Skip to main content

Exporting Conservatism: Interference with a foreign nation's affairs?

In response to my previous post about U.S. non-profits supporting and helping Colombia keep its pro-life legislation, and protecting the unborn, TankerTodd over at RedState.org had these comments.
Even setting the abortion question aside, I am a little uncomfortable with American private groups seeking to interfere with another nation's policies. Each nation is sovereign and their right to create crazy laws is protected insofar as they are arrived at through democratic means.

If one country wants to cane the crap out of kids for breaking the law, who are we to tell them otherwise? If another executes drug traffickers, how can we intervene? We definitely don't want a foreign country interfering with our laws, nor do we want Colombia or any other nation. A great example of this are the whiny Europeans, especially the Brits, that sniff at our capital punishment. (This coming from the Continent that brought us WWI and other fun things. This from the Brits whose Tower of London has a gory history.)

It is further irony that these are liberal groups pushing for this change. Liberals are supposed to be, well, liberal. You know, "whatever floats your boat," and "live and let live" and all that. But of course modern liberals are more totalitarian than libertarian, and this further proves it (not that we need any more proof!)
Well, good people can avoid what TankerTodd calls "interfer[ing] with another nation's policies" but you know for a fact that the United Nations, and all the trans-national ultra-liberal NGO's are going to interfere!

But, I am not advocating interference. If a nation has inhuman practices, like caneing their kids, we SHOULD speak up, apply international political pressure, and be a voice for truth and good. I don't call this interference--I call it supporting good. By the way, this is different from say the Brit's or the French crying about our death penalty. A large powerful country like ours can handle the pressure. A tiny country like Honduras gets threats of loss of funding and that sort of thing in order to have them move to the left in their way of doing things. Big difference.

I have a friend who was a Senator in the Honduran congress. He always welcomed conversations, consultations and advice and had a thirst for ideas and suggestions. He did not consider it interference--he saw it as support and as part of his own learning process. When the Honduran government started leaning towards granting homosexual activist groups special rights, he called me up, and asked for help locating research and documentation that would help him defend his position--no special rights for homosexuals. Like wise, I have been involved in providing resources and support to national NGO's and churches in Nicaragua, Honduras, and other countries in South America that are taking a stand for moral and conservative values.

Is this interference? I doubt it. I helped him articulate what was already a core value--marriage is sacred, homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. One deserves protection as a pillar of society, the other does not. We have fought this battle for years, and are making huge progress. They are just now starting to face this political battle, and welcome ideas and support from those that have been there before.

Don't get fooled. This is a global economy, and we cannot isolate ourselves and think it doesn't matter. Liberal groups, funded by the U.N. among others, will continue to export their fight for socialist, liberal ideology, and when the battle has been lost in far away lands (it already has been lost in many places), they will use these as launching pads to bring down those values and the social order instituted by our founding fathers.

I've been there. I see it happening already.

P.S.
If you like my posts, I invite you to vote for Latino Issues as best Latino blog in the 2005 Weblog awards.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Communism: Good Money for the "El Viejo"

I guess Fidel Castro is doing ok. Forbes lists Castro as one of the richest in the world, right up there with the Queen of England. I bet he didn't like the attention. It was hard to figure it out, but it seems they managed to throw some numbers together.
In the past, we have relied on a percentage of Cuba's gross domestic product to estimate Fidel Castro's fortune. This year we have used more traditional valuation methods, comparing state-owned assets Castro is assumed to control with comparable publicly traded companies. A reasonable discount was then applied to compensate for the obvious disclosure issues.

Hispanic Trending: Leave your name at the border

Most people miss the fact that Hispanics do not consist of a single ethnic group. Besides that, the heritage that each one of the many nationalities represented in our immigrant population is diverse in itself. As I read Manuel Muñoz's post on his assimilation experience, I can tell you mine was nothing like his. But I can relate to this paragraph. My niece's name is Katie Belle (Sierra). It's intriguing to watch "American" names begin to dominate among my nieces and nephews and second cousins, as well as with the children of my hometown friends. I am not surprised to meet 5-year-old Brandon or Kaitlyn. Hardly anyone questions the incongruity of matching these names with last names like Trujillo or Zepeda. The English-only way of life partly explains the quiet erasure of cultural difference that assimilation has attempted to accomplish. A name like Kaitlyn Zepeda doesn't completely obscure her ethnicity, but the half-step of her nam…

RealClearPolitics: The Democrats Dither on Trade

The backtracking on free trade in South America has been among the frustrating news for me coming out of the beltway. Considering how the economic downturns in Latin America affect us through the increase in illegal immigration, I would think more Americans would be fighting for this one as loudly as they fought for the failed Immigration legislation. Democratic presidential candidates like to talk about "turning a page" in America's relations with the rest of the world. But what does that mean, in practical terms, on bread-and-butter issues such as trade? Are today's Democrats a party of open markets and economic development, or of market restrictions and job protection?The answer is that leading Democrats seem to want both -- they favor economic development overseas but not at the cost of U.S. jobs. That sounds like a coherent position until you begin to look carefully at the political choices in Latin America, a part of the world where …