“It’s a train wreck that we see unfolding in Cyprus,” one which could spell the end of the Eurozone, Heritage Foundation expert Nile Gardiner said yesterday on CNBC’s Kudlow Report.
The new European Union-dictated bailout is “evidence of the growing centralization of political power in Europe, which is unhealthy,” said Gardiner, who directs Heritage’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom.
Redefining marriage would be a step backward for those who favor a government of limited powers, he explains:
There seems to be much confusion in the current debate over marriage. Hopefully it’s not being done on purpose to cloud the issue. Let’s make one thing very clear: those of us who support marriage as it has been since the dawn of time respect the liberty of others to live their lives as they choose. But governmental redefinition of marriage is a power grab that attacks civil society. . .
Without strong families grounded in marriage, we cannot hold back the ever-expanding power of government. As the marriage culture weakens, Big Government grows. Just look how the welfare state has expanded as the unwed childbearing rate has grown from single digits in the 1960s to more than 40% today.
The Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson mounted a vigorous defense of traditional marriage last night on “Piers Morgan Live” during a debate with Morgan and Suze Orman, who both back same-sex marriage.
Anderson, who serves as Heritage’s William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society, opened the segment by stating his view on marriage:
I think marriage exists to bring a man and woman together as husband and wife, to be mother and father to any children their union produces. And the Supreme Court, in the cases they’re hearing today and tomorrow, should really not cut short the democratic debate that we’re having. Citizens all across the country are discussing what marriage is and why it matters. And what we want to see the court do is uphold our constitutional authority to have that debate.
When Orman called him uneducated and ignorant for his views, Anderson politely responded:
Why do you assume that I’m ignorant? You say I just don’t know. I don’t assume anything badly about you. I just think we disagree. President Obama himself has said there are people of good will and sound mind on both sides of this issue. I agree with the President.
I’m not going to call you names and I’m not going to say you’re ignorant or don’t understand. But up until the year 2000, no political community on the face of earth had ever defined marriage as anything other than a male-female relationship. I think there are good reasons for that.
Anderson stated facts and never lost his calm, even as Suze Orman and Piers Morgan kept raising their voices. And he successfully explained what many conservatives are concerned about: “Marriage is based on the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and on the social reality that children need a mother and a father.”
The audience’s response was in line with Morgan and Orman’s views, but Anderson remained stoic. He said he while he may be in the minority in that audience, “in America there are lots of people who agree with me and we should have this conversation.”
During remarks Thursday on the Senate floor, Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) cited Heritage Foundation research on the effects of the liberal Senate budget proposal.
The Heritage Foundation has looked at this budget and they’ve done an analysis of it in terms of its impact on jobs, on the economy. They have said the budget will result in losing 800,000 jobs in our country. In my state of Ohio they said we’ll lose 40,000 jobs. We cannot afford to lose 40,000 more jobs.
On January 15, Michael Needham, Chris Chocola, and Tony Perkins—the heads of those three conservative groupsurged House GOP leadership to support a budget that balances in 10 years. “Very simply, we can quickly jump-start our economy and improve the lives of millions of Americans by insisting that Washington not raise the debt ceiling unless our nation gets on a path to a balanced budget within 10 years that stays balanced,” they wrotein a Politico op-ed.
A couple days later, Needham’s Heritage Action published a “Memo for the Conservative Movement” which had a top line calling for a 10-year balancing budget.
On January 18, a group of current and former chairmen of the conservative Republican Study Committee called for the same thing. Needham backed that call, asking for House leadership, including Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, “to publicly honor this agreement.”
It was not until several days later, on January 22, that Boehner backed the idea of a budget that balanced within 10 years.
Conservatives realize that a balanced budget is important. Even President Clinton realized this twenty years ago. So why don’t today’s liberals realize this today?
Do you think balancing the budget should be a priority?
So when Reagan made the decision to visit communist China in 1984, he made sure he spoke with Feulner upon his return. Reagan would not simply leave a message or send a note but tracked down Feulner while on vacation.