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

The Ascent of Culture

The Middle East needs cultural--not regime, change. Observers can lament all they wish about the merits of new government, but without a fundamental reformation of cultural statues and beliefs no established authority will be able to last as a fully legitimate structure above the people that it subjugates. Only a change of mindset thta embraces free will and individual liberty from religious requirements can hope to unravel the sad tale of partial disassembly that has always appeared to be the home front condition of every country in the forsaken region. 

(Courtesy of Associated Content.com)

Around 70 years ago, the State of Lebanon was a thriving hub of mixing cultures and business activity that served as a model in contrast to even the Zionist Israel to its south. With a narrow Christian majority and political supremacy vested in the presidency, Lebanese politics remained a matter of electing a power-sharing government to overturn the problems of ethnic division and Muslim radicalism. 

But like all good things, even the Lebanese dream could not last forever, and the 1991 Ta'if Agreement sold out the Christians, empowering the prime minister and ceding religious authority to the Sunni and Shiite Muslim blocs. In a matter of 20 years, the country changed from an open and more secure land to an intensely restrictive zone where growing populist Shiites prevent the moderated state of the old country from remaining ever-secure in its place.

Lebanon's dilemma is regrettably a cancer which has spread across the Middle East since the end of World War II, and only a swift intervention of western religion and culture can hope to overcome it. At a basic level, we must come to realize that our culture is superior. In the West, a promise between two individuals is entirely binding, whereas Muslims disagree with this unless both people pledging themselves are of the Islamic Faith. Obviously this creates a conundrum as they are not viable forces to debate with or live in proximity to. 

Instead of these weak short-term operations by the Western bloc, the world should embrace a partial recolonization of the region in order to reinvest civil values in cultures that are dangerously verging towards radicalism. As long as these nations maintain their current path, they will inevitably converge in a point of issue when there vanishes the remaining cooperation needed to hold together the current peace. 

Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues

GOP 2012: A Hard Sell

In spite of the excited spitfiring from conservative talking heads and rising presidential hopefuls, the actual possibility of a Republican defeating Barack Obama is steadily shrinking as a convergence of policy and general idiocy wreck what might otherwise have been a democratic coup to be remembered for generations in November of next year. Over a matter of months the president has been luckily transformed from floundering politico to confident executive due to a stream of repetitive mishaps formated by the lingering gunners for the American Presidency.

(Photo credit goes to Dangle the Carrot blog)

Conspiracy and Consequence:


For the last three years, the GOP and its support bases have been playing with a deadly fire by repeatedly implying the president was not born in America and may even be a radicalized Muslim. Cute as these attacks might seem at their first release, using one method without a firm policy balance can inadvertently bring about electoral destruction, as the party witnessed following the 1998 impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton.

Leaders from Michele Bachmann to the not-so-right-wing Glenn Beck continue flashing the point for political prime time and monetary gain, leading the press to associate them with mainstream voters of the GOP--a terrible frontal appearance by all means. This sort of behavior has its limitations, and in a national campaign it will only serve to cripple the Republican standard bearer by forcing them to answer questions regarding the party rather than focusing on good recovery polices.

Alienating the New Majority:


Mostly attributed to the media's hateful reporting, but equally due to GOP meanderings, Hispanics now almost categorically oppose the party and its candidates. Perhaps this is only a byproduct of tough immigration positions by its elected candidates, but the visceral rhetoric of top leaders has done nothing to mend ties, and so it faces a critical risk in gaining wide demographic support.

The Anti-Semites:


True, this is a heavy charge to weigh, yet the fringe positions of both potential candidates in Ron Paul and his son Rand as well as Gary Johnson provide visible images of figures who could further handicap a GOP thrust towards victory. Both Pauls constantly speak out against funding to the State of Israel, regardless of the massive threat posed to the country from terrorism should they loose American aid.

This is not to imply that the Center-right is doomed to fail, but drastic changes must be made if their is hope of  silencing Barack Obama's surge to historical prominence with a second term. As we well know, notwithstanding his performance in a second four year period, the sole fact of a reelection mandate would render him a spot in the great presidents category by the zealous authors of professorial Marxism in America today. If Obama is to be stopped, it will require skill and temerity, two factors the GOP still severely lacks as of recent days.



Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy

Serbia: Injustice Served?

(Nikola Cicic is an adjunct writer at the National Alliance Foundation. His views are his own, though we appreciate his contribution as with all writers).

Task any dutiful student of foreign policy with explaining former President Bill Clinton's most famous military action as commander-in-chief, and they will likely mention the now well-known events of the Kosovo War, a conflict popularly marred by its apparent bastardization of the Serbian government for their genocide against the internationally lauded innocents, the Bosniaks. But while the press have done their finest to whitewash the event as an anti-Muslim catastrophe, there are less evident truths that should come to life as we approach history and pledge to avoid such a terrible happening again.

(Map courtesy of www.indiana.edu)

Without further ado, let us establish that the genocide committed was indeed horrific, and nothing to be listed as minor, yet simply viewing its manifestation as a separate event with no real backing in history is illogical and does disservice to lives that passed on long before the violence of the 1990s. Since the 10th Century, the Serbs have openly claimed Bosnia as their home, yet brutal Turkish invasions over the succeeding centuries left them ravaged, with Muslim sentiments growing in the region that the natives should be forced to convert--or die resisting. For hundreds of years, the Serbs fought to preserve their culture as the incoming Islamists swallowed up the Albanian map and became a dominant force in Eastern Europe.

In the 20th Century, the most evident showing of Bosniak hate for their neighbors came when Marshal Tito took power in Yugoslavia in 1943. Hardly one to remain neutral with his strength in the eastern bloc, Tito gladly served as Hitler's regional stooge, employing armies of Bosniak secret police and Muslim gypsies to hunt down and gas the Jews at the heart of the Nazi mission. Unbeknown to many in the modern day, the Serbs who were categorized as Nazis after the 1990s spent much of their early lives helping with anti-fascist and anti-communist activism to save their Jewish comrades.

As a Croat-Slovene, Tito had little sympathy for the Serbs, and his security forces regularly oppressed and murdered them alongside the Jews that they were striving to save. Thousands were murdered as they bravely defended the fleeing Jews, and the Bosniaks stood alongside Hitler's common goals. Estimates suggest as many as 655,000 people were systematically executed by Tito's Islamic-supported regime, the far greater part of that number ethnic Serbs. While human life should never be measured in such way, the 8,000 Bosniaks who lost their lives in Srebrenica are a far cry from what Tito accomplished, in his case with less technology.  

So one must really propose, are we right to demonize the Serbs because of their involvement in the 1990s, while American and European forces stool by and embraced the Marshal as a supremely key ally in the war efforts as well as beyond then? Nothing can justify the senseless killing of innocents, yet Serbs must be recognized for all the struggle and hardship they endured, not battered about as convenient targets while the Muslim Bosniaks get a historic free pass.

Scholars will judge both parties with various standards, but the truth must reign dominant after all is said and accomplished. Hiding the light of such a great tragedy is only presenting another possibility of its repeating, and all should oppose such a thought with their dying breath. If the World Court is to pursue the nationalists for their crimes, then it should also look to charges for the Bosniaks who caused the issues of the 1990s in the first place. None should be above the law, even in the age of emotions.



Nikola Cicic

Adjunct Writer--The European Political Divide

One Man for Himself: Grover Norquist's War on Freedom

For more than two decades Grover Norquist has propped himself up as a financial and tax reform guru, rubbing elbows with both Bush administrations and politicians from the right/left divide, yet more and more he displays a unique and discomforting sinister entourage of coalesced hate for America and the solvency of its treasury.

To understand the grain of this issue it must be realized that notwithstanding his "pro-middle class" talking points, Norquist has never truly cared to get involved in causes beyond those directly benefiting his own lobbying group in Washington D.C. Throughout the Clinton years he banged the gavel for better tax rates--a worthy cause, yet his actions beyond this have been of questionable wisdom. When prompted to take a stand on the Iraq War in 2003, Norquist came out and slammed the Democrats for opposing the efforts of the Bush Administration and stated that  they were on the wrong side of history. But only two years later he was back, writing a New York Times op-ed that criticied the actions as based on neoconservative desires. This may best be explained by recalling that the once floundering center-left was set to take hold of Congress in 2006, and Norquist needed friends to continue profiting off of.

But perhaps the anti-taxman's greatest offense is the marked inability he has demonstrated to condemn Islamic terrorism as a threat to America's borders. In 2005, Norquist tied the knot with attractive Kuwaiti researcher Samah, a devote Muslim who would get Norquist even closer to Middle Eastern business interests--including Saudi Arabia.

Interracial or bi-religious marriage is not a crime, but Norquist's insistence on blocking any sort of inquiry or pursuit of common sense anti-terrorist justice leave his true sympathies in the dark to even his closest followers. The Islamic Institute, which received considerable money from and was founded by Norquist was embroiled in controversy when its president, Abdurahman Alamoud, was arrested and sentenced to 23 years for terrorist actions in 1999.

Only a decade later, Norquist would again choose the path of least resistance to Islamic expansionism, calling on activists to end their concerns over the Ground Zero Mosque and focus instead on tax issues, his portfolio of employment.

As far as his personal faith, Norquist seems surprisingly unwilling to say, an oddity considering his Harvard education and seeming desire to foster common ground for all peoples. To him, the question is "too much of a personal issue," yet apparently his associations with active terrorists ought to be passed off as "business contacts" in his general opinion.

Denizens of America such as Norquist pose a problem to national security because they are fully willing to sacrifice everything for the sake of a few dollars more. If Americans are wise, they will ignore Norquist's self-concerned pursuits and instead follow figureheads who are not partial to the nation's collapse as long as its brings about the lining of their own pockets.



John Lai

National Alliance Treasurer and Comptroller General

Death of the Grandfather: the Meaning of America's Collapse

There is an odd formation of intellectual alliances in the world today which exists between the radical leftists of America and Europe, coupled with their equally extreme friends on the right of center. Rather than a sheer issue of policy, the shared view dictates that the presence of American influences across the globe is grandiose in its lack of positive benefits; a stipulation which suggests the forces of Europe or Russia are better suited for that job. While this is all fine for speculations, its leaves out a critical factor to the endurance of multiple establishments in a variety of areas, most directly the domestic state of America and the succeeding superpower to dominate where the Land of the Brave will eventually falter and become less relevant.

On the home front, a loss of superpower status will render the nation a helpless and flailing socialist bloc. This makes perfect sense because the absence of the powerful market benefits vested in a grand nation would no doubt vanish considerably, leaving many struggling and am movement for the implementation of governmental reforms to provide for individual well-being. When one compares past empires to the American version, the pattern of secession into the statist region is glaringly obvious. Italy, home of the former Roman Empire is now a structurally corrupted statist country, and across the English Channel the once superpowered Great Britain has succumbed to a mass of social programs preventing the emergence of a rapid business environment and free enterprise.

But the buck does not stop there. Loss of the American World Grandfather also signals a dramatic change of circumstances where the power vacuum remains open to movement, and the only real nations prepared to succeed America's status are Russia and the People's Republic of China.

While America is not well-regarded as the bastion of excessive and unneeded freedoms as they relate to sexual orientation, the radicals on both sides might be surprised to find that their fellows in the former Soviet States and China do not share moderated views on the issues. In the initial one, gays are regularly assaulted and treated with less respect than even the limited statues of America present.

Some might proposition that the Federative Republic of Brazil could succeed America, but this is unlikely due to its limited military strength alongside the rising international peers. Brazil's active duty forces number just over 350,000, a far cry from the 23 million of Russia and the approaching 30 million of the Communist Asian region. Brazil's embrace of freedom would mean nothing even if they grew larger, as the immediate seize of Russo-China forces promise to eclipse them outside of market power.

Finally, the world would be forced to accept the stances on human rights of both the Russian and Chinese governments, creating a dilemma which many have perhaps not fully chosen to comprehend. Europe may enjoy calling for the prosecution of former President George W. Bush for the relatively minor infractions at the Abu Gharaib prison or  the waterboarding conditions,  but both the Chinese and  Russian perspectives are less moderate. Those who doubt would do well to consider that the Chinese supplied genocide sponsors in Darfur and have generally refused to donate mass aid to relief efforts such as the 2011 Japanese Earthquake.

Empires cannot exist forever, yet the American version is not once which the world should desire to fully reject all too soon. Time must be offered to bolster upcoming powers such as Poland, Singapore, and Brazil in order to provide alternatives to the power-hungry authoritarians of both Northern and South Asia. A racidal jump away from American influence may suffice for a few moments of extended glory, yet as the light fades the remainder would be only a sacrifice of individual liberty and international freedom.



Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues