The National Interest: Scott MacDonald: 'This Is Not Your Parents' Caribbean'

Source:The National Interest- A look at Paradise.

Source:The New Democrat

"Change is coming from multiple directions, driven by a thawing of U.S.-Cuban relations, Puerto Rico’s debt crisis, and the decline of Venezuela’s regional influence...."

From The National Interest

Source:Carib Nation TV- Talking about a Caribbean single market.

"The CARICOM Single Market and Economy is intended to benefit the people of the Region by providing more and better opportunities to produce and sell our goods and services and to attract investment. It will create one large market among the participating member states...

From Carib Nation TV

There are a lot of opportunities and challenges in the Caribbean especially with Cuba coming back from the dead so to speak with its economy and having restarted diplomatic relations with America again. And will become heavy trading partners that will benefit both economies. Cuba, the largest island nation in the Caribbean will see a lot of money coming into their country as a result. Cuba, very similar to Florida as far as its physical beauty climate and tourist attractions. And culturally South Florida is very similar to Cuba. But with a much better economy and infrastructure system.

With Cuba on the move again, that could hurt struggling little Caribbean states that are already struggling economically and could do even worst in the future with more money and people going to Cuba. Which is the challenge for Puerto Rico, Jamaica, Dominican, Haiti, Bahamas and others. But with challenges tend to come with opportunities. The whole Caribbean region is an area of forty-five-million people roughly. But with the biggest country being Cuba with a eleven-million people. The Dominican, has around ten-million people. Maybe its time that these countries get together and restructure their debts and deficits and do what Europe did back in the 1940s and 1950s.

To look at a Caribbean Union, or some type of West Indie Alliance where they become one economic market. That everyone would want to trade and invest with. Because one Indie market would be a lot bigger and wealthier than fifteen, or so mostly very small states like the Bahamas and Barbados. As well as having a joint defense alliance and foreign policy coordinator and even law enforcement alliance. Because Cuba, is coming back and will be even stronger economically than they were pre-Fidel Castro and the Marxist Revolution there. And Cuba could become part of this West Indie Alliance as well. Especially if their human rights record improves and perhaps even lead the Alliance.

The National Interest: Tom Nichols: 'No Other Choice'

Source:The National Interest-

Source:The New Democrat

I mostly agree with Tom Nichols about President Truman and the atomic bomb being dropped in Japan. The only thing I would differ on is that President Truman had no good choice. Continue the war and risk losing another hundred-thousand American soldiers in the Pacific, or drop the bomb in Japan and kill at least a million innocent Japanese. Who were guilty of nothing other than living in Japan during World War II. But the old cliche war is hell has never been more true than during this war. When you're the head of state in your country during wartime, your loyalty is to your own country. And that even means leading a war and ordering missions that can kill a lot of innocent people on the other side. Without the dropping of the atomic bomb in Japan, how and when does that war end?

Japan, wasn't interested in preserving their own people. If anything America showed more mercy to the Japanese people then their own government. We didn't use the Japanese as targets and human shields. Japan, was only interested in saving their dictatorial regime. Not surrendering and risk being thrown out. Didn't matter to them how many of their people had to die to preserve their regime. Not that different with Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the current Islamic State in Iran. So what President Truman and his National Security Council was left with was how to end a war against a country that refuses to surrender and stop fighting.

President Harry Truman, was President of the United States. And because of that was responsible for the lives and national security of the American people. Which included German-Americans as well as Japanese-Americans back then and today. America, fought both Germany and Japan back then. And had the Japanese Government been more interested in preserving the lives of their own people than their regime, the atomic bomb is never dropped. Because the war would've been over a long time before the bomb. Because Japan would've figured out the obvious. They were beat and losing thousands of their own people everyday and would've just lost more the longer the war went on. And that they couldn't beat the United States.
Source:Critical Past

Anarchy U.S.A.-'In the Name of Civil Rights'

Source:Google- Man who was part of the Anarchy USA documentary. 

Source:The New Democrat

Of course there were demonstrations and rioting in America in the 1960s. But that is only part of the story. Why were civil rights marchers marching and why were African-Americans rioting in their ghettos? To get fresh air, no. Maybe some exercise, no. I know, they were bored with nothing else to do. But that would be wrong again. They were marching for freedom and to be noticed. This whole right-wing propagandist notion that America was the mountain of freedom up to this point and then it became some anarchist state during the 1960s during the Johnson Administration. Mountain of freedom for who? For some, sure! But if you’re complexion happened to be black, or brown, you mostly likely were not a free person in America during this time.

If your complexion was black and brown and you had African hair and other physical features, you might not have been able to even vote back then. Unless you could afford to pay the high poll tax. You could lose your job, or be denied a job simply because of your color and race. Liberal democracy is not easy and when you write a Constitution that says all men are created equal with all the same rights as everyone else, but then you say, you know what, we really don’t mean that. What our Founding Fathers meant to say what that all of that freedom and constitutional rights were only intended for Anglo-Saxon men whose ancestors come from Britain.” When you do something like that and simply deny people their rights that they are guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution simply based on their race, there’s going to be a backlash against that.

What we saw in the 1960s, were African-Americans and others stand up and demand their rights. The same rights that Anglo-Saxons and other European-Americans are due under the U.S. Constitution. They they were tired of being denied things simply because of their complexion and race. They were tired of being given peanuts and living in projects, while the establishment got the rest of the loaf and pie to themselves and lived in beautiful homes in the suburbs living in a paradise that they created for themselves with help from people who live in the projects. Because they were only getting peanuts for the work that they put in. The civil rights movement wasn’t about destroying America, or freedom. But expanding those things to more Americans.

The National Interest: Albert Carnesale: Deal or No Deal: The Choice Before Congress

Source:The National Interest- U.S. Senator Bob Corker (Republican, Tennessee) Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee (114th Congress)

Source:The New Democrat

Albert Carnesale, in his National Interest piece, makes a good point about Congressional Republicans. And maybe the problem they’re having is that America unlike Europe and a lot of other places, does not have a true opposition leader and opposition leadership. One opposition leader and their leadership who represents the alternative to the administration in power. And when they disagree with the administration they can lay out exactly what they don’t like about administration policy and what they would do differently. What we have in America for the opposition party, is several different leaderships, but not one that can bring the whole party together. Which makes it difficult especially when the opposition party is already divided to begin with to pay out a clear alternative to administration policy.

Senate Marco Rubio and other Congressional Republicans say that there is a clear alternative to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Better known as the Iran Nuclear Deal. But they’re essentially advocating for the status quo. Which is common with Conservatives. “Don’t rock the boat, keep things as are” and so-forth. They’re arguing for continuing the economic sanctions and basically preying that the United Kingdom, Europe, Russia and China do the same things. The problem is our partners in this deal which is why it’s called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action have already agreed to the deal and are going forward with it.

And part of that is sanctions relief for a failing Iranian economy. And Republicans, also argue just continue with the economic sanctions on Iran, while everyone else isn’t. The problem with that is the sanctions have already severely hurt the Iranian economy going back to 2005. And now even under all of that economic pressure are now closer to a nuclear weapon then they were ten years ago. Some Republicans say get a better deal. But what would be a better deal. The whole point of a deal and compromise is that you give up something in order to get something in return that you value more.

The definition of a deal, or compromise to Neoconservatives seems to be total surrender. Iran, gives up their nuclear weapons and we won’t invade them. Which is not something that Congressional Republicans are willing to do as far invading Iran right now and perhaps not even trying to hit Iran from the air. And obviously Iran wouldn’t agree to that. I mean if you make that offer to them, they would simply walk away. And to talk to people who know how to negotiate. Iran, will get real economic relief for their economy which they obviously need. But in exchange they’ll give up their nuclear weapons program, if they live up to their end. And if they don’t we’ll catch them if they try to cheat and they’ll pay a price for that as well.

So what Albert Carnesale said in his National Interest piece, “Deal or No Deal”, he’s right on point. Because this is the only deal that is on the table, or has even been offered. House Republicans, haven’t put any alternatives on the table. Senate Republicans, haven’t offered any alternatives either. None of the Republican presidential candidates even the ones with real foreign policy experience like Senator Lindsay Graham, has offered an alternative to the JCPA, or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. So the JCPA, is the only deal on the table. If America walks, we walk alone while the UK, European Union, Russia and China move forward without us. And if this deal is fully implemented, they would get the credit for it.

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.