Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and Apple both seem to understand the marketplace.

Apple is betting bipartisan concern about intrusive government snooping will help sell phones, and Paul is creating a pretty impressive presidential campaign based on the same play.

Apple and Google have rolled out new default encryption technologies on their latest phones that even the companies would not be able to unlock. This means the companies would not be able to comply with court orders to turn copies of their customer's communications over to law enforcement. In what seems to be a coordinated counter, FBI Director James Comey and NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton fired back about the challenge this would pose to the legitimate needs of law enforcement.

...
Specifically, Paul is courting the same demographic Apple and Google aimed at with their new encrypted phones. He's looking to build a White House bid with his own new age coalition of privacy-concerned, party-non-aligned, previously non-voting, SOPA-hating, pot-tolerant youth.

Good step for bitcoin.
more companies accept BTC = more people will buy it.
but, whether does not rule out the possibility that more people who will sell it?

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) argued that the "abomination" omnibus bill was "a chance to see if electing Republicans made a difference" on Tuesday's "Laura Ingraham Show."

"I'll vote no to any kind of 2,000 page bill that I'm given at the last minute that we don't have time to read, it's an abomination, nobody should support a Congress that stuffs all the spending into one bill, nobody reads it, there are no reforms, no amendments, and it really is probably why Congress has about a 10% approval rate because this is not doing our job" he declared.

Paul added that when the GOP takes the majority it should pass separate appropriations bills, and "this will be a chance to see if electing Republicans made a difference in January and for the next nine or ten months. If Republicans actually do their job and pass every appropriation bill then I think the American people will stand up, applaud and elect more Republicans."
...

This argument is exaggerated. Sure some potential child kidnappers may be able to get away with their crimes, however they would probably not have evidence of such on their phones had it not been for encryption on Apple's iPhones.

The higher likelyhood of such evidence can be a talking point during interrogation of a suspect as the police can bluff that they have cracked such encryption and/or have figured out a criminals password, and this could potentially get a criminal to "talk"

Hmm. I don't care whether they 'leave out the bitcoin part' or whether consumers are aware of it in their transaction as long as it's used and it lowers the fees involved.

Washington (AFP) - Instead of an American flag, Rand Paul wears a red penny in his lapel, symbolizing the core of the politician's philosophy: no more runaway debt, and relentless submission to the US Constitution.

"We say they've taken all our money," Paul said in 2010 shortly after his stunning Senate election. "We don't have one red cent more to send them in Washington."

The 51-year-old doctor was sent to Washington by voters furious with a system that kept swelling the national debt, and anxious over what Paul sees as government zeal for war and encroachment on American civil liberties.

With political ambitions apparently extending beyond Congress, Paul might seek to test whether he can translate his appeal to the national stage.

The senator is viewed as an early standout for the 2016 Republican presidential primaries that kick off barely one year from now.

Ahead of a probable presidential campaign launch next spring, Paul announced Tuesday he will run for Senate re-election -- allowing him to crank up his campaign team for whatever lies ahead.

Five years ago barely a handful of Tea Party ultra-conservatives had heard of the ophthalmologist from Bowling Green, Kentucky who spoke truth to power and often challenged Republican Party orthodoxy.

3. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush: Bush offered some very interesting comments this week, saying Republicans need candidates who are willing to "lose the primary to win the general, without violating your principles.” That's a nice sentiment, and few embody that approach better than Bush. But there's a reason politicians pander: because they don't like to alienate people whose votes (and money) they need. If Bush does indeed run in the primary as an unapologetic supporter of comprehensive immigration reform and Common Core, we'll see whether GOP voters reward his electability argument. Count us skeptical. (Previous ranking: 1)

2. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie: Few people emerged from November's election happier than Christie. As the chairman of the Republican Governors Association, it was looking like a tough year -- even up to Election Day. But the RGA beat expectations, even picking up three governor's seats in the process and taking 32 31 of the nation's 50 states. The biggest wins were in blue states like Illinois, Maine, Maryland and Massachusetts. And, on Friday, Christie got even more good news when a Democratic-led investigation into Bridgegate showed no evidence he knew about the lane closures on the George Washington Bridge. (Previous ranking: 5)

1. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul: People used to roll their eyes when we said Paul had a real chance to be the Republican nominee in 2016. No one rolls their eyes anymore. Paul has a unique activist and fundraising base thanks to his dad's two runs for president, and has shown considerable savvy in his outreach efforts to the establishment end of the party over the past few years. Paul still says odd things -- his blaming of high cigarette taxes for Eric Garner's death being the latest -- that are going to get him in trouble in the heat of a presidential race. But, Paul is the candidate furthest along in the planning process for president and the one with the most current strength in early states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. (Previous ranking: 3)

The "Big picture" includes ~4,000 years of almost continuous war in the Middle East.
Rand might be politically brilliant, but is playing politics with war ever a good idea?

Before the inevitable freakout ensues, I'd like to point out what this declaration puts on the table:
1. forces the hill critters to stake out their territory and vote on actually declaring a contained war w/ an expiration date.
2. guts the behind the scenes regime change against Syria/Assad that the intelligence communities are and have been orchestrating.
3. guts/sunsets the 2001 Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) that has been used to allow the Prez to do whatever the hell he wants w/o consulting Congress and getting a formal declaration of war which has been the problem ever since.
4. considering our own intelligence community has been stoking the flames of ISIS from the get-go, it would force these so-called war hawks and surveillance staters to declare war on the CIA too and/or start a debate that they don't want.
5. w/ point #2, narrows the scope to ISIS and nobody else.

There are other points that don't exactly meet the eye but this would be a start to permanently trending declaration of wars by Congress again which are a pain in the ass which is why the MIC loves the AUMF and giving the Prez the autonomy to handle business w/o having to buy off a majority of Congress in the likely event that the public would be stirred up prior to any future war vote. I think it's a great way to control the narrative and take it away from the neocons especially by coming up w/ the terms on his own and driving a stake in the isolationist bs that they hope to use on him coming up here.