The Inevitable Fall

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

A Plea for Limitations

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