Merry Christmas from the Foundation!

The National Alliance Foundation would like to wish all of you and your family Merry Christmas and a splendid new year. Over the past thirty weeks, we have worked hard to emphasize a message of economic freedom and national renewal, and we thank you for the continued support and interest.

If we can in anyway improve quality of this operation, please let us know by contacting one of the head directors here. Your input makes us more effective, and is always treasured and appreciated.

As the organization comes into a new year just days from now, our primary focus is to have the chairman's book published, a work which will espouse many of our views as an association of writers in a single volume. Please consider keeping an eye out for its release and perhaps adding to your collection as well. Either way, we hope you continue to read into the views of our organization and decide whether or not they fit your personal leanings about the path and future of our great country.

Today is a magnificent celebration of ancient importance and the birth of a great Savior for the world. It marks a day when sin was challenged, and the start of a path to save souls of so many was initiated. The light that came has continued to be a powerful force for good years later, and this easily makes it worthy of appreciation.

So peace and good will to you, and to the entire world. May God bless this day, and continue to bless the United States of America!


The National Alliance Foundation Staff

How Federalism Preserves Morality

American traditionalism is dying. There are signs littered about the land, and observation of the current society does nothing but support this premise. Despite decades of prosperity and the wise imparting of the forefathers warning to remain off the road to structural ruin,  the country has taken that very route, and its future is anything but secure. Of course the cause of this imperative dilemma is not difficult to understand; indeed, the answer lies directly in the heart of the nation's recent political history, and the decline of responsible federalism.

When the Founding Fathers chose to form the American idea hundreds of years ago, they made it a categorical necessity that each member of the government's structure would not conspire to strip away fundamental morality from the people. No matter the political convictions which each official may have held, they bound themselves to the strict notion that they had to maintain standards of morality without which the country would turn to ruin. As long as politicians have done so in America, the country had stood strong against the tide, yet the recent events of late threaten to remove that number of beliefs altogether.

Because America has drifted towards a more secular and less traditionalist realm for culture, it should be up to the government to institute moral standards in whichever way possible, beginning with education. Students must be made to respect their country and obligated to preform well in class; contrast this with the age of secularism, in which many of those in academic situations feel as if their own destiny should operate outside of the nation's prosperity, which is almost universally impossible. 

Furthermore, American government should advertise and instill the importance of the family once more in school settings and within its own agencies. New eras of progressivism which the government has made the mistake of embracing are poisoning the familiar structure by confusing children about gender roles and how family life can and should play out. Federalism answers this by ensuring that wherever possible, the people learn that the success of their family is one of their prime responsibilities in life.

On the topic of foreign affairs, responsible federalism stipulates that the government will pursue and convict opponents of national security, no matter its ideological helmsman, or the UN's appreciation of their actions. In the case of the WikiLeaks fiasco and Julian Assange, the Democratic Party and Barack Obama's administration chose to avoid arresting and containing the perpetrator, thus violating the historical loyalty which so many other presidents and governments have had to this generational belief.

Properly implemented, federalism can change the nation's criminal imprisonment status, alleviating the burden placed on prisons and restoring self-sufficiency to the American Way. Over time, as the government moves to battle mindless liberal progressivism and the deconstruction-ism of the country, morality will slowly yet steadily return to its shores.

Change is sometimes good, but in excess it can be overbearing. No country can continue to stand if its core foundational principles are removed or tossed out, and responsible federalism should be America's ratelitation to this potential weakness. The future will bring great challenges, yet none are insurmountable if government restores its traditional capstones of ideology.


Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy

Why Reject Faith?

Editor's Note: this article contains the opinion of the author and not that of the National Alliance Foundation. We are however very grateful to his contribution in this manner. 


The question is fundamental, yet still I spend many hours ever-wondering if I will one day see a definitive answer.  Few in the modern day would find it shocking to see or interact with an individual who is adverse to the idea of God--or a religion committed to an supernatural deity, yet their reasoning is quite difficult to explain in particular situations.

To start, why might a middle aged man with a decent, but not overwhelmingly rewarding job as a computer programmer choose to reject the tenets and scrolls of dedication and spiritual loyalty? Such a man has less hopes of a dramatic future with power at his fingertips or the constant companionship of the most attractive to him, and still he holds on to atheist principles. Would this man not desire something more when he dies; a place in which he is made anew and can enjoy the wonders of salvation instead of the cold and empty reality which he feels destined to return to at passing?

In the case of a clever man or woman--I might take the example of Julia Gillard, the accomplished and newly minted Australian prime minister, the attraction to disbelief in God or an afterlife is perhaps stronger, for one like her shall spend most of her life in the spotlight, perhaps reverting to humanitarianism afterwards and never seeking to travel about the world. She embodies a rare opportunity in which a person is seen and admired by millions, never fearing for the future due to her visibility and power in the nation and across the world. Her life will never become dull or unexciting because by the world's standards, she is of greater importance than the typical human, and will likely retain that status until the day when he passes on.

Absent the presence of riches or the profuseness of worldly pleasures in life, there can be less clear explanation for why a poorer human would choose to abandon God for the uncertainty of the afterlife. Where, in this case, would the person find their accomplishment and fulfillments? A life can only be enjoyed so much for one of little financial superiority, and the absence of power greatly decreases a person's chance of critical importance to others, thus undercutting the true satisfaction of a romp through the earth over a period of multiple decades.

Perhaps it is God's grandeur which turns so many away; the necessity to except something so large without absolute certainty or the confirmation of his existence in the realm above. Or it may simply be man's incessant need to explain and control everything; a difficult achievement when one's life is pledged to an omnipresent and potent being.

Still, rejecting faith is an issue in our world because it decays the morality of those who choose it as an option, causing them to cast aside otherwise fortified columns of societal structure. As culture has left religion behind in the past 50 years, the statistics are alarmingly blatant: more crime, less social responsibility, and visible destruction of the old family structure which made the world so better populated in the past. This so called "enlightened age" has corrupted the earth by removing fear of God from people's hearts, allowing them to lead lives which they view as intellectual, all the while as the world falls apart alongside them.

The duty of the academics and scholarly of the world must remain forever more to preserve faith and employ others to its worthy commitment. If intellectualism continues to push for even those with no reason for it to turn to atheistic dialog, the world can only come to a more depraved and unspeakable level of voidness.


Patrick McCann

Adjunct Writer--Faith and America Blog

America's Inevitable Collapse

From a respectful standpoint, one must be willing to congratulate the Democratic Party. After all, despite only four years of congressional power, they have managed to radically implement some of the most extreme ends of their ideological base, only crowned today by the stunning repeal of Don't Ask Don'r Tell, the military's secretive policy towards gay service members within its ranks. Considering the GOP could not accomplish something dramatic like this back when it held such power, bring your hands together for the political ploys and strategies of the center-left! Without their presence, we might truly have governmental stagflation; a limbo in which nothing changes, and yet nothing is accomplished. Merits here are for the party, whether one agrees to their views or not.

Of course, not all change is christened with righteous prosperity however, and this legislative paper is poignant because it represents the collapse of Old America and the values which it stood for, as well as signifying the slope which we are steadily descending into the unmaking of everything which is our country.

With gays having won their initial battle, the test moves as to whether or not gay marriage, which has shamelessly and untruthfully been propped up as the permission of love between two people, will receive nationwide legalization. Considering the "take no prisoners" attitude of Senators Durbin and Schumer, the legalization will likely come within the next eight years, when the Democrats will likely control enough power to override a presidential veto, and thus make the bill law.

Sadly, the individuals making such decisions are not experienced Americans from average walks of life, but wealthy and egotistical Ivy League graduates who will send their children forever to private schools and never risk the mainstream negatives of their own folly in the nation's capitol. Senators like Russ Feingold, Al Franken, Carl Levin, and Chuck Schumer have all voted in a way that defies the very core tenets of their faith,   repealing the military policy despite having no soldiering experience to glean reason from, nor sensible reason to cast their ballots in this manner.

This era of elected officials is the continuation of a dangerous path which shall only end with the undoing of this country's legacy of government and its people. If further liberal congresses take power, they will likely grant amnesty to illegal aliens, solidifying a voting bloc which has been tricked into party support through a capitally dishonest smear campaign against pro-reformers perpetrated by the Democratic Party.

As the successive sessions remove social issues from the political mix, effectively shooting down attempts by the GOP to repeal or reinstate old policies, American society will lose he necessary moral guidances, the absences of which have destroyed the societies of Britain and Germany over the past fifty years. American in the next six decades may very well be like Europe; where political parties differ on solely on economic--not social issues.

All empires must one day fall, yet America was meant for a far greater and longer-term status as a universal decider. Now, with Russia training its own youth in the Church and in respect for the military, the former Soviet nation may very well become the new leader of the world--though perhaps not in the same manner which American leaders have for so long acted. We as a country have grown too spoiled--too undeserving of what we we born with, and that will lead to the collapse of our great union in the near future.


Jessica Yui

National Alliance Vice Chairman

Afghanistan: Our 51st State?

It does not take a sitting member on the Council of Foreign Relations to understand that the future of democratic stability and Al Qaeda resistance in the country of Afghanistan is shaky at best. After nine years of constant toil and loss of life, the western Asian nation holds a newer president, yet still a man who is unwilling to abandon the treachery of forces as ignominious to the West as the Taliban and other terrorist groups. So poor are the country's future hopes for lasting peace that some are even suggesting to leave forces within its borders for decades before it finally reaches a stabilized position of government and social distribution.

As unpopular as the presentation may be, the National Alliance Foundation is willing to stand by a new plan for Middle Eastern structuring which offers to solve the issue of Afghanistan's collapse with the departure of American soldiers: the declaration of the country as a protected American territory, or even the 51st state.

Cries of imperialism aside, the move would certainly render many long term benefits to both America and its new territory through the processes of state protection and economic stability. America would gain a solid foothold in the central east area from which to conduct special operations and place permanent military bases, successfully dissuading belligerents from launching random strikes which would land directly on the country's new soil. For their part, the Afghanis would gain more jobs, better educational systems, a government positions including a national guard to help prevent further attacks from becoming successful.

Also, Afghanistan's new status would cut federal spending tremendously, as the cost of waging war in such a zone would be alleviated by the province's condition, as well as additional tax revenues. With the addition of American companies, the nation-state would grow, serving as a beneficial model of democracy and free enterprise for the rest of the Muslim world to follow suite.

Perhaps most importantly of all, the annexation of Afghanistan would allow Americans to become closer to Muslims and end unnecessary disputes regarding stereotypes or misunderstandings between the two general cultures. For as long as the distance remains among the two groups, it will be dauntingly problematic to achieve peace in a region in which our nation is not fully and totally trusted to do what is right at all times.

Success in the Middle East is less about a single moment and more about long-term progress. After the many crusades of ancient years, chaos still managed to rein supreme, overruling those who fought and believed in tolerance and everlasting peace. If we are to make right what has forever been done wrong, it will take a painful but courageous decision such as this; a movement which shall be decried at first, but embraced by the people in later years.


Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues

Virginia's Need of Change

More than two hundred years of American history have past by, filled with numerous changes to in social and economic statuses as well as the implementation of rampant and critical government reforms to limit the power of the State and return in to the hands of the people whenever possible. Through all of this, many states have adopted reasonable term limits for all their elected officials, including a generally excepted 8-year boundary for the chief executive of the province, translating roughly into two terms. Although this remains the commonly held standard, the state of Virginia still maintains an old and ineffective policy in which no governor is permitted to succeed themselves, usually forcing the executive to a single term as other political figureheads will make their own mad dash to the Governor's Mansion in Richmond at the next election. In the best interests of stable government and to allow good executives to serve more capably, the National Alliance Foundation advocates the amending of Virginia's constitution to allow for a consecutive two term extension for the office of governor. 

It would be difficult to prove that politicians are inherently good, but even the best of them are severely handicapped by the current single term restriction set by the state's constitution when it comes to budgetary procedures. Virginia's budgets pass on a yearly basis, yet the accumulation of the governor's end of term financial package hurts his or her successor by coming into effect as they take office, potentially leaving the monetary position of the capital in considerable disarray. This means that an outgoing governor can essentially leave a poor financial legacy or dwindling general fund to be dealt with because there is no second set of four years under which those benefits or negatives will be reaped. 

A number of other states have multiple statewide offices which citizens can run for, and this provides them with a unique advantage in that their executive's office is ever endangered to potential defeat. This is not so in Virginia, where the Attorney Generalship and the Lieutenant Governorship essentially require a candidate to "latch on" to the gubernatorial nominee if they wish to score victory. Laws allowing a second term would fix this issue by allowing the offices to face regular opponents, not just a tide for or against the governor. 

Additionally, the second term would avoid the unwanted situation of having a surplus of state governors still living and active in politics, a condition which prevents many good public servants from capably taking part in the elected political process. Even today, five former governors are actively involved in the election campaigns, with two looking towards a match for the senatorial seat of Virginia up in 2012. Two terms would certainly eliminate the extended number, as at least some of the more successful executives would have won likely reelection.

Allowing an executive to run for a second term gives them the ability to do well, and forces them to own up to their record of office. Voters may keep a good governor, yet a poor performer will be thrown out, eliminating the issue of former officials who speak out and can hide behind the single term despite their less admirable records. Bringing about this change is the key to better government in the state of Virginia. 

Jessica Yui

National Alliance Vice Chairman

The Test of Paulism

In what some see as a dramatically surprising result, Representative Ron Paul of Texas has been tapped to lead a Federal Reserve oversight committee in the 112th Congress. After the years of discussion and observations, the former libertarian presidential candidate is going to have the chance of a lifetime not only to speak--but also to act on his anti-federal views, setting up for a potentially colorful smack-down between him and the other pro-Wall Street Republicans.

Unless...his words are stronger than his actions. For as much excitement as this placement may garner among political neophytes and standard bearers across the nation, Paul must be able to prove that he can use a position of leadership to effectively get the job done--not only advocate for its completion. Political truth-tellers will always be a novelty in any country and America is no exception, yet there is a time for speech and then a time for putting rhetoric to forceful outcomes. Even the constitutional firebrand's heroes, the American Founding Fathers, knew that at a certain point in their movements against the British they would need to use courageous action, pushing through the preliminary boundaries of activism and to the valleys of freedom from oppression beyond.

The Campaign for Liberty and Ron Paul must now be willing to end their activism dash and shift to a more administrating mode in which they control policy; not just words. With the heavy number of GOP members in the House who firmly subscribed to the Tea Party, as well as others in the Senate, there should be noticeably less difficulty for the new politicians to decry the tactics of old and move forward with policy to either audit or even abolish the Federal Reserve once and for all, fulfilling their commitments and members of a cause for national renewal for which they have so long belabored to stress in government.

Obviously the largest test to this successful venture will be the tenacity of the movement's own Speaker, and whether or not he agrees to show the leadership which so many of his better informed political flock had hoped for if his had won the presidency. If nothing else, Ron Paul must except that as the subcommittee oversight chairman he should act in the best interests of the people--not simply as a poster boy for libertarianism. He must rise to propose viable legislation which the majority will support and which can become law, and work as a member of the leadership, not as a caucus of one in the House.

Ideology is the basis of action, yet it cannot be a substitute, and this is the reality which Dr. Paul must be willing to except. No longer can he claim a singular status as an advocate with no voice; his position immerses him directly into the government, with all of its perks and negatives. Strength and the courage to use it are the true factors which will allow him to either succeed for the people, or collapse politically in a withdrawal from his responsibilities.    

January 2011 and the months to follow will test the cores of Paul and the Tea Party, deciding whether they are made of true conviction form which actions can spring forth, or empty rhetoric which dies in the moment of dire need.


Dana Bault

National Alliance Vice President for Finance

How to Win Maryland

(This article is from an adjunct writer who does not forcibly represent the views of the National Alliance Foundation)


With deficits, soaring taxes, party corruption, and a sweeping wave year, it's genuinely shocking to some that Robert Ehrlich Jr. failed to pull it off in the Old Line State for 2010. Honestly though, the reality is more clear than even the most defeated GOP members would like to admit in the present day. Republicans in Maryland have failed to build true coalitions, instead leaning on pockets of temporary success while avoiding the grim reality that their vision is faulty, and their methods demeaning to the standards of the province's government friendly citizens.

Ehrlich won a fairly impressive victory in 2002, though his results are somewhat murky; he ran against an unpopular governor who divorced his wife to marry a young aide, as a lieutenant governor who could not seem to come out on her own feet to force a convincing message to the public. With the last ballots tallied, Ehrlich claimed the governorship by a measly 4%, hardly guaranteeing his return to Annapolis after four years. But the Princeton graduate faced greater challenges that this, especially considering his wishy washy stances on major issues in the Congress, and his unwillingness to be true to his core as the chief executive.

So a record of partial fiscal responsibility and lobbyist welcoming government helped him lose his job in 2006, when the mistake-plagued Mayor of Baltimore, Martin O'Malley, won more votes statewide. Fast forward four years: O'Malley is borderline unpopular, the economy is stalling, and Ehrlich is not running alongside George W. Bush, so why does the day end with his 14-point defeat? Largely because his campaign was so atrociously strung together, with no vision and a state party equally bankrupt of the virtuous principle.

Historically, the party has had this problem, with the last GOP governor prior to Ehrlich the categorically corrupt Spiro Agnew, who left office in 1969. In Maryland, a state where the party is out-registered 2-1, this might seem natural, yet even the states of New Jersey and California manage the occasional Republican governor or senator despite their true blue leanings around most election years. The problem is that Republican candidates have ever so frequently tried to repaint themselves as moderate-to-liberal instead of bringing voters from the other side into their turf. A number of stances could help sway Democrats to the GOP brand, as shown in the following.

• A pro-environmental stance on the eastern shore.
• Tax incentives to draw government contractors to the state.
• A longer session of the General Assembly coupled with a 15% decrease in legislator salaries. 
• Strong educational reforms in Prince George's County and Montgomery County to foster results that do not drop the state to the bottom nationwide. 
• Term limits for all assemblymen, and a ban on lobbying for the duration of the Assembly's session. 
• Proud pro-life candidates.
• Increased student loans with a drawback on state agencies in other areas. 

There is no way to guarantee where the next GOP governor or senator may arise from, yet wisdom dictates that it will likely be a representative from Baltimore County or perhaps even Prince George's County. The purpose of such a strategy would be to build up a strong coalition with African-American voters in those respective areas, after which the only major challenge would be to swing over blue collar white voters in southern Maryland. While Agnew may not be the best example to look at as a successful politician, he did manage to accomplish this by appealing to the immigrant bases in the area of the center state, eventually reaching the governor's mansion by a decent margin. 

Victory is not unreachable in Maryland; it is unlikely however if the party remains unable to unite under a common banner for the good of the state. Each GOP controlled office must be used to slowly chip away at the massive one-party machine, bringing about positive reform which will allow future candidates to have less struggle in gaining the trust of the Democratic majorities.  

Frank Ames

Adjunct Writer--The Red Maryland Network

Power to Cripple the Executive

(Editor's Note: This article is taken from the author's original source with permission. It does not necessarily represent the views of the National Alliance Foundation).


"Irresponsibility is the joy of everyone--especially government."


It is remarkable to hear all of the flailing angst from the left about how treacherous the prosecution of the Iraq War was, especially considering how blatantly responsible progressives are for its process and initiation. Back in 1973, Republican members of Congress as well as President Richard Nixon fought to prevent the passage of the War Powers Resolution, a disastrous piece of legislation sponsored by those of the center-leftist section who desired to remove blame for military actions from members of Congress, most of whom were overwhelmingly of the president's opposition. 

Despite furious debate, as well as an eleventh hour veto attempt by the president, Congress passed the legislation, washing its hands of future engagements which might not sit well with the future voter percentages as well as benefiting anti-war candidates. Essentially, the resolution gives the president the power to deploy troops for up to 90 days without Congressional approval, after which the chambers of deliberation must either pass a declaration of war, or authorize further military force. In short, Congress can approve conflict entrance without having to take responsibility, which falls flatly on the president, and may cost the executive dearly when reelection year rolls around. 


Pleased to carry out their duty, Congress moved to pass President Bush's resolution in 2002, authorizing continued force in Iraq while not going so far as to make a declaration of war. This allowed them to come out on headline news, boasting of their involvement in committees relating to the war while plotting their own political fortunes in the future. For Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, it would be leadership posts in 2007, and for Democrats such as John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, it was dramatic presidential runs in 2004 and 2008.

But regardless of their poster styled "truth stance" in relation to Iraq, the Democrats refused to cut funding for American soldiers serving in the Middle East, failing to acknowledge the fact that such a move would end the war, just like President Obama's did when his was inaugurated in 2009.  Rather than save the lives they pledged to protect, the party stood for its own election interests, refusing to make the difficult choice which would have looked bad politically, yet still served the interests which they had run to benefit. 


The War Powers Resolution must be repealed before it causes more needless death and the assassination of presidential images in American history. Any time Congress is allowed to bypass its constitutional responsibilities is an opportunity for corruption and the miscarriage of duties to seep into the political mesh, and situation which should at all costs be outmaneuvered. 




Danielle Conway


Law and Liberty Blog Adjunct Writer

Whose Jerusalem?

Since its formation, the National Alliance Foundation has firmly held the view that Israel is a force of good within the Middle East which must be be both assisted and protected by America and its allies in order to preserve the greater security for the entire world, as well as the allowance of religious freedom in the zone. Thus it is in perfect character for us to step out and clearly differentiate between the arguments which Palestinian sympathizers and the pan-Arabian nations have tried to spin about the importance of the city of Jerusalem, and the truth.

For longer than most would care to consider, the State of Israel has been targeted by the Arabian states for absolute and total elimination from the face of the planet, despite of its relatively small size. Repeated attempts by the Egypt-Jordan-Syria alliance were met with considerable failure throughout much of the past 50 years, yet the bloc shows no desire of letting up its hopes. One might find it hard to explain, seeing as the country is a mere strip of life bordering the Mediterranean; not a massive threat to each of their security.

It's further intriguing that nowhere in the Qu'ran or other Islamic texts is Jerusalem mentioned as holding particular value as part of religious principles or doctrine. When Mohammed began his religious expansion years ago, he designated Mecca, Saudi Arabia as the religion's most important city, only turning his sights to Jerusalem once it was realized that the city harbored a large non-Muslim population that might be persuaded to convert and strengthen the fledgling faith.

Truthfully, it is not hard to see why Mohammed took this path. Despite the rest of the region's committal to idols beforehand, he managed to popularize and forcefully spread Islamicism across the breadth of the Middle East, Southern Russia, Southeast Asia, and most of Northern Africa. Yet in all this accomplishment, Jerusalem held out as the Jewish haven and citadel, making it a thorn to his plans for universal Muslim dominance in the world. Essentially, the Islamic argument is based on a desire to spread the religion, reject aggression or violence.

On another note, Jerusalem represents the last holdout of democracy in an almost entirely authoritarian Middle East. Try as they might to argue for freedom and a more united region, the pan-Arabian states largely ignore the fact that they are run by monarchs or puppet prime ministers, while Israel healthily exchanges power between both the right and left of their country, spiritual and moderate. In Israel's borders, average people are allowed to attend Islamic mosques or Jewish synagogues without persecution; the case is not the same for its neighbors, countries where other faiths are persecuted if they try to rebuild structures or expand into the government for influence.

Today's world is not a safe place for assumption; rather, the debate must be clear and without marring splotches about its coat. Israel is a necessary presence in the Middle East in order to preserve democratic ideals and religious freedom--Jerusalem being its heart and soul. Only consistent dedication and upholding of its security can help the world become a more united and free-expressing domain.

Ayla Samadi

National Alliance Vice President for Domestic Affairs

The Strongest Defense

I was rather intrigued after watching a lengthy film which pushed for the view that the Russian Armed Forces are more united and supremely more skilled than the average U.S.Army Solider. The argument falls on largely the basis that in Russia, the environment and and surroundings equate and add to an upping of the general skill and readiness of the common soldier; a fact that it does not apply to the American defenders of liberty. After some further research however, I came up with my own analysis, albeit with a starkly different conclusion.

According to international statistics, the Russian area is defended by roughly 23 million active soldiers, far more than the present number of American troops. While this number is considerable, it comes hugely from the process of conscription that occurs within Russia's borders, forcing many young men into involuntary service during their careers.

Further, the reports explain that while most of Russia's volunteer forces are considered quite effective and united,  its larger units of enlisted conscripts often reveal great percentages of AWOL troops, soldiers who are on the run from their posts of duty. So despite the massive number of troops available, the Soviet bloc has yet to discover methods to keep those numbers in line, showing a clear weakness in their structure.

Additionally, Russian troops receive among some of the lowest pay and benefits of any major nation of the world, perhaps explaining partially why the numbers of deserters are so high.



Notwithstanding these elements, the major reason as the data shows is that Russia forces so many young men to join the armed forces, likely against their will. As America saw during the War in Vietnam, drafted soldiers had a tendency to preform poorly, commit atrocities, and return home to bash the military operations preformed abroad. Because America allows for choice, its members cannot claim that they do not wish to be involved in a war and have been forced against their own will. Politics rarely divide uniformed members, and the focus remains upon completing the mission, not serving oneself. If Russia were to take this reality to heart, moving for full implementation within its military assembly, the numbers of its soldiers would fall considerably, yet their power would be more directed and useful.

The 21st Century is one in which human rights--and will, must be respected. Forcing a person to don a uniform and obey an institution which they hate does not foster good performance or hard work; it encourages weaker actions and less confidence in the military. America has learned this, yet Russia still must understand it for future success.


Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues

Means to Justify Ends: Assange's Folly

"If men of this century understood the value of common ground, they might forge heroic legacies rather than dastardly remembrances during their time on this good earth."

Years ago, as the young men of America donned uniforms and departed for the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima, they were backed by those of diverse colors, both in political beliefs and backgrounds. From the poor farm boy to some of the most elite congressmen, hundreds of thousands of troops bid farewell, encouraged by spectators in full support--and opposition, to the great war of the century. Even among the most pacifist of journalists there remained an understanding that shoddy or  not supportive reporting might cause irreparable danger to the mission, and to the lives of soldiers serving in the front. One might look to it as a universal mentality; that war was painful, yet its burdens and sacrifices had to be carried and made together.

Today, the world seems to have forgotten these olden concessions of passion. WikiLeaks, a website pledging transparency and openness, has unleashed a remarkable number of documents regarding details of the Middle Eastern wars, placing thousands of lives across the world in immediate jeopardy. According to the site's founder, Julian Assange, the documents represent the uncovering of crimes against humanity by governments involved in the conflict, yet he fails to understand the depth of the issue at stake. For men like Assange, life is all about the one moment of success and limelight--not the aftereffects on innocent lives. Like Phillip Agee, who released confidential information that led to the assassinations of countless undercover agents, Assange believes the means justifier the ends. Secrets spilled are all that matter--even if their consequences are earth-shattering.

But furthermore Assange's action highlight a sad reality of a world in which views and ideological stances have overpowered common sense and general worldwide unity. In the past years in America, it might be prudent to realize how far and widespread this condition is. Democrats did not simply disagree with President Bush; they truly wanted his administration to collapse and fail, with international courts indicting each member possible with war crimes and humiliating the country of which all parties share. Under Barack Obama's tenure, the dialog has hardly changed, with his detractors picking at anything possible to call for impeachment or eventual failure.

All else aside, it paints a sad yet enlightened picture of what the world has become, and what it will likely be forever: an arena where only the strong, regardless of their motives, shall continue to outlive and outperform those around them. Of course competition is not wrong, but if its ends are such travesties--as Mr. Assange's will cost countless lives, the final ultimatum is one in which morality has been murdered in cold blood.

Those brave men and women currently serving are the last hope of the world to overcome evil and defeat the ill-doers residing within it, yet they will only be capable of succeeding if their positions and defenses are not compromised for the sake of ideological reveling or projection into the spotlight. For too long in the past 50 years this has become the operating procedure of so many, and its results are to gruesome and countless to recount in full. Unless the world--people of different views and ideologies alike, are able to overcome this incessant desire to betray the good cause for the sake of personal fame, we will spiral into a degenerated pit of nothingness in which morality is gone.    


Jessica Yui

National Alliance Vice Chairman

Finish the Job!

Only days ago, North Korea launched a decisive and unprovoked strike on an island near South Korea, killing four and initiating what some view as a deadly foreshadowing of greater conflict. The communist country, led by the ailing Kim Jong-il, seems to be making one last appeal to demonstrate its might before the dictator passes on and leaves his younger son to govern and rule the policy of the economically broken country. Due to the unique situation with the unwarranted attack on South Korea and the oncoming transfer of power, a possibility is visible for President Barack Obama to show courage and intervene to finish what might have been accomplished with a more aggressive push following the Tet Offensive of the 1960s.

In the past, North Korea proved to be a massive threat because of its ability to generate and launch nuclear weapons without much regulation from mainland China or Russia. But today, with the rash attack by the communist defense council, even the war-abstaining United Nations would be forced to agree to the use of force, and America could be seen as assisting a major ally, and far cry from the uncertainty and quagmire of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions.

A UN coalition backed by troops of the U.S. Military and British Royal Armed Forces would be able to stake out ground in the northern province, forcing Kim Jong-il to reconsider his use of armaments or suffer the international fallout of refusal. Combined with South Korean Defense soldiers and Japanese aide, the joint assault could bring about a culmination of defeat for the communist regime, reducing its iron grasp on the country to little more than a light touch. The only major obstacle to be considered is mainland China, yet with America's close connections in the free trade network, its is unlikely that the larger country would look towards denying its economic ally the freedom to change a nearby nation.

The benefits of swift action towards North Korea are many and diverse. By eliminating a major nuclear threat,  the allied forces would be able to alleviate tensions in the zone, weakening Russian and Chinese influence and encouraging a deescalation of communism in the countries of Vietnam and Burma, resulting in a dramatic realignment of the world and its major players in both economic and militaristic affairs. Providing such nations chose to adapt a more pro-trade stance after their shrugging off of the communist fist, they would become invaluable partners for the United States, helping to alleviate the nation's closeness to China for manufacturing purposes.

America does not enjoy the ability any longer to simply sit and watch as countries continue to exercise their brutal and totalitarian regimes upon innocent civilians. In accordance with basic morals, these nations must be brought to case and forced to change their views--or face the consequences. Rampant extermination of freedom and its principles has only negativity to offer, a slow and destructive path to inadequacy which will inevitably damage the world's liberated populations.

Time is running out, and Barack Obama must have the courage to act--or to step aside and let others do so for him.


Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues

Encouraging Good Stewardship

There has been an arguable amount of discussion of the merits of environmental activism over the past few years, yet the debate seems to often obscure the necessary facts of the equation. No matter where a voter stands ideologically, they should possess at least a base respect for the world in which they live, and an ethic to work in the best interests of the planet's health. As members of the National Alliance Foundation, we firmly adhere to the belief that the earth, precious and self-sufficient as it may be now, will not always remain so, and thus needs to be treasured and protected.

If the preceding seemed like a confession of tree-hugging, as environmentalism is too often maligned, then let the light be shown more brightly into the problem. While perhaps Go Green movement is populated by a number of less-than-sincere individuals simply enjoying the prospect of activism, at its core are a group of concerned citizens who desire fundamental and stable reform in the view of the government in relation to environmental policy.

Bashing the corporations however, is not the best route to take. Such an option might endure for a brief spell, but eventually the backlash only turns people against the idea of properly stewarding their own piece of the earth, something to be avoided at all costs. A real solution is to start teaching environmental mentality in the school systems, and embracing it across the governmental plain. Not in any way should the move be partisan or along the lines of former Vice President Al Gore's fraudulent research, but some basic caps might not be seen as extreme.

Through the implementation of a long-term security capping, Congress would allow companies the freedom to produce excessively, building inventory, and then enter into a slower spell of less production, during which those additional items might be sold instead. For making such a sacrifice, the government would deliver tax cuts to the corporations involved, thus benefiting both sides of the transaction fairly.

On the other side, attempting to ram a massive federal regulations package down the throats of the companies is only asking for trouble, as the voters will likely side with the companies, quickly landsliding the bill's proponents at the next election.

Climate change is not without its skeptics; indeed, plenty exist who deny its viability as an issue, yet the most simple facts must be kept in mind. If carbon continues to vanish from the atmosphere, our planet could very well face a crisis of resources and secure water levels. So there is nothing shameful about showing a little heart, regardless if it makes one look a slight shade of green. Unlike most policies, environmental decisions lead to conditions which are impossible to repeal through legislation. Therefore America must decide whether it will make those conditions good--or disastrous.


Alicia Tapely

National Alliance Vice President for Environmental Affairs

2012: Avoiding a Third Party

In spite of the defeats of nearly 61 incumbent Democrats only weeks ago, Axelrod, Plouffe, and Obama are all salivating at their prospects for 2012, and with good reason. This year's election campaign may have been a hit for the presidency, but it showed true the ability of the third party advocates to make--or break, candidates. In California, Chelene Nightingale cost Meg Whitman considerable support, and Libertarians across the map drew enough votes to successfully, albeit narrowly, reelect many vulnerable Democrats. Our democracy fully supports active participation, but in the best interests of the people, both the Libertarians and Constitutional members will abstain from big shot campaigning in 2012, which has the pretentiousness to turn into a close race.

There is no doubt that Barack Obama has been slapped across the face; but sometimes the undecided maiden can be wooed to the injured one's side. As long as the Whitehouse can spin a convincing message that the president is being bullied by John Boehner and the Tea Party, his reelection prospects will still remain in healthy territory. So little as a bump in the economic levels could be equally endearing, and the raucous yammering of the Right about taxes is unlikely to carry through unless it can be solidified into firm pro-business message. Congress may have been won through the tactic, but no Republican, one-on-one with the president can simply hope to win  by that singular view, so precautions need to be adapted.

As if the color isn't more visible, this means blocking all those who might attempt to launch a third-party run; figures including Mike Bloomberg, Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura, or even the mentally undecided Alex Jones. Bloomberg is the largest danger because he holds a unique position of visibility, decent fiscal stewardship credentials, and a boatload of money to run with. He may also draw enough independents away from both parties to let the larger Democratic base win the night.

Paul, who is still basking in his son's recent glory in the state of Kentucky, has the potential to stand up and deliver the GOP defeat which all the Washington crowd desires. His rhetoric, often suspicious and borderline anti-Semetic, could splinter the party--at least in the media's view, and bring about a crippling downturn of hopes against the president. He leads a joint coalition with Jesse Ventura, whose 9/11 inside job claims might attract enough fringe support to hurt the GOP. More importantly, his celebrity status will attract more backing,  taking votes away from Obama's strongest opponent.

Jones...well, suffice to say we do not need more intellectually robbed individuals seeking the presidential office.

Like it or not, the Tea Party has to face the facts: Barack Obama will be re-inaugurated on January 20th, 2013 if its members continue to request ideological purity. Whoever holds the GOP banner in 2012 must be capable of appealing to the entire nation, not one small pocket of beliefs. And while conservatives outnumber liberals by a long shot, the extent which some of these candidates force their views are enough to push even the most disgruntled independents and moderates back to voting for our current commander in chief.  


Andrew Rimmer

National Alliance Vice President for Communications

End the Seizure of Profits

We like to discuss America as our "land of opportunity," yet far too often that title is stripped away by the juggernaut-like force of the federal government through its means of extorting money from the people. Across the board, people are taxed unfairly, businesses jarred into closure status, and the hope of success is annihilated. Disregarding all these things, the government steps in further to regulate the one independent means of personal success: the stock market. Investors who work hard studying the markets, making the calculations, and placing their money on the line are taxed voluminously for their returns--if any.

Over the years, capital gains taxes have grown to be a significant issue, but the government still seems to relish their net result of each investor's efforts, with tax rates now preparing to soar to a whopping 20% in January. Let's go ahead and examine that prospect for a second: if an investor rakes in a 200% gain, highly likely with the present downturn's eventual recovery, the government moves in. Supposing the stock moves from $3.00 to $9.00 and the investor holds forty shares, his total gain should, honestly speaking, be six on each, and thus $240. But with the government's encroachment, the man who risked his time and money, studying the market before making a final decision, will only receive $192 for his efforts--hardly fair compensation.

Therefore the government should move to cut such outrageous applications of penalties for average people who have found success in the United States in order to foster a view held by the country's founder's and in line with equalized capitalism.

Two arguments tend to prevail during the capital gains tax debate. The first, promoted by those who decry capitalism or have experienced its failures, insists that is is unfair for some to take in such money since not everyone is capable of doing so, and that only the elite dominate the trading market. While the latter may be true, the definition of "elite" should first be considered. Is an American who puts their time and efforts into research and study of the markets truly an elitist, or simply a common person looking for success? Besides the requirement of starting funds, their are hardly any barriers to joining the investment bandwagon, and countless individuals have become successful starting independent of a major firm or company.

Basing their views off of the poor economic state of the present, the other side complains that eliminating the taxes now will only serve to damage the economic situation which we as a nation are in by depriving the government of additional tax revenue. This logic might hold clear, yet one asks why presidents during strong economic times still manage to avoid doing away with the unnecessary rates of taxation. The answer is simple and mind-raking: they do not have to. Surges of cash with the millions of dollars made each day in the markets are enough to make politicians drool with excitement, as such revenue funds their massive projects of wasteful spending on a regular schedule.

If America is to remain a land where opportunity may be found, than its systems of taxation should reflect this. A nation were one's success is regulated is a country where freedom is ever close to extinction.


John Lai

National Alliance Treasurer and Comptroller General

Humility's Sabbatical

As much as he would probably hate to admit it, Barack Obama could learn a thing or two about public relations from none other than his love-to-hate predecessor, George W. Bush. Through all of his mistakes, gaffes, and embarrassments, the former president demonstrated a considerable calm demeanor, shrugging the dust off and in a way, staying above the chaos of partisanship. With dangerously fluctuating approval ratings and a soured market which shows little interest in recovery, the current president runs the risk of defeat if he maintains the appearance of elitist ignorance towards the problems facing average Americans.

Pundits dating back to the early stages of the 2008 campaign lavished then Senator Obama with the shining "New Clinton" title, hoping to pull off a dramatic 1992 repetition defeat of the GOP establishment with a massive conservative/moderate coalition in the Democratic camp. For all intents in purposes, the candidate's speeches, which went from buoyantly liberal in 2007 to remarkably right of center in Fall 2008, carried that message home, sending keeping John McCain in Arizona with a modest enough 53% of the national popular vote. To the media, it was over, with the new charismatic democrat in power and a flimsy Republican ramshackle to stand against him. Except...there was a unique difference.

Unlike Bill Clinton, Barack Obama was no poor Southern boy with a small town charisma to sweep the nation; his career was built on community organizing, particularly with a strong black constituency base in northern Illinois, as well as considerable union money. Obama had never stood against the tide in a state with unfriendly colors; reaching the senate with a jaw dropping 70% of the total vote--and against a carpet bagger radical too. He may have gone to Harvard Law School, but his parents' achievement of PhD's hardly gives him much credit for his knowledge, which was passed on by his considerably intelligent father, Barack Obama Sr. Clinton's own paternal figure, a drunkard and violent man, offered little to help his son graduate Georgetown, Oxford, and then Yale Law School.

So when Barack Obama railed about "no tax increases," and "a strong small business economy," he bought the hearts of the people long enough to win election--and now that energy is vanishing. In the face of crisis, the president appears as if he must be reminded of the plight of the people, evidences in his haughty and long-delayed assumption of responsibility for the disaster cleanup in the Gulf of Mexico.

It is not to say that he has not been speaking out; only that his words are lost to the masses who desire straight talk and a charismatic interpersonal honesty--both elements of the Bush and Clinton style. To the average American his speeches are adept for sure, but they lack the genuine acceptance of everyone to resonate with the majority of the public. Even within his own writings, the president is remarkably syrupy with his words, weaving every sentence into idealistic matrimony between verbs and paragraph breaks that seem anxious to prove the worth of his terrific education--and still come off as out of touch with the common man. If the commander in chief were to alter his rhetoric, tossing in a gaffe or two in balance with his theatrical command of English, he might manage to dissuade a public which now more than ever appears intent on throwing him out of office in 2012.

Contrary to what the president might have viewed it as in the days leading up to his election, the Oval Office is not, and will never be, an office meant for the most elite. The Senate, filled with millionaires and the most skilled at the political game is the place for those persons in political society. Though once in a while they may reach its hallowed frame, their ultimatum will approach soon if they fail to shake the heavy dust of self-appreciation from their suits and move forward for the people. Barack Obama now has 2 years to make this change--or perhaps he will be changing residency.


Cate Ashton

National Alliance Vice President for Operations

Solving the Crisis in Catholicism

(Editor's note: Although Tom Garrow is a good friend of the National Alliance Foundation's leadership team, his views are not necessarily those of the entire organization).


Morality and sensibility are both elements which the world seems to be ever so frequently robbed of, and thus religious institutions must often serve as a counselors and guides to restore much of the world unto a righteous track that seeks to espouse these two virtuous parts in the formation of generational stability. Generally speaking, the Roman Catholic Church has done a fine job of this responsibility over the past centuries, yet I am forced to take up the dreaded mantle of the justice observer a point out the area in which the religious tent has failed--both utterly and needlessly: lifetime celibacy for its priests.

It must be made evident that I am a Catholic, proud and of strong faith, yet I refuse to continue to endorse a binding rule which has proven to have devastating effects not only on the basic welfare of Catholic spiritual leaders, but also on the psychological development of countless children. Perhaps not all offending religious figureheads are from my church, nor are all crimes involving the molestation of children exclusive to the parishes, but the vast majority are, and for an almost entirely explainable reason: like ever other human, Catholic priests are fallen creatures; saved by a loving God yet never capable of attaining perfection--unless they are in Heaven itself.


Not only is celibacy strictly against the teachings of the Bible; its tenets suggest a scenario which realistically none of us can hope to achieve: perfected spiritual leaders. For precisely this reason, Jesus Christ, the only flawless man to walk the earth, was sent to atone for the world's sins, so that all those born into the world a presently living at the time of his sacrifice would be saved from an eternity in oblivion. In plainer terms, priests are not free of sin because of their occupation, yet at the same time, they were never intended to be! Just like leaders in any other faith, priests are meant to serve as guiding clerics, not holier than thou personages.

From the most liberal to the most zealously conservative Catholics, their is a long running commitment to the family, and as such families adhering to the faith look to prime examples of strong and faithful relationships in life. Keeping with this line of belief, why should our priests not be permitted to have mature sexual relationships, become married, and beyond this, have children, if all of these might serve as a beacon and image of success for a congregation of families? It might be added that the Bible makes no discrimination with the following verses. "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."--Genesis 2:24. "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral."--Hebrews 13:4. Even more explicitly, Proverbs 5:18-19 notes that "May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.  A loving doe, a graceful deer—may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be intoxicated with her love." Passages like "honored by all," and "your fountain," hardly can be proven to refer to only those beneath the Church's leadership, neither in their independent form or in the full chapter context. 


The attempts within the media to demonize priests may draw some appreciation, but the core of its argument remains ignorant of a valid fact of debate: the very cause of the inhuman crimes targeting children. Some of the most open-minded people would look at a 5-10 year period of celibacy for priests in the seminary or recently graduated as reasonable, though the expectation that these men live their entire lives without the natural satisfaction of intimate relationships is wholly unrealistic. Priests are not compensated marvelously in worldly manner, so they must rely on God's work alone as the greatest payment--an evident difficulty while living life in "single" status.


That's not to condone any of the horrific and unjustifiable actions by priests against altar boys around the world, yet the initial beginning of the heinous sin should be acknowledged, both by the lowest of spiritual leaders and the most elite, including the Pope. Living a life of both little material reward and physical separation is enough to drive an average person mad, and most priests are not immune to such crippling realities. I regret the bluntness of this, but if many of the clerical heads in the Church were permitted to "get it on" with members of the opposite sex as everyone else is, my belief is that the rates of abuse would drop noticeably over shorter, and longer periods of time. 


Not one of us, from the lowly beggar to the Pope himself, can claim perfection or even a state that fulfills a small minority of its requirements; in other terms, we are a fallen and weak race. But it is for this reason, that God, in all his shining perfection, chose to send a miraculous Savior, steering us away from an inevitable and painful death through His indescribably wonderful mercy. As part of that decision, He allowed us all to live normal and balanced lives--essences of life which would bring glory to His kingdom and to the earth. In the creation of future priests, the purpose was to raise up messengers of God on the earth. However just like those priests are equal to all those whom they guide, they are entitled to the same permissible pursuits and actions of average spiritually faithful individuals. 




Tom Garrow


Adjunct Writer--Of Faith and Life Blog

Fulfilling the Democratic Mission

In an age of streaming rhetoric, it is common for elected officials to attempt to claim some sort of moral high ground on the issues of democracy and human rights. Few can hardly begin to forget the winning ticket of 2008, which was led by two politicians pledging to the take military action in Darfur, which thus far has not come close to fruition. But while Africa maybe the one most frequently reported bodies of land in conflict, there are countless around the world which continue to undergo such difficulties with freedom, and still are overlooked by even the most stalwart of American politicians.

Most evident is the country of Burma, and more pointedly, Aung San Suu Kyi's extended house arrest while the world stands by preaching values which they have not acted upon. Kyi, the all but official prime minister-elect of the nation, has been waiting for more than 14 years for her release; yet now it appears she may in actuality be detained for even longer. While Burma remains under the imperialistic army junta rule, it can hardly be called an imposing country, and one wonders why no members of the United Nations have chosen to deploy security forces to remove and replace the present government.

Beyond its outset, the situation in Burma grouped with those around the world reveal a sad pattern of inaction on democratic values and principles, which seem largely based off of the costs of pursuing such policies. The ill-fated War in Iraq might be viewed in such a way, despite its overall success in reducing human rights violations in the Middle East. Politicians become too concerned with the home front, neglecting to foster freedom and new allies in countries were the seeds of democracy are just waiting to grow, if with some international encouragement. A small detachment of troops would be enough, together with the UN's label, to alter the course of history in so many places were they given the authority to actively combat and eliminate threats to individual and societal free enterprise.

The card may be played that in the current financial crisis, such actions are imprudent, but a disagreement must be had. When the United States won a hard fought victory over Japan in th 1940s, a new pro-business country was established, leading to the dramatic benefit of free market upswing which was witnessed later in the 20th Century. In the same way, elected leaders must look at the countries not as financial burdens, but as tickets to market power. Loosening the hold of fascism over Burma would allow the nation's companies to expand and grow, defeating unemployment and giving the West another lucrative trading partner to do business with.

However, more important is that this attempt would free people and  remain in the basking grace of the best interests of human and civil rights. For one who had been awarded the grandeur of the Nobel Peace Prize, Barack Obama should realize this better than most. Standing by when action may and should be taken is not a sign of intelligence, but of weakness. Of course leaders like Kyi may eventually be released, yet their potential during that time of imprisonment is worth noting. How might this brave woman, who has endured so much, have managed to help the world had the administrations of George H.W. Bush and William J. Clinton been more anxious to spread human rights and universal freedom? The facts suggest quite a great deal.

Costs are always keen facts that must be dealt with, yet they should never override duty. If Winston Churchill had worried about the monetary loss of World War II, the world might today be a unified German state. Leadership and true creation of good history is seizing up the moment and taking a chance, always with the best intentions in mind.

No one can begin to predict how democracy will affect areas like Burma and Darfur, but the sooner that they are allowed to experience the wonderful gift, the sooner we can reap the largely positive results of its presence.


Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues