Beneath Contempt

As the election twilight so readily approaches, some candidates have come to a point of utter desperation in order to hold on--or win, seats in the House and Senate. These moves are justified to them based off of circumstance, but they truly diminish everything which our nation is by supplanting a civil arena of debate and argument with a pathetic catering to fearful and uneducated voters. 


Take for example a new DCCC ad which is running in the Fairfax County area--itself a news broadcast sponsored by the Democrats that ends with the reporter noting "Keith Fimian opposes a woman's right to choose, even in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother." Not only is the committee only scantily mentioned, but the entire attack is read by a news reporter, as if it is an objective current events report. 

Then, Attorney General Jack Conway seems completely capable of adding bitter icing to the election cake, with his ploy in an advertisement accusing his opponent, Rand Paul, of not maintaining Christian values in life. To Conway, the sleaze is far game, despite the cries from his party when Republicans used negative tactics to defend their own seats in 2006. 

Negativity has its uses, and in no way does the National Alliance Foundation believe it should be suppressed, yet the angle of the attack is always an issue. Elisabeth Dole's low blow ad questioning Kay Hagan's faith did not help her or the state of North Carolina in 2008, and most believe it led to her humiliating defeat as Obama swept to victory in the southern province. Similarly, Mike DeWine's use of Osama bin Laden to smear Sherrod Brown backfired dramatically in 2006, costing him his seat to the Democrat. 


And despite all of this, campaigns cannot seem to get by the reality that said ads are both ineffective and unhelpful to the political process. They fail to educate or present solutions, rather just blurring the lines between truth and partisan disparagements. 


Democrats need to stand up for the morality and civility for which they claimed to advocate for in 2006 and 2008, or they will lose the trust of the people to be mediators who can rise above the vicious fray and help fix the problems facing America. It is not enough for them to simply complain that the Republicans are not helping--they must show the leadership for the nation based on what the country desires and feels is necessary  in this day and age. Being above the radicalism and furor will help the Democrats to succeed, otherwise determining a minority fate by 2013, including within the Whitehouse. 

Ayla Samadi

National Alliance Vice President for Domestic Affairs

A New Voice for Washington

Generally speaking, we tend to avoid endorsements as an organization, but in an election which has so many improbabilities yet so much at stake, the National Alliance Foundation is committed to helping certain key candidates with their attempts at election, especially to the United States Senate. Since 2001, the state of Washington has lacked any representation within the upper house other than firebrands for the Democratic Party. Even Slade Gorton's strong constituent services were not enough to overturn Maria Cantwell's momentum, resulting in his sacking by the people in the race of 2000. And after nearly eleven years of such partisan leadership, the state is in trouble, most critically with its economic condition.

For this reason, the National Alliance Foundation is stepping forward to endorse Dino Rossi for the United States Senate in 2010. Despite serving only six years as a state senator, Rossi managed to successfully balance a massive state budget even while a reigning Democratic governor sat in anguish over it all. And while his two runs for governor came up short, first due to a largely unfair recount and then due to a Democratic sweep, Rossi has stuck to a firm pro-business career to deliver jobs for the Evergreen State through his real estate ventures.

On the other side, Senator Patty Murray is simply a disappointment for the state, and even for the nation. Her election successes largely the result of poorly prepared opponents and swing election years, Murray has not worked tremendously on small business legislation in the Senate, instead preferring to be a lap dog to Wall Street's benefits within the higher chamber. A recent report by CQ Politics even suggests that Washington's lady channeled about 20 million in taxpayer money to her lobbyist friends, which should be enough to disqualify her from reelection.

But even more glaring is Murray's voting record, which sadly fails to ever move from anything but a poster for the socialists and social democrats of American political interests, avoiding the qualms and difficulties which average Washingtonians face on a daily basis. Removing her from the senatorial throne is the first step in cleansing America of elitism and corruption, forming a base from which prosperity can grow once more. There is no doubt that filth remains from the years of Republican rule, yet part of that mire was also age old Democratic senators such as Murray, so their elimination as viable political figures is part of the cleaning process.

The year of 2010 is not just any other election; it is an opportunity to hold Washington D.C. accountable to the American people. If voters send a strong message by defeating Murray and other incumbents, thy will pave the way for a better future in which the capitol is directly answerable to the public--not the special interests. Wasting such an opening would be disastrous to say the least, and everyone must vote for what is sensible, not the usual.


Cate Ashton

National Alliance Vice President for Operations

A Duty to Fulfill

According to the most recent election polling by Gallup, the GOP holds a strong 9-point lead over the Democratic Party for the 2010 election. And while DNC chair Tim Kaine has been feigning victory over the past several days, it has become obvious among Democrats that their hopes of commanding the House of Representatives are all but lost as nearly one hundred seats are in place for a party switch this year. Not surprisingly, most Republicans are already fantasizing about their return to power in the lower house, yet something must remain constant even as they accept the laurels of confirmed triumph: their commitment to the American People.

In 1995, a giddy conservative majority led by Newt Gingrich took the oath of office, coming to power with a supposed dedication to the country through their Contract with America, a multiple bulleted document that promised among many things, to abolish the Department of Education and privatize part of the American social security system. Regardless of their signing however, most of the Republicans turned back on their promises, quickly becoming a corrupted party of age which led them to a humiliating defeat in 2006, and a supplemental version of the same in 2008.

Last month, the Republicans unveiled their 2010 “Pledge to America,” which is arguably more modest than its counterpart of 1994, yet still does take some braver steps towards cutting the budget deficit, albeit very slightly. What’s more important than this however is that the GOP follows through with their promises of fiscal conservatism, including not creating more federal agencies to balance out the 100 billion which they have committed to eliminate from the spending projections.

Furthermore, Republicans must act to give a new agenda to America to contrast that of Barack Obama, who obviously remains in the Whitehouse at least until 2013. Simply complaining about his policies will quickly sink the conservatives into a mire of defeat in the 2012 presidential race, much like William Clinton trounced the opposition nominee in 1996, despite a Republican -controlled House and Senate. This means looking at ways to solve the problem of social security, cutting large amounts of government waste, and potentially passing a resolution to limit the mandate of the Department of Homeland Security to no more than ten years. The latter has simply become a convenient way for less than qualified college graduates to get jobs which do not generally contribute to the nation’s security—and instead limit its financial stability.

But finally, the issue comes down to how firm the GOP intends to be on ethics and governmental integrity. It truly has become too easy, under the former GOP majority and now beneath the Democrats, for lobbyists and financial institutions to grab hold of the collar of most representatives, forcing them to obey or forfeit considerable campaign funds with their denial. Republicans have a duty to either stand up against this corruption, or stand down in defeat at the ballot box.

The next two years, more likely than not under a lower house GOP leadership, must include a majority part which does not falter or grow weak to the pressure of the lobbyists. Conservatives need to preserve truth and honor in Washington, starting with their own party.  

Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy

In Defense of Freedom

Thank God in heaven for the Constitution: it's exactly what I think with each passing day leading up to the midterm elections of 2010. As if still playing the establishment outsider card, the Obama Administration has come out with a strong criticism of the Karl Rove sponsored American Crossroads PAC, as well as its friendly ally, the Chamber of Commerce, claiming both groups are being funded by foreign entities, which is by most descriptions completely illegal in the United States.

Despite the president's complaints, the group is picking up steam, and apparently broke fundraising records during the first week of October, as reported by the Washington Post in the article here. I am entirely sure Barack Obama respects the Constitution, but he seems to have forgotten one of its primary tenets in launching this broadside in a bad political year for the Democrats: the 1st Amendment. As it reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 


Plain as can be, the Constitution dictates that people and organizations of individuals (corporations and PACs), may have their own say in each election campaign. Trying to remove that right is not only in violation of our founding document; it also casts a poor light on President Obama, who won the 2008 election through unprecedented fundraising, much of which was collected from foreign sources. 


For the Democrats, it must hurt to read those words now that they occupy the halls of the Whitehouse, as the text makes almost each of their arguments against the action committees nulled. But for those who might remain convinced that these conservative friendly blocs are only used by the GOP, I urge consideration of the many 527 groups and PACs which helped swing the House, and more importantly, the Senate, to the donkey party in 2006. Back then, the Democrats were certainly quick to emblazon themselves with the banner of the union, decrying the supposed tightening of regulations surrounding free speech by the Bush Administration. Now, the tuning of their political radars is changing, and thus the unfairness to incumbents role is their own to play in. 


Maybe I am wrong, but it almost seems as if the Democratic Party cannot stand to lose, no matter the risks or costs of winning. In 2008, despite a strong outsider advantage, they reverted to voter fraud and international fundraising to ensure a presidential victory and supplemental wins in Congress, and many of their most high-profile senators and congressman are simply bowing out rather than facing the voters come election day. In previous years which held likely negatives for the current minority party, incumbents stuck it out to the end, accepting defeat rather than attempting to retire under the guise of humble public service. 


As time goes on, Congress and the Whitehouse will change parties, yet the Constitution must remain the trustee of both power brokers, ever strengthened and never adjusted so as to diminish personal rights. Only in maintaining such a policy for the nation can we continue to endure as the last great symbol of world freedom and unparalleled democracy. 


Andrew Rimmer

National Alliance Vice President for Communications

Inexcusable Neglect

It's really self depreciating to listen to Barack Obama--or even his deputy of questionable intellectual prowess, Joe Biden, railing on endlessly about America's commitment to ending human rights violations around the world. In spite of Biden's forward attitude, which went as far as to naively endorse the use of American soldiers to end the crisis in Darfur during the 2007 Youtube/CNN debates for Democratic candidates, neither elected official has actually moved towards deploying soldiers, whether they be from the home soil or out of the barracks of the United Nations.



But Darfur is only a small fraction of the larger scaled problem. Genocide exists, all but ignored by the international community in Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Botswana, and South Africa. Heads of state in these nations, once applauded as the harbingers of democracy, have now crossed over to the very depravity which they formerly decried, committing unspeakable acts while still diplomatically cordial with the modern world. Spitting in the face of the United Nations and the international forces which supply their nations with relieving monetary aid, leaders like Robert Mugabe, Paul Kagame, and Sharif Amhed are all presently allowing criminal acts to occur under their tenures.

It might be viable for the Administration to argue against involvement based on funds available, but it still fails to explain why none of its pro-UN rhetoric has actually foreshadowed firm military action against any of these nations. Nothing can be made of the point that these miniature powers would be difficult to overrun; in fact, their militia groups could be made short work of by advanced foreign troops. Most analysts--including the generally less astute Joe Biden have noted that a small brigade of special forces would be enough, at least in the case of Darfur, to incapacitate Omar Sharif and neutralize his radicalized government institutions.

We as a nation can try to propel ourselves into a depth of reason and philosophy to oppose any course of action which is not strictly based on national interest, but the question still must be raised; how are any of these countries not in our best future outcome for foreign conflict and trade? Any of these entities, charged by a force of capitalist government and renewed through democratic process could easily become meaningful trading partners with the United States, and possibly, valuable allies in the War on Terror.

The issue at stake in recent years has been the government's refusal to create new allies in more secure areas of the world. Africa in particular is not a dramatic ally today, but its strengthening by the Western World could   monumentally restructure the focus of international disputes which are ongoing today in a positive manner. If one looks at the populations of many of these nations, documented within the CIA's World Factbook, they rise considerably and offer large forces of able bodied men in the present time, giving an entirely feasible channel of soldiers to bolster coalition forces around the world today. Were only a few sections of these bodies of force to stand alongside the United States and fully fledged allies, the wars in Afghanistan and other potential conflicts would be less costly to solely the manpower of America and Great Britain.

Combating extremism about the globe should not be as narrow sighted as to require the use of the only the largest nations and their military forces. With a supplemental help from smaller countries, which would benefit by receiving economic ascensions through their participations, the burden of any conflicts would rest not only on the United States, but more evenly on the remainder of the free world, a goal which we must all strive for.

Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues

Addressing Madness

As each day passes, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's radical expressions are becoming a massive trove of critical danger to the international community. Despite his obvious desire not only to eradicate Israel but furthermore to install a universal Islamic republic across the Middle East, the leaders of many superpowers and democracies appear to be taking a one handed approach to pacifying the president, rather than forcefully taking action against him.

True, the use of force goes hand in hand with distrust and violent actions, yet those are not excuses  to use in  withholding  due action against the extremist executive. Our failures with Iran go back to the days of Jimmy Carter, when the Democrat's government failed to prevent an upheaval in the country which helped create the rise of the Ayatollahs and their twisted rhetoric for jihadist dominance over the republic. Before Carter's hesitance, America had enjoyed strong diplomatic ties with the Shah, Iran's pro-western monarch who decried Muslim extremism.

Under the new spiritual leader rule of the Ayatollahs and now the joint leadership of President Ahmadinejad, Iran's government has turned into a bastion for regulation of free speech and enterprise. No longer is their desire  to only speak out--they have embraced a position in the world, together with their grasp of nuclear weapons, that threatens Middle East stability like few other power blocs have accomplished before.

In keeping with basic sensibilities, I am hesitant to endorse military action against the Muslim state, yet we must begin to accept that Iran is not a small player in the race for spiritual authority in the world anymore. With the backing of a more industrialized nation such as Turkey, it could easily transform into a more formidable--and unwavering, force. All Iran which Iran truly requires however is an opportunity to strike, something which countless examples of gerrymandering by world leaders in the present day are creating.

President Obama must cease his coy strategy with the Iranian government and instead breach the walls of extremist dialog to make way for a more moderate state. Doing so would be as simple as offering support and sympathy to the Green Path of Hope, a movement which has managed to shift the fundamentals of political power in Iran and force at least some action from its leaders.

This issue cannot be treated as an off the table topic for the Whitehouse. Freedom is at stake because of fear which is rooted deeply in the hearts of political leaders. But its foundations are wholly unjustified, as a decisive move would be more than accepted by even the United Nations, which has noted the threat posed by the conservative president in Iran today. It need not be a bloodbath, but it must be an agenda item; else we shall reap the consequences of inaction.

Ayla Samadi

National Alliance Vice President for Domestic Affairs

Masquerade: the Saga of Ron Paul

(This article was written by a National Alliance Foundation author on an independent blog, and does not necessarily represent the views of the organization).

So I have made the decision to remove myself from the thin-skinned group of pundits and go for the throat; supporters of Ron Paul be upset or not. I no longer hold any sympathy for the views of the good doctor, no matter how popularized they might have become over the past three years.

I admit, despite holding a more moderate stance than many of my colleagues, I felt at least a strong initial attraction to the Texas congressman's radical policy proposals. And honestly, so did a lot of people. What could be better than a tough as nails constitutionalist who is sharp on the budget but equally wise on social issues? Like a decent share of the public, I felt he was genuine...until I began to realize what his entire movement was built upon.

As much as he enjoys playing the above the fray card whenever political discourse gets into the heat of issues, Paul still has yet to establish himself as a truly independent--and viable, movement. Even during the 2008 campaign, while still floundering for life as the two major parties shifted into a domineering mode over the election, the congressman would not isolate himself from both parties, instead ensuring that he noted the similarities between himself and then Senator Barack Obama on the issue of Marijuana legalization. While I am quick to endorse more social democracy in our country, the drug problem is not an avenue to take, no matter the libertarian argument in favor of action. The move really came off as a cheap shot to draw in supporters, not something which Dr. Paul truly subscribes to. Perhaps the federal branch should simply apply more freedom, but not in such a way that endangers citizens through self-destructive behavior.

But regardless of his political opinions, I cannot make myself believe that the Campaign for Liberty's poster legislator has the temerity and calm to ever be elected--or serve effectively, as a United States President. Though he may possess a coalesced brigade of support in his safe conservative district, nothing about him inspires national or foreign leadership as a president. Paul believes America should remain isolationist, even while the country holds so many unavoidable international ties with companies and other nations.

Years ago, Ron Paul's foreign policy might have been prudent, but these days it simply comes off as surrealistic. Even more liberal democrats know that withdrawing from the world goes hand in hand with regret later on. Had the 1990s been lead by a more confident interventionist president, the Iraq War might have been prevented. Instead, isolationist and strictly economic policy wrecked such a follow up's chances of success.

He may hold the attentions of the more obstinate undecided voters now, but as 2012 roles around the corner, Americans would be wise to choose a leader who is committed to principles, not the popularity of a grassroots movement. Dr. Paul may offer advice on governmental issues, but his presence on the national scene is more destructive to reality than beneficial to the nation.

Rick Thomlinson

Citadel of the Left (Original article source)

Equalizing Prosperity

In the United States of America, citizens are all too familiar with the two sided economic stances of the major parties, with labor unions and the public sector the favored child of the left, and corporations the darling of the right. And still, after nearly five decades of these policies, there still has yet to be a government which champions the valid proposal of a universal and flat tax, which the National Alliance Foundation firmly believes in.

Feeding the corporations might create a meager sum of jobs in the nation, but it scarcely assembles enough to add a large period of economic plenty to the national markets, thus staying the country in a limbo of inaction and uncertainty. And while jobs within the public realm seem worthwhile in the short run, they have a tendency of damaging the economy further as taxes are drawn from the people to provide for their salaries.

Possibly the most positive element to a flattened tax system would be the removal of the lower income individuals almost completely from the tax brackets in America. Because a universal rate would remove the proportional differences from the amount of tax levied on different income levels, poor and lower middle class would no longer have major stake in tax levels, adding to their overall financial security.

For larger income drawers, the system would help by leaving them with more funds to lend and invest in the markets, benefiting the middle class college graduates and small business owners who are trying to hold unto their personal share of success in the capitalist pool. In a day and age when our largest obstacle to more prosperity is the unwillingness of financial institutions and wealthy citizens to make secure loans to the younger generations, the economy needs a stimulant to help its markets rejuvenate its statistical potency.

Already in several other countries, including the power-brokering state of Russia, flat tax rates have worked tremendously, dragging the nation from a near dead zone at the start of Boris Yeltsin's presidency to yearly growth of 9.5% in 2009. With similar growth in the United States of America, businesses would begin lending and purchasing inventory much faster, pushing the markets out of the recessions abyss and into a more stable, job friendly economy.

Showing this sort of leadership might be difficult for the dusty halls of Congress, yet it is the precise remedy to our slowing national economy. No longer should the capitol act on ideology; it must move to save the futures of Americans in this generation and the next.

Andrew Rimmer

National Alliance Vice President for Communications

Rise and Fall

A sizable number of observers have already noted that Ed Miliband's narrow victory for the opposition post in Great Britain marks a shift in policy away from the Tony Blair era, yet they seem to miss the largest ramification which it will near positively have on the state of government: David Cameron's election defeat. Regardless of Cameron's hopes for grand coalition of liberal conservatism, his own arrogance towards principles shall be the ticket to sweep his younger opponent into office in the 2015 general election.

Although he began his term as opposition leader in December 2005 following a reasonable polling success of leader Michael Howard, Cameron squandered his beliefs for the assurance of his eventual premiership, flipping sides on practically every issue until his credentials on policy boiled down to a vague "cuts in the budget" mentality. Voters in 2010 were not simply angry about the economy; they desired a premier who would once again respect their nation for what it was, not what Labour wanted in to become. Yet in his last ditch effort to hold together a fragile base, the future prime minister began endorsing everything from multiculturalism deception  to gay marriage and abortion. Unlike William Hague, Iain Smith, and Howard before him, Cameron detests the conservative message, dancing in the streets instead for a savvy public relations image which lacks sincerity but managed to still win an election...with 36% of the vote.

Sadly for the Etonite, his rush from principle will hand the Commons to Ed Miliband, a man with Marxist sympathies and little interest in the right-wing policies of Tony Blair and John Major.

It is not to say that the British people dislike the fundamentals of conservatism--in fact they embrace them, albeit not in the shaved and forlorn arrangement made by David Cameron. The prime minister's fleeing from tough terrorism policies, radical reform to the NHS, and a return to traditional values is the weight to his ankle for 2015. While the coalition may be above water now, their worthless three-point advantage will not mean much once Mr. Miliband starts showing his own skill in question periods, which some compare to Cameron's.

Miliband offers little of substance to the nation, yet his opponent's gerrymandering to maintain a progressively charged coalition with the Liberal Democrats will both dissatisfy conservatives, who will not show up to poll, and upstart the left, who will undoubtedly come out in full force for the Labour leader. By 2015, Cameron's brittle immigration and anti-terrorism policies will seem pale compared to those of even the Brown government, losing him the support of moderates who might have been less skeptical with the presence of firm defense appropriations by the administrating parties.

As it remains clear today, the only aspect that might save Cameron would be for his party to install William Hague as head of government, reverting the former premier to a lower education or secretariat position in which his damaging behavior can be repelled. Never before has Great Britain had a weaker or less decisive leader in charge of its daily affairs, and only swift reversal can save the nation from its slippery slope of centralized government and radicalized multiculturalism.

Gabriele Vogt

National Alliance Chairman