Yesterday the House passed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, commonly known as CISPA, sending it over to the Senate for passage. The bill has been controversial – and rightly so – among many concerned about civil liberties.

The problem with CISPA was explained very well on Facebook by Congressman Justin Amash earlier this week:

If CISPA becomes law, a company (e.g., an e-mail provider or social media network) could provide terms of service stating that it will not share your personal and confidential data with the government—and then it can go right ahead and share your personal and confidential data with the government without facing liability or even having to tell you. CISPA overrides contracts and even federal and state privacy laws.

If you’re thinking that sounds like it might be a violation of the Fourth Amendment, you’d be right. Attempts to fix verbiage in the bill failed, and 288 members of the House gave their vote of approval on this piece of unconstitutional legislation.

The frustrating thing in this bill (beyond the aforementioned Constitutional violations) is that my Congressman, Tom Graves, couldn’t be swayed to stand for the Fourth Amendment.

Tom has a 5-way conservative test that he allegedly uses to evaluate all legislation. When I called his office this week, I stressed that this bill doesn’t pass his test, hoping that maybe he could be persuaded to oppose the bill. Graves supported CISPA last year, too, so his vote wasn’t a huge surprise, but it was a big disappointment.

Ultimately, though, Graves was just one of almost 200 Republicans unwilling to stand by our Fourth Amendment rights.

The battle with CISPA is far from over. I’m not sure it’d pass in the Senate, even if it gets to the floor for a vote. If it does, President Obama has issued a veto threat on the bill. (Kudos to him for being right on this one.) Still, yesterday’s passage of CISPA serves as a reminder that we’ve got a long way to go in our work of getting a Congress willing to stand up for what’s right.

Justin Amash first won my favor with his staunch adherence to the Constitution, and he further impressed me by taking government accountability and transparency to new levels.

With every vote he casts posted to his social networking profiles, Amash is actively and openly accountable to his constituents. I wish my Congressman were more like Justin Amash. I wish every member of Congress were more like Justin Amash.

Amash is, without a doubt, my favorite politician in Washington, and now there are rumors that he could be trying to move into the Senate. While I love the thought of Amash joining Senators Paul, Lee, and Cruz in the Senate, I don’t think Amash should run for Carl Levin’s soon-to-be-open seat in the Senate.

Amash was challenged for his House seat last cycle by a self-funded Democrat. His campaign was rushing for last-minute fundraisers to put him over the top for Election Day. Fortunately, the challenge from the left was not as much of a challenge as they anticipated, and Amash was able to return to Congress.

Amash doesn’t yet have the statewide name recognition (and the reputation that’s sure to follow) necessary to win in a statewide election. If he’s still at the point where he’s – as the incumbent – concerned about a Democrat with a pile of cash, he’s not ready to be running for a seat in the Senate.

Beyond that, he’s not exactly loved by the GOP leadership back home, and he’d have to spend a lot of his money to get through the primary election cycle. Primary elections can be brutal and expensive, and they’re usually followed by a tough general election as well. Without being a household name, Amash won’t likely be able to “Money Bomb” his way through the election process.

And it’s also worth noting that winning Michigan isn’t exactly a foregone conclusion for Republicans.

Though I believe it to be a bad idea to leave the House to make a run for the Senate in 2014, if he were to decide to run for the Senate, he’d have my complete support. How could I not support such a constitutionalist as Amash?

My hope is that one day Amash will be fighting for freedom and standing for liberty in the Senate, but for now, he best serves the liberty movement in the House.

It happens in every family at some point. Grandpa has been driving for so much of his life, but as he becomes unsafe behind the wheel, the kids have to step in and take away his car keys.

More often than not, he’ll resist. He wants to control his life, though he doesn’t see the danger he causes when he’s driving. The family has to step in with a bit of an intervention, and Grandpa has to be forced usual space in the driver’s seat.

The Republican Party is in a similar situation. Grandpas McCain and Graham are growing increasingly dangerous behind the wheel of the Party every day. They’ve been driving things in the Party too long, and their wreckless behavior puts the Party in jeopardy.

This is, of course, in the wake of what happened after Senator Rand Paul’s filibuster last week, but Graham and McCain have been out of control behind the wheel of the Republican Party for some time.

Recent quotes from the senators about Paul’s filibuster have been awkward and unusual at best. Referring to filibuster supporters as “wacko birds” and “impressionable libertarian kids” shows McCain’s senility. Graham called the filibuster supporters paranoid and openly sided with President Obama on the issue.

Beyond making silly quotes and siding with the opposition, Graham and McCain are trying to squash what Republicans now have that they have been longing for since before McCain’s presidential run: excitement.

After a lackluster eight years of President Bush, we’ve had two of the least inspiring presidential candidates possible. Nobody has been truly excited or inspired about Republican politics in quite a while.

And then on a Wednesday morning when nobody expected it, Senator Paul took a stand and ignited passion in the party.

The response from McCain and Graham? Disdain and panic.

It started becoming obvious to them that maybe somebody else was nudging his way into the driver’s seat – somebody with different ideas, somebody with a rational argument against the empirical tyranny they love so much.

Rand Paul caught Grandpa McCain and Grandpa Graham off guard. The best interventions, after all, are typically the ones that are unexpected.

It’s time for Graham and McCain to hand over the keys to the Party. Otherwise, the kids in the family will have to take the keys forcefully. The future of the Republican Party is at risk.

Hopefully Graham and McCain aren’t yet too senile to see the obvious or too proud to admit they’re killing the Republican Party.

Without a doubt, yesterday belonged to Rand Paul. The Republican senator stood his ground on the floor of the Senate for almost 13 hours, and he was supported by several of his colleagues.

While I don’t want to take anything away from Senator Paul – his stand for civil liberties was both courageous and heroic – there’s another senator due some recognition. Ron Wyden was the only Democrat willing to join Paul in support of liberty.

I’ve been in Republican politics long enough to know that when one guy abandons the team – even if in a move to do what’s right, he’s treated as an outcast. He loses the good committee appointments. People rally to find a candidate to challenge the traitor in a primary election. He gets tagged as being not a “real” Republican – RINO, if you will – and it takes a lot of time before people in the party forget or forgive his betrayal.

Rand’s filibuster yesterday was as a member of the minority party. Yes, he was doing the right thing, but he didn’t have to go against his own party and his own leadership in the Senate or against his own president to make his stand. (To be fair, I’m convinced that Paul would have made his stand no matter the circumstances.)

Every senator who came to Paul’s side yesterday was a Republican who could vocally oppose a president and his appointments without fear of punishment from his leadership. Every senator, that is, except Ron Wyden.

Stepping forward to stand with Rand Paul was no easy decision for Wyden. Party politics can be a tough game to play, but when the pressure was on and the decision had to be made, Wyden took a stand with a small minority and against his own party for what is right.

There’s concern in Rhode Island over the abuse of EBT benefits. With thousands of dollars in cash withdrawn from ATMs in places like liquor stores and bars, there’s almost certainly a bit of abuse of the system going on.

It’s easy to see the concern. EBT benefits are supposed to help those in need be able to buy things to help their family survive. There’s not likely anything for sale in liquor stores or bars that a family needs to survive.

Even in grocery stores, there’s a reason for concern. While someone with a limited budget should be pinching pennies in the checkout aisle, things that aren’t a necessity can be purchased with EBT cards.

People concerned about EBT abuse are calling for more restrictions and rules around the spending of that money. I think it makes sense to take some practical measures prevent abuse, though there’s a risk of reaching a point where the money spent to prevent the abuse exceeds the amount of abuse.

But beyond that, the solutions proposed for stopping EBT abuse are attempts at solving the wrong problem. The right thing to do is to help get them away from a reliance on government to provide grocery money.

In a perfect world, there would be no EBT system to abuse. Realistically though, these systems aren’t going away anytime soon, so we should do what we can to minimize the expense. The most effective way to minimize that expense is to help those who would stand on their own to do so.

It’s in his possession, and he feels he has a right to have it and use it as he sees fit.

He gets a sense of comfort from knowing it’s there.

He objects to government restricting his right to own it.

He could hurt a lot of people with it.

He could hurt himself.

He has to be careful to keep it safe, so that it doesn’t end up in the wrong hands.

He’s got a preferred dealer.

He’s got plenty of accessories to go along with it.

He reads articles about it on the internet.

He supports legislation in favor of it.

He posts about it on Facebook and Twitter.

He uses it recreationally.

He just wants the government to stay out of his business.

Is it a gun?

Or is it drugs?

The argument for gun rights is the same argument for ending the War on Drugs. Likewise, the argument in support of the War on Drugs is the same argument against gun rights.

Why would we want the government to ban one thing that has potential to do great harm while fighting to preserve the right to possess something else that also has potential to do great harm?

Where’s the consistency in logic?

I’m looking at you, Conservatives.

I love seeing a business owner taking a stand for what he believes, especially when he knows that his views could negatively impact his business’ revenue.

Recently Buffalo Wild Wings has gotten some press over signs on their doors that prohibit the presence of firearms. I’m sad to see this, because, as you may know, I’m a pretty big fan of the Second Amendment. (I support the right of any law-abiding citizen to carry any weapon he chooses anywhere he sees fit.)

People are calling for Buffalo Wild Wings to drop its ban preventing the legal possession of a firearm in their restaurants, much like there were calls several months ago for Chick-fil-A owners to reverse their position on some issues.

It’s important that we remember these people have a right to operate their businesses however they chose, but one of the wonderful things about the free market system is that consumers have the right to eat their chicken somewhere else.

I like Chick-fil-A. I eat there much more frequently than I should, but that has everything to do with the quality of the food they serve and nothing to do with their politics. I don’t really care for Buffalo Wild Wings, but not because of their anti-gun policy. I’ve found their food to be a little expensive and a lot mediocre. So I don’t eat there.

I don’t typically make decisions of where to eat on a restaurant’s political views. If I like the food, I eat it; if I don’t like it, I eat somewhere else.

The political views in question don’t typically concern me or my safety. If a restaurant owner is Christian or not, likes gay people or not, recognizes the New York Yankees’ infinite superiority in sports or not, or whatever else, it doesn’t really matter to me. I just care about the food.

But if it’s widely known that Buffalo Wild Wings is a gun-free zone, I risk my safety by entering because I firmly believe an armed populace is the best crime deterrent. People who choose to behave inappropriately with a gun do it where other people are prevented from having a weapon.

So is my physical safety worth risking for some mediocre, overpriced chicken wings? No, not even if the wings were good and reasonably priced.

I owe Saxby Chambliss a great deal of gratitude, for it was his actions in the Senate that drove me to become active in the political process. But my appreciation of Senator Chambliss doesn’t go an inch farther than that.

Saxby’s support of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) several years ago prompted me to get involved and launch FireSaxby.com, a web site devoted to highlighting Chambliss’ brand of phony conservatism with hopes of seeing him removed from office.

(The Associated Press interviewed me about the site; you can read that article here.)

Chambliss spent a big pile of money in a race that shouldn’t have been close. He ended up in a runoff election and beat his Democrat opposition to remain in office. That’s certainly not what I was hoping for, but I learned something very interesting about Saxby Chambliss that year.

Nobody likes him.

Sure, there are former campaign volunteers who remember him as a nice guy, and there are people who have known him for a long time that insist Saxby is a nice guy; but the average Georgia voter can’t stand Saxby Chambliss.

I’ve heard the same comments about Saxby as I’ve continued in political activism since then. People will accept him because he’s a Republican, but generally they don’t like him. He’s too liberal, too soft on immigration, too terrible on fiscal issues, too willing to raise taxes. That list goes on.

Not one time has anyone told me that they like Saxby Chambliss and hope he stays in office. I’ve been planning a very active campaign season for 2014. I’ve planned to spend every possible moment of the 2014 election cycle campaigning for Saxby’s opponent.

You can imagine my joy when I heard the news on Friday that Saxby won’t be seeking re-election.

The funny part of it is that he said it was frustration with Washington that made him decide to quit. The debt ceiling debacle, lack of presidential leadership, a legislative gridlock – these are the reasons for Saxby’s exit.

It has nothing to do with the fact that nobody likes him.

It has nothing to do with the fact that Georgians don’t appreciate him talking about raising taxes.

Or about being bipartisan with Democrats when they are dead wrong.

It has nothing to do with him supporting the indefinite detention of American citizens.

It has nothing to do with the big pork spending he loves so dearly.

It has nothing to do with the Senate Conservatives Fund (with Jim DeMint’s exodus from the Senate) now able and willing to target vulnerable Republicans.

It was Saxby’s frustration with Washington.

Really.

I guess when the going gets tough, the tough go back home to Moultrie.

Saxby insists he would have won a primary election if he had stayed in the game. Realistically, he’s probably right. He’s got access and influence and could probably buy himself another term in the Senate.

(That’s one of the big problems with the Seventeenth Amendment, by the way.)

He would have had a huge fight on his hands. A few Georgia politicians were already rumored to be mounting a fight against Chambliss. Saxby may have beaten them in a primary, but it would have been close and would have proven the point that there is a growing base of Republicans ready to reject lousy, no good senators like Saxby Chambliss.

But no matter his reason, he’ll be gone soon. His time in Washington can’t end soon enough. Let the celebration begin.

So long, Saxby. Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.

Rand Paul has had a couple of great opportunities to go head-to-head with some key Democrats this week. When questioning people like this, the objective is as much getting an answer as it is making the other person look bad. With that goal in mind, it’s easy to conclude that he did a great job with both of these instances of questioning.

First, he questioned Hillary Clinton about Benghazi:

Then he had a chance to ask John Kerry to explain supporting one unilateral executive declaration of war while opposing others.

My 12 year old daughter recently landed her first regular job. Once a week she goes to watch a little boy for a couple hours so his mom can get things done around the house.

She’s both delighted and very proud of her earning power. Plus, it will help her understand the value of money – and hard work – as she starts moving into her teen years. I’m excited. She’s excited. Everybody’s excited.

Last night she was asking me about inflation. Her question specifically was about the idea of minting two $1 trillion dollar coins and why it might be a bad idea.

So we talked about the increase of money supply, and I tried to explain it in a way I thought she could understand: baseball cards. Her favorite baseball player is Atlanta Braves shortstop Tyler Pastornicky, so I used him in the discussion.

I said “If there were only 100 of a certain Tyler Pastornicky card in the world, would it be worth a lot or a little?”

“A lot!” was her reply.

“So if I had one, what do you think it would be worth?”

“Probably at least $50.” (Please nobody sell my daughter your Tyler Pastornicky cards…she’ll pay way too much for them.)

So we continued the discussion, talking about how long she would have to work to earn the money for that Pastornicky card. And then I said, “what if, after you’ve already spent $50 for the card, the baseball card company prints 1,000 more of the same card?”

She got mad. And rightfully so. She knew that her prized baseball card would be worth a lot less than the $50 she paid for it. “But,” she said, “they don’t do that. When they say there’s only 100, that’s all they make.”

She’s right. The baseball card company wouldn’t want to deflate the value of its cards or ruin its reputation as a legitimate card company.

So I asked her, “What if there was more money? When there were more of that Pastornicky card, the value went down. Would the same thing happen if there was more money?”

She knew that the value of the money would go down, but she didn’t quite grasp what that would mean. I explained how it meant that the cost of her Tyler Pastornicky card would go up – that she’d have to work more to buy it next year than she would this year. I told her that’s what people mean when they talk about inflation.

She didn’t like the sound of inflation at all. People rarely do when they actually start to understand it.

So here’s what I want to know: if so many Americans can understand this, if economists can understand this, if my 12 year old daughter can understand this, then why can’t Congress?