Adviser: Ron Paul is not anti-Israel

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-politics-in-national/adviser-ron-paul-is-not-anti-israel

8 reasons why Ron Paul will be the best president of our lifetime

8 reasons why Ron Paul will be the best president of our lifetime

8 reasons why Ron Paul outdoes Newt Gingrich

Homeschooling

Ron Paul's vision for private homeschooling is something which all Americans should readily support.

Homeschooling

Saddam's ghost in Libya

Saddam's ghost in Libya

The Dehumanization of America

On its website's front page, ABC News is running two stories that clearly demonstrate how far America continues to fall from the one-sainted era of moderate attitudes towards the sexual nature of human beings. The first is the next in a trend of fascination articles over the heavyset Chaz Bono, Sonny and Cher's daughter-who-must-be-called-a-man. Bono is appearing on the network show Dancing With the Stars making television history as the first woman pretending to be a man to grace the studio dance floor for the show. Only a few scrolls down is another story (the third this month) discussing children who convince their parents that they require transfiguration operations to block their biologically developing body as one sex.

Transgender Children
Chaz's Dance

(This photo is from www.thedearleader.com)

One might ask, how is such a narrow issue of concern to followers of politics? The answer involves two separate considerations; personal privacy and the paramount factor of a functioning human society.

At the outset, the pushing of transsexualism as a positive thing pulls us in the direction of anti-privacy and unfairness in human relationships. To be certain, two of the opposite or same gender becoming intimate and copulating suggests a general environment of clarity between partners. No matter heterosexual or gay, two people know who they are and the nature of the person whom they are in a relationship with. Of course transsexuals can never truly achieve this level of level-headed understanding in a relationship because their lifestyle contradicts it in the first place by pretending to be something which, biologically speaking, they are not. So giving time to these confused beings is advocating for a sexless, dehumanized society, much like the one in North Korea today.

It is not to say that Marxism opposes reproduction; at its core however, the ideology is one of the state's importance and man's secondary status in society. Thus we see regimes preventing the sexual image of women through cargo worker uniforms and the flowing burqas in Islamic nations. In the same way, transsexualism creates a sexless society in which there are no defined rules on the family or on human relations, thus necessitating the dawn of the state to prevent the spreading of mass chaos.  

At this point it becomes impossible for society to function without a tyrannical government, as people can no longer lead themselves or follow a pattern for society. Without models to follow or place stock in, a nation loses its identity because sections of the population begin to break off and form sexual subcultures, breaking the once grandiose status of the country forevermore.

America would do well not to follow this path of clear and present social anarchism, for the consequences of such a stance are none that do a society well.



Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy

Catch-all Fascism?

Since the origin of fascist movements in Nazi Germany and the Kingdom of Italy it has become a custom fro historians to simply label the ideology of governance as right-wing totalitarianism opposite the force of communism, commonly viewed as the Left's own version of top-down control. Though many are happy to simply agree to this, there is reason to suggest that this general consensus needs to be more totally fleshed out.

(Image credit goes to www.JewishVirtualLibrary.org)

This is because labeling fascism as necessarily right-wing also demands the notion that the fascist dictatorships which endured so long without much opposition internally were not supported by at least a majority of the country's population. Both Augusto Pinochet and Francisco Franco could well be viewed as conservatives, yet their governments were largely powerless outside of the nation's confines, requiring focus almost exclusively on domestic policies due to a limited support base. The fact that strict ideologues have such a difficult time keeping control better gives them the association with authoritarianism, a style that desperately needs strong policing to prosper for more than a few years.

When history is taken into account, fascism would best be described as a populist, centrist, or generalist movement that has never truly been opposed by a simple majority of citizens underneath its government of operation. Mussolini is often attacked for his supposed anti-leftist policies, but in reality he held the support of numerous labor unions and implemented the establishment of public corporations to consolidate political power. Hitler was not very different, with the Nazis openly promoting socialism and expanding government services to accommodate even the poorest of citizenry.

Perhaps the best explanation for why fascism is at its core a populist movement is that most people under its girdle asked for its all-encompassing implementation. Mussolini's rise may seem anti-democratic in the eyes of today's scholars, but it was not so far removed from the Roman Empire's system of totalitarian monarchs dating back to the glory ages of previous decades. The National Fascists also offered order in a country torn by cultural divisions and a hate for a democratic voting system -- an emotion that translates into the lackluster turnouts of the present day. Even Hitler was hardly a loathed figure when he came to power, as he promised and delivered on restoring the country's economy for all Germans -- radical socialists and laborers included.

As far as the supposed international opposition to fascism, evidence would suggest to the contrary. Mussolini's policies of equality were immensely popular among Italian Jews during the early days of his rule, and across the English Channel even the heroic Winston Churchill looked to the Duce as a potential ally in the post World War anti-communist movement.

So is fascism of one strict ideology, or a melting pot of different beliefs? The conclusion is up for grabs.


Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues

The Revolution: Only for Arabia?

As change-starved rebels begin the final stages of a coordinated NATO assault on the remnants of Libyan leader Gaddafi's 42-year reign and similar events are occurring in the coastal Syria, everything seems so grandiose and far off to the general media outlets of the United States. For them, the paramount events in Libya give them a great news story that fits a bill of perfected Western fascination; a ragtag team of rebellious citizens overthrow the tyranny of a faraway regime and institute an era of freedom and prosperity across the land. Difficult as it was to accomplish, they now have an opportunity to change the country -- nothing better to warm the American heart, right?

Still the question remains: is the revolution something only for backwater nations who desire to throw off dictators for life, or a universal action to be taken by all nations in defense of common liberty? Our founding document may be respected across the land, but repeatedly leaders in Washington have defied its rules, violated its tenets, a committed acts that earlier generations of Americans would certainly not stand for. And we sit on our hands, calling for a restorational election that has little hope of occurring as long as candidates and officials can spit on the only reason America is not an authoritarian power or the socialist's paradise.

When the current president makes a point of ignoring the necessity for a declaration of war, breaking the principles of the War Powers Act, and even disregarding a UN resolution by helping the Libyan rebels through the CIA, we as Americans must question how far the Constitution can be bent or dodged until liberty and individualism evaporates altogether. No matter how important it may seem to a power-hungry administration, dropping adherence to the swearing document of all federal officials in the name of security or national interests cannot continue to be center to presidential policy, for it risks undoing the nation altogether.

Americans struck a blow against unconstitutional behavior with the elections last year, and yet there is little evidence to suggest that even a plurality of the representatives have any interest is truly undermining the anti-founder mentality that permeates throughout Washington to this day. Both the president and the two leaders in the Senate took an extremely hands off approach to the budget debate several weeks ago, leaving many to wonder whether fundamental shifts in fiscal policy are of any interest to even the most ardent in opposition to "runaway spending," and "job-killing taxes." In short, those who speak the loudest have become hypocrites when it comes to practicing their rage, creating a masterful dilemma for citizens against oppressive, anti-Constitutional government.

(Photo credit goes to createyourownrealitynow.com)

Do we wait until perhaps a Constitution-abiding candidate is miraculously elected to office, or must we use the other more sinister option. Should we mount a revolution? Of course the entire suggestion seems radical to our supposedly modernized intellectual brains, but is it? The Constitution's second order of business was not to provide public access to weapons solely for the occasional hunting season, but for the common defense...and in case of a tyrannical government violating rights in the document. We may not have reached bedevilment from the capitol as extreme as that seen under Germany's once-powerful National Socialist Party or Kim Jong-il, but tossing aside blighting of the Constitution as irrelevant due to circumstance only gives those who would do away with liberty a stronger foothold in America. 

In no way does this mean we as the Alliance are calling for an armed revolution -- in fact, any actions taken should and likely would remain bloodless, but failing to elect a true believer in the Constitution in November 2012 may well necessitate a movement to install a person who does, while enforcing penalties against those who violated the founding document in the past. Were it pulled off correctly, such a change might pave the way for an economic revolution through policies which secure and preserve American liberty in the long-term.

No one desires conflict,  but no cause of man is more just than the eternal defense of freedom and individualism throughout the world. Tyrants will only triumph when those who claim to love patriotism and a liberal system refuse to answer the call in defense of the nation. 

Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy

Title VII: Unconstitutional?

Heading into 1964, Barry Goldwater was all but set to win the GOP nomination and capture the White House from the hands of Texas' Lyndon Johnson. With waning popularity and a an administration tarnished due to hosts of scandals, the incumbent president needed a ploy to distract from his weaknesses and retain the American executive's chair for a bit longer, even if the price to pay was in absolute dishonesty. Behaving like a practical politician, Johnson took the plunge by spearheading the Civil Rights Act of 1964, his hopes high that this game-changer would cause the strict constitutionalist ego in Goldwater to overpower political instinct and create a problematic image in the public eye. Regrettably, he was precisely right, and the White House went to Johnson with 486 electoral votes and a 61% popular vote mandate, leaving Goldwater with defeat due to his upholding of the Constitution by opposing the bill. Few other breaches of  the nation's founding rules have been more easily adapted by an administration, and thus the impact of the bill must be considered beyond its initial negatives to demonstrate the dangers of the uneducated masses clinging to emotions rather than governmental knowledge.

 (Photo credit goes to knowledgerush.com)

While Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does establish some reasonable rules for service companies and larger, departmental stores, its more evident problems come in how the tenets included with its pages deliberately hijack the First Amendment when concerning market-specific businesses. Such an entity is one that primarily targets a certain age group or ethnic interest, generally vamping up tactics and promotions to get the greatest benefit from their customers by appealing to a specific desire or concern. Because the business may need to focus solely on a particular type of employee, the legislation creates conflict where it should not remain by undermining business sense.

Thus Title VII's inclusions end up forcing some businesses to make excuses or ridiculous concessions in order to pave the way for the acceptance of employees who may do nothing but detriment to their operating successes. At the most fundamental level, consider a Mexican-styled restaurant targeting both Mexicans and others who enjoy the cuisine and culture. The manager may choose to higher a stage with three guitar-strumming Mariachi, and perhaps a dashing Latino couple, dancing the salsa while the dinning guests look on with interest and wondrous appreciation. Nothing about this arrangement is unnatural for the owner, who wants to attract more customers, and yet a sinister element stands: the desired race. For what if an African-American woman (attractive and trained in dance) applies for the position?

Defenders of the act will argue that this situation is unlikely, yet we all know it is hardly impossible. Under these circumstances it seems natural that the manager-owner might desire a Latina woman instead, though Title VII ties his hands by implying he is a racist for refusing her application on the basis of race. It is doubtful that the man is in fact harboring racial hatred against the applicant, but the 1964 legislation essentially makes this his intent.  

Even on a more specific level, Title VII hurts some companies when marketing is concerned. In the case of the popular restaurant chain Hooters, customers could hardly be described as attending one of its locations simply to dine on mediocre burgers and fries--with all the options available in fast food, this motivation seems more like a pitiful excuse to spouse or girlfriend than anything else. In reality, most attending Hooters for what exactly? Perhaps the stunning women with frontal personality and strategically low-cut shorts? Though not entirely the highest form of marketing out there, the owners have a strategy and intend to follow it, yet once again the problems arise.

Assume for a moment that a Muslim woman wishes to apply not as a kitchen worker but as a waitress, serving food to the horny consumers who wait expectantly for servers in the sexually-charged atmosphere. Now further consider that this woman is prescribed religiously to wear a full body covering and hijab scarf whenever she is out and about or within the workplace. Obviously this does nothing to help Hooters, seeing as few men enter into the restaurant expecting to be served by a semi-ninja, so it seems reasonable that under the First Amendment the management would be justified by rejecting her on the basis of her religious practices in the workplace. Makes sense, right? Tell that to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission however, and Hooters gets smacked with a massive fine (this is adapted from an actual incident).

Civil rights will always remain a subject of controversy in America, yet tossing the Constitution out the window to make way for a neo-multiculturalist agenda is unacceptable and un-American. Businesses should not discriminate with hate towards any one religion, gender, or race, and yet a time must come when it is realized that some discrimination on these foundations is absolutely fundamental to freedom. 

Jessica Yui

National Alliance Vice Chairman

How to Save Italy

One need not be a follower of political philosophy to realize that Italy is in deep trouble. With an incompetent prime minister and corruption permeating both major parties in Rome's Chamber of Deputies, it seems inevitable that the country will fall back into the 50-year pattern of presidents on the council of ministers barely managing to hold 9-month mandates before collapsing or resigning in shame. In truth, the only periods of stability experienced by birthplace of the Roman Empire since the death of Mussolini have been the noble Alcide de Gasperi's 8-year mandate which ended in 1953, and Bettino Craxi's 48 months during the 1980s, known best for their fields of corruption and assistance in producing the clown prince of Rome who holds power today.

(Photo credit goes to GlobalFirepower.com)

With such a horrific record behind state, some might question why anyone would bother to consider the possibilities any longer, and yet the reality is that good reason remains in the interest of doing so. Europe is dying. In England, David Cameron's waffling on neo-multiculturalism is sealing his nation's twilight, and "economics only" policies have prevented needed changes to the countries of Germany as well as Spain. Under Nicholas Sarkozy, France has somewhat pulled itself back from the brink, yet the shadow of his defeat in next year's elections could well undermine this progress forever.   

And so we are left with Italy, a strong Roman Catholic nation that has the opportunity to be the equivalent of Britain during the Second World War, albeit in a different style. By adopting six key reforms to government, Rome may well be capable of turning back the dangerous lean towards Europe's general path, a road lined with destruction and undoing. Few of these changes would be easy to adopt, and some might even endanger the life of the leader to pursue them, but the interests of such a historic world power should not be dashed by fears of death--no matter how serious. Should such a commander arise, Italy may have golden years rather than a winter era in its future.

• Reformation of the Chamber

 Political power always begins or rest within a legislature, and so it is understandable that the heart of the Italian stability problem rests in the divisions of the lower house, which can make or break a prime ministers. More than 600 members currently serve in the house, which creates a singular problem when attempting to achieve a majority government or pass a referendum without needing the consultations of the people, who fail to turn out and render the tests invalid. In order to fix this demise, the number of deputies should be reduced to 533, thus reducing the number of swing blocs that often cripple executive decisions by withdrawing from a coalition. This will further prevent regionalism from continuing to undermine a firm national government, preventing the Party of Values and Lega Nord from winning no confidence votes whenever they please.

•  Reformation of the Senate

The purpose of any upper house is to give membership to a nation's oligarchy; the rich few who can deliberate and pass a resolution without the regional squabbling seen in its lower counterpart. As such the Senate should be made up of the wealthy few, not a colorful bloc of members who can undermine stability by             rejecting a government's formation.  Again, a change in numbers is needed to better the senate's stability. Rather than 315, the chamber should be reduced to 101, allowing for more decisive majorities than what is seen in Rome today.   Furthermore, lifetime senatorial positions must be abolished, eradicating an unneeded drain on the country's monetary supply to provide exorbitant salaries to former executives.

• A Stronger Presidency

The only European nation with as large of an assembly as Italy is France, yet this   reality is offset by the empowerment of the French President under the semi-presidential system. France's governmental structure allows the president to conduct foreign relations and hold certain basic legislative powers while serving    in an popularly chosen term of office. A prime minister is still employed, yet this position manages affairs of state and leads a majority to confirm the cabinet of the president by voting in approval. In short, the executive branch is independent enough that it can remain stable even when the legislative body is weak, thus         preventing the interruption of power that is very evident in Italian politics. Having an appointed president is not enough, as it is powerless in nature and serves little purpose other than to appoint the Council of Ministers.

• Privatization, Privatization, Privatization

 Italy currently struggles with debt making up 120% of GDP, a situation which could well lead to a Greek-style collapse if not adjusted. Instead of following this suicidal form of financial policy, the government should pass structural privatization laws, cutting down government spending and reducing the public workforce while attracting foreign companies to do business within its borders.This move could generationally impact the country, leading to a more motivated populace with less dependency on the government for employment.            Additionally, it would make the country more competitive in the EU race for economic supremacy, preventing its marginalization next to France and Germany in the coming future.

•  Island Security

Perhaps Silvio Berlusconi's greatest achievement during his years in office has been the imposition of harsh illegal immigration restrictions for violators who attempt to enter the country through its southern islands of Sicily and Lampedusa. Simply halting here is not enough, however. The Italian Navy should be moved to             create   a blockade around Lampedusa and its larger cousin, policing the waters and preventing smuggling vessels from dropping immigrants off without proper documentation. If necessary, the standing defense force would fire on ships from Tunisia or Morocco which have been known to transfer black market weapons and drugs into the Italian mainland.  

• Instating of Il Rosso Vento

 This is certainly not the first time when a call for the formation of a group such as Il Rosso Vento has been made, and common sense suggests it will not be the last.Why the title? Well, back in the day European nobles would hire mercenaries for the exact purpose of striking back at bandits and thieves without requiring the             constant use of their own judgment systems. These enforcers for hire were sometimes known as the "Red Wind," as they brought swift justice to lawbreakers without bothering the a lord beyond his money coffers.  

An Italian version of this system in the modern day could be equally as effective, trained by Russian or American private armies and tasked with the extrajudicial neutralization of Mafia members across Sicily and the mainland. With groups such as the Ndrangheta making up most of the South's import wealth, massive             tactical strikes without the interference of the justice system could absolutely undermine organized crime in the same way that Alberto Fujimori defeated the Shining Path terrorists in Peru. Other than being a quick method, the same groups would be able to find incriminating evidence regarding entrenched corruption in the government, handing this off to the authorities and resulting in a cleansing of the public sector.

Inaction has never produced freedom. Only courage can do so. Italy must have the strength to stand and do what is necessary to save itself from the future of Europe.

Nigel Garrison

National Alliance Vice President for European Affairs

Why Ron Paul Will Lose

In the wake of President Obama's bumbling policies related to the economy and the unconstitutional war currently being waged in Libya, many in the Paulist column have come out and openly argued for his election to be the nominee of the Republican Party in next year's critical presidential election. Without delving too much into it, there is some decent evidence that this may in fact be a viable consideration, especially when noting that one poll from Rasmussen showed the Texas congressman trailing Obama by a single percentage point 42-41%. Even when real estate mogul Donald Trump attempted to claim Paul could not win the 2012 race, the latter's supporters launched vitriolic responses across the internet, bashing the whole notion that he would not triumph.

(Photo credit goes to BusinessInsider.com)

Before this I have spoken at length about my disagreements with Mr. Paul on foreign policy in particular, but it would be wrong to solely use this as reason why Trump's assessment is correct. Instead, it is more important to analyze Paul's greatest thorn: the illusion of a national-regional movement.

Anyone understands Paul's history knows he is a prolific fundraiser with a network of support across the nation,  allowing him to raise funds of grandiose proportions in little time, yet this does not make up for the congressman's lack of pluralities in the regional arena. Regardless of how strong one's national visibility may be, without connections in the state committees or trusted presence there, winning a primary is essentially impossible. Mayor Giuliani discovered this in 2008, with his campaign crashing and burning throughout each state's convention as he failed to win over the regional voters. No one would deny Giuliani had a strong national profile, but his familiarity with the state-by-state process was so weak that it destroyed his chances at the nomination.

Beyond the simple issue of local support, the Campaign for Liberty's chairman faces a conundrum when considering the prospects of his fellow vying comrades in the quest for the GOP's banner. The congressman may like to rip them as "establishment picks," yet that exact factor is what will reliably lead to his loss next year. Given the building scenario of Romney-Bachmann-Cain-Palin, it is almost impossible to imagine the good doctor coming up on top without some serious dropouts across the GOP field. Assuming Palin does not run, with both Santorum and Johnson dropping out, Paul still faces a steep climb to cinching the nomination.

Taking Iowa or South Carolina into the discussion it is not hard to see the frustration of Paul's hopes. Given her flamboyant conservative rhetoric, let us speculate that Michele Bachmann wins 34% in Iowa, followed by Romney at 25%, and a third non-Constitutionalist taking about 9%. With these numbers, Paul has already lost a crucial primary that could well decide the two top candidates of the race, even if he manages to grab the remaining 32%.

But this model is flawed in an obvious way: it fails to consider more than three candidates on the ballot other than Paul. In a more liberal state like New Hampshire, Romney would likely win 35%, followed by Huntsman or Perry in the mid twenties and then a non-Paulist candidate with double digits, be it Bachmann or Cain. So even in the best case possible, Paul's chances of winning in such a crowded field are miniscule.

Unfazed by this, Paul's supporters will likely call for an independent or Libertarian Party run, effectively getting their message out there while reelecting Barack Obama to the White House. Even if the GOP nominated a flimsy candidate like Santorum or Pawlenty, the prevalence of the two-party system would cause the chosen Republican to take at least 6% of the vote, enough to return Obama to the Oval Office. Were we to guess that that Paul lone would take 52% of the vote, the inclusion of the GOP third-party would cause him to sink below Obama's popular vote total, likely bringing about his defeat.

Ron Paul may be an honorable man, but he will not win the presidency in 2012. 

Brandon Dawson

National Alliance Vice President for Elections

Separation of Myth and State

In the wake of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s 3-vote margin senate win to legalize gay marriage in his home state, many homosexual activists have been cheering. Flanked by a strong coalition of self-described “progressive socialists,” the once irrelevant Castro District Country Club is now promising to fight more openly and force every member state in the union to accept their definition of the family and sexual relations. In line with most debates in America, the progressives have chosen to hone in on a particular phrase which they find so imbued with intelligence that one can scarcely pass a moment in political discussion before it slips ever so quickly from their lips. The several letters, strung together in perfected Marxist glory with a hint of historical decency seem to them like the only rightful method of achieving their delusions of moral and rhetorical authority over the traditionalists that haunt their dreams of a secular, more exclusively leftist America.

(Credit for this photo goes to John H Armstrong Blog)

Yet the question remains, where did “Separation of Church and State” first issue forth from? In the mind of the progressive or homosexual, it is ingrained within the Constitution’s First Amendment. In the mind of the historical thinker, it is misunderstood and often ineptly adapted to fight for the dismantling of past societal pillars in order to pave way for a sinister modern agenda. Thus there is no better time than now to clearly explain just where the phrase originated from and why it is wrongly applied to our current scenarios of national struggle.

Back in the early 1940s, New Jersey resident Arch Everson filed suit against the local school board to overturn a policy that ordered funding for school transportation be picked up by the local educational committees, most of which were delivering it to Catholic high schools (at the time compromising 96% of educational institutions in the state). Despite being rejected by district courts and even New Jersey’s Court of Errors and Appeals (at the time its highest court), Everson toiled on and appealed to the United States Supreme Court, setting up a dramatic showdown that came to a climax with the verdict in 1947.

Led by Associate Justice Hugo Black, a well-known Democrat and member of the Klu Klux Klan, the court ruled in a decisive 5-4 conclusion that an invisible wall exists to separate Church from the State, thus making New Jersey’s assistance to Catholic schools a violation of its constitution. That might have been the end of the saga, yet it is prudent to pause in consideration of Black’s own personal motivations. For years, the first and second Klans had always maintained a virulent anti-Catholic streak, believing the Roman Catholic Church to be incompatible with American governments or the permeation of democracy throughout the land. Even the modern Third Klan that has operated since 1944 maintains an exclusively Protestant lean, espousing hate towards Catholics and the Jews.

So was Black’s stance truly motivated by a desire to advocate for secularist views, or only to safeguard the Klan’s interests in America’s Protestant-founded government? No one answer seems complete, yet it is worth including that none of the Founding Fathers advocated within the Constitution or in surrounding papers that they desired “Alienation of Church and State.” In truth, the Constitution’s only words regarding religion are “Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion.” Simply put, we are not to become a theocracy in which a given religious authority has domain and power over every function of government from economic policy to national security. This does not mean the Founders were in effect arguing that on matters of the family and society churches should have no input whatsoever; it just prevents Congress from creating a religious federal authority.

The Progressive-Homosexual Coalition will still argue that advocating protection of heterosexual marriage or even a constitutional amendment goes against the Jeffersonian state’s rights approach espoused by many traditionalists, yet they miss reality at two key points. First, marriage at the time of the Constitution’s adoption was a strictly religious ceremony that formed the backbone of society in America. Now that marriage holds legal standing in America, homosexuals have inadvertently revealed their conclusive goal by rejecting the compromise of civil unions and demanding official marriage recognition. In other words, they want forced acceptance of their lifestyles and definitions of the family, creating a fine line between their views and attacks on the country’s founding principles.

Additionally, the whole purpose of a national government was to keep the union intact despite state disagreements. This formed the backbone of America’s emergence from the Civil War, as Lincoln’s firm opposition to a splintered country prevented a “United States of the Union” and a United States of the Confederacy”  from materializing. Otherwise we would likely still live under the Articles of Confederation, a system giving states the individual power that Jefferson’s wilder dreams desired. On issues concerning fundamental generational principles such as the family, Hamiltonian ideology for the federal government is needed to produce a single system of unity for the future. Should this be ignored, we risk once more dividing as district judges and narrow-voting legislatures choose to make decisions by ignoring the concerns of the people.

Individuals might still ask though, “Why is an issue like marriage so important?” The answer heralds back to the 1960s, when America first dipped its toes into the waters of cultural Marxism following a similar movement across Europe. After realizing that America clung too closely to religion and mass defense to be overcome using force, Marxist thinkers devised a new plan of action: cultural infiltration. By penetrating the schools and the courts, far-left academics and civil servants have continued to press for an extreme secularist society, developing a pattern in their actions. At each turn and polarizing issue, they always stand against religion. Whether it is opposing the words “Under God,” or supporting gay marriage and abortion, the Marxists continue to scurry forth the minions of their revolution by suppressing and marginalizing religious influence wherever it may remain in society, knowing that once the State can define morality, it will become a stooge to their totalitarian ambitions.

Words can often confuse, and this is precisely what the movement for separation of Church and State has done. All Americans who understand what makes a nation’s society strong must stand firm and seek to end the perplexing aura that surrounds this core issue in our country.


Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy

Palestine: Myth of a State

Yes--this post's title does not follow the traditional titular style of those preceding it, yet this is all with good reason. Today's writing is not meant to be artful per say; only to send a direct message to the heart of the Israeli-Palestine conflict in light of the recent comments by President Barack Obama. As most already know, the president used his Arab Spring speech to call for an Israeli return to the borders of 1967, when the Zionist state was but a sliver of land surrounded by increasingly hostile neighbors. Obama's basis is the typical Arab argument, yet his position and that of the self-described Palestinians lacks an important factor to boost its credibility: historical facts.

(Photo credit goes to artstruck)

Over 2,500 years ago, the Jews escaped enslavement in Israel and moved to their Promised Land, conquering the pre-Arab tribes there who worshiped idols and establishing the Kingdom of Israel, which would eventually be split into Judah and Israel before its dismantling hundreds of years later. Although Muslims did come to the territory, this would be far into the future, and making up breaks from the Egyptian or Syrian ethnic groups which are more dominant even today.

As time went on, the Promised Land would be governed by Muslim Caliphates (not Palestinians), the Romans, Crusading legions from the Church, and finally, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire following the First World War, the British. Under the Mandate of Palestine as it was titled, the British transferred numbers of Jews to the region to supplant the standing population, and eventually forged a two state solution, establishing Transjordan to the east, Syria and Lebanon to the north, and Israel to the south.

Furious about the prospects of sharing land with the Jewish People, the Arab nations banded together and forced Palestinians under Israeli protection to leave the land while distributing propaganda which accused the Jews of doing so. Though pummeled into submission four times during the 20th Century by Israel, the Arabs refuse to give up their pursuit of Israel's destruction, instead favoring a gradual process of elimination through terror strikes and concessions. As Zahir Muhsein once told a reporter "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."


Muhsein's quote essentially proves what many pro-Zionists already suspect or know; that the Arabs want Israel destroyed, not simply sectioned off into a smaller portion of the map. To Muslims, it is an insult to be near a Jew or live on the territory of a Jewish State, thus complicating the issue. What is not acceptable however is the Arab refusal to allow the Jews control of Jerusalem, historically more important to the Christians and Jews than to the Muslims. While some may dispute this due to the presence of the Dome of Rock in Jerusalem, we should be sure all facts are considered. Adamant as they are on this impasse, would Muslims agree to a Christian or Jewish nation controlling Mecca? History suggests no.


Peace is something which must be accomplished in the Middle East, yet not without some reasonable preconditions. One, Israel must include Jerusalem and be allowed to exist without unnecessary threats to its security. Two, the PLO should disassociate itself from Hamas and Hizbollah, with policies to promote democracy rather than authoritarianism. Only then can Israel let its guard up and sue for peace in the Holy Land. 

Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues

An Epic Blunder

On Wednesday morning, President Barack Obama released his official birth certificate to the media, drawing accolades from the press corps who have spent the last several months hammering away at conveniently labeled "birthers" for their insinuations that the commander-in-chief was born in a foreign nation. To the media and their spin network, this is a crushing blow to the GOP, discrediting the party for its involvement and further lampooning the TEA Party for advocating that the president show his true documents on the issue.

(Photo courtesy of Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots)

But is it? As fanciful as the notion may be to Democrats that this development is a boon to the president, Obama may have committed the unthinkable by coming forth with the document, setting off a chain of events which will make him potentially more vulnerable to defeat in next year's election, which promises to be tumultuous.

One, by releasing his birth certificate Obama shows a lack of general continuity which will undoubtedly leave some hanging. Since his days vying for the nomination, he campaign failed to produce a copy for even the Clinton machine, and for nearly four years he has kept silent on the issue even while questions were raised by both sides of the aisle regarding his legitimacy. Perhaps this is simply neglect, yet at the very least it makes him appear secretive, leaving some citizens angry or even put off after such a long hiatus.

Then the president committed a massive PR error by lowering himself to the same level as the skeptics by forcefully bringing out the certificate. This might appear natural enough, but it is worth recalling that the Executive Office has been historically one embodying national unity--not partisan squablings. By caving to birther pressure, Obama has proven that he cannot maintain a steady hand under fire from even as irrelevant of an opposition group as the truth movement, signaling weak leadership and even a streak of appreciation for  political division rather than American strength. In comparison, the Bush Administration hardly gave time to the equally radicalized notions that the 9/11 attack was endorsed and funded by the Clinton and its successor government.

Even less compelling about the president's choice is that the man to finally draw out the document is none other than Donald Trump, a billionaire and television star often mocked for his behavior despite arguably firm business holdings. This hangs Obama's mature leader image out to dry, as Trump is the last to have impressive political qualifications, yet he achieved where even Hillary Clinton's well-connected 2007-2008 campaign was unsuccessful.

Obama's decision goes beyond damaging to his image however. While the certificate dilemma gave him something to malign the GOP-TEA Party coalition for, its absence gives the president's allies few other issues to continue that line of assault with. He will now face a weak economic record and staggering costs from his spending programs and three wars entering the 2012 season--all focus items which no president desires to have on his plate. In simpler terms, the president just shot himself in the foot to appease the fringe of America.

Time will tell what the legacy of the birth certificate issue becomes, yet without a slight doubt it promises to be constant dog at the president's heels as long as he remains an active figure in American elected politics, and certainly with his immediate reelection looming next year.



Jessica Yi

National Alliance Vice Chairman

Panetta: Pandering to Insecurity

With Robert Gates listing his planned resignation for a time around August 2011, the Whitehouse is now scrambling to fill what can only be described as tremendous shoes of the Georgetown-educated military officer who previously served as the CIA director during the 1990s. Like with any major position, the Obama Administration has began its process of elimination to determine and ideal candidate for the slot, throwing out names of potential successors and subtly arguing in the interests of a particular leader.

Yet one problem prevails. The candidate of the Whitehouse's choosing is Leon Panetta. 

(Photo credit goes to swamppolitics.com)

To make the argument that the nation's Secretary of Defense should be a man trained as an attorney and chief of staff rather than an individual with a firm background in intelligence and foreign affairs is problematic enough, but to further iterate that the same person should be a man who has shown total ineptitude during his tenure as head of the Central Intelligence Agency and even been corrected multiple times by his very subordinates falls into the category of radically unacceptable. A superpower such as America cannot quibble about with irrelevant pursuits by placing figureheads at the helm of government blocs dedicated to national security because it projects an image of passiveness and disregard to foreign enemies. 

Being capable of effective leadership in the intelligence world is not measured by having served in another position with similar demands; President Obama seems intent on disproving this point with his flagship candidate. The issue remains however that Panetta lacked experience prior to his anointment as CIA Chief, and his missteps have continued to grow throughout his tenure. His juvenile decision to rebuke the necessity of an intelligence distance school to separate sensitive information from the Congress is a prime example, and multiple members were forced to write to his office and demand a correction. 

While other presidents have made similar choices in the past, their choices for defense-related positions were always individuals with extensive experience either first hand with intelligence or on specific congressional committees. Panetta's preparation comes from being head of the House Budget Committee, a body that deals with fundings rather than hard national security issues. Thus placing him in such a critical position would only jeopardize American security while failing to provide an authority with considerable background on the front line of issues related to his post. 

Administrations will inevitably make mistakes as they seek to rule the country properly, yet on issues of defense, which effect all Americans, these errors are not so simple to correct once they occur. In the best interests of the nation, President Obama must refrain from costly decisions solely grounded with the intention of satisfying his friends' political aspirations. Should Panetta be moved to another post, it would most ideally be Agriculture Secretary, a post in which he can do minimal damage to national governance. 

Jessica Yi

National Alliance Vice Chairman

Poland: Our Rising Successor

After the ravaging of World War II and the horrific events of the Holocaust, one would hardly think that the nation most privy to Soviet invasions would resurge as such a formidable economic and eventual military force on the world stage. Though only humble now, Poland promises to add a respectable element to the international platform as it builds from the ashes of Russian dominance and embraces true freedom as well as is own destiny.

(Photo courtesy of PolishBlog.com) 

Besides Brazil, Poland is clearly the next best bet for world security in the remaining part of the 21st Century. The partial Slavic nation's armed forces are far larger than many of its EU region counterparts, and its commitment to free markets predicts a steady command in the future that may very well rise to replace--or at the very least repel, American dominance.

The surprisingly strong pro-conservative state in Poland is a boon to future efforts as it ensures that the nation does not become sidetracked by growing socialist movements to seize anything and all within the reaches of the State for its own uses.Compared to other countries in its sphere, the Polish  doctrine on markets is decidedly less government-centered, and it has a narrow record of instituting mass federal seizures that promote slow -moving structures and poor GDP rates. Inevitably this will be key to winning the future, as nations such as China have already taken hold of most resources and now operate as capitalist powerhouses.

All other issues aside, Poland's strong Roman Catholic base means it is not as partial to poisoning the social sphere with corrupted media placements or the prevalence of less-than-perfect role models as America has enjoyed over recent years, leaving it as a lasting conservative state which may very well undermine soulless liberalism that has steadily sapped America's social unity and long-term endurance.

In the age of  Islamic radicalism, Poland once more gives a solution with its religiousity  like few other nations can even begin to imagine. Extremism in the Middle East is starting to spill over into the Euro Zone, and only a concentrated rejection of its inane tenets will be enough to overcome the subtle infiltration. Poland can lead the way in such a manner that pushes back upon radicalism by upholding the principles of its great national pride and culture.

Along with Brazil, Poland offers a healthy alternative to the equally daunting prospects of a Russo-Turk-Chinese balance of power after America reaches its waterloo. Both countries offer stronger record on human rgihts and a belief in their people as the source of democracy--not a spitting upon it which is characteristic of all the other three nations likely to gain prominence. Our only hope is to firmly build allies who respect individual freedom as the tantamount to any government or national legitimacy.



Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues

Politics Over Truth

More than two years have passed since George W. Bush left the Oval Office to return to private life, and still his legacy remains one of unanswered questions and general uncertainty. The once ultra popular man went on a midterm spiral into the abyss of low polling before leaving office with scholars attempting to label him as one of the worst presidents of all time, and his rather timid responses to critics have done little to cut a swath and better explain the realities from his term of office. But while these are up in the air, it's important to make a note of several key policies and how they relate to his lower numbers during his tenure as commander-in-chief.

One, the issue of Iraq and the seeming failure of Whitehouse intelligence regarding WMDs is a factor used to malign Bush for his performance while in office. Unfortunately, this argument contains a number of massive holes which prevent it from being ideal against the testing of history. Not only did America discover chemicals weapons in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, but reports suggest a number of convoys that left Iraq for Syria in the months leading up to the invasion in 2003, as well as a mysterious Special Operations attack near the Lebanese border never fully acknowledged by the U.S. Government in which a number of elite forces are thought to have been massacred. Additionally, discoveries of partial weapons development made it clear that Hussein could have at the very least created the arms if necessary.

(Photo courtesy of BlogNewsService.com)

To address the ever-staggering claim that Bush did not respond enough to Hurricane Katrina it is important to note the legal ramifications which such a move might have had on his presidency. Authority for the deployment of federal troops must be authorized by the governor of the target state in writing, yet Kathleen Blanco refused to comply for several days, hanging out the president to dry while Louisianans suffered terribly. Despite repeated attempts in which he beseeched the governor to change her mind, no action came out of the executive's office until the damage had been done--both political and actual.

Possibly the final corner on which his detractors love operating is that the 43rd President allowed the financial markets to collapse in 2008 through his tax cut policies. Now, considering the involvement in two largely unavoidable wars, this was certainly expected, yet to lump the blame on the president is both short-sighted and unfair. Bush began in 2003 to urge Congress to pass dramatic regulations for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, yet the thin Republican majority in both houses was inadequate to accomplish the job. Democrats filibustered the attempts repeatedly, and denied the president support even when the came into office in 2007. Because (and thank God) the president is not a dictator, Bush was powerless to regulate the markets without Democrat support, and so they fell into a tailspin during his last few months in office.

George W. Bush may not turn out to be the greatest president of all time, yet without a shadow of doubt his legacy must be respected with the truth--not some poor excuse for partisan hit jobbery. If America wants to remain free, then it must have honest reporting and fair assessments; neither of which were given to the former president. It is time for some well-needed change.



Andrew Rimmer

National Alliance Vice President for Communications

A New American Doctrine

Since 2001, America has been in the trenches; our brave troops courageously fighting for the domestic security of all citizens and the ushering in of democratic principles in Afghanistan as well as throughout the Middle East. Our country has bled internally with countless lives lost, trillions spent, and history changed for the people of the Middle East; for the Arabs, Pakistanis and Muslims, a grand effort to unite and end violence between the West and the culture of the region once and for all. A mission embraced by leaders around the world--even at the expense of reelection campaigns.Above all, a policy of intervention in a zone that has broken the futures of some and molded public opinion regarding figureheads around the world. It could probably be fairly said that the Middle Eastern conflicts have made--or broken the popularity of so many American figureheads.



And what good has it done? Despite the sacrifice, the mere incident of a radical pastor choosing to burn a Muslim Qu'ran in Florida caused the Muslims to riot twice, murdering troves of children and continuing their vicious assaults on the soldiers in their country trying to give them a better life. We continue to give everything for these people, and the gratitude is non-existent. Considering how little America has gained out of the long-standing conflict, it suggests that perhaps the solution is rather simple: pull out and stop interfering. If their quality of life rots, then let them recover from it by themselves, be it under democracy as we would desire, or beneath the radicals, who they are so unwilling to reject.

Wondrous as this possibility might sound, it is of course unrealistic. American superpower status would inevitably devour hopes for a humbler foreign interventionist policy, leading us to once again stay plugged into the international stage. After all, as long as Americans desire the capitalist paradise, they will need to accept the fact it can only continue to exist if we are number 1--not third or fourth.

Instead of withdrawing however, here is the other option in front of the foreign policy table: use all colonies for resource and economic gain through the spread of American cultural statues. Sure, this quickly might draw the ire of those who oppose empires, yet why should America truly care? In the end, we give the most military aid worldwide, and the response is almost a uniform snubbing by the citizens in Europe and Asia. We strive to put their interests first. and they spit in our faces, so why continue with the helpful charade?

A cultural revolution run by America would help "win the future," to quote Barack Obama, by ensuring that foreign nations agree with American values--whether their current society does or not. Rather than the disastrous policy of today, this colonist mindset would ensure that the future generations in the Middle East adhered to a pro-West view instead of the hate that spews from their borders in the modern day. As with Lebanon, we would create a new state in which the anti-Westerners would be suppressed and slowly eliminated as more moderate families moved in a propogated, cutting off future threats to international security.

No solution is full proof as it relates to the Middle East, yet it would be far better to have a general fix to this costly problem than none at all. As long as we fight this war, it will cost us and gain very little. With the rise of American colonialism, this could very well change.



Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues

Europe's Shining Leader

Nicholas Sarkozy is an anomaly. Not in the negative way as first appearances may suggest, but a diversion from the Euro norm which is both refreshing and inspiring in the era of Barack Obama. Though it may not have seemed possible, France once again has a leader in the towering mold of Napoleon; a figure unafraid to embrace greatness and generous with his actions for the good of international stability. He bypasses the simple standards of past leaders, emulating the very legends that many in the modern day have traded for flimsy beliefs in UN-sanctioned peace that will never be actual without the imposition of world power authority.

 (Photo courtesy of TopTenList.com)

In 2012, Sarkozy will be seeking reelection to the French Presidency, and it is in the interest of Europe as a whole that he does not cave or lose that effort. The fragmented Socialist Party of France has put forward Segolene Royal, Sarkozy's opponent in 2007, and Martine Aubry, a far leftist union leader who threatens to dismantle international security with her disastrous views on foreign policy. Further possible is Dominique Strauss-Khan, IMF President and long time economist who offers the only reasonable moderate in the party.

Regardless of who is chosen, the French People would do wise to return Mr. Sarkozy to office, as his policies both domestically and in the foreign realm have been stunning successes deserving an extended mandate for their activation. From his ban on the burqa to his involvement in Libya, he far surpasses the record of even Charles de Gaulle, embodying a man who understands the world and is not petrified by the presence of opposition.

After 12 years with the terrible leadership of Jacques Chirac, France finally has a leader it can be proud of; a man who does not believe his nation should remain on the sidelines despite its seat on the Security Council and general  economic predominance in Europe. Sarkozy has embraced his own new era foreign policy, rejecting the view that France must remain dormant after its back was broken in World War II by implementing reforms which benefit the Euro Zone as a whole and encourage more leadership from its heads of state.


Thus little can be said for the present except this ringing point: Vive la France, et Vive la Sarkozy!



Justin Michaelson

National Alliance Vice President for International Policies

Paul 3.0: No Thanks

As if father and son was not enough, the Paul Family is proposing yet another of their kin for a seat in our nation's upper house: Robert Paul of Texas. Hoping to use a springboard from his brother and old man, the younger libertarian seems intent on overcoming name recognition challenges to succeed Kay Bailey Hutchison in the United States Senate. Unfortunately, another member of the family is the last thing America needs in the coming years, especially considering the foreign policy commitments which the country is presently involved with.

(Photo credit goes to elliscountyobserver.com)

The primary argument that the Paul's regularly articulate is that they are the self-anointed guardians of Constitutional principles in the nation today. And while they do not offer solely irrational views, their ideas regarding implementation rather than rhetoric make them a liability instead of the asset that they might otherwise be. When Ron Paul took the chairmanship of a House subcommittee to oversee the Federal Reserve for example, he quickly backtracked on his goal to shut it down, choosing instead to shift into the classic government mindset of inefficiency. This came after writing a book (and presumably making at least a fair amount of money), advocating that the massive private-public merger be discontinued permanently.

It is at this level that the Pauls lose their credibility with those who are willing to pay further mind to their actual behavior in office other than the words which frequently spill from between their lips. Bold as they may be with proposals, they have little interest in actually pursuing the political changes which they so vehemently argue for. Thus instead of progress they offer empty words; a pretext to inaction that slowly strips away the ability native to average Americans to decide for themselves and consider issues outside the traditionalist realm.

More disconcerting however is that the Paul Family seems intent on radically turning American foreign policy against the only true democracy in the Middle East; the State of Israel. According to their rhetorics, the money spent on Israeli defense is a drag to American interests that must be severed simply to return a shred of budgetary integrity. What the Pauls refuse to grasp is that such an action would undermine both national and collective security by weakening possibly the most endearing friend of America in the region for rather selfish purposes. Without Israel, America has no foothold in the region, and lacking a foothold we have no power.

With a Paul now likely to run for president next year and another gunning for the Senate, Americans and Texans need to make the same decision: reject them wholeheartedly. These men may sound sincere or even grandiose with their plans, yet the ending reality is a force of political familiarity that seeks to undermine American strength for the sake of radicalized sensibilities.



Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy

The Future is Keiko

After a contentious race in the classic Latin American mold (including a former president), Peruvians have spoken to the first part in the race, sending two ideological polar opposites to the June 5th runoff, leaving questions to exactly who will take the helm of the poverty-stricken nation at the July inauguration. Often times these elections can get down to single issue differences between candidates of opposing parties considering the structural poverty in the nation, yet in this case the choice is clear: Keiko Fujimori will remain the ideal choice for the Presidency of Peru.

(Photo courtesy of Living in Peru.com)

While Ollanta Humala has done his finest at spewing Marxist deconstructionism since his declaration of candidacy (and loss), in 2006, his actions are empty as his words. Since then the military nationalist has tried to become a new center-leftist moderate, yet the record is more important than the speech, as seen in the case of Cuba and Venezuela. He has clearly indicated intent not only to supplement the economy with heavy state intervention but further discussed interest in shifting the Peruvian constitution is such a manner attune to his idol, Hugo Chavez. At best his first place finish represents a populist strike against the incumbency figures of Toledo and lesser candidates, all whom perished below the top two contenders.

Fujimori on the other hand is a newcomer (albeit one with an entrenched family) who can bridge the divide between dissident left-wingers and the capitalist investments in Peru. Following in her father's economic legacies would help grow the country out of its recession while endorsing fair standards in poverty reduction. She is also young--and more critically, a female, which will shift up the deadlock in Latin America by providing a figure outside the traditionalist male structure.

For those who crucify her for the legacy of her indicted father Alberto, they may wish to consider not only the general challenges which the former president faced and the high probability that similar situations will not be the norm given his accomplishments. The elder statesman's questionable methods are no longer needed given the stability of the current country and the general decline in internal strife since the election of Alejandro Toledo in 2001.

Not surprisingly, the most critical issue facing Peru in the immediate future is building its economy so as to prevent the further settling of debt into its structure. Fujimori's policies closely mimic those of her father, under whose leadership poverty was significantly reduced and business industrialization expanded as well. Compared to Ollanta, she is a demigod, while his views offer nothing but immature sniveling about some radical philosophy long-since proven to be a clear and total failure.

For the future, and the bettering of Peru, the people must pick the only sane candidate with qualifications to fix the economic state, and that candidate is Keiko.




Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues

The Matter of Trump

It's official: The Donald is now a viable candidate for the Presidency of the United States. Following a rather long hiatus of flirtations, Trump is suddenly veering dangerously close to the waters of candidacy, and progressively his statements have become more bold and less attune to uncertainty. With only months before his hit television show comes to a finale, there raises the entirely viable possibility that he may indeed step into the upcoming race, spelling potential trouble for those who are quick to write him off as a "hothead," or "egotistical."

(Courtesy of pbpulse.com)

For starters, Trump has the necessary cash. This is perhaps the primary qualification for a viable candidate, especially seeing as most GOPers are still struggling to keep up with the promising tide of Barack Obama, whose war chest is set to be well over $1 billion. For Trump, this is less problematic, as he has already committed to $500 billion for the campaign, putting him well within reaches of Obama's money totals. He who has more funds tends to triumph in American politics, and Trump is no exception.

Another factor facing the GOP versus Obama match-ups is notability. Whilst Obama has been a world icon for the past three years, most of the GOP candidates outside of Sarah Palin are vaguely recognized by voters: a sure death knell if the race is judged on popularity. Trump differs in his television show screen time and massive celebrity, both beneficial elements which could very well bolster the rest of his campaign. His prevalence on screen could save him considerable funds early on the in the race, as his own companies run commercials with his namesake for corporate purposes.

Trump's forward-talking behavior may shock some more sensitive politicos, yet his passionate tirades may be just enough to propel him to viability in American political discourse. Recent attacks on President Obama's birth certificate from the real estate mogul might seem childish, but they show a tenacity and courage which not all candidates have on the national stage. And considering that his issues platform is built upon anti-interventionist philosophies, Trump will have an easier time at raking in independent support than naysayers might project.

No candidate for the presidency so far has demonstrated a likelyhood of defeating Barack Obama, so counting Trump out without due analysis would be foolish at the very least. He may have a pompous image in the minds of those around the country, but a tense campaign may warm citizen hearts and draw in their votes to change the outcome of the day.

So the question remains, will The Donald tell Obama "You're fired," in November next year? Only time will tell.




Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy

Admirable Victory

After hours of negotiations and rising concerns nationwide, the Congress and President Obama reached an agreement to seal off the threat from a federal shutdown by settling upon a $38.5 billion cut in domestic spending for the coming fiscal year. And even as the media attempted to set him up for a dramatic failure, House Speaker John Boehner successfully outmaneuvered the Democratic ranks to push through a bill with far more cuts than formerly accepted by the opposing party. While the cuts do not yet do enough for budgetary remedies, they are a symbolic triumph of reason over ideology which stand to crush Democratic hopes in the coming days to further crucify the GOP's image.

(Photo credit goes to Liberalland.com)

Now, it must remain clear that the government did not rule a shutdown out entirely; rather they simply extended the deadline with additional cuts. Although this may draw the ire of spectator Tea Party members, it should really be greeted with praise because it shows that once more the GOP can cleverly extort cuts from the Senate and Whitehouse without damaging its image during a shutdown.

Few things can be stressed as more important, seeing as the media and most Democrats would love to point fingers at Republicans for their failures, yet now the party has pulled off a successive win that forces the Democrats to continue on the tips of their toes in the coming weeks as negotiations continue. Boehner's leadership effectively prevented a Democratic propaganda war from striking home, all the while circumventing attempts to keep the GOP as a party of no compromise.

That stated, the battle does not end with this victory. Members of the GOP must press forward and implement further cuts so as to defeat additional Democratic roadblocks to governmental reform. By continuing with this pattern of evasive grants, the Center-right will be able to dismantle unnecessary federal institutions without negatively impacting the well-being of its political status or general image.

Further, the events of Friday shoved Harry Reid and Barack Obama back into the spotlight, where they will likely be forced to answer to the shortcomings of their party in recent years. While Boehner's leadership threw off the portrait of self-interest which has for too long hung over the GOP mantle, it also made Reid's opposition appear childish, and Obama's even less convincing. Observers should remember his sudden embrace of the plans, which came only days after he categorically failed to endorse significant budgetary cuts. The president flip flopped, and the nation is watching.

As with all other conflicts, the battle for American prosperity is far from over, yet the remaining elements in play promise a stronger showing from conservatives and patriots in the rounds to come. If the president refuses to cooperate once more, then the government will be shutdown, but only after proving that the Republicans are not the one so gunning for it. Friday night's struggle was the stepping stone to further skirmishes in the vicious confrontation for American freedom.



John Lai

National Alliance Treasurer and Comptroller General

Bush III

"My old friend you say? Impossible, I do not recognize the man--or if I am wrong, then he is not what he once was."

It's hard nowadays for Americans to understand exactly who their president actually is. Carter, the dithering southerner, Clinton, the charismatic centrist, or perhaps Reagan, the free market king? In truth though none of these labels seem to stick to the man who presently leads the United States. For although on the domestic front he has advocated policies in contrast to his predecessor, Barack Obama's foreign policy has started to look increasingly like George W. Bush's as each month of his first term roles along. 

During the 2008 campaign Obama was especially clear on several key policies from the Bush years which he intended on reversing: the Middle Eastern wars, Guantanamo Bay, and military tribunals. These were bold positions which the young Democrat fiercely hammered out amidst the closing days of the race, although his popular vote margin of victory seemed to shrink from some polls, landing at a modest 53% despite the structural advantages native to his candidacy.

Thus far, the tally is non-existent. The president did move to end the Iraq War, but only after deploying more troops to Afghanistan and delaying the withdrawal deadlines because of security concerns raised earlier by his opponent, Senator John McCain.

The infamous prison facility has yet to be closed due to firm bipartisan opposition to the prisoner transfers, and only days ago the administration solemnly announced that Khaled Sheik Mohammed would be tried using a military tribunal--a far cry from Obama's call for civilian trials over the past two years. Additionally, Obama has authorized more drone strikes than his predecessor, a massive diversion from his charming liberal image.

Perhaps the greatest similarity however resides in the domain of foreign invasive assaults. After years of bashing Bush for invading Iraq without basis, the new president turned and used military force on Libya, actions which have few justifications other than oil pursuits by most considerations. Funny enough, as this was the foundation for left-win attacks on the Iraq War. Obama has claimed there are no boots on the ground, but CIA have been deployed readily and he commanded Gadhafi to step down only weeks ago.

Shocking as it may be to liberals and conservatives alike, Obama's evolution is another testament to the security over party worldview held for so long in American political interests. Rather than his party or ideology, the president is pursuing national defense, a testament to his desire to protect and preserve American Freedom. This fundamental transformation is what has helped American endure in the past, and will no doubt benefit her in the future.



Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues

A Tribute to the King

Almost 32 years past today, the Shah of Iran was thrown from power, his majestic 37 years of power suddenly swept into the histories and replaced by the radicalism of the Mullahs and the Supreme Leader of the new Iranian republic. In modern texts and journalism it is popular to treat the Shah's legacy as one of utmost dedication to Western powers and a brutal establishment security force called the SAVAK, yet these arguments sadly fail to address the magnitudes that his rule reached before its succumbing, all which are tremendous when the state's current government is contrasted.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was first installed in the throne in 1941, but his true ascension would not take place until 1953, when American agents helped overthrow a disloyal prime minister to instate him as king. For the next 37 years, Pahlavi ruled in both controversial yet fully effective ways, emphasizing policies which would make Iran a jewel in the Middle East and a strong Euro-American ally before his removal by radical forces in 1979.

Compared to the present Muslim theocracy, the Shah's Iran was a free paradise, albeit one with little political freedom. His policies from the state helped women achieve an equal standing in society, disregarding the calls by the more extreme of his faith to require political suppression through the use of burqas and limited female rights. With the help from his dazzling wife Farah Diba, the Iranian king helped women reach a dramatically higher status than in most surrounding states, easily surpassing the Pan-Arabian tendencies of Egypt and Syria, where females had little to no representation or authority.

Equally importantly, the Shah moved Iran into a rush for economic development that allowed it to greatly modernize universities, business, and general public services. Alongside the largely command or agricultural economies of the non-oil producing nations, this was a tremendous accomplishment which made the Iranians the envy of their neighbors and fostered strong Western interest in the state.

America and Europe would dedicate many resources to Iran's survival, becoming its principal trading partners and crafting the free flow of petroleum supplies in such a manner that would not be seen under the tyranny to follow. Yet the Shah was not hesitant to criticize European interests; in doing so he made himself independent and a true champion for Iran's determination of the future.



Over the past three decades, the nation of Iran has become a wasted and humiliated picture of radicalism and the abuse of human rights, a sad reversal of the policies that the Shah's government backed. As a basic lesson, it shows the danger of allowing fundamentalists to form a national authority when a far better alternative is at hand. Arabic religion has poisoned Iran, and the only means to recover is for another Shah-style leader to turn back the history which as thus far progressed into a new stone age on a federal level.

Iran's current population is predominantly young, so the test of 21st Century policy is to ensure that the government changes and brings in the newer generations, most of whom are naturally liberal and pro-West. American had two attempts, one in 2009 and another in March 2011, but on both occasions the Obama Administration refused to act. So the question remains, will the United States seize the moment, or must Iran continue to suffer without the leadership it deserves?



Ayla Samadi

National Alliance Vice President for Cultural Issues