The Case for Compassion

It seems today the goal of all politicians seeking the presidential nomination from the American center-right to attempt across the board to out-conservatize each other in hopes of attaining the spot at the top of the selection list. This also includes the rather distasteful aspect of immigration, an issue which many have made forthright in their bids for the nation's top office. Not being a strong armed figure on the border suggests a flimsy character and disregard for the well-being of the country in the modern day. Unfortunately the largest American party which currently occupies the executive's chair and the Senate know how critically this can be turned against the raucous conservatives to secure victory in the constantly-discussed race of 2012. Thus the Republicans need to adopt a new policy before they risk alienating what might be a strictly reliable supporting base.

Immigration is a structural problem in our country not made better by the regular Mexican-American alliance of labor and remittances which prevent the latter nation from taking sensible action on the issue. As such it is not entirely the fault of immigrants from the Central-South American region that they desire to escape the cartels and come to a new land where general safety is a more regular facet of life. But the rolling plains of the American past are gone, instead giving way to the urbanized and government-supported regions pf the present in which social democracy tends to prevail, thus putting a burden on the federal and state branches who offer mandated services.

Republicans are simply answering the call of many concerned citizens of various races about the dangers of unchecked immigration, yet the Democratic Party in its classic style is using the issue to drive a wedge between their opponents and the ever advancing Latino populations. Carefully they have set the stage to play the helpless minorities against the evil and ancient white majority, a trend which by all calculable methods has worked. In 2008, the GOP got a measly 21% of Hispanic votes, and current polls do not show a tremendous change in opinion from the ethnic group.

At the heart of this the GOP faces a critical issue in managing to reach out and form coalitions with this rising community which has already began to propagate and culturally pluralize in southern regions of Texas,Florida, and California.  With the Latino society generally a more traditionalist model, it is difficult to see why the two bodies would be incompatible, yet the Democrats have succeeded in spinning the message of racism into the discussion, undermining a potential alliance between them.

Historically the GOP has been the least ready party to adapt to the issues of the present, but this one poses a greater threat with the legacy of Barack Obama now at stake. His reelection garners the center-left with a figure of general success which only impeachment or resignation could ever begin to discourage. Like Clinton, Obama will ride the storm if reelected, leaving historians to categorically attribute him as a isnpirational vote-getter despite the central faults of his character and policy.

No one should hope that the GOP drops the immigration factor entirely, yet making it centerpiece in a year when so much is at stake would be a critical error. Job creation and tort reform must be the foremost elements of the discussion, as they are squarely in the president's no-go zone in his performance as the commander-in-chief. Immigration reform should be implemented but only once the 44th President is on his way out so that Hispanics do come to the party. Failing to make that connection and neglecting to tone down the anti-immigrant rhetoric can only result in a six--and not four year wait to return a leader to the Whitehouse.



Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy

Finish the Job!

Only days ago, North Korea launched a decisive and unprovoked strike on an island near South Korea, killing four and initiating what some view as a deadly foreshadowing of greater conflict. The communist country, led by the ailing Kim Jong-il, seems to be making one last appeal to demonstrate its might before the dictator passes on and leaves his younger son to govern and rule the policy of the economically broken country. Due to the unique situation with the unwarranted attack on South Korea and the oncoming transfer of power, a possibility is visible for President Barack Obama to show courage and intervene to finish what might have been accomplished with a more aggressive push following the Tet Offensive of the 1960s.

In the past, North Korea proved to be a massive threat because of its ability to generate and launch nuclear weapons without much regulation from mainland China or Russia. But today, with the rash attack by the communist defense council, even the war-abstaining United Nations would be forced to agree to the use of force, and America could be seen as assisting a major ally, and far cry from the uncertainty and quagmire of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions.

A UN coalition backed by troops of the U.S. Military and British Royal Armed Forces would be able to stake out ground in the northern province, forcing Kim Jong-il to reconsider his use of armaments or suffer the international fallout of refusal. Combined with South Korean Defense soldiers and Japanese aide, the joint assault could bring about a culmination of defeat for the communist regime, reducing its iron grasp on the country to little more than a light touch. The only major obstacle to be considered is mainland China, yet with America's close connections in the free trade network, its is unlikely that the larger country would look towards denying its economic ally the freedom to change a nearby nation.

The benefits of swift action towards North Korea are many and diverse. By eliminating a major nuclear threat,  the allied forces would be able to alleviate tensions in the zone, weakening Russian and Chinese influence and encouraging a deescalation of communism in the countries of Vietnam and Burma, resulting in a dramatic realignment of the world and its major players in both economic and militaristic affairs. Providing such nations chose to adapt a more pro-trade stance after their shrugging off of the communist fist, they would become invaluable partners for the United States, helping to alleviate the nation's closeness to China for manufacturing purposes.

America does not enjoy the ability any longer to simply sit and watch as countries continue to exercise their brutal and totalitarian regimes upon innocent civilians. In accordance with basic morals, these nations must be brought to case and forced to change their views--or face the consequences. Rampant extermination of freedom and its principles has only negativity to offer, a slow and destructive path to inadequacy which will inevitably damage the world's liberated populations.

Time is running out, and Barack Obama must have the courage to act--or to step aside and let others do so for him.


Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues

Encouraging Good Stewardship

There has been an arguable amount of discussion of the merits of environmental activism over the past few years, yet the debate seems to often obscure the necessary facts of the equation. No matter where a voter stands ideologically, they should possess at least a base respect for the world in which they live, and an ethic to work in the best interests of the planet's health. As members of the National Alliance Foundation, we firmly adhere to the belief that the earth, precious and self-sufficient as it may be now, will not always remain so, and thus needs to be treasured and protected.

If the preceding seemed like a confession of tree-hugging, as environmentalism is too often maligned, then let the light be shown more brightly into the problem. While perhaps Go Green movement is populated by a number of less-than-sincere individuals simply enjoying the prospect of activism, at its core are a group of concerned citizens who desire fundamental and stable reform in the view of the government in relation to environmental policy.

Bashing the corporations however, is not the best route to take. Such an option might endure for a brief spell, but eventually the backlash only turns people against the idea of properly stewarding their own piece of the earth, something to be avoided at all costs. A real solution is to start teaching environmental mentality in the school systems, and embracing it across the governmental plain. Not in any way should the move be partisan or along the lines of former Vice President Al Gore's fraudulent research, but some basic caps might not be seen as extreme.

Through the implementation of a long-term security capping, Congress would allow companies the freedom to produce excessively, building inventory, and then enter into a slower spell of less production, during which those additional items might be sold instead. For making such a sacrifice, the government would deliver tax cuts to the corporations involved, thus benefiting both sides of the transaction fairly.

On the other side, attempting to ram a massive federal regulations package down the throats of the companies is only asking for trouble, as the voters will likely side with the companies, quickly landsliding the bill's proponents at the next election.

Climate change is not without its skeptics; indeed, plenty exist who deny its viability as an issue, yet the most simple facts must be kept in mind. If carbon continues to vanish from the atmosphere, our planet could very well face a crisis of resources and secure water levels. So there is nothing shameful about showing a little heart, regardless if it makes one look a slight shade of green. Unlike most policies, environmental decisions lead to conditions which are impossible to repeal through legislation. Therefore America must decide whether it will make those conditions good--or disastrous.


Alicia Tapely

National Alliance Vice President for Environmental Affairs

End the Seizure of Profits

We like to discuss America as our "land of opportunity," yet far too often that title is stripped away by the juggernaut-like force of the federal government through its means of extorting money from the people. Across the board, people are taxed unfairly, businesses jarred into closure status, and the hope of success is annihilated. Disregarding all these things, the government steps in further to regulate the one independent means of personal success: the stock market. Investors who work hard studying the markets, making the calculations, and placing their money on the line are taxed voluminously for their returns--if any.

Over the years, capital gains taxes have grown to be a significant issue, but the government still seems to relish their net result of each investor's efforts, with tax rates now preparing to soar to a whopping 20% in January. Let's go ahead and examine that prospect for a second: if an investor rakes in a 200% gain, highly likely with the present downturn's eventual recovery, the government moves in. Supposing the stock moves from $3.00 to $9.00 and the investor holds forty shares, his total gain should, honestly speaking, be six on each, and thus $240. But with the government's encroachment, the man who risked his time and money, studying the market before making a final decision, will only receive $192 for his efforts--hardly fair compensation.

Therefore the government should move to cut such outrageous applications of penalties for average people who have found success in the United States in order to foster a view held by the country's founder's and in line with equalized capitalism.

Two arguments tend to prevail during the capital gains tax debate. The first, promoted by those who decry capitalism or have experienced its failures, insists that is is unfair for some to take in such money since not everyone is capable of doing so, and that only the elite dominate the trading market. While the latter may be true, the definition of "elite" should first be considered. Is an American who puts their time and efforts into research and study of the markets truly an elitist, or simply a common person looking for success? Besides the requirement of starting funds, their are hardly any barriers to joining the investment bandwagon, and countless individuals have become successful starting independent of a major firm or company.

Basing their views off of the poor economic state of the present, the other side complains that eliminating the taxes now will only serve to damage the economic situation which we as a nation are in by depriving the government of additional tax revenue. This logic might hold clear, yet one asks why presidents during strong economic times still manage to avoid doing away with the unnecessary rates of taxation. The answer is simple and mind-raking: they do not have to. Surges of cash with the millions of dollars made each day in the markets are enough to make politicians drool with excitement, as such revenue funds their massive projects of wasteful spending on a regular schedule.

If America is to remain a land where opportunity may be found, than its systems of taxation should reflect this. A nation were one's success is regulated is a country where freedom is ever close to extinction.


John Lai

National Alliance Treasurer and Comptroller General

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

A Duty to Fulfill

According to the most recent election polling by Gallup, the GOP holds a strong 9-point lead over the Democratic Party for the 2010 election. And while DNC chair Tim Kaine has been feigning victory over the past several days, it has become obvious among Democrats that their hopes of commanding the House of Representatives are all but lost as nearly one hundred seats are in place for a party switch this year. Not surprisingly, most Republicans are already fantasizing about their return to power in the lower house, yet something must remain constant even as they accept the laurels of confirmed triumph: their commitment to the American People.

In 1995, a giddy conservative majority led by Newt Gingrich took the oath of office, coming to power with a supposed dedication to the country through their Contract with America, a multiple bulleted document that promised among many things, to abolish the Department of Education and privatize part of the American social security system. Regardless of their signing however, most of the Republicans turned back on their promises, quickly becoming a corrupted party of age which led them to a humiliating defeat in 2006, and a supplemental version of the same in 2008.

Last month, the Republicans unveiled their 2010 “Pledge to America,” which is arguably more modest than its counterpart of 1994, yet still does take some braver steps towards cutting the budget deficit, albeit very slightly. What’s more important than this however is that the GOP follows through with their promises of fiscal conservatism, including not creating more federal agencies to balance out the 100 billion which they have committed to eliminate from the spending projections.

Furthermore, Republicans must act to give a new agenda to America to contrast that of Barack Obama, who obviously remains in the Whitehouse at least until 2013. Simply complaining about his policies will quickly sink the conservatives into a mire of defeat in the 2012 presidential race, much like William Clinton trounced the opposition nominee in 1996, despite a Republican -controlled House and Senate. This means looking at ways to solve the problem of social security, cutting large amounts of government waste, and potentially passing a resolution to limit the mandate of the Department of Homeland Security to no more than ten years. The latter has simply become a convenient way for less than qualified college graduates to get jobs which do not generally contribute to the nation’s security—and instead limit its financial stability.

But finally, the issue comes down to how firm the GOP intends to be on ethics and governmental integrity. It truly has become too easy, under the former GOP majority and now beneath the Democrats, for lobbyists and financial institutions to grab hold of the collar of most representatives, forcing them to obey or forfeit considerable campaign funds with their denial. Republicans have a duty to either stand up against this corruption, or stand down in defeat at the ballot box.

The next two years, more likely than not under a lower house GOP leadership, must include a majority part which does not falter or grow weak to the pressure of the lobbyists. Conservatives need to preserve truth and honor in Washington, starting with their own party.  

Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy

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)