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