“Yes, the filibuster was about drones, but also about much more. Do we have a Bill of Rights or not? Do we have a constitution or not and will we defend it?” This question asked by Senator Rand Paul at CPAC this weekend sums up not only the issues at hand over the weekend but also the newfound momentum growing in the Republican Party.

After a few bland Republican presidential candidates, the Republican Party seems to be embracing new leaders, issues, and innovations to propel them into the future. Rand Paul’s thirteen hour filibuster before the CPAC convention set a new tone not only for the party but for CPAC by bringing constitutional issues to the forefront. In the past few elections, the GOP has been on the defensive not only with social issues but also with the economy; however, Rand Paul and this new batch of brave conservatives including Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Nikki Haley, Scott Walker, and Mike Lee are putting conservatives back on the offensive with the mission of defending the constitution.

America’s constitution and belief in natural rights have long provided barriers to the totalitarian rule and radical ideology witnessed in Europe and the Middle East in the 20th and 21st centuries. Current issues discussed today concerning constitutional issues include second amendment rights, right to trial by jury, and unconstitutional expansion of the federal government. CPAC embraced these constitutional issues in panels entitled, “Re-energizing the American Dream,” “The Europeanization of America,” “In the Beginning: the First Principles,” “Religious Freedom: a Winning Issue for Conservatives” and movie screenings enumerating the important American founding documents.

Other interesting panels show that the conference seemed to have a pro-liberty edge. These include “The Liberty Movement and its Role in the Conservative Movement”,  “Emerging issues for Movement Conservatives 2013,” and “Washington Won’t Fix Itself: From Healthcare Freedom to the Compact for American Balanced Budget Amendment, the States are the Solution”.

Rand Paul’s victory in the straw poll also gives insight into a more libertarian slant to the Republican Party today as many of its members support defense cuts, state’s rights, economic freedom, and preservation of the constitution. This focus on preserve principles while moving into the future with brash new leaders gave CPAC excitement and forward-feeling spirit. With new leaders and new issues on the forefront at CPAC, the party hardly seems irrelevant.

by Amelia Sims, Emory University

Shock, sadness, relief, fear, apathy. These represent the range of emotions felt by Catholics all over the world as Pope Benedict XVI announced his resignation this week–a resignation which does not step outside of his character.

But who is this octogenarian German Pope?  Christians and non Christians alike were all familiar with the previous leader of the Roman Catholic Church, John Paul II.  To some, Benedict seems more enigmatic.  Some know him as the “Nazi pope” and others know him as the pope who had to deal with all the abusive priests.  If one bothered to look at any evidence from Pope Benedict’s past one may discover that not only was Pope Benedict never a Nazi, but that Pope Benedict is in fact a pope who has gone to significant lengths to protect Judaism and is widely admired among Jewish leaders.  In addition, Pope Benedict vastly improved management and administration of priests in the Vatican during his papacy and made excellent bishop appointments.

My favorite quote about Benedict was said a few years ago by Elizabeth Scalia, on her Patheos blog titled The Anchoress.  Scalia says of  him,  “[Benedict] is warm, pastoral, approachable, quite paternal, and as easy to glean as a dear old uncle sharing fellowship over a cup of tea. John Paul was a mighty pipe organ, dramatic, transcendent, soul-rattling – almost overwhelming.  He brought you to your knees, before God in hushed awe.  Benedict is a piano being played by a musician who plays for love of the music, and he draws you into his sphere, to sing along in praise.”

John Paul’s papacy was dramatic, energetic, emotional, awe inspiring, and engaging.  Who can duplicate the part the Polish pope played in the fall of the iron curtain?  In contrast, Benedict has been a theologian and a professor most of his life. While John Paul was a master in engaging a crowd, Benedict seemed a little overwhelmed facing so many people.

While John Paul II greatly expanded the Church in an external sense, Benedict XVI continued this spirit of globalization by strengthening the inner life of the Church.  Pope Benedict’s encyclicals and books are very accessible and while scholarly, still deeply personal.  His recent books have focused upon the New Testament as the way to encounter the person and mission of Jesus Christ.

Benedict fervently defended the dignity of human life and spoke out against the destructive nature of relativism.  During a short pontificate of eight years he pastored his 1.2 billion flock of Catholics with 54 journeys throughout the world, weekly Wednesday teachings, and a social media ministry that included Twitter.  His fearless ability to speak against radical Islam and condemn Catholic liberals, who support abortion and activities contributing to the degeneration of families and morality in our culture, is truly inspiring for our generation of conservatives.

As college students, we are constantly urged to promote ourselves in order to get ahead.  Everything we apply to seems to have some essay where we have to elaborate on our “significant accomplishments” and talk about how awesome we are.  In an age consumed by worldly materialism, self-touting narcissism, and inflated over-confidence, Benedict’s gentle humility is refreshing.  His resignation reveals what most people forget Catholics believe about the pope, the fact that he too is “a humble servant in the vineyard of our Lord.”

PRINCETON, NJ—What was once a holiday for showing appreciation and affection to loved ones has increasingly become an excuse to celebrate promiscuity and raunchy behavior on college campuses.  But this Valentine’s Day a growing number of college men and women are calling this “hook-up culture” out for the harmful messages and unhealthy behaviors it promotes by challenging their peers to a hard look at the realities of the college hook-up scene through a poster and web-based campaign Words That Still Matter.

The week of February 11-15, students at 25 universities, including Harvard, Georgetown, Stanford, and Holy Cross will hang 4,400 posters across campus, feature ads in their campus newspapers, and for the first time this year, use social media to share the campaign’s interactive website WordsThatStillMatter.com—which will go live early next week—where readers will be able to share their own anonymous stories. Students at several schools including Harvard, Stanford, and Franciscan University will host additional events around Valentine’s Day, highlighting the value of healthy relationships through initiatives including table displays, book give-aways, campus-wide lectures, and opinion editorials.

The 8 posters, which resemble vintage protest ads, each prominently feature a different aspirational word – integrity, dignity, strength, and romance – age-old virtues that matter no less today than they did centuries ago. Then follows the internal monologue a young man or woman might have regarding that word and how it applies to their sexual habits and their personal aspirations.  By juxtaposing these positive words with raw personal reflections, the campaign seeks to show the discrepancy between what young men and women aspire to on the one hand, and where the hookup culture leads them on the other, demonstrating that these words do still matter. The website features animated versions of the posters as well as extended versions of each monologue that delve deeper into the young man or woman’s experience.

The campaign sends the message that the hook-up culture forces students to settle for less than who they are and less than what they want in their sexual lives and relationships. Director of Programs Caitlin Seery said, “Many students have very real questions about the hook-up culture – ‘Is this really all there is?’ ‘Why do I want more?’ ‘Is this what it means to be a man?’ ‘Is there something wrong with me that this doesn’t make me happy?’ – but because the consequence-free sexual culture is so pervasive, they are often afraid to ask, thinking that there is something wrong with them rather than something wrong with the culture of cheap sex.

“The goal of our campaign is to spark deep conversations in which students critically engage questions about our hyper-sexualized culture. We aim for students to realize they are better than what the hook-up culture offers by highlighting the dissonance between the positive character traits that students aspire to cultivate and the reality of the consequences that the hook-up culture produces,” Seery added.

The Love and Fidelity Network is the leading national program that defends marriage and the integrity of sex at the collegiate level. It aims to equip college students with the arguments, resources, and support they need to uphold the institution of marriage, the special role of the family in society, and the integrity of human sexuality within their university communities and as leaders in the public square. The Network was established in Princeton, NJ in 2007 in response to the inadequate treatment of marriage, family, and sexuality at many colleges and universities and provides leadership coaching to these university men and women and offers funding for campus initiatives. Today, the Love and Fidelity Network actively supports nearly 60 student fellows and campus groups at 25 schools. The Love and Fidelity Network is the principal program of the Collegiate Cultural Foundation.

The start of a new year may be the start of a new resolution for Marymount College students.  As of Jan. 1, 2013, Marymount College in Ranchos Palos Verdes, Calif., has been declared a smoke free campus. The President’s office of the college proposed the idea of a non-smoking campus and over the past year, Sharon Johnson, Dean of Students at Marymount College, has evaluated the smoking policy and decided it’s time for change in the campus culture. Through received support from campus organizations (Faculty Senate, SAC, ASMC, and President’s Cabinet) Sharon Johnson has introduced to the Marymount college community a new smoking policy. The new policy restricts students and faculty from smoking on campus and the surrounding sidewalks. The Campus Safety department will be enforcing this policy, and the penalties for smoking on campus will result in significant fines, as well as the consequences included in the college’s Student Code of Conduct.

Though this change may be overwhelming to student smokers, the school is trying to accommodate such students by making Nicorette gum and patches available in the Student Health Center.  By Fall 2014 there will be on-campus assistance to faculty, staff, and students who want to quit smoking.

While speaking with several student smokers, I’ve found this new policy has influenced the smokers on campus in various ways. After conducting an interview with first year student Benjamin Levine, 22, he has positive words to say about this new regimen. For a student who used to smoke on campus before and after every class (4-5 times a day), Levine believes this new policy is great. He comments, “I think it’s a good thing. It doesn’t mean I’m going to quit smoking, but it cuts down the amount of cigarettes I smoke a day. One thing is that when I see other people smoking, I need to smoke and because that factor is eliminated I have cut down immensely and it’s only been the first week back at school.”

An international student from Japan, Hideto Fukuchi, 19, doesn’t feel quite the same. He says, “We’re in college now, this isn’t high school. I am an adult therefore I shouldn’t be treated like a child. Quitting smoking isn’t my main concern right now, school is.”

Other students conclude that since the campus has such a small population, approximately 999 students, smoking never seemed to be of much concern to them.  It is possible that with this new policy enacted, student and faculty smokers will reevaluate their conduct and look to make “not smoking” their 2013 new year’s resolution.

The war against guns has been reignited. Predictably, gun control advocates are mobilizing the anger and frustration of Americans into an opportunity to promote their real agenda—get rid of all guns.  Rather than focusing on the lack of mental health laws that allow psychopaths like the perpetrator of the Newtown massacre to harm themselves and others, they strive to gut our Second Amendment.  Washington officials such as Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who recently proposed a ban on all assault weapons, are trying to enact legislation that would effectively inhibit the right of Americans to defend themselves.

The war over guns is a war of feelings versus the facts.  And the gun control activists have made their “feelings” case. Let’s take a look at some facts for once.

According to crime statistics released by the FBI, 496 people were murdered with hammers or other blunt object in 2011, while just 323 murders carried out that year were via rifle. Knives and other cutting instruments contributed to 1,694 murders, and personal weapons (hands, feet, etc.) caused 726 deaths. From 2005-2009, blunt objects were used in more murders than shotguns. These are the facts and they highlight a single predominant theme: guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

So, if stricter gun laws are going to be put in place to prevent homicides, then logic dictates that there should be stricter legislation on knives, hammers, and even the use of one’s own hands and feet.  Just imagine the lobbying campaigns that would arise.

Apply the leftist logic and we would need to see hammer control legislation put in place in order to limit the amount of deaths caused by hammers. Those who wish to own knives would have to go through an extensive licensing process in order to limit the amount of knives we have on our streets. Movies and video games showing gratuitous usage of hands and feet would come under serious scrutiny for causing others to commit crimes with their appendages. The idea is completely absurd.

But the gun control crazies are more than simply logic twisters; they consider themselves experts on the U. S.  Constitution. Many of them are up in arms about the supposed Republican “re-interpretation” of the Second Amendment. New Yorker writer Jeffrey Toobin in a recent article attacked the “conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment.”  Toobin should read recent Supreme Court decisions upholding the right to bear arms.

Liberals and conservatives can play the “I know my Constitution better than you game” all they want, but why not look at what the Founding Fathers had to say about guns? After all, they would know the true intent of the Second Amendment better than anyone.

James Madison, who was responsible for the wording of the Second Amendment, said that “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them.”

Think that getting guns off the street will deter violent criminals? Well, Thomas Jefferson would disagree with you. He said that “the laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…”

According to Samuel Adams, “the Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” Little did he know that this is exactly what would be happening more than 200 years later.

So while gun control activists rely on emotion to make their claims, those who defend the Second Amendment right to bear arms have facts, logic, and the Founding Fathers on their side.

Talk about bringing out the big guns.

by Richard Thompson, Hillsdale College

“Go f*** yourself.”

Republican Speaker of the House Jim Boehner was tired and frustrated when he addressed Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid during an exclusive White House meeting that laid out potential budget control measures. Over the past few weeks, Boehner has received harsh criticism from members of both parties for not being able to effectively manage House delegations. In the midst of the fiscal storm, the Speaker is struggling to stay afloat.

Boehner was all but removed from negotiations after his “Plan B,” which would have raised income taxes on those making more than $1 million, was firmly rejected by both House Democrats and Republicans. He played the role of passive observer as Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell worked on the plan that was passed on Wednesday.

The Speaker also found himself in the crosshairs of party leaders on Tuesday for refusing to hold a vote on the Hurricane Sandy relief package. Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.) minced no words regarding Boehner’s failure to act and called it “a betrayal.” Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie particularly expressed his outrage that the Speaker would politicize a tragedy that caused countless casualties.

“Our people were played as a pawn last night and that’s why people hate Washington, D.C.,” Christie said.

Speaker Boehner was certainly not spared from Democratic backlash, as Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) questioned the Speaker’s dignity and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) called Boehner’s decision “the most disgraceful action I’ve seen in this House.”

Though a Wednesday meeting with Boehner, House Majority Eric Cantor, and other officials provided a potential $60 aid package that will be voted on this month, party officials are aggravated by Boehner’s slowness to act. Democrats and Republicans have not been been able to agree on much in the past but what many can agree on, unfortunately for Boehner, is that the Speaker has been unable to effectively do his job.

As the future of this country dangles off the edge of the fiscal cliff, Americans are becoming more skeptical of President Obama’s and Congress’ resolve to effectively balance the budget. According to a Gallup poll conducted on Dec. 22, 48% of surveyed Americans are doubtful that Congress will reach a budget agreement by Jan. 1 and avoid automatic spending cuts. This greatly shifted from the trend seen in early December, which showed that only 39% of Americans doubted congressional competence.

Though there has been a slight movement towards American optimism in Democratic leaders’ abilities in the past week, many analysts point to Obama’s handling of the Newtown shooting as the reason behind this upwards trend. Regardless of the cause of the recent Democratic upswing, there has been no change in the approval of Republican leaders, which is still hovering around 25%.

Another Gallup poll shows that two-thirds of Americans feel that Congress must compromise in order for a viable solution to be reached.

“It’s up to the Senate Minority Leader not to block a vote, and it’s up to the House Republican leader, the Speaker of the House … to allow a vote,” a senior administration official said. In other words, Americans feel that the country’s financial future rests not on one party but depends on bipartisan resolution.

But, as the situation now stands, there does not seem to be any hope of agreement in sight. In response to President Obama’s plan to raise taxes of those making $250,000 or more, Speaker of the House John Boehner proposed his “Plan B,” which would increase income rates of those making more than $1 million.

This turned out to be an absolute failure, as even House Republicans refused to rally behind the Speaker’s plan. In a proverbial washing of hands, Boehner passed the responsibility on to Democratic leaders.

“Now it is up to the president to work with Senator Reid on legislation to avert the fiscal cliff,” Boehner said last Thursday.

If Congress is not able to come to a consensus on the budget by Jan. 1, then $1.2 trillion worth of spending cuts will take effect on Jan. 2. These cuts would include but are not limited to a 9.4% decrease in defense spending as well as an 8.2% cut in energy subsidies and housing assistance. According to experts, this would be damaging to economic growth and increase unemployment rates.

The pessimism in the midst of the country’s fiscal problems is discouraging to say the least, but there are still a few days left until a decision needs to be made. There is still hope of avoiding the treacherous fiscal cliff.  It may just take a Christmas miracle.

A Connecticut town is left reeling, while the death of innocents are exploited for political talking points. All this just two weeks before Christmas.

Early Friday morning, 20-year-old Adam Lanza opened fire on children and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. This heinous act of violence claimed the lives of 26 people, 20 of them being children between the ages of 6 and 7. Hours after this unspeakable tragedy occurred, politicians already began to call for gun control legislation.

“If now is not the time to have a serious discussion about gun control and the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our nation, I don’t know when is,” Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said. “I am challenging President Obama, the Congress and the American public to act on our outrage and, finally, do something about this.”

It’s simply ridiculous that the facts of the case haven’t even been completely reported and congressmen are already calling for legislative steps. Who do these congressmen think they are that they can politicize this tragedy when parents have barely had enough time to process the fact that their children won’t be with them for Christmas?

But it is not simply Washington politicians who are taking advantage of the chaos in Connecticut, but also local officials and members of the media.

“When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons?” media mogul Rupert Murdoch tweeted Friday afternoon. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said that President Obama needs to act immediately and call on Congress to fix the gun problem in this country.

Unfortunately, Murdoch and Bloomberg are looking in the wrong direction. Authorities determined that the guns he used were obtained legally from Lanza’s mother. What should be looked at is the psychology of the killer and what led him to commit his crimes.

These pro-gun activists need to realize that this act of violence had nothing to do with gun control legislation and everything to do with a deranged psychopath. They need to step down from their soap boxes, stop being politicians for once, and treat the Connecticut shooting for what it is: a tragic and evil  act.

The GOP is not a supermodel.  And it shouldn’t aspire to be one.

In her recent op-ed “Advice from a Lonely College Republican,” Sarah Westwood describes the Republican party as “a supermodel who has been doing photo shoots under fluorescent bulbs without any makeup.”  “Fix the lighting, dab on some foundation and highlight her good side, and she can take the most attractive picture,” she recommends.  But we don’t need more cosmetics or false lighting; we need to shed light on false premises and false promises while recovering a deep appreciation for the human side of politics.

Westwood’s criticisms of the GOP stem from her opinion that the Democratic party possesses the moral high ground because of its stance on social issues like abortion and gay marriage.  In this analysis, Republican electoral defeats are inevitable until the party abandons views held only by old fogeys.  After all, Westwood writes, “As a member of this all-important demographic, I know that neither I nor (almost) anybody else coming of age today supports the Republican social agenda.”

I don’t doubt that Westwood knows few people her age that support the Republican platform on social issues, but young people might not quite constitute the “all-important demographic.”  The youth vote constituted 19 percent of the electorate in 2012 (11 percent of the total being 18-24 year olds).  The Evangelicals Westwood despises were 26 percent of the electorate, 78 percent of which voted for Romney.  Of regular (once a week) church-goers, who constitute 42 percent of the electorate, 59 percent voted for Romney.  Furthermore, 32 states have passed laws restricting abortion within the last two years.

Number crunching aside, I disagree with Westwood’s premise.  Social issues were the primary reason I voted for Romney and Ryan in this election, and the issues themselves aren’t what ails the Republican party.

I understand the impulse to define the 2012 election as the central election of our time: President Obama’s reelection certainly holds critical implications for the future of our nation’s economy, healthcare system, and heritage of religious freedom, just to name a few vital issues in play.  But the end of the Republican party hasn’t arrived any more than the end of the Democratic party arrived with the election of Ronald Reagan.

There is no reason to believe that the GOP must reject the core principles that lead many values voters like me, who are genuinely concerned about the dignity of the individual and the common good of our great country, to support its candidates—even lackluster ones like Romney.

Social issues often take precedence in elections for good reason: they reveal politicians’ worldviews and the context in which they make a broad range of decisions on behalf of the American people.  The GOP needs to communicate a moral vision of human flourishing and the primacy of human dignity that provides the foundations for its positions on social issues.

Balanced budgets, critical as they are, don’t sell well, and ultimately voters were convinced that Obama was the candidate who cared.  Politics are always ultimately about people.

As a Catholic, I don’t feel completely comfortable in the Republican party. While I recognize that many of my fellow college age peers are not Catholic, I believe that many share my view that in voting Republican, we are choosing a party that is engaged on too few fronts.

The GOP needs to acknowledge that young Republican voters who care about abortion and want to defend traditional marriage also care about the impoverished, illegal immigrants, and prisoners on death row.  We want the GOP to capture and communicate a radical personalism.

The GOP needs to engage better with Americans who sincerely want to help the poor and think devoting a sizable portion of the federal budget to programs that aid the poor and marginal is the best way to do this.  The GOP also needs to engage Americans who want to help single mothers and believe free contraception and abortion are the most important “economic” tools to do so.

The Democratic party excels at appealing to the high ideals of voters and our desire for a nation where all persons are treated with dignity.  The Republican party values this goal just as much – it just has a different method of ensuring that individuals enjoy the freedom and economic opportunity they desire.  The GOP needs to do a better job making the case that their programs are the best way to realize these goals—and a better job shedding light on why and how the Democratic program has cosmetic appeal but conceals an ugly reality of dependence, waste, abuse, and corruption.

I may not be quite comfortable with Westwood’s equating me and other College Republicans with the hippies of the 1960′s, but I have no qualms about being labeled as an idealist.  The GOP must convince young people that our party cares as much as we do.

When we begin to focus unduly on our make-up and the lighting in which we stand, we start to lose sight of the human person.  Let the Democratic party be the photoshopped party: we can take the true high ground by being the personal party.

Applications Available for Print and Online Journalists

Washington, DC, November 12, 2012 — The Phillips Foundation is now accepting applications for the 2013 Robert Novak Journalism Fellowship Program.  Print and online journalists with less than 10 years of professional experience are eligible.  The Foundation created this program to provide fellowships for writing projects by journalists who share its mission to advance constitutional principles, a democratic society and a vibrant free enterprise system.

The Phillips Foundation awards $50,000 full-time and $25,000 part-time fellowships to undertake and complete a one-year project of the applicant’s choosing focusing on journalism supportive of American culture and a free society.  In addition, the Foundation offers separate yearlong fellowships on the environment, on the benefits of free-market competition, and on law enforcement.  There are also Alumni Fund Fellowships funded by donations from current and former Novak Fellows.  Alumni Fund Fellowship winners write one magazine-length article on their topic.

The Foundation awarded seven fellowships in 2012:

Full-time Fellowship

•  Christine Won for “North Korea: – - A Better Understanding.”

Part-time Fellowships

• Caitrin Nicol for “Seeking the Soul in American Medicine.”

• Mary Rose Somarriba for “Exploring the Connections between Pornography and Sex Trafficking.”

• Katherine Timpf for “As California Goes, So Goes the Nation: The Consequences of Following Golden State Policy.”

• Michael Warren for “Race to Opportunity:  How Modern Liberalism is Failing Minorities and What Conservatism Has to Offer.”

• Tate Watkins for “Open Borders as Engines of American Wealth and Innovation Creation.”

Alumni Fund Fellowship

• Zachary Janowski for “Price Fixing: How Government’s Obsession with What We Pay Taxes us All.”

For a list of all 110 fellowship winners and their projects since inception of the program in 1994, visit www.novakfellowships.org.

The Foundation is looking for journalism projects which are both original and publishable.  The winners will deliver four quarterly writing installments with the potential to be published sequentially in a periodical or as a book.

Applications must be postmarked by February 12, 2013.  The winners will be announced next May at an awards dinner at the National Press Club in Washington.  The starting date for the fellowships is September 1, 2013.  Applicants must be citizens of the United States.

For an application, visit www.novakfellowships.org, or contact:  The Phillips Foundation, 1 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 620, Washington, DC  20001.  Phone:  202-677-4633.

E-mail: info@thephillipsfoundation.org.