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
"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
It appears almost entirely obvious that the Obama Administration is going to urge Democrats in the House of Representatives to extend only the middle class portions of the Bush Tax Cuts, allowing those for higher earning Americans to die away in January 2011. While the National Alliance Foundation respects the desire for each president to impose their ideological beliefs on the nation, this does not justify the insensitive and reckless decision to change the tax code in th heart of a national recession.
Whether one agrees that the current system is fair or grossly not so, it is irresponsible to radically shift the structure on which our market economy is presently based. On the first tier, the move is hypocritical seeing how the president has campaigned against the tax cuts "only for the richest 2% of America." In fact, the Bush system did cut taxes on the poor and middle class, albeit not as voluminously owing to the lesser incomes of these individuals. Since then, the economy has grown considerably, only halted by poor regulations for financial institutions and of the course the two Middle eastern wars.
Perhaps more crucial however is the support which those cuts give to our economic state as a nation. Hold anti-corporate views or not, but our present globalist structure of trade is fused with powerful companies, not simply government institutions or the middle class. Cutting that line of support to the companies which supply most American jobs will not move the economy away from its recession, but simply bring it to a damage laden standstill. If one considers the tax cuts which will expire, for individuals who have income of more than $250,000 per year, they clearly do not account for most small business owners. Even a small cafe, independently owned, will bring in close to $300,000 each year, losing out on the tax benefits.
At its core, our economy is remaining structured because of the very tax cuts made in the early 2000s. Severing them as a means of growth will not help stem a movement towards exiting our receding markets; instead exacerbating the issue.
Ideology may drive politicians as they campaign for power, but responsibility must come before all else once they have ascended to it. Modifying the tax cuts is a decision which will invariably affect the lives of countless American college graduates and business owners tremendously, so it must be done in a calculated and wise manner. Maintaining the present cuts is the only way to accomplish this, and the most effective manner in which to protect our nation's economy.
John Lai
National Alliance Treasurer and Comptroller General
English novelist Henry Fielding once brazenly stated that "public schools are the nurseries of all vice and immorality." I caution from adding this as a universal and unchangeable label to the American education system, yet the need for a better institution of mainstream education is overtly prevalent in our nation is obvious and takes little preparation or skill to spot sight of.
Shortly after taking office in 2001, President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act in an effort to combat the statistically low test scores of students over the past decade. And while the plan was a general success, it did so at the expense of some schools with lower averages, cutting off funding to classrooms in which students simply did not make the accepted minimum. In spite of its movements towards stronger grade schools and enforced preparation for colleges, both positives to the mainstream, the bill was unfair overall because it did not address the central issue of the culture of poor instruction and academic behavior.
To be absolutely fair however, the other major party of the United States, led currently by President Barack Obama, has also failed to steer schools away from poor habits and academia, instead exacerbating the issue by voting to continuously increase the benefits of teacher's unions and instructors, all while these figures bring about the unacceptable results within our public schools. Yet one might ask, if salary spikes or the cutting of funding is not working, than what possibly can?
The answer is plain in its stating yet complex in detail: a radical reconstruction of the places of learning for most of the younger American population. Such an shaped system would be based on classical education, dispelling demolition of the historical figures who give children hope, and an imprinting of America as a nation of greatness--not failure, in the minds of the next generation.
In keeping with a commitment to discipline and self-resolution, students would recite not only the Pledge of Allegiance, but an oath in concrete embrace of education and with a tenet of dedication to success and accomplishment. Furthermore, students would wear uniforms to learn self respect, and administrators would be given authority no only to teach, but to instruct leadership qualities in each of their pupils.
In the vein of compensation, school teachers must stop being fed massive benefits through the federal system if their standards are not at least above average. As we live in the day of public sector unions, it is all too easy for bosses of these greed-based organizations to extort humongous concessions from the weak backbone of the national government even while they bring about terrible results in our schools. By eliminating unions from the schools systems, and placing raises on a merit based system of class performance, we as a nation can take away the tremendous issue of poor instruction in the schoolroom.
On academic matters, the centerpiece curriculum would be focused on the United States Constitution, requiring children from the age of 14 to not only orally explain the document, but also write in full about its factors, as well as how they affect life in America. Besides making studying members more aware of government and more capable of debate, it would prevent a distraction from the need of new businesspeople, professionals, and other active citizens to grow our economy. Our public schools must produce positive entrants into society, not the miscreant individuals who leach off of government welfare programs because they were never given the encouragement and stimulation for true success.
Government may not be adequate at dealing with most of the pressing issues in our country sensibly, yet the one area in which it can have an involved and worthy impact is within the classroom. With prudence, respect, and wisdom, our students can move to the levels of success seen in other countries, beginning to take charge of their own generation without fear or reservation in the days and years of the future.
I always feel a painful touch of nostalgic melancholy when reading of the great conquests and works of older nation leagues, and how their once indomitable circumferences of power kindled to a dying status as time goes on. And sad as it might be to deal with, I must make yet another warning marker for the oncoming collapse and assumption of irrelevance by the past great nation bloc, the United Kingdom. Even as times change, the fragile delicacy which is the British governmental system remains the same: open to deconstruction, and fragile on the preservation of individual freedom.
Largely, Britain's loss of hope is due to the shifting sands of its constitution, as well as its system of courts and legislature. Although the earliest days of British government by Walpole, and even to Gladstone and Disraeli, the olden parliamentary system worked brilliantly. Nobles presided over the House of Commons, and the prime minister was a mere extension of the still powerful monarchic authority, which at least generally knew best when it came to the country's defense.
In recent days however, the tide of good governance has turned to one instead of insipid and dangerous appeasement rule, threatening the former superpower alongside an equally deadly force in the spreading of Sharia Law within its borders. In modern Britain, a ruling body is formed by the majority party group of the Commons, which then chooses a candidate for the executive office of the nation, the premiership. Providing that the lower house possesses at least a decent majority, they essentially receive a one party mandate for the nation. Never mind the wills of the people, for according to analysts today, the country's system is far more democratic that the so called "imperialistic presidency" of the United States. Besides a slight tenure of bills within the upper House of Lords, most any law can come to the desks of Members of Parliament on a Monday, and be law within the space of several days, no matter how infringing it might be on the rights of the people.
But wait, what rights of the people? Are those not reserved for the incivility of the American system? Without mincing words, those two questions are a key particle of the reason why Britain stands ready to capitulate to the domestic insurrection of religious fanatics to this very day: the country has no central documentation of a constitution. Sure, legal commentators will point to the collections of manuscripts and royal papers which are supposed to supplant a fully adopted document for the British people, but these are hardly enough to guarantee personal liberties and freedom from government oppression.
Consider for example a recent tenant of law adopted by England, which makes the incitement of violence or religious hatred a imprisonment carrying offense. First instated by Tony Blair's Labour Government in 2006, the law gives particular shielding to those of the Christian faith, but its greater focus, after pressure from pro-Middle Eastern social groups, places exorbitant protections on the religion of Islam, which is growing phenomenally fast in Great Britain. While the world should still offer ample respect to Blair for his legacy, this law was potentially his major blunder in the surrender of the royalist nation to the extremist religion. Because although plenty of citizens speaking out against the festering radicalism of Muslim activists have been locked up by constabulary officers, the sword edge reflecting the Muslim population has overwhelmingly been blunted. In fact, the Islamic community did not think twice before helping to charge filmmaker and Dutch legislator Geert Wilders with incitement of racial hatred, as shown here. Yet even as crowds of Muslims advocated the beheading of George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and the end of the British State, the police did nothing to arrest the perpetrators.
All good intended people across the world should hope and pray that Britain's government comes to its senses, yet the likelihood of such an occurrence is not in a healthy range of any sort. For his own part, Gordon Brown only helped to encourage the Muslim extremism during his three years as premier, culminating with the banning of conservative talk show host Michael Savage from entering the United Kingdom in June 2009 due to the man's passionate tirades against radicalism within the Islamic faith.
A little more than a year later, the new and bright faced Conservative Party Prime Minister, David Cameron, given the chance to revert the damage done, instead chose to stall his action, upholding the unimportant decision against Savage. Cameron, who has run from his election to the opposition leadership in December 2005 as a progressive liberal conservative, seems wrapped up in satisfying his extended political career as a caretaker leader in Westminster, and not risking his tenure with difficult choices as an executive. Much of the world has held high hopes for the new British head of state, yet Cameron's unwillingness to take up the helm of Churchill, Thatcher, and Blair is costing the country dearly. No matter his Conservative membership, Cameron has an intense desire to be a typical European everyman premier, attune to Yves Leterme of Belgium and Frederik Reinfeldt of Sweden. In these systems, the prime minister can change economic policies, yet social or legal elements remain largely untouched as the nation is preconditioned to stay fixed in government equilibriums for these issues near indefinitely.
Whether Blair, Brown, and Cameron realize or not, their governments are helping extremist Islam to gain more influence and control within Great Britain. Placing someone who disagrees with the religion on a list alongside murderers and Nazis is not prudent; it simply hands another victory to the adrenaline pumped hopes of the most disagreeable. Unless radical constitutional and legal reforms, couples with a new system of government are firmly adopted, the once great empire will be lost to a one time vote for the application of Sharia Law across the United Kingdom. The means for such a horrific bill are present, only requiring elected leaders to turn a blind eye to allow it through.
Michael Veramendi
National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues
I think it's best to begin this piece by making a rather obvious distinction: the National Alliance Party shares close to zero sympathies to the political positions of activist and former Green Party presidential nominee Ralph Nader. When one examines even the general viewpoints of Mr. Nader, they are clearly way out of line with both the American way of life, and the concerns of most of the mainstream population. But while that may be true, I feel inclined as a member of this organization to reach out and show him the respect garnered by even the wisest who promote values similar to those of our viewpoint.
Despite being considered irrelevant by both parties at the onset of the 2000 Presidential election, Nader ascended to a position of the so called "spoiler," after his campaign for chief executive gathered an impressive 2.74% of the popular votes. Since the man's campaign received such a large number of its ballots from the State of Florida, Democratic strategists have since contended that his presence on the voting papers cost Vice President Al Gore the general election.
I feel this is unfair on many accounts, and simply surmises to a juvenile sore loser attitude from the DNC, which could not even take the presidency from George W. Bush in 2004, despite their tremendous advantage, and Nader's far lesser portion of the votes. These can briefly be covered by including Gore's weak campaign, the presidential debates commission, and Nader's own message for the year 2000.
Perhaps in an admirable attempt to avoid the "no clear definition" characteristic given to former President George H.W. Bush after the Republican's copying of Ronald Reagan's image to win in 1988, Al Gore distanced himself, rather disastrously, from Bill Clinton's administration of America. Considering the Arkansas Democrat's tendency to present a record of messy and unsettling personal relationships, as well as the South's aversion to such public behavior, this might actually be viewed as wise, accept for the fact that the Vice President's alternative was nothing short of weak and ineffective.
And so Al Gore became the paladin for environmental protection in the United States, leaving behind the strongest issue for his candidacy in that year: the 3 trillion dollar surplus left by Bill Clinton. The merits of the money reserves can be debated, but no matter what is said, it made a terrific ploy for a strong and difficult to beat campaign. Instead, Donna Brazile, Gore's manager, allowed him to pursue a reckless and shoddy plan which was doomed to fail against the charismatic pro-tax cuts Texas governor, George W. Bush. Fused together, the following ad reveals just how out of touch Gore's message felt to a public in which less than 10% today feel protecting the planet is an important issue (Gallup Poll).
As the election came around to presidential debates, little action was taken by the Democratic Party to help include Mr. Nader, despite his insurgent strength in choice polls and in battleground states. Not surprisingly, the commission for debates, controlled by both former party chairs of the two major electoral factions and a large number of corporations, refused to allow Ralph Nader to attend any of their three sessions, and even went as far as to deny him a seat despite his registered invitation and ticket for attendance. According to commission rules, candidates must poll at least 5% in several national questionnaires before being admitted, and Nader did not qualify with enough support. In minced terms, he was not relevant to the equation--accept that he became very relevant as soon as his movement hurt the Democrats.
Ever since Al Gore conceded the race to George W. Bush, the Democratic Party has attempted to slander the man for his hopeful candidacy, absolutely avoiding how his message drew members of all parties and ideologies to cast their ballots for him in 2000. As noted before, Nader's views can seem ridiculous at some corners, yet his message for the turn of the century was to forge a strong alliance between the people and honest businesspeople in America. The Democrats failed to deliver their historical populist message, and neglected to use the strongest element of advantage: the Clinton surplus. What should have been an easy victory turned into a milestone of defeat as the party scrambled to realign, and failed again, in 2004.
Ralph Nader may never become president, nor should anyone hope he does, yet the man deserves our respect and consideration. Standing firm against two of the largest and most powerful parties in the United States is not cakewalk; it requires tenacity and an iron resilience against the opposition. For all his work, Ralph Nader has seen even his closest friends betray him for the Democratic Party, yet a stronger force is allied with him: countless Americans who desire fundamental change in the system of government.
With all the tumultuous happenings of the 2010 election, it can often become difficult to decipher which candidates are after serving their constituents, and those who see a high salary and governmental power as more important. As an organization which advocates a new standard of rule in Washington, as well as the return of power to the masses, the National Alliance Party is not quick to simply go about handing down endorsements to partisan hopefuls in the forthcoming races without good reason or understanding of their views and plans to shape a stronger future for the United States of America.
All told, the National Alliance Party is choosing to step forward and support a fantastic candidate in the figure of Jaime Herrera, who has launched a vigorous effort to represent the people of Washington State as the 3rd district representative to the People's House in our nation's capital. Despite facing a formidable foe in Democratic state representative Dennny Heck, Jaime has stuck to a positive message of job creation and work to help bolster small business across the 3rd district and the country.
After a life long commitment to public service, Herrera has become a staunch advocate for governmental reform, with a comprehensive plan to enforce regulations and penalties against lawmakers and other Washington insiders who breach public trust during their careers. Her plan will not only help people to gain more trust and faith in government, but also set a high bar for the performance and service of congresspeople, ensuring that their hearts are set on being true stewards of the public's faith and voting ballots.
Beyond this, Jaime gives inspiration to women across America to stand up for positive, small government values, and avoid being sidelined in the political process. Electing her to the house will set a new modus operandi for elections and the process of Washington, refusing to permit the elite circles of power from festering and solidifying their control over whom is allowed entrance to lawmaking procedures and structures.
Washington desperately needs a new wave of leadership to cleanse its halls of the marred corruption which has permeated since January 2007, and Jaime Herrera is the ideal person to lead that very charge for the rights and sake of the American people.
