The Adulteration of Hope

(This article was contributed by Andrew Rimmer from his other endeavors, and is used with permission. Please note that his views in this particular article are not necessarily the same of the National Alliance Party; although he does bring up some excellent and thought inducing arguments).


What do you do when your establishment faces the potential dismantling of everything it has striven to construct? Generally, the answer is to go on a fiercely unapologetic offensive, battering the opposition at every turn, dehumanizing them at the slightest mishap of their life, and crippling the tender young supports of their growing threat to your fortress of work and ideology.

Although there was once a time when both major parties of our system worked together to forge a strong citadel of security for the nation, their present goals are that of PR cutthroats, doing the extreme to advance their philosophical ends, even if such methods endanger the interests of the people.

Right now, what I see as the largest thorn in the side of the electoral hopes of this covertly united bloc is the unlikely and yet vivacious emergence of a new, unconventional figure on the national landscape: the folksy and unpretentious former governor of the state of Alaska, Sarah Palin. Despite being essentially unheard of in the country 26 months ago, the down to earth caribou hunting governor has risen from rising star local mayor to a waiting jockey in the speculated candidates circle for the presidential race of 2012.

I may be called brash, unwise, or dreaming of untouchable grandeur, but regardless, Sarah Palin has the potential to revolutionize the democratic process of our nation, executing a new era of long standing greatness to rival even that of the gigantic American leaders of past generations. Her newfound presence has not only invigorated the courage of women entering into elected politics, but also added a layer of scrutiny to the ultra-left of our country, who have screamed with puppyish fear as they see their towering domination of the news media and social drift of the country at risk.

Possibly the most critical fact that damns the success of the domineering progressives of America is that Sarah Palin has risen above the fray of the mudslinging politics of recent years, and appealed directly to the hearts of the central American public, and more specifically, the middle class. If it is not already obvious, the left wing occupants are afraid of losing their age old "poverty fixer" label, no matter the inaccuracy of such a term when applied to them.

In the 1970s, the British Labour Party faced a horrific risk in the face of Margaret Thatcher, a relatively new Conservative politician who had risen to the helm of the Tory party, and posed an imminent electoral threat to the premiership of James Callaghan. Just like them, the Democratic Party and its furthest reaches of ideologue faces a similar issue with the potential candidacy of Palin.

Observers might say that Thatcher had more experience before becoming opposition leader, the British equivalent of a presidential nomination, yet I disagree. The Iron Lady had only served as Education Minister for four years, less than the governor's seventeen years of public service, not counting her considerable and growing experience as a communicator in the news.

Although they are quick to assassinate her image, the Democrats refuse to let off their attacks, continuously railing day after day about the downfall of our country under her proposed leadership. Truth be told however, their concern is chiefly political. A Sarah Palin Presidency might not be full of grandiose, but it would sideline the view that only feminist women can make it in the public circle, and create a new generation of conservative  women to dispel the marxist following ideology from the heart of 1960s lore.

And since it cripples their hopes of socio-political domination, they have been forced to wage a hate campaign against everything which she represents. I personally support her speculated bid because it would end the predictable outcome of our elections, and force commentators to reanalyze each process of choice, eradicating the norms which they have worked to establish since the 2008 contest.

While it might be far from likely, Palin's election would bring the nail in the coffin to the left wing's efforts to control our nation's independent development from followers to leading thinkers in the political process.

Andrew Rimmer

Musings of a Patriot (Original article source)

Playing Politics with Security

I wanted to begin the log by mentioning an article which has been centerpiece on the Politico website for much of the past week now. Writer Ben Smith, who is an admirable and objective author, poignantly explains how the Obama Administration has been pushing for peace agreements between Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas for the Palestine Territory. The full piece can be read here: Decoding the Mideast Peace Rhetoric

Smith reveals an important point about the strong arming of Israel's leader by the Whitehouse in an effort to forge both sides into long lasting and photogenic peace. It's justified to emphasize the word "photogenic," because it is not the first time an American administration has attempted this, a more pointedly, it is yet another example of a Democrat held executive branch doing so.

 President James Carter was a good example, with his movement to give Iran freedom from the royalist Shah in 1979, even when the result was doomed to bring about a crisis in the realm of a semi-intifada, which it did. To the president however, supporting stable government was not important, least not as much as gaining approval from the technocratic pen of the United Nations.

Almost two decades later, President Clinton chose to pursue similar action, this time in helping to bring about the dramatic Oslo Accords, another pact shuddering with evidence of impending collapse. To the surprise of few, the Palestinians, led by Yasser Arafat, essentially flashed a vulgar sign at Israel and the United States, refusing to end their conflict to divide and claim the land of the Israeli People.

Today, with the government's incessant concentration on some sort of flashy and trumped up world harmony plan for Israel and the Muslim world, the problem has only grown. Somewhere within the deepest channels of  the president's mind, there is an honest desire for peace, albeit a clouded one.

With the increasingly dishonest responses of the Palestinian government, the United States' diplomats cannot continue to play fierce moderator with only the interests of Palestine in their thoughts. Israel is the only state within the Middle East which presently is able to successfully endure as a democracy, as well as our foremost ally, a gift none in Washington should willingly squander away. We have the opportunity to stand by Israel and allow the area to remain more secure, or throw away an ally as Carter did with the Shah for mere idealist purposes. Our duty is to protect the interests of our nation, and Israel's existence is part of those interests. As long as it remains a harbinger of democracy, we must defend and supplant its own efforts to combat terror and preserve freedom in the Middle East.

Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy

A Plea for Limitations

If the recent legislation and bills passed by both houses of the American Congress show only one thing, it is that the government has not only become isolated from the people, but also addicted to a fountain of rich and self refreshing power. As luck would have it, the lower body is constricted to 2 year terms, a condition which has successfully led to the sweeping of many congresspeople from power, and the transfer of those lawmaking responsibilities to new and less corrupted hands.

Unfortunately, while these tenants remain true for House members, the upper legislative body of our country seems almost entirely insulated from these ever changing electoral lines, primarily given to the simple reality that the terms of its members are staggered, with lengths extending beyond reasonable acceptance for such a country.

In younger days of our government, senators where chosen by state legislatures, a process which almost completely secured that there would be no inexperienced or overtly partisan members in the body. Granted, senators in the past held strong views, yet they new their duty, and stood to defend their state and country's interests above all else.

Now the tables have turned, leaving the people facing a difficult challenge in keeping senators both in line with the people, and moderating the loyalty which they express towards their party on national issues. A good example is Senator Amy Klobuchar, a district attorney who came to the Senate in 2007 despite having little experience besides in the legal divisions, and has developed a strong record in support of generally left-wing policies. Alongside her, former comedic clown and author Al Franken has put forward an equally partisan leaning in the chamber, and his term still does not end until January 2015.

At the outset, there is nothing essentially wrong with states choosing boisterous or passionate senators, but the length of office for these individuals is far too much in relation to the powers they hold. In traditional parliamentary systems, the upper chamber cannot wield so much power that it is allowed to try the executive branch, pass legislation, and send federal money to economic projects.

In the United States Senate, members are almost super-powerful, fully capable of voting strictly along party lines for four years, and then only choosing to serve their constituents effectively once the last twenty-four months before their reelection are in full view.

To serve the interests of the people, these ridiculously long sessions of service must end. To allow an individual who wins a mere three elections, perhaps due to poor opposition, to serve nearly two decades is over the basic limits of good government. As citizens we must demand more accountability, making our upper house fixed to 4-year terms of office for its members, a harsh consequence for members who have sold out the people they claim to represent. That must be our duty in 2011: to secure and new, and more foundational structure in which no one party can exercise mob rule over the decisions which affect our nation's future.

Andrew Rimmer

National Alliance Vice President for Communications

Why Ron Paul is Wrong

Before I begin with this article, let me be clear: the National Alliance Party respects many of the positions and actions which Congressman Ronald Paul has taken in his work for the people of Southern Texas and across the nation. That said, his generally pro-liberty positions do not exclude him from the capacity to make distasteful and rash decisions in the public eye, as he most recently did by declaring a stance in support of the Ground Zero Mosque.  

It's amusing to see the antics and general strategies of members of the People's House, and most especially when they are vying for the presidential nomination against the more heavyweight members of their political party. From Dennis Kucinich's proposed Department of Peace, to Dick Gephardt's two sided Iraq War position, and now to Dr. Paul, the chamber offers countless dark horse candidates who use their primed fame to generate popularity, and raise funds for their own reelection campaigns to the house.

It's important to note that these house members rarely retire, preferring to retain their house seats and the benefits which such employment entails, all while they rail on about the abominable evils of lengthy terms and overpaid congresspeople.  

But when Ron Paul came out in favor of the Ground Zero Mosque several days ago, he absolutely crossed the line between humble positions, and national madness. According to Paul, the mosque is justified due to property rights, which he believes the federal government is on a banzai mission to eliminate. Later on in his released statement, the representative went so far as to imply that his own party is forming a basis for more wars by riling up both sides of the debate about the cultural center. 

What Congressman Paul fails to understand is that this battle is not about personal rights, nor about government interventionism; it is instead focused on protecting an image of this country around the world. Did we, when surrounded by a hateful and violent enemy, stand firm as a nation besides the true birthplace of our struggle against terrorism, or simply far back in appeasement, simply due to a minor property rights dispute? 

No matter what the constitution may say, it is not an excuse for recklessness in a time of great chaos and uncertainty. In the past, our nation faced similar challenges, meeting them all by the calculated use of courage and nationalism, and without leaving behind any vital elements of survival versus the enemies of each age. 

Would any of us feel comfortable with a pro-Japanese marker at Pearl Harbor, or perhaps a pro-Islam statue in the central part of Madrid's subway? Any of these attempts would be deemed ridiculous, as they strip away the  value and hallowed nature of both of those locations. 

Yet Ron Paul, who did not lose any relatives or close ones in the terrible attacks of 9/11, has the audacity to come out a promote himself the visceral spokesperson for a rather unimportant issue in this instance. Even if the government were attempting to grab more rights from the people, they would hardly be able to do so effectively by using the same arguments, as an individual's property is not going to be hallowed ground by federal description. 

This is more than a policy issue; it is an historical issue of tremendous consequence. If we allow more concessions as a nation, we start a journey towards unbridled surrender to those who would do great harm to each American and the next generation of individuals in this country. Freedom will not remain free forever, and we must fight to retain its presence in the days and years to come. 

Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy 

  

Justified Defense

While it may not be a glamorous or enjoyable position to take in the public spectrum, the National Party strongly believe that marriage should be continued to be defined as between one man and one woman in the United States of America. Rather than the instant religious bigotry label which the mainstream enjoy tossing around to describe this position, our party comes to this ground only after considering the health and social effects which the legalization of homosexual marriage would have on the concreteness of the American way of life.

To start, it must be entirely clear that we are in full support of the benefits which come from marriage unions both financially and socially to couples. An attempt to strip away or void these life important aspects would be not only imprudent, but cruel and unfair to members of the homosexual community.

That made evident, our position on the issue involves a two part formula of nationwide unity and understanding. First, the social slope that legalization would have on culture, and second, the intensely toxic conditions it would thrust upon the American health status.

At some point in time, each of us were young; and with a little thought, we can recall moments when our parents told us not to commit certain acts or disobey their orders. We matured, and began learning both right and wrong, as well as the behaviors which would bolster our quality of life, and those that would subtract from it. With this mindset, we must understand the danger that a legalization of homosexual marriage for the gay movement would cause on the next generation.

Today, homosexuality is in its best place because it does not force itself upon anyone; getting involved into a committed relationship is a decision for homosexuals, and not an established social norm. Because it allows people to choose their way of life, we avoid unnecessary travelers down roads with given and evident personal detriments.

Legalizing gay marriage would be a critical mistake because doing so turns something that does not presently have a great grip on society into a mainstream and accepted life choice. In other words, children and teens no longer choose: they are forced to accept and rejoice over the gay community's lifestyle.

Once a government legalizes gay marriage, the next phase will come into the present: inserting it into the education system. Perhaps some would be quick to decry this as unlikely, but within 20-30 years, it is inevitable. How can something that is legal and accepted by adults not receive the same attention and respect by children? If a parent places a massive pile of desserts in front of a child, and then says "don't eat any, but if you do, nothing will happen to you," then the child sees nothing wrong with taking a bite. Thus our country will have more teenagers taking this lifestyle path as they mature and enter their own careers.

Were it only a personal choice, it would be fully acceptable, but the medical issues which such legalization would cause warrants excessive caution when approaching it. In the modern world, we know that STDs such as AIDs and HIV are sparsely common in homosexuals, something which everyone, no matter their views, wishes to avoid having affect a larger section of the population. As a separate section of society, this is not a major issue for consenting adults, but to make it mainstream would be a disaster medically for the United States of America.

Finally, in spite of the regular attack of the gay community accusing their detractors of  oppression, it is at least fair to apply the same label to the most immovable members of the homosexual crowd. They are by and large a well educated group, and likely understand the full situation of this issue better than many of the less studied flock who they have attracted as supporters. Full and well is the bridge of their knowledge of the negative impacts which such a move would have, yet the oppressively force their lifestyle on other peoples as if they make up a universally pure and righteous corner of society. Homosexual couples deserve the benefits which marriage contracts entail, but not at the expense of dismantling the delicate thread and structural builder of culture that traditional marriage has always been.  

Rupturing Hope

The National Alliance Party has forever believed in the success that flows forth from unification, and not self directed actions to eliminate the viability of others in public, or among their private co-habituals. Sad as it may seem, history is potted with examples of division between houses of royalty, and zealous movements to crush or eradicate threats to power or glory in the modern world.

While different individuals are rightfully allowed to make their own conclusions about the worth of treasures or positions of prominent ability on earth, in a general setting those values appear to readily be considered too priceless for society's own good.

Divisive actions, as we have witnessed in the past, spawn from a variety of different issues; but most prevalently, when someone is jealous of affection, wanting of financial success, or desiring absolute power. As a party, we have taken strong actions to prevent this from arriving to the centerpiece of our societal and political stage in this country. Whether or not the result of an election, feud, or conflict brings benefit to our corner of the oratorical and issue based arena, we pledge to stand for the side which is ideal for the nation. Serving the interests of a corporate machine, organization, or political banner is wholly wrong and morally bankrupt, and so comes our stance against it.

The affirmatives may lay claim to the fact that reputation destruction and character assassinations are justified in the pursuit of a higher movement of policy in history, but their views are flawed on a number of levels. You can fool the crowds, enchant the onlookers, and solidify a respected image in the face of the ignorant, but none of those elements leave your stamp on the world a positive one.

Around our nation and the world, their are individuals of wonderfully varying cultural standpoints, as well as spiritual beliefs, but together we should all agree that the state we leave the planet in will be the same state which we hand to the following wave of new coming generations. The foundation we lay is what they will build upon; be it strong and moral, or shoddy and corrupted.

Political entities have some of the heaviest influence on the next path or road which we embark upon as a people.  So for once, laying aside ideology and partisan views, we can instead help everyman, no matter his ethnicity or world view, to enjoy a better future on this remarkable and unique planet. The legacy we leave will be the legacy which we are judged by, and each of us should strive to make it a proud and worthy gift to pass onwards.  

Public (Self) Service

To call 2009 and 2010 a bland year of elections would require almost a zero capacity of understanding of recent events, and the shifting of alignments for political purposes. From the party switching, to the independent runs, it almost seems as if the two party mold will finally be dented--albeit in the wrong manner. And to find a prime example of this, it is necessary to look at the self preserving election choice of Governor Charlie Crist of Florida. 

There is little surprise to be found in Crist's decision,which reflects upon the less than stellar career he has experienced in the public eye. Following a stint in the state senate, the the future governor was crushed in a statewide race for the Federal Branch, losing by 26% to popular incumbent Democrat Bob Graham. Discouraged but unfaltering, Crist ran for the newly created education commissioner spot, staying only long enough to raise his profile to win the Attorney General's race on a strong state ticket in 2002.

Still not a senator but not willing to let his momentum end, he gallivanted towards the governor's mansion, riding a wave of GOP popularity provided by well accomplished Governor Jeb Bush, first elected in 1998. Using several high profile figures including Arizona Senator John McCain as support, Crist took the executive seat with a decent margin, and settled in patient expectation of what was to come. 

Following a near hit at the vice presidential nomination in 2008, when he quickly married in anticipation of the occurrence, Crist began to slowly reveal that his poster boy conservatism was no longer needed, and should be left behind in the age of Barack Obama's Administration. From the stimulus to wavering on healthcare, Crist has turned on most every conservative issue to help him win independents and moderates for his bag. 

And finally, as Mel Martinez announced his retirement, it became the Governor's hour. No longer interested in reelection, Charlie Crist chose to have yet another go at the Senate, this time as the favorite for victory. For a while, it seemed as if it would carry him, but then, something maddening happened. Courageously fighting as an underdog candidate, State House Speaker Marco Rubio began catching up, Crist's lead dwindling to a meager five point advantage heading towards the April 2010 filing deadline.

Crist panicked, frightened by the prospect of losing the prize for which he so long salivated about, and to a man no older than 40 no less. Now trailing by the same numbers by which he once lead Rubio, Crist jumped ship to save his imperiled career: running instead as an independent. 

The truth is, there is no passion or meaning in Crist's independent run. No great movement for third way representation, nor an organized effort to change government. A disgruntled loser, unwilling to face defeat, vying for a way to revitalize his shallow legacy.

Of course, there is no conservative ideology left behind here. Crist's recent actions have made him "Gulf Cop," the man who can save Florida from the government, as well as British Petroleum. Now he is the teacher's union advocate, and not the budget trimming hawk he was only 24 months ago. He is now Charlie Crist 2.0, back for moderate vengeance against the people who chose to put him second in 1998, and in the GOP primary of 2010. 

Regrettably, Crist joins a decent number of politicians doing the same in their own interests instead of that of the people. He leads in the race by drawing support from both sides, even while he once decried many of the citizens who are placing their trust in him. If we are to have open and free government, then officials like Governor Crist must be bounced out and sent packing; reducing the toxicity and speed with which their actions spread in our nation's capital.

Building Prosperity Through Technology

In the information age, it is sometimes easy to forget how slowly the early scientists climbed from near irrelevance to inventing the computerized wonders that now bolster our way of life in the modern day. But the innovators of yesteryear did not find their work coming to fruition simply because they were interested in it, but also because they spent the many hours testing and retrying options before finally hitting the proper result which they were pursuing. To create more employment and build better infrastructure for the 21st Century, the Federal Government must do the exact same thing to America.

Despite our seemingly unparalleled connections of wireless and internet access, countless Americans still remain cut off from cheap sources of web entrance and digital connectivity. Because of the innumerable inventions that have come from the general population experimenting with their work, the government must act to preserve true creativity and the wondrous technologies which we posses in the present day.

Thus the National Alliance Party is proposing a $500 million investment by the current elected officials into the construction of high speed cable and fiber optic lines in economically depressed areas of our nation to speed job growth and technological advancements for the next two decades.

Unless we can get a hold on the separation; the haves and the have nones of this generation, then we risk leaving behind life changing wonders in development and unimaginable possibilities for further product creation. No longer is it prudent to sit back and wait--while other countires surge ahead in the race for ideal and affordable convenience in the digital world. The time is now; our hour, and our mission for the good of the future.

Why Small Business is Key to Recovery

Scarcely a day goes by without more ranting from each side of the spectrum about more either bestowing union friendly policies on the country or instead supporting the massive corporations  on Wall Street with tax breaks and government subsidies. While occasionally these tactics may work, the poltiicians are missing a decisive cure to this economic crisis: small business.

When our nation came together more than 200 years ago it was built largely on the hard work of farmers, entrepreneurs, and plantation owners. Because of the contributions which all these hardworking immigrants to the United States gave, our nation built from only a humble agrarian society to the powerful industry that provides milions of jobs to college graduates and middle class Americans to this day.

Unfortunately, in the last  20 years the government has become so close to the extremes of organized labor and corporations that they no longer understand the power of the resurgent entrepreneurs and their courageous bouts with the markets. Democrats largely seek to give concessions to union members, as well as some large business interests, and Republicans follow a policy of just giving beneficial breaks to the major financial and energy firms in our country.

But the question is, where are the long term jobs? Truthfully, corporations provide jobs for a long time, but at a certain point, they lose their expansionist mindset. Caught in a monopolistic competition environment, major firms vie to become a monopoly, and yet are kept at bay by the dangers of such a move if their plan backfires. And while they are not even in oligopolistic status, they still have enough market influence that a brash move can sink them horrifically. So their innovation ceases, and they remain fixed in place on their market share, afraid of adding more opportunity to the economy. 

For this reason we need the small business owners, all who bravely venture out into sole proprietorships with the hopes of success both for themselves and their family, and this country. It's not enough that the government simply provides loans through the Small Business Administration; it must also instead actively pursue applicants and bring in private sector sector experience to grow opportunity and help business people succeed.

This course of action will have multiple repercussions on the market, and all of them positive. Primarily, it will provide new firms which can purchase inventory from larger companies, thus increasing profits for major companies. Such a policy keeps the businesses expanding, which helps create more jobs for the next  generation, and gives further employment options to the nation's new graduates. Due to the innovation of new competing firms, life saving technologies will be developed, helping world health, and the existing large companies will be forced to stay in pace with the better employee treatment of newer firms, benefiting labor.

Only a drastic change in policy will help our country economy into the state of surging prosperity once more, and small business is that market shifting option. As a nation, we will benefit, and it will also help the world, as more growth means more commerce and less unemployment. For all these reasons, the National Alliance firmly endorses small business as our path to worldwide economic recovery.     

Alliance Position on New York Mosque

To make the assumption that all members of any religion adhere to a simplistic barbaric mindset is entirely unfair, but sometimes that implication comes to total reality.

Back in May 2010, a community oversight board voted narrowly to approve the construction of an Islamic Mosque in close proximity to the World Trade Center in New York City, masquerading it as an attempt to promote inter-cultural and religious tolerance in America.

Despite massive nationwide protests from both Muslims and those not included in that bloc, New York's leaders have firmly backed the measure, including Mayor Michael Bloomberg, The following is a clip showing opposition  from within Islam itself: Muslim Opposition

As an inclusive group, National Alliance ideology reflects that anyone of common allegiance should be allowed to participate, but in this situation, national security must come ahead of cultural satisfaction. From the beginning of our nation's foundations, strong resilience against the forces of chaos and undoing have made us ever so prosperous, causing this great example of freedom to preside so long as the head of international democratic leadership.

Unfortunately, in the modern day we face challenges like none other, and enemies who will pursue extreme means to accomplish their blighted and savage goals. In the last thirty years, a dangerous wave of radicalized Islam has erupted from the states of Indonesia, Malaysia, Iran, Pakistan, and Palestine, threatening to rapidly and  mercilessly wipe out free peoples who live without the governing protection of full scale democracy.

If only one issue defines radical Islam's ascent to prominence, it is the alarming speed with which it has surpassed  most any other belief group with allegiance throughout the world. From the days of the Prophet Mohammed's vicious murders of pagans and dissenting Jews in the Middle East, to the World Trade Center bombings on 9/11, extremism within the religion has both shown that it has the capability to outlast the modernization of the world, and still remain as equally potent as time goes on.

In the indescribably dangerous world of the present, governments and figures of authority have a duty to preserve freedom and not candidly and almost happily make exceptions to any groups of radicals in order to increase a false pretense of social unity.

On some slates of policy, the immersion of the mosque will help strengthen inter-cultural concreteness and agreement, but in a time and arena during which our enemies so blatantly use legal systems to win religious power over areas of the world, the government of the United States must act to end a legacy and process of surrender to the fringes of Islam.

So National Alliance, understanding the dangers which such a construction will bring with it to the country, urges President Obama to stop siding with New Age coexisting foolishness and instead endorse an end to the assembling of the religious meeting place. Allowing such an action to occur unchecked is as permitting our enemies to score a shameless victory against the American principles of respect and tradition that have always  allowed us to embrace prosperous freedom and democracy.

We can only win this war against radicalized religion in two ways: either conceding until we are forced to surrender, or fighting until the threat has been eradicated.

And thus the National Alliance Party, acting alongside millions of concerned Americans who are frightened and enraged by this horrendous trespass on the lives and legacies of our soldiers in uniform, is taking the second option. Together we will fight to preserve this remaining tower of freedom, and end the tyrannical hold of extremist religion on the world.    

Formation

You cannot let good history pass you by, no matter the convenience or ease which such a route may offer. And with the raucous events of the past months, as well as the coming tide in November and beyond, I feel it would be imprudent to not forge my own part of this turbulent period of history in the United States, as well as around the world.

National Alliance is a group which I have been planning to create for some time now, but have hesitated only so as to make its  actuality count to the fullest.Together with several other  individuals, this party makes up a movement to help not only reverse the wrongs done to our nation, but to strengthen it and protect it from further incursions in the future of our political and social histories.

In the next days and months, more will be added to crown this effort to end medocrity and the status quo in this country, and bring about instead a righteous following of articles to reform our governmnet, solidify the character of the next generation, and bring prosperities to it.

I am the first Chairman, and these are the first words of what should become a true revolution in action. Let this be the seed from which such action will grow in abundance.