Rand Paul: A Duty to Preserve the Second Amendment

By Sen. Rand Paul
The Washington Times
March 29, 2013

When Congress reconvenes next month, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to bring gun control back to the Senate floor. If this occurs, I will oppose any legislation that undermines Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms or their ability to exercise this right without being subject to government surveillance.

Restricting Americans’ ability to purchase firearms readily and freely will do nothing to stop national tragedies such as those that happened in Newtown, Conn., and in Aurora, Colo. It will do much to give criminals and potential killers an unfair advantage by hampering law-abiding citizens’ ability to defend themselves and their families.Potentially on the table are new laws that would outlaw firearms and magazines that hold more than just a handful of rounds, as well as require universal “background checks,” which amount to gun registration.

We are also being told that the “assault weapons” ban originally introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein is not happening. We can only hope. But in Washington, D.C., bad ideas often have a strange way of coming up again.

Read more:

What the Media Are Missing in the Portman Story

By Laurie Higgins
Illinois Family Institute

As almost everyone knows, late last week U.S. Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) announced that he now favors the legalization of same-sex marriage. Portman is motivated to eliminate sexual complementarity from the legal definition of marriage because his son is homosexual.

Portman has received some criticism—justifiably in my view—from both the left and right for the self-serving and emotional justifications for his position reversal.

There is scant evidence that Portman has thought deeply about the following critical fundamental questions, and the public has no idea how he would answer them:

• Does marriage have an intrinsic nature that the government merely recognizes and regulates, or do we create it out of whole cloth?
• If marriage has an intrinsic nature what are its constituent features?
• Why is the government involved in marriage?
• Is there a public purpose for marriage that justifies government involvement? If so, what is the public purpose of the institution of marriage?
• If marriage is solely about love with no inherent connection to sexual complementarity or reproductive potential, why should it be limited to two people?
• Do children have any inherent right to know (and be known by) and be raised whenever possible by their biological parents?  Read More.

The Coming Sequester Lies

Here is the first coming sequester lie. When the economy turns down this year, Obama and his socialist Democrats will all blame it on the sequester spending cuts. Cut just the increase in government spending by just 1%, and that is supposed to be the roots of another recession. 

The great debate will be what caused the downturn, the spending “cuts” or the tax increases, (plus regulation, plus the cheap dollar, plus the exploding escalation of debt). That is if our party-controlled, new socialist media (stop calling them the mainstream media, nothing remotely mainstream about them) even allows the debate on the air.

More

 
Peter Ferrara in The American Spectator, March 6, 2013