Lately several Republicans, and celebrity Clint Eastwood, have come out in favor of Republicans supporting gay marriage. Establishment Republicans have come to the conclusion that Republicans need to veer left on social issues or fear a major loss of support from younger voters. The truth is, in almost every state, gays have the same rights as to those granted to people who are married. Why do progressives need gay marriage?
Allowing gays to marry means a complete redefinition of what marriage means. Marriage no longer will be defined biblically as between a man and a woman, but between two people who are in love. This is not about allowing people to marry, but about destroying the religious institution of marriage.
Progressives have successfully redefined almost every aspect of our culture. Movies and television have become progressively more and more devoid of content and lean more heavily on sex and violence. Is this a mirror of what is happening in the culture? Among major institutions in our society, only the Boy Scouts and the Catholic Church have held firm, and the Boy Scouts are wavering, thanks to increased pressure (mainly financial).
If defining marriage as between two people who love each other, what is next? Marriage between multiple people? Marriage with animals? Morality is the basis of laws and culture, without it laws have no meaning and society may as well be anarchy. This would mean that morality does not exist and laws could mean whatever is expedient to the state at the time.
Conservatives must fight this redefinition of marriage! But the battle must be reframed, as in not preventing people who love each other from being together; to marriage is a religious institution with a religious definition. Obama has come out all in favor of gay marriage, trying to paint Republicans into a corner.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Foreign Aid
WHEN IS FOREIGN AID JUSTIFIED, WHEN IS IT NOT?
The government of the United States pursues a number of different foreign aid options. Recently, the US has sent a number of F-16's and other military hardware to Egypt. Egypt has clearly been taken over by radical elements of the Muslim Brotherhood & Morsi has announced to the world that he believes himself to be a dictator (aka Obama?). How is this in this in the best interest of the US? Giving radical Islamists greater access to advanced military hardware is not in our best interest. The only group that benefits from this aid, are the American companies that manufacture F-16's and the other hardware. But this is a very small group. Although Egypt has been a US supporter in the past, we can hardly expect this to continue with the recent change in administrations and philosophy. Egypt is obviously supporting Iran and becoming aggressive towards Israel.
Israel, a real ally in the region, despite recent actions by the Obama administration to write Israel off, clearly deserves our support. By providing aid to Israel we support their standoff as the only democracy in the region, and their continued harassment by Islamist extremists.
Military aid vs. humanitarian aid, is either justified? Humanitarian aid, as we have given to Haiti, after the earthquake, or to Japan, after the accident, is something we as human beings feel obligated to do. A true libertarian would say that they are over there and we are over here, there is no reason for us to get involved in someone elses business. But as fellow human beings I suggest that humanitarian aid is always justified, regardless of the circumstance of the other countries government, whether dictator or democracy. As long as the aid is actually received by those in need, it is the human thing to do. But other types of aid, including military hardware, how can this be justified in any circumstance? We can argue that in the case of Israel, we are helping a friend, since clearly being alone in the citizens of nations is undesirable, and providing support to nations that are clearly our friends is desirable.
In this changing world though, who are our friends? Turkey has traditionally been an ally, a secular government in an Islamic country. Recently though, turkey has become a country with an Islamic government and no longer an ally. Clearly it is time to change our policy stance with Turkey as well as Egypt. The Obama administration now provides aid to our non-friends and distress to our friends, why is this? Either Obama is really an Islam apologist, or just has a confused foreign policy, possibly both.
The government of the United States pursues a number of different foreign aid options. Recently, the US has sent a number of F-16's and other military hardware to Egypt. Egypt has clearly been taken over by radical elements of the Muslim Brotherhood & Morsi has announced to the world that he believes himself to be a dictator (aka Obama?). How is this in this in the best interest of the US? Giving radical Islamists greater access to advanced military hardware is not in our best interest. The only group that benefits from this aid, are the American companies that manufacture F-16's and the other hardware. But this is a very small group. Although Egypt has been a US supporter in the past, we can hardly expect this to continue with the recent change in administrations and philosophy. Egypt is obviously supporting Iran and becoming aggressive towards Israel.
Israel, a real ally in the region, despite recent actions by the Obama administration to write Israel off, clearly deserves our support. By providing aid to Israel we support their standoff as the only democracy in the region, and their continued harassment by Islamist extremists.
Military aid vs. humanitarian aid, is either justified? Humanitarian aid, as we have given to Haiti, after the earthquake, or to Japan, after the accident, is something we as human beings feel obligated to do. A true libertarian would say that they are over there and we are over here, there is no reason for us to get involved in someone elses business. But as fellow human beings I suggest that humanitarian aid is always justified, regardless of the circumstance of the other countries government, whether dictator or democracy. As long as the aid is actually received by those in need, it is the human thing to do. But other types of aid, including military hardware, how can this be justified in any circumstance? We can argue that in the case of Israel, we are helping a friend, since clearly being alone in the citizens of nations is undesirable, and providing support to nations that are clearly our friends is desirable.
In this changing world though, who are our friends? Turkey has traditionally been an ally, a secular government in an Islamic country. Recently though, turkey has become a country with an Islamic government and no longer an ally. Clearly it is time to change our policy stance with Turkey as well as Egypt. The Obama administration now provides aid to our non-friends and distress to our friends, why is this? Either Obama is really an Islam apologist, or just has a confused foreign policy, possibly both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
