Bernie Quigley in The Hill: Rand Paul/Mike Lee 2016

It's nice having company in my excitement over Rand Paul.  Here is a post by Bernie Quigley in The Hill's blog:

We are at a sea change and two to watch at the quiet turning of the tides today are Rand Paul and Mike Lee, senators from Kentucky and Utah, who voted against the fateful "fiscal cliff" agenda last night. The century might start this year with them. 
...
Paul and Lee have added strength, maturity and character to the Senate since assuming office in 2011. They and they alone in the Senate have brought the Tea Party's passionate rants to responsible and effectively engaged government. We start again with them. Both should have their eyes on the Oval Office in 2016.
And Rand Paul in particular might consider a conspicuous trip to Israel, as all do who look to the Oval Office. It would clarify things about Dad. Because Ron Paul, who opposed the Israeli lobby's efforts and the neocon adventures in wonderland, was unfairly caricatured as an anti-Semite in his opposition to the invasion of Iraq. And Rand Paul would find kinship with Moshe Feiglin, the liberty candidate for the Knesset who opposed American influence in Israel since 2001. Feiglin's rise to the Knesset this month has already changed the culture and historical trajectory of Israel. Israel rises to a new phase and a generational shift this year and potentially America does as well. These two, Rand Paul and Moshe Feiglin, rise in the world together and possibly fate intends for them to do so.

Rand Paul: They Campaigned on Going After the Rich and That is What They Are Doing

Taxes may be going up on the rich as part of the deal but don't necessarily expect higher revenues or even any economic growth:

Rand Paul on Wolf Blitzer Commenting on the Fiscal Cliff Deal

He says we don't need more revenue, we need less revenue and a lot less spending. Right on!:

Rand Paul: Congress Can't Be Trusted With Any More Money

From his recent appearance on Greta:

Only 12 Senators Seem to Believe in the 4th Amendment

Rand Paul had recently introduced the 4th Amendment Preservation and Protection Act, which essentially just reiterated our 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.  Of course, it was defeated by a vote of 12 yeahs to 79 nays.  It's stunning how people have completely forgotten our constitutional protections.  If this is an example of bipartisan cooperation, I want no part of it. 

Just a reminder, here is the text of the fourth amendment:

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Seems pretty clear.  You can't just do a search without a warrant, which has to be based upon probably cause.  And here is the text of the key portions of the 4th Amendment Preservation and Protection Act:

Congress finds that the right under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures is violated when the Federal Government or a State or local government acquires information voluntarily relinquished by a person to another party for a limited business purpose without the express informed consent of the person to the specific request by the Federal Government or a State or local government or a warrant, upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 

...

 

The Federal Government or a State or local government may obtain, and a court may admit, information relating to an individual held by a third-party in a system of records if--
    (A) the individual whose name or identification information the Federal Government or State or local government is using to access the information provides express and informed consent to the search; or
    (B) the Federal Government or State or local government obtains a warrant, upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

ll seems pretty consistent right?  The government can't just snoop on you because it feels like it, not without probably cause and a warrant.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of the Senate doesn't seem to like the 4th Amendment and the Supreme Court is nowhere to be seen.  What's happened to this country?

Heritage Issue Brief - Rand Paul: Overcriminalization Chamption

Heritage, which is soon to be run by Rand Paul ally Jim DeMint, has come out with an issue brief on Rand Paul.  Here are some excerpts:

Since he was sworn into the Senate in 2011, Senator Rand Paul (R–KY) has consistently fought against overcriminalization, a term used to describe the use of criminal penalties to punish morally blameless conduct. Conduct that was not a crime in the past—and perhaps not a violation of any law—is now punished with time in prison.

 

Senator Paul has spent his time in the Senate educating people on the issue of overcriminalization, blocking legislation with overcriminalization elements, and proposing solutions to the overcriminalization problem. Paul should be applauded for his efforts.

 

...

 

In the early hours of the morning of September 22, 2012, the Senate was finishing up its pre-election business as usual, which entailed quickly passing several bills via unanimous consent agreement to keep the federal government funded. One of these bills, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2012, is much less pernicious than it might have been thanks to the work of Senator Paul.

 

One section of the bill, "International Fisheries Stewardship and Enforcement," was identical to a Senate bill of the same name (the International Fisheries Stewardship and Enforcement Act, or IFSEA) that likely did not have enough votes to pass as a stand-alone bill. However, "business as usual" in the Senate often entails Senators trying to shovel bills such as the IFSEA into other bills which are considered "must-pass legislation," such as the Coast Guard Authorization Act. In the end, Paul brought the Senate to a screeching halt to keep IFSEA from being enacted as part of the Coast Guard Authorization Act.

 

IFSEA would have added civil and criminal penalties for actions that are already penalized under 12 existing statutes. Existing criminal penalties would have increased from six months to five years in prison for simply catching the wrong type or number of fish. Additionally, IFSEA would have created an "International Fisheries Enforcement Program" and given the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) an additional $30 million per year to implement the program. NOAA has a history of abusive enforcement and has threatened fishermen, marine biologists, and others with fines and prison time in order partially to fund itself.[2]

 

Senator Paul's opposition to IFSEA was a matter of principle. IFSEA would have had little affect on his constituency—Kentucky is landlocked.

 

...

 

The FOCUS Act. The Lacey Act makes it a criminal offense in this country to import flora or fauna in violation of another nation's laws. Thus, under the Lacey Act, in addition to the estimated 4,500 U.S. criminal laws and numerous criminal regulations, Americans are now responsible for knowing the laws of foreign countries, even when those statutes are often written in foreign languages.

 

The Lacey Act has damaged the lives of numerous citizens. It sent one man to federal prison for six years because the lobsters he imported were a little too small, and he wrapped them in plastic instead of paper.[3] It also prompted federal agents to raid Gibson Guitar for the wood it imported from Indonesia.[4]

 

In response to these injustices, Senator Paul introduced the Freedom from Over-Criminalization and Unjust Seizures (FOCUS) Act of 2012, which would decriminalize any violations of the Lacey Act so that any violation of the act would be punishable with civil penalties only. This would, in effect, protect U.S. citizens from imprisonment merely for violating a foreign law that has no U.S. counterpart.

 

Special interest groups have kept the FOCUS Act from becoming law,[5] but Paul keeps fighting the good fight.

Courier-Journal: Hints at a Rand Paul Run for President

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the signs pointed to in this article are real:

Paul — a Kentuckian who has said he is considering a 2016 presidential run but has made no decision — is looking to make his first trip to Israel and Jordan sometime in the new year, he said in an interview. He didn't specify the date, citing security reasons.

 

He has confirmed meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli President Shimon Peres, as well as with several government ministers and members of the Knesset, according to the senator's office. Paul also is arranging meetings with Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian National Authority, Jordan's King Abdullah and others.

 

Paul said some critics have depicted him as anti-Israel because he favors cutting foreign aid, but he called that depiction a "misrepresentation."

 

"It is not my position to be against Israel," the senator said. "I'm appreciative of the fact that Israel is a democracy, one of the few true democracies in the Middle East, and I'm also appreciative that they've been a close friend and ally."

 

Paul said that foreign aid cuts "should start with countries who have not been good allies. ... I wouldn't start with Israel."

 

…

 

The trip to Israel is significant politically, said Steffen Schmidt, an Iowa State University political science professor.

 

"It's kind of laying the groundwork," Schmidt said. "Israel is a big, important marker for the Republicans, obviously. … Iowa evangelicals are very big supporters of Israel."

 

…

 

Paul, son of Rep. Ron Paul, the Texas Republican who ran for his party's nomination for president earlier this year, also has had some contacts with potential primary and caucus voters. The Kentuckian spoke at a breakfast in August held by the Iowa delegation to the Republican National Convention and has sent friendly messages to a Facebook page called "New Hampshire for Rand Paul."
The senator said he and his family will be part of a group of 50 to 100 evangelical Christians going to Israel and Jordan.

 

They include Brad Sherman, an Iowa pastor who headed up a group of pastors for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in 2008 in the first-in-the-nation caucus state; Tamara Scott, Iowa chairwoman of Concerned Women for America, a religiously oriented conservative organization, and former Iowa co-chairwoman for Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann's presidential bid this year; conservative Christian activist David Lane, based in California, who backed former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for president this year; and Chad Connelly, South Carolina GOP chairman.

 

South Carolina is an early primary state.

 

"That must be coincidence. I don't know how that happened," Paul joked, referring to the presence of those politically connected people.

 

He seems to be laying the groundwork for a run.  As one of the few members of the Senate who is willing to stand up for the beliefs of our founding fathers, he would make an excellent President.