paul would continue to Bush foreign policy, even if having an improved economic policy.

So as Celente plans on having Occupy Peace chapters in each state, or something to that effect, then maybe we will see more youth join, because people are generally desire peace now (there's a poll on Reason.com waiting to be cited and inserted here).

I would like to see some Christian speakers at these rallies. Someone with some Christian bona fides. Someone mainstream opposing the American Empire. But a large number of conservative Christian twenty and thirty somethings would do the trick as well. It ought not be just one person. But an exegetical case against the war will have to be made.  The ultimate authority for the Christian is God's word, and it ought to be shown that 21st century foreign policy has been godless.

If this happens, if someone from the Christian right -- because conservative Christians are generally known to have a high view of scripture -- makes a solid case against war, then perhaps the Christian right, as awful as it is to write those words, should reach out to the Christian left, which certainly still exists. Whether the Christian left grabs the right's hand is of concern, but what would matter more is that the Christian right are on the right side of history.

Christians could become chapter leaders. The doors are wide open.

My only concern would be Occupy Peace's plank to give troops jobs to rebuild America's infrastructure.

But I guess this is beating something (jobs abroad fighting unnecessary wars) with something (jobs at home), versus nothing (no jobs at all for troops).

Fine, but I hope this is isn't too costly (lol).

Christians could just start their own anti-unbiblical war movement if Occupy Peace planks cause too much friction.

But J. Gresham Machen was once asked what the Church should do about the Great Depression.

His response: Preach the Gospel.

Perhaps if he lived long enough to be asked the question of the what the Church should do about World War II, he would have answered the same.

New Horizons quotes Machen:

This, then, is the answer that I give to the question before us. The responsibility of the church in the new age is the same as its responsibility in every age. It is to testify that this world is lost in sin; that the span of human life—nay, all the length of human history—is an infinitesimal island in the awful depths of eternity; that there is a mysterious, holy, living God, Creator of all, Upholder of all, infinitely beyond all; that He has revealed Himself to us in His Word and offered us communion with Himself through Jesus Christ the Lord; that there is no other salvation, for individuals or for nations, save this, but that this salvation is full and free, and that whosoever possesses it has for himself and for all others to whom he may be the instrument of bringing it a treasure compared with which all the kingdoms of the earth—nay, all the wonders of the starry heavens—are as the dust of the street.

An unpopular message it is—an impractical message, we are told. But it is the message of the Christian church. Neglect it, and you will have destruction; heed it, and you will have life.

The only person to come close to this kind of response in the Occupy Peace movement is the Buddhist scholar. Something deeper is at work here that the Buddhist scholar can't touch. And the solution is something that Buddha can't provide. It's the hearts of men that are out of whack. It's the gospel that brings peace. Christian nations don't place in power people who hate peace. Gospel people don't place in power people who believe the gospel of nation-building. It's just another form of collectivism.

So in light of Machen's comments, perhaps Christians should stay away from Celente's movement. I think they should.

As of right now, judging my Mr. Celente's flippant and religiously irreverent closing remarks, he doesn't care about who Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha are. But who they are certainly matters to the movement. Nothing -- not war, not the presidency, not science, not race, not peace -- is out of the scope of true religion.

Christianity is cosmic.

Visit the Occupy Peace website

On Free Water, Free Tuition, Free Healthcare, Bernie Sanders, and Rand Paul

Get a free E-book on Bernie Sanders here.

I was at an event last night and a speaker said something to the effect of "Only in America" -- or let's say under capitalism -- do they make you pay for something free like water, as she sipped her bottled water... 

… bottled water that has been contained with machinery, filtered, and bottled -- among a host of other things -- by human beings.

…bottled water that was at one time in a river, or lake, or mountain, or spring, or wherever they get water from (the beauty of the division of labor in free-market capitalism is that I don't have to know that stuff).

In part, she wanted specialized knowledge to be free.

Deer Park employees, among the many other water companies' employees, are people who wake up every day provide a vital product to the billions of people who chose not to be in the water business. Numbers of trucks which run on un-free gasoline deliver this vital source for life every single day to the market place.

Gone are the days of carrying a pail of water to the river, scooping up as much water as you can, and carrying it back to the hut village. Gone are the days of getting water from the well.

The water companies have gotten so good at this that they provide water in different sizes -- from little bottles that can fit in your palm, to bigger bottles that be put on water coolers; these bottles come in size swig, saturate, and submerge. Gone are the days of size pail and bucket.

They have gotten so good at it that water comes with flavor.

And yet they want this to be free.

Fine, I'll grant you, but only for the sake of the argument, that water is free. What I won't grant you is that the labor should be free. Further, I know that you won't either.

Much of that was my immediate thought but I didn't say anything. It wasn't the right forum. It would have taken the event over the allotted time. The only thing I thought in addition to that is that working for free involuntarily is what we used to call slavery. 

But I know what they mean: Whether it is free school or free water, advocates will say workers will get paid through taxes. But that only pushes the involuntary labor to the taxpayers.

Why should I involuntarily use my labor to pay for someone else's stuff?

That is an ethical problem for Democratic Socialists.

But I want to put another thorn in the side of Democratic Socialists.

Going back to the subject of water companies, why should someone like Coca-Cola, the Dasani water owners, be mandated by the government to operate a large part of their company for F-R-E-E.

Am I shifting definitions? Don't I know that Democratic Socialists would, through taxpayer dollars, pay a company to operate their water business.

Oh, so you want to get into subsidizing big businesses and corporations. Gee, I thought that was what you were protesting in the first place.

But let's take it one step further. Why should we think of only existing businesses as free providers of this vital product? Why not apply our thinking to future entrepreneurs? The little guy. Should the little guy provide this service F-R-E-E?

Should we subsidize the little guys future water business? Should he not operate by profit-and-loss to judge the success of his business?

Rand Paul had a similar experience.

He was asked a question about Bernie Sanders' solution to Social Security.

I like Rand Paul's answer. He admits up front that you are not going to like his solution. Furthermore, he gives the alternative: He can pretend like everything is okay and promise you everything you want and destroy the country in the process.

By destroying the country, he probably means destroying our dollar through hyperinflation. The Federal Reserve would have to create so much money that our dollar would become worthless.

Democratic socialists, like Bernie Sanders, would solidify our economic doom.

[Editor's Note: Regular readers of this blog should know that I was coming up with a "Why You Should Not Vote For Bernie Sanders" series. 

The reason I am doing this is because a number of my (young) friends are falling for the rhetoric and promise of Democratic Socialism. It (often rightly) rails against big business.  It (almost) never rails against the government framework which made big business possible. 

It is embodied in the persons of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Unfortunately, they're both wrong.

My posts will be informed by the Thomas Woods' new E-book Bernie Sanders is Wrong, other informed economic articles, and my personal reflection, as was the case with the first post above.

This is Part 1 of many…and I mean many.]

Rand Paul: We should keep talking to Iran

On the September 16, 2015 CNN Republican Presidential Debate:

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says that we should keep talking to Iran.

His statement was in response to being asked whether President Obama's upcoming meeting with Chinese officials should be canceled.

He also noted that those who would have cut off dialogue with foreign leaders are isolating the U.S. from international discussion.  Paul's foreign policy has been called "isolationist," so he was, in fact, pointing out the irony of those who call him isolationist are themselves just that.

Paul also wondered what would have happened if Ronald Reagan stopped talking to Gorbachev during the Cold War.

He also said that every time the U.S. government topples a secular dictator in the Middle East that there is backlash and unintended consequences.

Picture: Relic from the Ron Paul 2012 Campaign

Definitely one of the most exciting campaigns in recent history -- a game-changer in terms of shifting public opinion towards a freedom-oriented philosophy. Two years passed and one thing is for sure: the Paulian influence on public policy is here to stay.

Click the picture to see one of the most brilliant economic plans in history for the United States of America from Dr. Ron Paul.

Senator Rand Paul has issued his own budget each year. Click here to see the latest one.

It is inferior to his father's plan on many levels (Ron's plan balances the budget in 3 years. Rand's plan balances the budget in 5 years. Ron eliminates and lowers taxes. Rand's introduces a new tax, the flat tax, a regressive tax that will raise taxes on the poor (bad) and lower taxes for the wealthier (good).

But since Ron's plan is politically irrelevant -- unless Rand will in the unlikely event ditches his own and embraces his father's -- there are many good things to say about the Rand Paul.

According to a FreedomWorks analysis of Rand's 2013 plan and a few others' plans, the public debt will be $12.0 trillion in ten years from the plans implementation, which almost takes us back to the Bush II years-size debt.

Obama No George W. Bush on Drones

President Obama is reported to have said last Tuesday during a private meeting with the Senate Democratic Conference that he is no Dick Cheney on drones -- and according to data compiled by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism he isn't quite George W. Bush either.

The London-based TBIJ reports that under President Obama CIA drones strikes in tribal parts of Pakistan have occurred at a rate six times faster than his predecessor George W. Bush in parts of Pakistan, as of December 2012. That rate was about once every five days during his first term.

From 2004 to 2013, there were 365 drone strikes. Out of those, 313 were under the Obama administration.

Under President Obama, 2,152 people were reported killed, of whom 290 were civilians. By contrast, 438 people were killed under President Bush, of whom 182 were civilians.

Under Bush, more children were killed by drone strikes (112) than under Obama (64) in his first term.

The 300th drone strike occurred under President Obama in early December 2012. The first drone strike to occur under his watch was just three days into his presidency, which is reported to have killed 12 civilians. Ironically, President Obama was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize not long afterward. Submissions for the Nobel Peace Prize were due by Feb. 1, 2009 -- just days into the Obama first term.

The Dick Cheney reference was reportedly a reference to the the lack of oversight under his predecessor's administration.

"This is not Dick Cheney we're talking about here," according to two Senators who POLITICO reports did not want to be named. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) is reportedly to have brought the issue to the President, and the President assured Democratic Senators that he's more open to transparency than Bush.

Numerous Democratic lawmakers on both the House and the Senate side of Congress have recently demanded more information from the White House on the administration's drone policy.

Last week, eight House Democrats led by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) sent a letter to President Obama asking for more details on the administration's drone policy.

On the Senate side, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) voted against the confirmation of Obama's now-CIA Director John Brennan, for not releasing legal memos pertaining to drones. Rockefeller himself raised the issue in a hearing last week as well, as POLITICO reports.

And of course, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) raised the issue of drones strikes on American citizens in a historic filibuster earlier in March.

Harry Reid Must Talk With Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke Before Considering Fed Audit

Washington (CNSNews.com) – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he would have to have a “real serious conversation” with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke before he considers bringing the Federal Reserve Transparency Act to the Senate Floor.
......

As CNSNews.com previously reported , Reid was once a strong supporter of auditing the Federal Reserve System - in 1995. Then being discussed was then-Senator Bryon Dorgan’s (D-N.D.) amendment that would have required the Federal Reserve to a prepare a report to Congress and disclose the financial impact of changing interest rates on the public and private sector.

In 1995 Reid went into great detail about how the Federal Reserve wasn’t talked about enough, how it not only affects the federal government because of the money it borrows but also the private sector because “higher interest rates effect everybody,” and how he’s called for an audit of the Federal Reserve System and offered “that amendment every year.”

“Every year the legislation gets nowhere,” Reid said in 1995. “I think it would be interesting to know about the Federal Reserve. I think we should audit the Federal Reserve.”

Reid: I’d Have a 'Serious Conversation' with Bernanke Before Considering Fed Audit | CNS News

Sen. Paul: DISCLOSE Act 'Lopsided towards' Republican-leaning Donors; Away from Unions

Washington (GoinsReport.com) -- Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told The Goins Report on Monday that the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act of 2012, otherwise known as the DISCLOSE Act, in his office's analysis of the legislation is lopsided against people who tended to be Republican donors and shied away from union donors.

"In our analysis of the bill we felt like it was lopsided towards certain people that tended to be more republican donors and away from certain donors like union donors on the other side," Paul said.

"What I’ve proposed we ought to do, and I’ve talked to some of the Democrats about this, is the way to reform campaign finance would be, if you want to do it constitutionally, would be to link restrictions to federal contracts. So if you do business with the government and I give you a $100 million contract, I think we can legally restrict your activities by the contract. Because then you voluntarily sign the federal contract and we limit what you do. Anything other than that, unless its related to a contract, is a restriction of first amendment [rights] and I think its wrong," he continued.

While Paul voted against the DISCLOSE act on Monday, he did say that he is in favor of "some kind of campaign finance reform."

"I am for disclosing information," Paul told The Goins Report.

When asked whether he agreed with Senator Paul's view on the lopsidedness if the DISCLOSE act, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) expressed a similar view.

"It’s hard to get the ACLU and the NRA on the same sheet of music but they’re able to do it. It’s a bill that gives unions a preference when it comes to the DISCLOSE act and it was obviously not the solutions to the problems we face as a nation," Graham said.

The Goins Report further asked Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) whether he agreed with Senator Paul's view of the DISCLOSE act. His answer departed from his Republican Senate colleagues.

“I don’t think so at all. Matter a fact, I don’t know the numbers but I think before you can say that you got to go say, what’s the registration of all the top 200,000 tax filers in this country. And that’s the only way you’ll know that," Coburn said.

The DISCLOSE act was voted on early Monday evening in the Senate and was not passed with 54-44 vote. The bill needed at least 60 votes to pass.

The Senate is expected to vote again on the bill Tuesday afternoon (July 17).

Sen. Rand Paul: ‘I’m Free!’ | CNSnews.com

(CNSNews.com) – After being stopped earlier today by TSA officials at the airport in Nashville, Tenn., Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a strong critic of TSA procedures, was interviewed on the radio where he declared, “I’m free. I’ve been released on my own recognizance.” He also, half-jokingly added, “You don’t want to travel with me either, I don’t know, I might be a magnet for problems.”

Sen. Rand Paul: ‘I’m Free!’ | CNSnews.com

Video: Sen. Rand Paul Questions Treasury Sec. Tim Geithner at Hearing - 10/18/11

Video: Sen. Rand Paul on Consumer Choice in Energy Committee Hearing

Classic.