The National Interest: Matthew Del Santo- 'The Next Superpower: Is a United States of Europe Possible?'

Source:The National Interest- A Euro Jet?

Source:The New Democrat

“Four days ago, French President François Hollande declared his in-principle commitment to the creation of a “euro government, with the addition of a specific budget and a parliament to ensure democratic control.”

From The National Interest

“David Aaronovitch, Gillian Tett and Andrew Marr discuss the Sunday Times ‘United States of Europe’ editorial from May 2012.
Like newspapers:Leading Articles." 

Source:Leading Articles- Talking about a potential Federal Europe.

From Leading Articles

To answer Matthew Del Santo’s question, yes. But it would depend on how a Federal Europe, Federal States of Europe, or whatever this new Euro State would be called, would look like. This idea that it would simply be an economic zone, but where the central authority lets say led by Germany, could veto other states budgets, simply won’t fly. That would be like a bird trying to take off without their wings. France, Italy, Spain, would never go along with that and you put their populations together and you’re talking about one-hundred and seventy-million people. With a GDP somewhere around six-trillion dollars, or Euros.

I believe if a European superstate, or a Federal Europe were to emerge, it would be exactly that. A Federal Europe with a federalist system and constitution. Where the states would maintain their own autonomy over their own domestic affairs. But where the federal government would come in to handle the currency, national security and foreign policy. As well as dealing with interstate crime and commerce. Each state would retain their welfare states, instead of having the federal government trying to manage a large welfare state, or safety net, from lets say Brussels, where the European Union capital is. A Federal States of Europe lets say, would look similar to the United States of America. As far as states in relation to the federal government.

I believe this would be the only way a Federal Europe could work. Because the leaders of these countries would have to sell this idea and new union to their people. About how it would benefit them, the economy, national security and foreign policy, to have a Federal State with a population of over three-hundred-million people who would now become economically, militarily, politically and perhaps even energy independent and emerge as the next democratic developed superpower in the world. As opposed of being part of a large country of eighty-million people, like Germany, or sixty-five-million like France, that is so dependent on other countries for their well-being like America. Instead this one united country would be able to take control over and manage their own affairs instead.

The Federalist: 'Remember The Moral Majority? Russell Moore Says It’s Over'

Source:The Federalist- A church located in the heartland of America?

Source:The New Democrat

"At this moment, the next Saint Augustine may be marching at the head of a Gay Pride Day parade and the future Mother Teresa might be operating a Planned Parenthood clinic. It’s for this reason that Dr. Russell Moore encourages Christians to see their political opponents not as enemies but “as future brothers and sisters.”

On today’s episode of the Federalist Radio Hour, this President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission discuss his new book, “Onward: Engaging the Culture without Losing the Gospel.” He at once declares the end of the Moral Majority and his new reasons for hope."

From The Federalist

"As the culture changes all around us, it is no longer possible to pretend that we are a Moral Majority. That may be bad news for America, but it can be good news for the church. What’s needed now, in shifting times, is neither a doubling-down on the status quo nor a pullback into isolation. Instead, we need a church that speaks to social and political issues with a bigger vision in mind: that of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As Christianity seems increasingly strange, and even subversive, to our culture, we have the opportunity to reclaim the freakishness of the gospel, which is what gives it it’s power in the first place.

We seek the kingdom of God, before everything else. We connect that kingdom agenda to the culture around us, both by speaking it to the world and by showing it in our churches. As we do so, we remember our mission to oppose demons, not to demonize opponents. As we advocate for human dignity, for religious liberty, for family stability, let’s do so as those with a prophetic word that turns everything upside down.

The signs of the times tell us we are in for days our parents and grandparents never knew. But that’s no call for panic or surrender or outrage. Jesus is alive. Let’s act like it. Let’s follow him, onward to the future."

Source:B&H Publishing Group- with Dr. Russell Moore.

From B&H Publishing Group

I hope the Moral Majority as a movement at least in the sense that it has any real political power outside of the Republican Party is essentially over and done with. It is a movement that still sees America in the year 1955 even as the country is now sixty-years old and has simply developed and moved on.

Americans, tend to like their freedom and to be able to live their own lives. And generally now especially with younger Americans even in the Bible Belt, don’t have issues with things like multiculturalism and racial and ethnic diversity, homosexuality, women working out of the home, pre-marital sex, domestic partnerships, (that even produce children) immigration, gambling pornography and I could go on, but I’ll save you from that.

But the issues that the Moral Majority has fought against at least since the 1960s and have even wanted government to get involved in and regulating with how consenting adults live their own lives, are now mainstream with Americans who aren't old enough to be Baby Boomers and in many cases are Baby Boomers. Americans tend to progress and move on. And tend not to get stuck in some time where some Americans view that period as their Utopia.

What you may see now with whatever is left of the Moral Majority is a movement that tries to bring people to them. But leaves government out and tells people this is the best and moral way to live based on their religious values. And try to get people to adopt their way of life and lifestyle. But stop trying to get government to pass their values into law. And to educate people about what their movement is about.

I think the Christian-Right movement are even realizing now and Russell Moore is an example of this that they no longer have much support outside of the Republican Party and have even lost support inside of the Republican Party. With the growing conservative libertarian movement that is made up of a lot of young Republicans now.

The Eagle Forum: Phyllis Schlafly: The Republican Cuckservatives

Source: Eagle Forum: Take Back America From Who?

Source:The New Democrat

So I guess cuckservative, whatever that is, sounds to me more like some type of sexual insult, perhaps a shot at gay men, or something, but I guess this is the new term that Tea Party Neoconservatives use for Republicans who aren’t as far to the right as they are. I know, a cukservative is a shot from the Christian-Right against gay Republicans. Even though gays tend to agree with Republicans on economic policy. But what is a Republican, really. I know the answer to this, so I’ll share what it is. A Republican, is someone who believes in a republican form of government. And in a federal republican liberal democratic country like America, that means checks and balances and a country that is governed by a constitution. Not by religious institutions, or religious groups, regardless of religion.

The Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, that Democratic U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer calls the modern John Birch Society, is not new to the Republican Party. But what makes them different from the John Birhcer’s of the 1960s lets say, is that the Tea Party has real power and numbers. Even in Ronald Reagan’s time, the John Birchers were seen as a fringe group and people who lived in their own world and saw things that others didn’t see. And a lot of that had to do because they were on a different political planet. But post-Reagan and even the Bush’s, the Republican establishment is pretty weak. The GOP has a leadership void that we haven’t seen in either major political party since the Democrats of the 1970s and 1980s, when they were seen as way out in left field. Now Republicans are seen as way out in right field.

Back in the day, Republicans were Republicans. They believed in a strong vibrant private sector with a strong private enterprise capitalist economy. That government closest to home is the best government. That deficit spending is bad spending and that even included the defense budget, not including Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. And speaking of defense, they believed in a strong national defense of course. But that was mostly about the national security of the United States, not being strong enough to police the world by ourselves.

Back in the day, women and even racial and ethnic minorities voted Republican. Why? Because Republicans didn’t push the social issues for the most part. It was Barry Goldwater who is famous for saying that a Conservative is someone who wants big government out of our wallets, homes, schools and boardrooms. But I guess Senator Goldwater would be called a RINO today, because he wasn’t with the Christian-Right on most issues. Women and minorities at one point voted for Republicans, because they didn’t make it harder for minorities to vote with bogus voter ID laws, or bash immigration and call non-Europeans immigrants Un-American and accuse them of coming to America so they can be on welfare and questioning their work-ethic and all of that. It was Ron Reagan that called America an immigrant nation.

I’m not a Republican obviously as a Liberal Democrat, but the people who I just described as Republicans the Barry Goldwater’s, Ron Reagan’s, Ron Paul’s even, are. The RINOS, are people who are only Republicans in Name Only, because we no longer have a Whig Party, or a Confederate Party, or a Christian Conservative Party, a Neoconservative Party. Where they would be more comfortable politically being a part of. Today’s RINOS, are only Republicans, because that is the only major political in America that would take them, instead of institutionalizing them, or trying to deport them. Today’s GOP is suffering from a leadership vacuüm. Which is what tends to happen to political parties when they spend a long time outside of the White House and when their last presidency didn’t go very well. Which is very similar to what happen to Democrats in the 1970s and 80s.

Keith Hughes: The Dred Scott Decision Explained: US History Review

Source:Keith Hughes.

Source:The New Democrat

The Dred Scott decision is one of the worst decisions in American history. The fact that African-Americans weren’t considered American citizens at the time, even if they lived in free states meaning that whether you were African, or Caucasian you were free and couldn’t be held as a slave and that under the U.S. Constitution everyone born inside of the United States, or has at least one parent born in the United States, was ridiculous. A simple bad reading of U.S. law and the U.S. Constitution at best and racist at worst from the U.S. Justices’s who ruled in that direction. And of course this decision was even worst for Dred Scott who would have to live as a slave.

But even with horrible rulings and decisions comes some positive features. It meant the United States was going to have to decide whether it was going to be a free country. Meaning all Americans are free, or whether it was going to be a half free, half slaved country. If you’re of European descent, you were free and couldn’t be a slave. If you were of African descent, you most likely would be a slave. Had the Confederate States somehow managed to win the American Civil War. The Dred Scott decision was kind of like that last blow that ignited the American Civil War. Putting the North against the South to decide what type of country America was going to be. Or would we end up splitting similar to what happened to Germany, Korea and Vietnam. A free North and a half free half slaved South.

The American Civil War, was bad for lots of reasons. Because of all the destruction that came to America. Leaving the North to be fairly prosperous which it has remained for the most part ever since. And the South to be fairly poor and needing so much Federal aid to try to rebuild themselves. And something the South, if you look at South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi, they’ve never fully recovered from the Civil War. Plus all the innocent lives that were lost on both sides. But the Civil War did lead to the abolishment of slavery in America. And America has only made progress in the areas of race relations, equal rights and civil rights ever since.

The Associated Press: ‘Opening of The Senate Watergate Committee (1973)’

Source:The Associated Press- U.S. Senator Sam Ervin: Democrat, North Carolina: Chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee (93rd U.S. Congress)

Source:The New Democrat

“(17 May 1973) Scenes from the United States Senate hearing into the Watergate Affair. Senate Watergate Committee chairman, Sam Ervin makes a statement…

Source:The New Democrat- U.S. Senator Sam Ervin: Democrat, North Carolina: Chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee (93rd U.S. Congress)

From The Associated Press

Without the Senate Watergate Committee, President Nixon doesn’t get impeached at least in that Congress and when he did in 1974. Because of how they and the special prosecutors office were able to get people in the Nixon White House and the Nixon reelection campaign to talk about what they knew about Watergate and the coverup, that is how all of this information came out. To the point that Congressional Republicans both in the House and Senate could no longer support President Nixon.

John Dean, in great detail laid out for the committee under threat of prosecution of course, exactly how the Watergate coverup was conducted. Since he was essentially in charge of managing the coverup.

White House Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman, also played a big role in that. But Dean, was essentially the desk sergeant of this case. And managed all the information that came in, as well as what to do with the information. And what people involved in the Watergate break in either needed to keep quiet, or what kind of legal defense that they needed.

But the disclosure of the taping system, is really what ended the Nixon Administration. Without that disclosure, President Nixon probably survives Watergate. He would’ve been a lot weaker and had a hard time dealing with a Democratic Congress that would’ve expanded their majorities in the House and Senate in 1974 whether he was still President, or not. But he still would’ve been President of the United States for the last two and a half years of his presidency.

And perhaps President Nixon would’ve achieved a few other foreign policy success’. But the taping system is what nailed the President. Where he’s caught on tape ordering the coverup. And the Senate Watergate Committee brought that to the public.

Gustavo Lagos: 'The Best of Ann Coulter'

Source:Gustavo Lagos-

Source:The New Democrat

I think Alan Colmes had the best line in this video. When he said that he thinks that he has Ann Coulter all wrong. His point was that he now sees her as just a political satirist who says all sorts of insulting if not hateful and certainly ignorant things to make people on the Far-Right look bad. I see her as Far-Right and not as a Center-Right Conservative for obvious reasons. Conservatives, tend to be a lot more intelligent and at least try to back up what they say with actual facts. With Ann Coulter, she speaks her mind and is provocative intentionally and then she tries to explain what she means by that later, if she can. The way I would put Ann Coulter, is that she’s a political satirist at best and a pretty good one at times.

If Coulter is not a satirist, she’s quite frankly a bullshit artist. Someone who speaks out of their ass on a regular basis. Either intentionally to sell her books and columns, or because like most assholes, she doesn’t know what the hell she’s talking about. But because her views are so outer space and light years away from Earth, people are interested in her, because of how different she is. Coulter to me is like a rich women’s Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin, very entertaining and at times a pretty good political analyst and satirist, but not someone you want filling out your taxes for you, or perhaps watching your kids, let alone holding a responsible job in public office. And Ann Coulter, is slightly better than that. Because I wouldn’t want her to watch my kids, but if she did my taxes she could probably find a few tax breaks for me.

Some entertainers and commentators who weren’t very popular in their time, but lets say a generation later they look great. Because they fit that era and then look brilliant and become pop culture heroes and celebrities and so-forth. Have books and perhaps even movies made about them. Lenny Bruce, who was a comedian in the 1950s and was probably twenty-years ahead of his time, because he used a lot of adult language and talked about adult subjects in his act. With Coulter the obvious is true. But she’s not twenty years before her time. More like 80-100. When gays were still locked in the closet. Before it was common for women to work outside of the home. Before women could even vote and I could go down the line.

Ann Coulter, whether she actually believes in what she says and doesn’t have this moment, “gee, did I really just say that? I’m not sure I believe my own words.”, or she’s really as dumb as a brick and makes and makes both Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann look like genius’, knows how to get people to think and talk. And generally it is a lot of negative things about her. But whether this is intentional or not on her part, she’s a hell of a businesswomen. She knows how to sell her books and columns and the more attention she gets about them and generally outside of so-called Fox News and Far-Right publications and even some Center-Right publications, it’s generally bad publicity. But publicity good and bad sells her books and columns. Is she a political satirist, or bullshit artist? If only I was a mind-reader.
Gustavo Lagos: The Best of Ann Coulter

Bill Whittle: Defense Debacle: Should Conservatives Cut Military Spending?

Source:Bill Whittle.

Source:The New Democrat

I think its obvious the United States defense budget should be and has been on the table when it comes to deficit reduction. And it has been since the 2011 Budget Control Act, that was negotiated between Congress and the Obama Administration, that was part of the debt ceiling agreement from that year. And the question for me at least and many others both Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, is to make savings in the defense budget. I think savings is the key word here, since our military is doing things for other countries that those countries could do for themselves. And that there things in America where our military perhaps should be doing more. Like in Central America, to use as an example.

And when I’m talking about savings in the defense budget, I look at developed countries, large developed countries, that no longer need us to defend them. Like in Europe, especially in Germany and then go to Saudi Arabia and then move over to Japan and Korea. We’re already making savings in Iraq and Afghanistan, by turning over the defense and the main responsibility for those countries defense to Iraq and Afghanistan. But we’re no longer going to have to spend, borrow really, a hundred-billion dollars a year to defend the Iraq. A country of thirty-million people that is roughly the size of California physically.

So when I’m looking at making savings in the U.S. defense budget as a Liberal Hawk lets say, I’m looking at areas where we don’t need to spending any money at all. Like defending developed countries, or developing countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, who both have emerging militaries that are ready to defend their own countries. The Iraqi Military right now is fighting and defeating ISIS in their own country. And speaking of ISIS, that is not where we should cutting the budget. But instead investing whatever we need to, to make sure that Iraq and Syria, don’t become what Afghanistan was for the Taliban in the 1990s. Their own terrorist state.

America, should stop defending countries that can defend themselves. We should be helping countries that want to be our partners, but are currently poor and aren’t available to completely defend themselves. I believe Columbia would fall into that category. Perhaps Mexico as well at least when it comes to corruption. Iraq and Afghanistan, still need us to assist them and give them resources to defend themselves. That their military and law enforcement agencies can use for their own defense. And of course ISIS, we need to be a major player there from the air. With our partners on the ground from NATO and the Arab League, taking it to ISIS on the ground to defeat them. And if we need to aid our partners on the ground in that war, we should be doing that.

So when it comes to the defense budget. Sure, eliminate fighters jets that don’t either work, or are no longer needed. Eliminate bases that we no longer need. But if we want to make real savings in the defense budget to cut our debt and deficit, look to developing countries that we’re responsible for defending. Stop going to war on the credit card. Especially wars that we don’t have to fight. Require Congress and the Administration to pay for all of our military operations. But don’t do these things and not still do what America needs to defend itself. Don’t cut the military budget simply because it’s so big and so much bigger than any other military budget in the world. And invest in the military where we need new resources to keep our country as safe as possible. Like dealing with ISIS and making sure our neighbors are doing their part to keep terrorism out of the neighborhood.