Masquerade: the Saga of Ron Paul

(This article was written by a National Alliance Foundation author on an independent blog, and does not necessarily represent the views of the organization).

So I have made the decision to remove myself from the thin-skinned group of pundits and go for the throat; supporters of Ron Paul be upset or not. I no longer hold any sympathy for the views of the good doctor, no matter how popularized they might have become over the past three years.

I admit, despite holding a more moderate stance than many of my colleagues, I felt at least a strong initial attraction to the Texas congressman's radical policy proposals. And honestly, so did a lot of people. What could be better than a tough as nails constitutionalist who is sharp on the budget but equally wise on social issues? Like a decent share of the public, I felt he was genuine...until I began to realize what his entire movement was built upon.

As much as he enjoys playing the above the fray card whenever political discourse gets into the heat of issues, Paul still has yet to establish himself as a truly independent--and viable, movement. Even during the 2008 campaign, while still floundering for life as the two major parties shifted into a domineering mode over the election, the congressman would not isolate himself from both parties, instead ensuring that he noted the similarities between himself and then Senator Barack Obama on the issue of Marijuana legalization. While I am quick to endorse more social democracy in our country, the drug problem is not an avenue to take, no matter the libertarian argument in favor of action. The move really came off as a cheap shot to draw in supporters, not something which Dr. Paul truly subscribes to. Perhaps the federal branch should simply apply more freedom, but not in such a way that endangers citizens through self-destructive behavior.

But regardless of his political opinions, I cannot make myself believe that the Campaign for Liberty's poster legislator has the temerity and calm to ever be elected--or serve effectively, as a United States President. Though he may possess a coalesced brigade of support in his safe conservative district, nothing about him inspires national or foreign leadership as a president. Paul believes America should remain isolationist, even while the country holds so many unavoidable international ties with companies and other nations.

Years ago, Ron Paul's foreign policy might have been prudent, but these days it simply comes off as surrealistic. Even more liberal democrats know that withdrawing from the world goes hand in hand with regret later on. Had the 1990s been lead by a more confident interventionist president, the Iraq War might have been prevented. Instead, isolationist and strictly economic policy wrecked such a follow up's chances of success.

He may hold the attentions of the more obstinate undecided voters now, but as 2012 roles around the corner, Americans would be wise to choose a leader who is committed to principles, not the popularity of a grassroots movement. Dr. Paul may offer advice on governmental issues, but his presence on the national scene is more destructive to reality than beneficial to the nation.

Rick Thomlinson

Citadel of the Left (Original article source)

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

Playing Politics with Security

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.

Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy

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

Public (Self) Service

To call 2009 and 2010 a bland year of elections would require almost a zero capacity of understanding of recent events, and the shifting of alignments for political purposes. From the party switching, to the independent runs, it almost seems as if the two party mold will finally be dented--albeit in the wrong manner. And to find a prime example of this, it is necessary to look at the self preserving election choice of Governor Charlie Crist of Florida. 

There is little surprise to be found in Crist's decision,which reflects upon the less than stellar career he has experienced in the public eye. Following a stint in the state senate, the the future governor was crushed in a statewide race for the Federal Branch, losing by 26% to popular incumbent Democrat Bob Graham. Discouraged but unfaltering, Crist ran for the newly created education commissioner spot, staying only long enough to raise his profile to win the Attorney General's race on a strong state ticket in 2002.

Still not a senator but not willing to let his momentum end, he gallivanted towards the governor's mansion, riding a wave of GOP popularity provided by well accomplished Governor Jeb Bush, first elected in 1998. Using several high profile figures including Arizona Senator John McCain as support, Crist took the executive seat with a decent margin, and settled in patient expectation of what was to come. 

Following a near hit at the vice presidential nomination in 2008, when he quickly married in anticipation of the occurrence, Crist began to slowly reveal that his poster boy conservatism was no longer needed, and should be left behind in the age of Barack Obama's Administration. From the stimulus to wavering on healthcare, Crist has turned on most every conservative issue to help him win independents and moderates for his bag. 

And finally, as Mel Martinez announced his retirement, it became the Governor's hour. No longer interested in reelection, Charlie Crist chose to have yet another go at the Senate, this time as the favorite for victory. For a while, it seemed as if it would carry him, but then, something maddening happened. Courageously fighting as an underdog candidate, State House Speaker Marco Rubio began catching up, Crist's lead dwindling to a meager five point advantage heading towards the April 2010 filing deadline.

Crist panicked, frightened by the prospect of losing the prize for which he so long salivated about, and to a man no older than 40 no less. Now trailing by the same numbers by which he once lead Rubio, Crist jumped ship to save his imperiled career: running instead as an independent. 

The truth is, there is no passion or meaning in Crist's independent run. No great movement for third way representation, nor an organized effort to change government. A disgruntled loser, unwilling to face defeat, vying for a way to revitalize his shallow legacy.

Of course, there is no conservative ideology left behind here. Crist's recent actions have made him "Gulf Cop," the man who can save Florida from the government, as well as British Petroleum. Now he is the teacher's union advocate, and not the budget trimming hawk he was only 24 months ago. He is now Charlie Crist 2.0, back for moderate vengeance against the people who chose to put him second in 1998, and in the GOP primary of 2010. 

Regrettably, Crist joins a decent number of politicians doing the same in their own interests instead of that of the people. He leads in the race by drawing support from both sides, even while he once decried many of the citizens who are placing their trust in him. If we are to have open and free government, then officials like Governor Crist must be bounced out and sent packing; reducing the toxicity and speed with which their actions spread in our nation's capital.