According to the most recent reports available, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona is recovering from critical injuries sustained after she was shot at a public meeting place earlier today. While six other have tragically died from the gunman's bullets, the representative is doing well after receiving medical attention. There is no doubt that this is a sad day for the entire country, and everyone, no matter their views, should appreciate the service of the congresswoman and her family, and keep them in prayers.
Since her election in 2006 on a political wave, Mrs. Giffords has worked hard for her constituents in the district of southern Arizona with high rates of drug violence and other crime. Making no efforts to simply stand in line, she has gone above and beyond the call of duty with a series of attempts at improving public safety measures and combating crime as well as delivering economic supplements to the voters in her constituency.
Perhaps of deeper interest is the fact that she has not served for only her party but for her district and country. Representing an area with such rampant problems is not a simple task by any means, and the work put in by the congresswoman would make more secure members of the national body cringe with discomfort--yet she bears it honorably. In fact, Mrs. Giffords truly represents a unique difference between the general arguing and disruption all too familiar in Washington. Instead of going there to draw arms and fight in a partisan manner, she spent her time advocating for those who elected her; a great ideal to say the very least.
To respond to this cowardly act, Americans must come together and lay aside this terrible path towards hate due to varying ideologies which has so stringently gripped the nation over the past thirty years. Progress for all Americans can only be achieved by Americans working together--not partisan banner holders.
Because at present her condition still hangs in the balance, it is imperative that all citizens come together in prayer and keep their thoughts centered on family and surrounding relatives. Mrs. Giffords is married to astronaut Mark Kelly and has two children, so they must be kept in mind as well.
Nothing can come close to expressing enough appreciation to the congresswoman for her tireless efforts; they attempt to build and new era of dialog rather than boisterous complaining over trivialities in debate. Let us unite around the heroic record of her career and hope as well as pray that her recovery is smooth and painless.
In what some see as a dramatically surprising result, Representative Ron Paul of Texas has been tapped to lead a Federal Reserve oversight committee in the 112th Congress. After the years of discussion and observations, the former libertarian presidential candidate is going to have the chance of a lifetime not only to speak--but also to act on his anti-federal views, setting up for a potentially colorful smack-down between him and the other pro-Wall Street Republicans.
Unless...his words are stronger than his actions. For as much excitement as this placement may garner among political neophytes and standard bearers across the nation, Paul must be able to prove that he can use a position of leadership to effectively get the job done--not only advocate for its completion. Political truth-tellers will always be a novelty in any country and America is no exception, yet there is a time for speech and then a time for putting rhetoric to forceful outcomes. Even the constitutional firebrand's heroes, the American Founding Fathers, knew that at a certain point in their movements against the British they would need to use courageous action, pushing through the preliminary boundaries of activism and to the valleys of freedom from oppression beyond.
The Campaign for Liberty and Ron Paul must now be willing to end their activism dash and shift to a more administrating mode in which they control policy; not just words. With the heavy number of GOP members in the House who firmly subscribed to the Tea Party, as well as others in the Senate, there should be noticeably less difficulty for the new politicians to decry the tactics of old and move forward with policy to either audit or even abolish the Federal Reserve once and for all, fulfilling their commitments and members of a cause for national renewal for which they have so long belabored to stress in government.
Obviously the largest test to this successful venture will be the tenacity of the movement's own Speaker, and whether or not he agrees to show the leadership which so many of his better informed political flock had hoped for if his had won the presidency. If nothing else, Ron Paul must except that as the subcommittee oversight chairman he should act in the best interests of the people--not simply as a poster boy for libertarianism. He must rise to propose viable legislation which the majority will support and which can become law, and work as a member of the leadership, not as a caucus of one in the House.
Ideology is the basis of action, yet it cannot be a substitute, and this is the reality which Dr. Paul must be willing to except. No longer can he claim a singular status as an advocate with no voice; his position immerses him directly into the government, with all of its perks and negatives. Strength and the courage to use it are the true factors which will allow him to either succeed for the people, or collapse politically in a withdrawal from his responsibilities.
January 2011 and the months to follow will test the cores of Paul and the Tea Party, deciding whether they are made of true conviction form which actions can spring forth, or empty rhetoric which dies in the moment of dire need.
(Editor's Note: This article is taken from the author's original source with permission. It does not necessarily represent the views of the National Alliance Foundation).
"Irresponsibility is the joy of everyone--especially government."
It is remarkable to hear all of the flailing angst from the left about how treacherous the prosecution of the Iraq War was, especially considering how blatantly responsible progressives are for its process and initiation. Back in 1973, Republican members of Congress as well as President Richard Nixon fought to prevent the passage of the War Powers Resolution, a disastrous piece of legislation sponsored by those of the center-leftist section who desired to remove blame for military actions from members of Congress, most of whom were overwhelmingly of the president's opposition.
Despite furious debate, as well as an eleventh hour veto attempt by the president, Congress passed the legislation, washing its hands of future engagements which might not sit well with the future voter percentages as well as benefiting anti-war candidates. Essentially, the resolution gives the president the power to deploy troops for up to 90 days without Congressional approval, after which the chambers of deliberation must either pass a declaration of war, or authorize further military force. In short, Congress can approve conflict entrance without having to take responsibility, which falls flatly on the president, and may cost the executive dearly when reelection year rolls around.
Pleased to carry out their duty, Congress moved to pass President Bush's resolution in 2002, authorizing continued force in Iraq while not going so far as to make a declaration of war. This allowed them to come out on headline news, boasting of their involvement in committees relating to the war while plotting their own political fortunes in the future. For Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, it would be leadership posts in 2007, and for Democrats such as John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, it was dramatic presidential runs in 2004 and 2008.
But regardless of their poster styled "truth stance" in relation to Iraq, the Democrats refused to cut funding for American soldiers serving in the Middle East, failing to acknowledge the fact that such a move would end the war, just like President Obama's did when his was inaugurated in 2009. Rather than save the lives they pledged to protect, the party stood for its own election interests, refusing to make the difficult choice which would have looked bad politically, yet still served the interests which they had run to benefit.
The War Powers Resolution must be repealed before it causes more needless death and the assassination of presidential images in American history. Any time Congress is allowed to bypass its constitutional responsibilities is an opportunity for corruption and the miscarriage of duties to seep into the political mesh, and situation which should at all costs be outmaneuvered.
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
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
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.
I wanted to begin the log by mentioning an article which has been centerpiece on the Politico website for much of the past week now. Writer Ben Smith, who is an admirable and objective author, poignantly explains how the Obama Administration has been pushing for peace agreements between Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas for the Palestine Territory. The full piece can be read here: Decoding the Mideast Peace Rhetoric
Smith reveals an important point about the strong arming of Israel's leader by the Whitehouse in an effort to forge both sides into long lasting and photogenic peace. It's justified to emphasize the word "photogenic," because it is not the first time an American administration has attempted this, a more pointedly, it is yet another example of a Democrat held executive branch doing so.
President James Carter was a good example, with his movement to give Iran freedom from the royalist Shah in 1979, even when the result was doomed to bring about a crisis in the realm of a semi-intifada, which it did. To the president however, supporting stable government was not important, least not as much as gaining approval from the technocratic pen of the United Nations.
Almost two decades later, President Clinton chose to pursue similar action, this time in helping to bring about the dramatic Oslo Accords, another pact shuddering with evidence of impending collapse. To the surprise of few, the Palestinians, led by Yasser Arafat, essentially flashed a vulgar sign at Israel and the United States, refusing to end their conflict to divide and claim the land of the Israeli People.
Today, with the government's incessant concentration on some sort of flashy and trumped up world harmony plan for Israel and the Muslim world, the problem has only grown. Somewhere within the deepest channels of the president's mind, there is an honest desire for peace, albeit a clouded one.
With the increasingly dishonest responses of the Palestinian government, the United States' diplomats cannot continue to play fierce moderator with only the interests of Palestine in their thoughts. Israel is the only state within the Middle East which presently is able to successfully endure as a democracy, as well as our foremost ally, a gift none in Washington should willingly squander away. We have the opportunity to stand by Israel and allow the area to remain more secure, or throw away an ally as Carter did with the Shah for mere idealist purposes. Our duty is to protect the interests of our nation, and Israel's existence is part of those interests. As long as it remains a harbinger of democracy, we must defend and supplant its own efforts to combat terror and preserve freedom in the Middle East.
If the recent legislation and bills passed by both houses of the American Congress show only one thing, it is that the government has not only become isolated from the people, but also addicted to a fountain of rich and self refreshing power. As luck would have it, the lower body is constricted to 2 year terms, a condition which has successfully led to the sweeping of many congresspeople from power, and the transfer of those lawmaking responsibilities to new and less corrupted hands.
Unfortunately, while these tenants remain true for House members, the upper legislative body of our country seems almost entirely insulated from these ever changing electoral lines, primarily given to the simple reality that the terms of its members are staggered, with lengths extending beyond reasonable acceptance for such a country.
In younger days of our government, senators where chosen by state legislatures, a process which almost completely secured that there would be no inexperienced or overtly partisan members in the body. Granted, senators in the past held strong views, yet they new their duty, and stood to defend their state and country's interests above all else.
Now the tables have turned, leaving the people facing a difficult challenge in keeping senators both in line with the people, and moderating the loyalty which they express towards their party on national issues. A good example is Senator Amy Klobuchar, a district attorney who came to the Senate in 2007 despite having little experience besides in the legal divisions, and has developed a strong record in support of generally left-wing policies. Alongside her, former comedic clown and author Al Franken has put forward an equally partisan leaning in the chamber, and his term still does not end until January 2015.
At the outset, there is nothing essentially wrong with states choosing boisterous or passionate senators, but the length of office for these individuals is far too much in relation to the powers they hold. In traditional parliamentary systems, the upper chamber cannot wield so much power that it is allowed to try the executive branch, pass legislation, and send federal money to economic projects.
In the United States Senate, members are almost super-powerful, fully capable of voting strictly along party lines for four years, and then only choosing to serve their constituents effectively once the last twenty-four months before their reelection are in full view.
To serve the interests of the people, these ridiculously long sessions of service must end. To allow an individual who wins a mere three elections, perhaps due to poor opposition, to serve nearly two decades is over the basic limits of good government. As citizens we must demand more accountability, making our upper house fixed to 4-year terms of office for its members, a harsh consequence for members who have sold out the people they claim to represent. That must be our duty in 2011: to secure and new, and more foundational structure in which no one party can exercise mob rule over the decisions which affect our nation's future.
Andrew Rimmer
National Alliance Vice President for Communications
