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

An Epic Blunder

On Wednesday morning, President Barack Obama released his official birth certificate to the media, drawing accolades from the press corps who have spent the last several months hammering away at conveniently labeled "birthers" for their insinuations that the commander-in-chief was born in a foreign nation. To the media and their spin network, this is a crushing blow to the GOP, discrediting the party for its involvement and further lampooning the TEA Party for advocating that the president show his true documents on the issue.

(Photo courtesy of Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots)

But is it? As fanciful as the notion may be to Democrats that this development is a boon to the president, Obama may have committed the unthinkable by coming forth with the document, setting off a chain of events which will make him potentially more vulnerable to defeat in next year's election, which promises to be tumultuous.

One, by releasing his birth certificate Obama shows a lack of general continuity which will undoubtedly leave some hanging. Since his days vying for the nomination, he campaign failed to produce a copy for even the Clinton machine, and for nearly four years he has kept silent on the issue even while questions were raised by both sides of the aisle regarding his legitimacy. Perhaps this is simply neglect, yet at the very least it makes him appear secretive, leaving some citizens angry or even put off after such a long hiatus.

Then the president committed a massive PR error by lowering himself to the same level as the skeptics by forcefully bringing out the certificate. This might appear natural enough, but it is worth recalling that the Executive Office has been historically one embodying national unity--not partisan squablings. By caving to birther pressure, Obama has proven that he cannot maintain a steady hand under fire from even as irrelevant of an opposition group as the truth movement, signaling weak leadership and even a streak of appreciation for  political division rather than American strength. In comparison, the Bush Administration hardly gave time to the equally radicalized notions that the 9/11 attack was endorsed and funded by the Clinton and its successor government.

Even less compelling about the president's choice is that the man to finally draw out the document is none other than Donald Trump, a billionaire and television star often mocked for his behavior despite arguably firm business holdings. This hangs Obama's mature leader image out to dry, as Trump is the last to have impressive political qualifications, yet he achieved where even Hillary Clinton's well-connected 2007-2008 campaign was unsuccessful.

Obama's decision goes beyond damaging to his image however. While the certificate dilemma gave him something to malign the GOP-TEA Party coalition for, its absence gives the president's allies few other issues to continue that line of assault with. He will now face a weak economic record and staggering costs from his spending programs and three wars entering the 2012 season--all focus items which no president desires to have on his plate. In simpler terms, the president just shot himself in the foot to appease the fringe of America.

Time will tell what the legacy of the birth certificate issue becomes, yet without a slight doubt it promises to be constant dog at the president's heels as long as he remains an active figure in American elected politics, and certainly with his immediate reelection looming next year.



Jessica Yi

National Alliance Vice Chairman

The Matter of Trump

It's official: The Donald is now a viable candidate for the Presidency of the United States. Following a rather long hiatus of flirtations, Trump is suddenly veering dangerously close to the waters of candidacy, and progressively his statements have become more bold and less attune to uncertainty. With only months before his hit television show comes to a finale, there raises the entirely viable possibility that he may indeed step into the upcoming race, spelling potential trouble for those who are quick to write him off as a "hothead," or "egotistical."

(Courtesy of pbpulse.com)

For starters, Trump has the necessary cash. This is perhaps the primary qualification for a viable candidate, especially seeing as most GOPers are still struggling to keep up with the promising tide of Barack Obama, whose war chest is set to be well over $1 billion. For Trump, this is less problematic, as he has already committed to $500 billion for the campaign, putting him well within reaches of Obama's money totals. He who has more funds tends to triumph in American politics, and Trump is no exception.

Another factor facing the GOP versus Obama match-ups is notability. Whilst Obama has been a world icon for the past three years, most of the GOP candidates outside of Sarah Palin are vaguely recognized by voters: a sure death knell if the race is judged on popularity. Trump differs in his television show screen time and massive celebrity, both beneficial elements which could very well bolster the rest of his campaign. His prevalence on screen could save him considerable funds early on the in the race, as his own companies run commercials with his namesake for corporate purposes.

Trump's forward-talking behavior may shock some more sensitive politicos, yet his passionate tirades may be just enough to propel him to viability in American political discourse. Recent attacks on President Obama's birth certificate from the real estate mogul might seem childish, but they show a tenacity and courage which not all candidates have on the national stage. And considering that his issues platform is built upon anti-interventionist philosophies, Trump will have an easier time at raking in independent support than naysayers might project.

No candidate for the presidency so far has demonstrated a likelyhood of defeating Barack Obama, so counting Trump out without due analysis would be foolish at the very least. He may have a pompous image in the minds of those around the country, but a tense campaign may warm citizen hearts and draw in their votes to change the outcome of the day.

So the question remains, will The Donald tell Obama "You're fired," in November next year? Only time will tell.




Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy

GOP 2012: A Hard Sell

In spite of the excited spitfiring from conservative talking heads and rising presidential hopefuls, the actual possibility of a Republican defeating Barack Obama is steadily shrinking as a convergence of policy and general idiocy wreck what might otherwise have been a democratic coup to be remembered for generations in November of next year. Over a matter of months the president has been luckily transformed from floundering politico to confident executive due to a stream of repetitive mishaps formated by the lingering gunners for the American Presidency.

(Photo credit goes to Dangle the Carrot blog)

Conspiracy and Consequence:


For the last three years, the GOP and its support bases have been playing with a deadly fire by repeatedly implying the president was not born in America and may even be a radicalized Muslim. Cute as these attacks might seem at their first release, using one method without a firm policy balance can inadvertently bring about electoral destruction, as the party witnessed following the 1998 impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton.

Leaders from Michele Bachmann to the not-so-right-wing Glenn Beck continue flashing the point for political prime time and monetary gain, leading the press to associate them with mainstream voters of the GOP--a terrible frontal appearance by all means. This sort of behavior has its limitations, and in a national campaign it will only serve to cripple the Republican standard bearer by forcing them to answer questions regarding the party rather than focusing on good recovery polices.

Alienating the New Majority:


Mostly attributed to the media's hateful reporting, but equally due to GOP meanderings, Hispanics now almost categorically oppose the party and its candidates. Perhaps this is only a byproduct of tough immigration positions by its elected candidates, but the visceral rhetoric of top leaders has done nothing to mend ties, and so it faces a critical risk in gaining wide demographic support.

The Anti-Semites:


True, this is a heavy charge to weigh, yet the fringe positions of both potential candidates in Ron Paul and his son Rand as well as Gary Johnson provide visible images of figures who could further handicap a GOP thrust towards victory. Both Pauls constantly speak out against funding to the State of Israel, regardless of the massive threat posed to the country from terrorism should they loose American aid.

This is not to imply that the Center-right is doomed to fail, but drastic changes must be made if their is hope of  silencing Barack Obama's surge to historical prominence with a second term. As we well know, notwithstanding his performance in a second four year period, the sole fact of a reelection mandate would render him a spot in the great presidents category by the zealous authors of professorial Marxism in America today. If Obama is to be stopped, it will require skill and temerity, two factors the GOP still severely lacks as of recent days.



Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy

And France Takes the Lead!

You can tell something is wrong when the fiercest voice of opposition to a fanatical dictator like the one who clings desperately to control in the State of Libya is the French President. Indeed, despite the perfect assembly of conditions to justify the cause of action with international backing, Barack Obama's response to the conflict facing the citizens of Libya has been to dawdle in a staring contest with the North African rockstar as he commits atrocities against his own people.

(Photo courtesy of Gooseradio.com)

Thus far the flimsy explanation from the Whitehouse has been to point to the Bush Administration's seeming failure with intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq as a reason to hold the reins in frozen state. Fearing a backlash, they cower while the forces of Europe stand to take responsibility for what may  become the event of the century as far as it refers to democratic change. 

This raises perhaps the greatest irony of the 21st Century: France acting with more boldness than the United States of America in a foreign conflict. Since the end of the Second World War French governments have remained disinterested in international responsibility, with even the grandiose figure of Charles De Gaulle advocating a largely disengaged status of the French military both in Africa and across the entire world. Yet now President Nicholas Sarkozy stands (no doubt at least partially for political advantage) as a taller and more formidable leader than his American equivalent: a stunning turning of the world image table by all means. 

If this is the future of American foreign policy, then the world may truly see a dramatic realignment of influence from the land of the free to nations of the Old Republic--or perhaps even the Deep South of the world. Such a probability is disconcerting and yet not entirely impossible in the modern day consdering the continuous stumbling of America's foremost leader on the international stage. Should our country fail to show leadership, it is entirely justified for other nations to desire a means of filling the vacuum through their own means of foreign policy expansionism.  

The future is always uncertain, so it remains up to those with steady hands to claim it in the name of righteous democracy

Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues 

The Importance of Respect: Michelle Obama

In an age of rambling dialogs and vitriolic speech spewed out by both major ideological clusters in the United States it can become difficult to discern from what is within the limits of acceptable debate and activities or communication procedures that fall into a desperate and ignominious category of low-brow attacks. Sad as it is to say, observers from both sides have taken the point too far again with their inconsiderate and baseless assaults on the image of Michelle Obama, the American First Lady.

(Photo courtesy of hispanicallyspeakingnews.com)

To understand the degree to which these shameful attacks extend requires a visible portrait of her background and personal accomplishments. Obama was born into a disadvantaged family in Chicago, yet she fought for herself steadily, entering Princeton and later completing a law degree at Harvard before becoming a legal counsel and managing hospital firms in Illinois. While her husband labored to become a politico, Michelle reached out through charities and brought in the real financial support, eventually allowing Barack to take a Senate seat which otherwise he might have found difficult to run for without proper funds. Indeed, the $317,000 per year which she earned dwarfs any of her partner's measly salaries, so one could argue the absence of her abilities in his life would have cut his political ambitions short.

Finances aside, the First Lady's image is not one which should attract justified partisan jabs and punches. Although she did make a major gaffe during the 2008 race, her demeanor and attitude has been far more of the Jackie Kennedy and Laura Bush lite than Eleanor Roosevelt or Hillary Clinton. So far she has abstained from injecting herself openly into the political process, dedicating her resources instead to health advocacy and nutrition initiatives with the goal of decreasing obesity rates among young Americans. There is no domineering Clintonite behavior to be had here; only the simple charm and earnest concern of a woman whose husband occupies the executive's chair in Washington.

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and an assortment of radio hosts have targeted her for this absolutely understandable advocacy, stirring up unneeded controversy which throws the system further into disconnect. Rather than seek to come in the way of the woman's voice for common sense and health, these figures should drop the partisanship over this entirely non-political issue and stand alongside her for the good of the nation.

What unavoidably is a good thing for America must be cherished for the future,not spat upon due to association-is-composition sorts of ideology. Michelle Obama may be married to Barack, yet she embodies the nation as First Lady, and all bystander should come to a level of kindness and moderation as to respect her role in the issues and events of today.




Cate Ashton

National Alliance Vice President for Domestic Issues

Humility's Sabbatical

As much as he would probably hate to admit it, Barack Obama could learn a thing or two about public relations from none other than his love-to-hate predecessor, George W. Bush. Through all of his mistakes, gaffes, and embarrassments, the former president demonstrated a considerable calm demeanor, shrugging the dust off and in a way, staying above the chaos of partisanship. With dangerously fluctuating approval ratings and a soured market which shows little interest in recovery, the current president runs the risk of defeat if he maintains the appearance of elitist ignorance towards the problems facing average Americans.

Pundits dating back to the early stages of the 2008 campaign lavished then Senator Obama with the shining "New Clinton" title, hoping to pull off a dramatic 1992 repetition defeat of the GOP establishment with a massive conservative/moderate coalition in the Democratic camp. For all intents in purposes, the candidate's speeches, which went from buoyantly liberal in 2007 to remarkably right of center in Fall 2008, carried that message home, sending keeping John McCain in Arizona with a modest enough 53% of the national popular vote. To the media, it was over, with the new charismatic democrat in power and a flimsy Republican ramshackle to stand against him. Except...there was a unique difference.

Unlike Bill Clinton, Barack Obama was no poor Southern boy with a small town charisma to sweep the nation; his career was built on community organizing, particularly with a strong black constituency base in northern Illinois, as well as considerable union money. Obama had never stood against the tide in a state with unfriendly colors; reaching the senate with a jaw dropping 70% of the total vote--and against a carpet bagger radical too. He may have gone to Harvard Law School, but his parents' achievement of PhD's hardly gives him much credit for his knowledge, which was passed on by his considerably intelligent father, Barack Obama Sr. Clinton's own paternal figure, a drunkard and violent man, offered little to help his son graduate Georgetown, Oxford, and then Yale Law School.

So when Barack Obama railed about "no tax increases," and "a strong small business economy," he bought the hearts of the people long enough to win election--and now that energy is vanishing. In the face of crisis, the president appears as if he must be reminded of the plight of the people, evidences in his haughty and long-delayed assumption of responsibility for the disaster cleanup in the Gulf of Mexico.

It is not to say that he has not been speaking out; only that his words are lost to the masses who desire straight talk and a charismatic interpersonal honesty--both elements of the Bush and Clinton style. To the average American his speeches are adept for sure, but they lack the genuine acceptance of everyone to resonate with the majority of the public. Even within his own writings, the president is remarkably syrupy with his words, weaving every sentence into idealistic matrimony between verbs and paragraph breaks that seem anxious to prove the worth of his terrific education--and still come off as out of touch with the common man. If the commander in chief were to alter his rhetoric, tossing in a gaffe or two in balance with his theatrical command of English, he might manage to dissuade a public which now more than ever appears intent on throwing him out of office in 2012.

Contrary to what the president might have viewed it as in the days leading up to his election, the Oval Office is not, and will never be, an office meant for the most elite. The Senate, filled with millionaires and the most skilled at the political game is the place for those persons in political society. Though once in a while they may reach its hallowed frame, their ultimatum will approach soon if they fail to shake the heavy dust of self-appreciation from their suits and move forward for the people. Barack Obama now has 2 years to make this change--or perhaps he will be changing residency.


Cate Ashton

National Alliance Vice President for Operations

A New Voice for Washington

Generally speaking, we tend to avoid endorsements as an organization, but in an election which has so many improbabilities yet so much at stake, the National Alliance Foundation is committed to helping certain key candidates with their attempts at election, especially to the United States Senate. Since 2001, the state of Washington has lacked any representation within the upper house other than firebrands for the Democratic Party. Even Slade Gorton's strong constituent services were not enough to overturn Maria Cantwell's momentum, resulting in his sacking by the people in the race of 2000. And after nearly eleven years of such partisan leadership, the state is in trouble, most critically with its economic condition.

For this reason, the National Alliance Foundation is stepping forward to endorse Dino Rossi for the United States Senate in 2010. Despite serving only six years as a state senator, Rossi managed to successfully balance a massive state budget even while a reigning Democratic governor sat in anguish over it all. And while his two runs for governor came up short, first due to a largely unfair recount and then due to a Democratic sweep, Rossi has stuck to a firm pro-business career to deliver jobs for the Evergreen State through his real estate ventures.

On the other side, Senator Patty Murray is simply a disappointment for the state, and even for the nation. Her election successes largely the result of poorly prepared opponents and swing election years, Murray has not worked tremendously on small business legislation in the Senate, instead preferring to be a lap dog to Wall Street's benefits within the higher chamber. A recent report by CQ Politics even suggests that Washington's lady channeled about 20 million in taxpayer money to her lobbyist friends, which should be enough to disqualify her from reelection.

But even more glaring is Murray's voting record, which sadly fails to ever move from anything but a poster for the socialists and social democrats of American political interests, avoiding the qualms and difficulties which average Washingtonians face on a daily basis. Removing her from the senatorial throne is the first step in cleansing America of elitism and corruption, forming a base from which prosperity can grow once more. There is no doubt that filth remains from the years of Republican rule, yet part of that mire was also age old Democratic senators such as Murray, so their elimination as viable political figures is part of the cleaning process.

The year of 2010 is not just any other election; it is an opportunity to hold Washington D.C. accountable to the American people. If voters send a strong message by defeating Murray and other incumbents, thy will pave the way for a better future in which the capitol is directly answerable to the public--not the special interests. Wasting such an opening would be disastrous to say the least, and everyone must vote for what is sensible, not the usual.


Cate Ashton

National Alliance Vice President for Operations

In Defense of Freedom

Thank God in heaven for the Constitution: it's exactly what I think with each passing day leading up to the midterm elections of 2010. As if still playing the establishment outsider card, the Obama Administration has come out with a strong criticism of the Karl Rove sponsored American Crossroads PAC, as well as its friendly ally, the Chamber of Commerce, claiming both groups are being funded by foreign entities, which is by most descriptions completely illegal in the United States.

Despite the president's complaints, the group is picking up steam, and apparently broke fundraising records during the first week of October, as reported by the Washington Post in the article here. I am entirely sure Barack Obama respects the Constitution, but he seems to have forgotten one of its primary tenets in launching this broadside in a bad political year for the Democrats: the 1st Amendment. As it reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 


Plain as can be, the Constitution dictates that people and organizations of individuals (corporations and PACs), may have their own say in each election campaign. Trying to remove that right is not only in violation of our founding document; it also casts a poor light on President Obama, who won the 2008 election through unprecedented fundraising, much of which was collected from foreign sources. 


For the Democrats, it must hurt to read those words now that they occupy the halls of the Whitehouse, as the text makes almost each of their arguments against the action committees nulled. But for those who might remain convinced that these conservative friendly blocs are only used by the GOP, I urge consideration of the many 527 groups and PACs which helped swing the House, and more importantly, the Senate, to the donkey party in 2006. Back then, the Democrats were certainly quick to emblazon themselves with the banner of the union, decrying the supposed tightening of regulations surrounding free speech by the Bush Administration. Now, the tuning of their political radars is changing, and thus the unfairness to incumbents role is their own to play in. 


Maybe I am wrong, but it almost seems as if the Democratic Party cannot stand to lose, no matter the risks or costs of winning. In 2008, despite a strong outsider advantage, they reverted to voter fraud and international fundraising to ensure a presidential victory and supplemental wins in Congress, and many of their most high-profile senators and congressman are simply bowing out rather than facing the voters come election day. In previous years which held likely negatives for the current minority party, incumbents stuck it out to the end, accepting defeat rather than attempting to retire under the guise of humble public service. 


As time goes on, Congress and the Whitehouse will change parties, yet the Constitution must remain the trustee of both power brokers, ever strengthened and never adjusted so as to diminish personal rights. Only in maintaining such a policy for the nation can we continue to endure as the last great symbol of world freedom and unparalleled democracy. 


Andrew Rimmer

National Alliance Vice President for Communications

Equalizing Prosperity

In the United States of America, citizens are all too familiar with the two sided economic stances of the major parties, with labor unions and the public sector the favored child of the left, and corporations the darling of the right. And still, after nearly five decades of these policies, there still has yet to be a government which champions the valid proposal of a universal and flat tax, which the National Alliance Foundation firmly believes in.

Feeding the corporations might create a meager sum of jobs in the nation, but it scarcely assembles enough to add a large period of economic plenty to the national markets, thus staying the country in a limbo of inaction and uncertainty. And while jobs within the public realm seem worthwhile in the short run, they have a tendency of damaging the economy further as taxes are drawn from the people to provide for their salaries.

Possibly the most positive element to a flattened tax system would be the removal of the lower income individuals almost completely from the tax brackets in America. Because a universal rate would remove the proportional differences from the amount of tax levied on different income levels, poor and lower middle class would no longer have major stake in tax levels, adding to their overall financial security.

For larger income drawers, the system would help by leaving them with more funds to lend and invest in the markets, benefiting the middle class college graduates and small business owners who are trying to hold unto their personal share of success in the capitalist pool. In a day and age when our largest obstacle to more prosperity is the unwillingness of financial institutions and wealthy citizens to make secure loans to the younger generations, the economy needs a stimulant to help its markets rejuvenate its statistical potency.

Already in several other countries, including the power-brokering state of Russia, flat tax rates have worked tremendously, dragging the nation from a near dead zone at the start of Boris Yeltsin's presidency to yearly growth of 9.5% in 2009. With similar growth in the United States of America, businesses would begin lending and purchasing inventory much faster, pushing the markets out of the recessions abyss and into a more stable, job friendly economy.

Showing this sort of leadership might be difficult for the dusty halls of Congress, yet it is the precise remedy to our slowing national economy. No longer should the capitol act on ideology; it must move to save the futures of Americans in this generation and the next.

Andrew Rimmer

National Alliance Vice President for Communications

Keep the Cuts

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

Believing in the Future

Perhaps there has never been an organization of political interest that has fallen so hard in agonizing defeat as the GOP establishment did in yesterday's Delaware and New York primaries. For the purpose of being direct, I will pass over the New York results for this article, and instead focus on the ruthless results of the First State, and how they relate to the climate of the nation.

Notwithstanding partisan views, any American with a generally impartial attitude could fully appreciate the incredibly poor sportsmanship and ungracious attitude of Congressman Michael Castle as he delivered his concession speech on Tuesday night. The brief and clearly rushed statement, which mostly worked in a self serving manner to promote the liberal Republican for his work over the past 40 years failed to mention the name of victorious nominee Christine O'Donnell, despite Castle's supposed honor and respect in politics. It could be that facing a 6% point loss was just too much for the old moderate to take, yet his less than cordial response to the people's decision is still inexcusable.

Before facing the voters, Castle attempted to simply run a popularity campaign, slinging mud in secrecy at O'Donnell only after her own organization received a boost from the activist Tea Party Express. According to his campaign, Castle's young opponent was both a con artist and a fraud, a person incapable of paying her bills and with views far outside the centrist path of Delaware's political history. And now, his career finally ended, the Congressman only helps spread the fire by refusing to endorse O'Donnell's victorious campaign.

It might be true that sometimes politics get out of hand, but failing to help one's own party in a critical year because of a humiliating defeat is unbecoming of good public servants. More so, its is a simple reflection on the type of man Michael Castle is: a disconnected, self-interested opportunist. His career certainly stretched long and far, from service in the state house, to governor, and finally to the representative seat, which he has held for almost eighteen years. Truth be told, he had ample attempts to run for the Senate--perhaps even the presidency, but turned them down for the sake of political expediency and comfort. Assuming Castle would only run as a governor or congressman, he might have tried to take Delaware's upper house seat in 1990, 1996, 2000, 2002, 2006, or 2008, yet he stood aside out of respect for Joe Biden. Only once the playing field was absolutely leveled did Castle wade into the possibility of becoming a United States Senator, and his campaign still failed to reach out to the common voters, instead clinging to his poor political credentials like a dog to a thrown out bone.

Regardless of Castle's behavior however, it is time for America to embrace the prospect of Christine O'Donnell as the next United States Senator from the State of Delaware. Not only has she stood up consistently for American values, but her platform is also in line with much of Delaware's population, which according to Gallup Polling dissents from the healthcare package, tax increases, and even elements of cap and trade.

Even beyond the obvious, it is entirely possible for O'Donnell to route Democrat Chris Coons come November, especially if Republican forces fall behind her campaign and promote a positive, small business message to the voters. As an insurgent conservative in a liberal state, O'Donnell is the test of Republican traction with even more moderate voters for the election in 2012. If cards are played correctly, she can win, and even by a respectable margin.

It is important to remember two major elements to this possibility. First, O'Donnell has run two state wide campaigns, the latter in 2008, when she captured 35% of the popular vote, despite running against a vice presidential nominee and having only $100,000 for the effort. Now she stands able to beat the opposition with both the absence of the Biden name, and his candidacy for the vice executive post.

For all that is claimed and advertised, Chris Coons is not a very impressive candidate, having served as a county executive for only five years, and prior to that possessing little national experience with a federal campaign. In fact, despite his seemingly impressive array of degrees from Amherst and Yale, Coons is employing tactics rather under handed for such a proposed intellectual. His movement recently listed O'Donnell as being bizarre and out of touch, even going so far as to imply she might be mentally delusional.

Victory in 2010 is about values, not convenience. Michael Castle would have represented everything wrong with our system: the status quo, establishment picks, and little change in government. Yet Christine O'Donnell has the capacity to change what is wrong in our nation and create a new future of prosperity for us all. Were the National Alliance Party to field a candidate in a race such as this, they would embody the same qualities as Miss O'Donnell, and thus she receives our utterly complete support and encouragement. To change Washington, we must change the process, and as a senator she will be part of that revelatory shift in policy.


Cate Ashton

National Alliance Vice President for Operations

Creating an Era of Strength

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. 

Melanie Bryant

National Alliance Vice President for Education

Economic Mayhem: Part II

In recent hours, the Obama Administration announced its plans for a new fiscal blitz against the wavering economy with a carefully labeled "economic plan." Quick to respond after reporters attempted to place the new attempt into the same category as the Administration's earlier stimulus package, the President furiously insisted on giving it the precautionary tag of the aforementioned plan, hoping to avoid a parallel comparison with his all but universally loathed  "cures" for our nation's monetary and fiscal problems.

Whether Barack Obama employs more rhetoric or even none at really is irrelevant at the point in history, and will not truly help us save us from the pitfall of an extended or double dipped recession within our economy. It is not that any members of the current majority government honestly feel or can prove the future benefits of the first and now proposed second stimulus; rather, they know the prior attempt was all a worthless facade, and the second will mirror its same classifications.

No, the Administration and the Congress is tying everything to the hated word of Capitol Hill, the binding fragment that should not inhabit the minds of our leaders as they make decisions,l yet is all too present in our present state of governance: political ideology. Even in its most mild form, the sensation has so passionately seized hold of the Democratic Party and the President that it now threatens to become the key ticket to both of their downfalls in this fresh decade.

What must be understood in explaining this is that the top dogs of the Democratic Leadership, most notably Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer, ran in 2006 and 2008 not with a European-style social democratic platform, but with a more moderate, fix Washington strategy. Americans were less appreciative of the Democrats than simply angry at the Republicans, and without too much difficulty, the center-leftist party coasted to an admirable victory, capturing both houses and inflicting several humiliating defeats on the incumbent Republicans. Two years later in 2008, the Democrats tried to play the same card, interrupted only by the presence of a somewhat annoying presidential candidate who was convinced that mass appeal was his ticket to the Whitehouse. He went from closing Guantanamo Bay, to fixing the economy, to trying terrorists in America,  with a touch of everything to please the unsatisfiable populace, and came out on top.

Now President Obama and his party's leaders are struggling to cover for the unrealistic policies which he foolishly proposed in order to win the 2008 election. After all the fundraising and claims of future prosperity, his government is boiling down to an atrocious mix of braggart ways and projected, not sincere, leadership.

With his latest gambit being a second stimulus package, even the President knows his plans will not work, but he is fixated about the historical view of his ideology. Did he stick his guns as a social democrat, or dispel Keynesian philosophy for fundamentalist common sense? Truth unveiled, Barack Obama cannot stand the notion of his ideology being publicly versed as ineffective a wrong. His type of persona will always object, arguing long after his presidency that "too much obstructionism was involved," and that "the time was not right" for his plans to reach positive fruition.

Despite the endless sentences of jargon we will be forced to endure both in defense of this new package and afterwards, good men must push on for beneficial additions to help the economy. As the National Alliance Foundation has made clear, the key to recovery is not in more government, or in breaks only for corporations, but in the restarting of the small business community to provide jobs and opportunity to the commonwealth. Entrepreneurs, armed with a restructured policy that aims to eliminate business income tax and hands out credits for companies who invest in domestically produced products will boost our state of fiscal stability to a healthy zone of general success in the near future.

If President Obama desires to mend his image with the voters, then he must shift his range of vision to focus on helping businesses survive, not in paying off union members with large checks from the taxpayer's pocket. In fact, it would be far wiser to simply give the money to businesses through loans and to state and local governments. Federal programs are known for their ineptitude and poor results, verse the wiser actions of councilors and delegates closer to the public.

Our recovery from this recession will not come from the government; it shall be made up of the efforts and bravery of the small business community, which is the heart and soul of the American People.

John Lai

National Alliance Treasurer and Comptroller General

A New Direction

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.  

Cate Ashton

National Alliance Vice President for Operations

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

Building Prosperity Through Technology

In the information age, it is sometimes easy to forget how slowly the early scientists climbed from near irrelevance to inventing the computerized wonders that now bolster our way of life in the modern day. But the innovators of yesteryear did not find their work coming to fruition simply because they were interested in it, but also because they spent the many hours testing and retrying options before finally hitting the proper result which they were pursuing. To create more employment and build better infrastructure for the 21st Century, the Federal Government must do the exact same thing to America.

Despite our seemingly unparalleled connections of wireless and internet access, countless Americans still remain cut off from cheap sources of web entrance and digital connectivity. Because of the innumerable inventions that have come from the general population experimenting with their work, the government must act to preserve true creativity and the wondrous technologies which we posses in the present day.

Thus the National Alliance Party is proposing a $500 million investment by the current elected officials into the construction of high speed cable and fiber optic lines in economically depressed areas of our nation to speed job growth and technological advancements for the next two decades.

Unless we can get a hold on the separation; the haves and the have nones of this generation, then we risk leaving behind life changing wonders in development and unimaginable possibilities for further product creation. No longer is it prudent to sit back and wait--while other countires surge ahead in the race for ideal and affordable convenience in the digital world. The time is now; our hour, and our mission for the good of the future.