The Strongest Defense

I was rather intrigued after watching a lengthy film which pushed for the view that the Russian Armed Forces are more united and supremely more skilled than the average U.S.Army Solider. The argument falls on largely the basis that in Russia, the environment and and surroundings equate and add to an upping of the general skill and readiness of the common soldier; a fact that it does not apply to the American defenders of liberty. After some further research however, I came up with my own analysis, albeit with a starkly different conclusion.

According to international statistics, the Russian area is defended by roughly 23 million active soldiers, far more than the present number of American troops. While this number is considerable, it comes hugely from the process of conscription that occurs within Russia's borders, forcing many young men into involuntary service during their careers.

Further, the reports explain that while most of Russia's volunteer forces are considered quite effective and united,  its larger units of enlisted conscripts often reveal great percentages of AWOL troops, soldiers who are on the run from their posts of duty. So despite the massive number of troops available, the Soviet bloc has yet to discover methods to keep those numbers in line, showing a clear weakness in their structure.

Additionally, Russian troops receive among some of the lowest pay and benefits of any major nation of the world, perhaps explaining partially why the numbers of deserters are so high.



Notwithstanding these elements, the major reason as the data shows is that Russia forces so many young men to join the armed forces, likely against their will. As America saw during the War in Vietnam, drafted soldiers had a tendency to preform poorly, commit atrocities, and return home to bash the military operations preformed abroad. Because America allows for choice, its members cannot claim that they do not wish to be involved in a war and have been forced against their own will. Politics rarely divide uniformed members, and the focus remains upon completing the mission, not serving oneself. If Russia were to take this reality to heart, moving for full implementation within its military assembly, the numbers of its soldiers would fall considerably, yet their power would be more directed and useful.

The 21st Century is one in which human rights--and will, must be respected. Forcing a person to don a uniform and obey an institution which they hate does not foster good performance or hard work; it encourages weaker actions and less confidence in the military. America has learned this, yet Russia still must understand it for future success.


Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues

Means to Justify Ends: Assange's Folly

"If men of this century understood the value of common ground, they might forge heroic legacies rather than dastardly remembrances during their time on this good earth."

Years ago, as the young men of America donned uniforms and departed for the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima, they were backed by those of diverse colors, both in political beliefs and backgrounds. From the poor farm boy to some of the most elite congressmen, hundreds of thousands of troops bid farewell, encouraged by spectators in full support--and opposition, to the great war of the century. Even among the most pacifist of journalists there remained an understanding that shoddy or  not supportive reporting might cause irreparable danger to the mission, and to the lives of soldiers serving in the front. One might look to it as a universal mentality; that war was painful, yet its burdens and sacrifices had to be carried and made together.

Today, the world seems to have forgotten these olden concessions of passion. WikiLeaks, a website pledging transparency and openness, has unleashed a remarkable number of documents regarding details of the Middle Eastern wars, placing thousands of lives across the world in immediate jeopardy. According to the site's founder, Julian Assange, the documents represent the uncovering of crimes against humanity by governments involved in the conflict, yet he fails to understand the depth of the issue at stake. For men like Assange, life is all about the one moment of success and limelight--not the aftereffects on innocent lives. Like Phillip Agee, who released confidential information that led to the assassinations of countless undercover agents, Assange believes the means justifier the ends. Secrets spilled are all that matter--even if their consequences are earth-shattering.

But furthermore Assange's action highlight a sad reality of a world in which views and ideological stances have overpowered common sense and general worldwide unity. In the past years in America, it might be prudent to realize how far and widespread this condition is. Democrats did not simply disagree with President Bush; they truly wanted his administration to collapse and fail, with international courts indicting each member possible with war crimes and humiliating the country of which all parties share. Under Barack Obama's tenure, the dialog has hardly changed, with his detractors picking at anything possible to call for impeachment or eventual failure.

All else aside, it paints a sad yet enlightened picture of what the world has become, and what it will likely be forever: an arena where only the strong, regardless of their motives, shall continue to outlive and outperform those around them. Of course competition is not wrong, but if its ends are such travesties--as Mr. Assange's will cost countless lives, the final ultimatum is one in which morality has been murdered in cold blood.

Those brave men and women currently serving are the last hope of the world to overcome evil and defeat the ill-doers residing within it, yet they will only be capable of succeeding if their positions and defenses are not compromised for the sake of ideological reveling or projection into the spotlight. For too long in the past 50 years this has become the operating procedure of so many, and its results are to gruesome and countless to recount in full. Unless the world--people of different views and ideologies alike, are able to overcome this incessant desire to betray the good cause for the sake of personal fame, we will spiral into a degenerated pit of nothingness in which morality is gone.    


Jessica Yui

National Alliance Vice Chairman

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

2012: Avoiding a Third Party

In spite of the defeats of nearly 61 incumbent Democrats only weeks ago, Axelrod, Plouffe, and Obama are all salivating at their prospects for 2012, and with good reason. This year's election campaign may have been a hit for the presidency, but it showed true the ability of the third party advocates to make--or break, candidates. In California, Chelene Nightingale cost Meg Whitman considerable support, and Libertarians across the map drew enough votes to successfully, albeit narrowly, reelect many vulnerable Democrats. Our democracy fully supports active participation, but in the best interests of the people, both the Libertarians and Constitutional members will abstain from big shot campaigning in 2012, which has the pretentiousness to turn into a close race.

There is no doubt that Barack Obama has been slapped across the face; but sometimes the undecided maiden can be wooed to the injured one's side. As long as the Whitehouse can spin a convincing message that the president is being bullied by John Boehner and the Tea Party, his reelection prospects will still remain in healthy territory. So little as a bump in the economic levels could be equally endearing, and the raucous yammering of the Right about taxes is unlikely to carry through unless it can be solidified into firm pro-business message. Congress may have been won through the tactic, but no Republican, one-on-one with the president can simply hope to win  by that singular view, so precautions need to be adapted.

As if the color isn't more visible, this means blocking all those who might attempt to launch a third-party run; figures including Mike Bloomberg, Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura, or even the mentally undecided Alex Jones. Bloomberg is the largest danger because he holds a unique position of visibility, decent fiscal stewardship credentials, and a boatload of money to run with. He may also draw enough independents away from both parties to let the larger Democratic base win the night.

Paul, who is still basking in his son's recent glory in the state of Kentucky, has the potential to stand up and deliver the GOP defeat which all the Washington crowd desires. His rhetoric, often suspicious and borderline anti-Semetic, could splinter the party--at least in the media's view, and bring about a crippling downturn of hopes against the president. He leads a joint coalition with Jesse Ventura, whose 9/11 inside job claims might attract enough fringe support to hurt the GOP. More importantly, his celebrity status will attract more backing,  taking votes away from Obama's strongest opponent.

Jones...well, suffice to say we do not need more intellectually robbed individuals seeking the presidential office.

Like it or not, the Tea Party has to face the facts: Barack Obama will be re-inaugurated on January 20th, 2013 if its members continue to request ideological purity. Whoever holds the GOP banner in 2012 must be capable of appealing to the entire nation, not one small pocket of beliefs. And while conservatives outnumber liberals by a long shot, the extent which some of these candidates force their views are enough to push even the most disgruntled independents and moderates back to voting for our current commander in chief.  


Andrew Rimmer

National Alliance Vice President for Communications

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

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