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