The Revolution: Only for Arabia?

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

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

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

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

(Photo credit goes to createyourownrealitynow.com)

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

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

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

Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy

Title VII: Unconstitutional?

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

 (Photo credit goes to knowledgerush.com)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jessica Yui

National Alliance Vice Chairman

Power to Cripple the Executive

(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. 




Danielle Conway


Law and Liberty Blog Adjunct Writer