Separation of Myth and State

In the wake of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s 3-vote margin senate win to legalize gay marriage in his home state, many homosexual activists have been cheering. Flanked by a strong coalition of self-described “progressive socialists,” the once irrelevant Castro District Country Club is now promising to fight more openly and force every member state in the union to accept their definition of the family and sexual relations. In line with most debates in America, the progressives have chosen to hone in on a particular phrase which they find so imbued with intelligence that one can scarcely pass a moment in political discussion before it slips ever so quickly from their lips. The several letters, strung together in perfected Marxist glory with a hint of historical decency seem to them like the only rightful method of achieving their delusions of moral and rhetorical authority over the traditionalists that haunt their dreams of a secular, more exclusively leftist America.

(Credit for this photo goes to John H Armstrong Blog)

Yet the question remains, where did “Separation of Church and State” first issue forth from? In the mind of the progressive or homosexual, it is ingrained within the Constitution’s First Amendment. In the mind of the historical thinker, it is misunderstood and often ineptly adapted to fight for the dismantling of past societal pillars in order to pave way for a sinister modern agenda. Thus there is no better time than now to clearly explain just where the phrase originated from and why it is wrongly applied to our current scenarios of national struggle.

Back in the early 1940s, New Jersey resident Arch Everson filed suit against the local school board to overturn a policy that ordered funding for school transportation be picked up by the local educational committees, most of which were delivering it to Catholic high schools (at the time compromising 96% of educational institutions in the state). Despite being rejected by district courts and even New Jersey’s Court of Errors and Appeals (at the time its highest court), Everson toiled on and appealed to the United States Supreme Court, setting up a dramatic showdown that came to a climax with the verdict in 1947.

Led by Associate Justice Hugo Black, a well-known Democrat and member of the Klu Klux Klan, the court ruled in a decisive 5-4 conclusion that an invisible wall exists to separate Church from the State, thus making New Jersey’s assistance to Catholic schools a violation of its constitution. That might have been the end of the saga, yet it is prudent to pause in consideration of Black’s own personal motivations. For years, the first and second Klans had always maintained a virulent anti-Catholic streak, believing the Roman Catholic Church to be incompatible with American governments or the permeation of democracy throughout the land. Even the modern Third Klan that has operated since 1944 maintains an exclusively Protestant lean, espousing hate towards Catholics and the Jews.

So was Black’s stance truly motivated by a desire to advocate for secularist views, or only to safeguard the Klan’s interests in America’s Protestant-founded government? No one answer seems complete, yet it is worth including that none of the Founding Fathers advocated within the Constitution or in surrounding papers that they desired “Alienation of Church and State.” In truth, the Constitution’s only words regarding religion are “Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion.” Simply put, we are not to become a theocracy in which a given religious authority has domain and power over every function of government from economic policy to national security. This does not mean the Founders were in effect arguing that on matters of the family and society churches should have no input whatsoever; it just prevents Congress from creating a religious federal authority.

The Progressive-Homosexual Coalition will still argue that advocating protection of heterosexual marriage or even a constitutional amendment goes against the Jeffersonian state’s rights approach espoused by many traditionalists, yet they miss reality at two key points. First, marriage at the time of the Constitution’s adoption was a strictly religious ceremony that formed the backbone of society in America. Now that marriage holds legal standing in America, homosexuals have inadvertently revealed their conclusive goal by rejecting the compromise of civil unions and demanding official marriage recognition. In other words, they want forced acceptance of their lifestyles and definitions of the family, creating a fine line between their views and attacks on the country’s founding principles.

Additionally, the whole purpose of a national government was to keep the union intact despite state disagreements. This formed the backbone of America’s emergence from the Civil War, as Lincoln’s firm opposition to a splintered country prevented a “United States of the Union” and a United States of the Confederacy”  from materializing. Otherwise we would likely still live under the Articles of Confederation, a system giving states the individual power that Jefferson’s wilder dreams desired. On issues concerning fundamental generational principles such as the family, Hamiltonian ideology for the federal government is needed to produce a single system of unity for the future. Should this be ignored, we risk once more dividing as district judges and narrow-voting legislatures choose to make decisions by ignoring the concerns of the people.

Individuals might still ask though, “Why is an issue like marriage so important?” The answer heralds back to the 1960s, when America first dipped its toes into the waters of cultural Marxism following a similar movement across Europe. After realizing that America clung too closely to religion and mass defense to be overcome using force, Marxist thinkers devised a new plan of action: cultural infiltration. By penetrating the schools and the courts, far-left academics and civil servants have continued to press for an extreme secularist society, developing a pattern in their actions. At each turn and polarizing issue, they always stand against religion. Whether it is opposing the words “Under God,” or supporting gay marriage and abortion, the Marxists continue to scurry forth the minions of their revolution by suppressing and marginalizing religious influence wherever it may remain in society, knowing that once the State can define morality, it will become a stooge to their totalitarian ambitions.

Words can often confuse, and this is precisely what the movement for separation of Church and State has done. All Americans who understand what makes a nation’s society strong must stand firm and seek to end the perplexing aura that surrounds this core issue in our country.


Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy

Palestine: Myth of a State

Yes--this post's title does not follow the traditional titular style of those preceding it, yet this is all with good reason. Today's writing is not meant to be artful per say; only to send a direct message to the heart of the Israeli-Palestine conflict in light of the recent comments by President Barack Obama. As most already know, the president used his Arab Spring speech to call for an Israeli return to the borders of 1967, when the Zionist state was but a sliver of land surrounded by increasingly hostile neighbors. Obama's basis is the typical Arab argument, yet his position and that of the self-described Palestinians lacks an important factor to boost its credibility: historical facts.

(Photo credit goes to artstruck)

Over 2,500 years ago, the Jews escaped enslavement in Israel and moved to their Promised Land, conquering the pre-Arab tribes there who worshiped idols and establishing the Kingdom of Israel, which would eventually be split into Judah and Israel before its dismantling hundreds of years later. Although Muslims did come to the territory, this would be far into the future, and making up breaks from the Egyptian or Syrian ethnic groups which are more dominant even today.

As time went on, the Promised Land would be governed by Muslim Caliphates (not Palestinians), the Romans, Crusading legions from the Church, and finally, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire following the First World War, the British. Under the Mandate of Palestine as it was titled, the British transferred numbers of Jews to the region to supplant the standing population, and eventually forged a two state solution, establishing Transjordan to the east, Syria and Lebanon to the north, and Israel to the south.

Furious about the prospects of sharing land with the Jewish People, the Arab nations banded together and forced Palestinians under Israeli protection to leave the land while distributing propaganda which accused the Jews of doing so. Though pummeled into submission four times during the 20th Century by Israel, the Arabs refuse to give up their pursuit of Israel's destruction, instead favoring a gradual process of elimination through terror strikes and concessions. As Zahir Muhsein once told a reporter "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."


Muhsein's quote essentially proves what many pro-Zionists already suspect or know; that the Arabs want Israel destroyed, not simply sectioned off into a smaller portion of the map. To Muslims, it is an insult to be near a Jew or live on the territory of a Jewish State, thus complicating the issue. What is not acceptable however is the Arab refusal to allow the Jews control of Jerusalem, historically more important to the Christians and Jews than to the Muslims. While some may dispute this due to the presence of the Dome of Rock in Jerusalem, we should be sure all facts are considered. Adamant as they are on this impasse, would Muslims agree to a Christian or Jewish nation controlling Mecca? History suggests no.


Peace is something which must be accomplished in the Middle East, yet not without some reasonable preconditions. One, Israel must include Jerusalem and be allowed to exist without unnecessary threats to its security. Two, the PLO should disassociate itself from Hamas and Hizbollah, with policies to promote democracy rather than authoritarianism. Only then can Israel let its guard up and sue for peace in the Holy Land. 

Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues

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

Panetta: Pandering to Insecurity

With Robert Gates listing his planned resignation for a time around August 2011, the Whitehouse is now scrambling to fill what can only be described as tremendous shoes of the Georgetown-educated military officer who previously served as the CIA director during the 1990s. Like with any major position, the Obama Administration has began its process of elimination to determine and ideal candidate for the slot, throwing out names of potential successors and subtly arguing in the interests of a particular leader.

Yet one problem prevails. The candidate of the Whitehouse's choosing is Leon Panetta. 

(Photo credit goes to swamppolitics.com)

To make the argument that the nation's Secretary of Defense should be a man trained as an attorney and chief of staff rather than an individual with a firm background in intelligence and foreign affairs is problematic enough, but to further iterate that the same person should be a man who has shown total ineptitude during his tenure as head of the Central Intelligence Agency and even been corrected multiple times by his very subordinates falls into the category of radically unacceptable. A superpower such as America cannot quibble about with irrelevant pursuits by placing figureheads at the helm of government blocs dedicated to national security because it projects an image of passiveness and disregard to foreign enemies. 

Being capable of effective leadership in the intelligence world is not measured by having served in another position with similar demands; President Obama seems intent on disproving this point with his flagship candidate. The issue remains however that Panetta lacked experience prior to his anointment as CIA Chief, and his missteps have continued to grow throughout his tenure. His juvenile decision to rebuke the necessity of an intelligence distance school to separate sensitive information from the Congress is a prime example, and multiple members were forced to write to his office and demand a correction. 

While other presidents have made similar choices in the past, their choices for defense-related positions were always individuals with extensive experience either first hand with intelligence or on specific congressional committees. Panetta's preparation comes from being head of the House Budget Committee, a body that deals with fundings rather than hard national security issues. Thus placing him in such a critical position would only jeopardize American security while failing to provide an authority with considerable background on the front line of issues related to his post. 

Administrations will inevitably make mistakes as they seek to rule the country properly, yet on issues of defense, which effect all Americans, these errors are not so simple to correct once they occur. In the best interests of the nation, President Obama must refrain from costly decisions solely grounded with the intention of satisfying his friends' political aspirations. Should Panetta be moved to another post, it would most ideally be Agriculture Secretary, a post in which he can do minimal damage to national governance. 

Jessica Yi

National Alliance Vice Chairman

Poland: Our Rising Successor

After the ravaging of World War II and the horrific events of the Holocaust, one would hardly think that the nation most privy to Soviet invasions would resurge as such a formidable economic and eventual military force on the world stage. Though only humble now, Poland promises to add a respectable element to the international platform as it builds from the ashes of Russian dominance and embraces true freedom as well as is own destiny.

(Photo courtesy of PolishBlog.com) 

Besides Brazil, Poland is clearly the next best bet for world security in the remaining part of the 21st Century. The partial Slavic nation's armed forces are far larger than many of its EU region counterparts, and its commitment to free markets predicts a steady command in the future that may very well rise to replace--or at the very least repel, American dominance.

The surprisingly strong pro-conservative state in Poland is a boon to future efforts as it ensures that the nation does not become sidetracked by growing socialist movements to seize anything and all within the reaches of the State for its own uses.Compared to other countries in its sphere, the Polish  doctrine on markets is decidedly less government-centered, and it has a narrow record of instituting mass federal seizures that promote slow -moving structures and poor GDP rates. Inevitably this will be key to winning the future, as nations such as China have already taken hold of most resources and now operate as capitalist powerhouses.

All other issues aside, Poland's strong Roman Catholic base means it is not as partial to poisoning the social sphere with corrupted media placements or the prevalence of less-than-perfect role models as America has enjoyed over recent years, leaving it as a lasting conservative state which may very well undermine soulless liberalism that has steadily sapped America's social unity and long-term endurance.

In the age of  Islamic radicalism, Poland once more gives a solution with its religiousity  like few other nations can even begin to imagine. Extremism in the Middle East is starting to spill over into the Euro Zone, and only a concentrated rejection of its inane tenets will be enough to overcome the subtle infiltration. Poland can lead the way in such a manner that pushes back upon radicalism by upholding the principles of its great national pride and culture.

Along with Brazil, Poland offers a healthy alternative to the equally daunting prospects of a Russo-Turk-Chinese balance of power after America reaches its waterloo. Both countries offer stronger record on human rgihts and a belief in their people as the source of democracy--not a spitting upon it which is characteristic of all the other three nations likely to gain prominence. Our only hope is to firmly build allies who respect individual freedom as the tantamount to any government or national legitimacy.



Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues

Politics Over Truth

More than two years have passed since George W. Bush left the Oval Office to return to private life, and still his legacy remains one of unanswered questions and general uncertainty. The once ultra popular man went on a midterm spiral into the abyss of low polling before leaving office with scholars attempting to label him as one of the worst presidents of all time, and his rather timid responses to critics have done little to cut a swath and better explain the realities from his term of office. But while these are up in the air, it's important to make a note of several key policies and how they relate to his lower numbers during his tenure as commander-in-chief.

One, the issue of Iraq and the seeming failure of Whitehouse intelligence regarding WMDs is a factor used to malign Bush for his performance while in office. Unfortunately, this argument contains a number of massive holes which prevent it from being ideal against the testing of history. Not only did America discover chemicals weapons in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, but reports suggest a number of convoys that left Iraq for Syria in the months leading up to the invasion in 2003, as well as a mysterious Special Operations attack near the Lebanese border never fully acknowledged by the U.S. Government in which a number of elite forces are thought to have been massacred. Additionally, discoveries of partial weapons development made it clear that Hussein could have at the very least created the arms if necessary.

(Photo courtesy of BlogNewsService.com)

To address the ever-staggering claim that Bush did not respond enough to Hurricane Katrina it is important to note the legal ramifications which such a move might have had on his presidency. Authority for the deployment of federal troops must be authorized by the governor of the target state in writing, yet Kathleen Blanco refused to comply for several days, hanging out the president to dry while Louisianans suffered terribly. Despite repeated attempts in which he beseeched the governor to change her mind, no action came out of the executive's office until the damage had been done--both political and actual.

Possibly the final corner on which his detractors love operating is that the 43rd President allowed the financial markets to collapse in 2008 through his tax cut policies. Now, considering the involvement in two largely unavoidable wars, this was certainly expected, yet to lump the blame on the president is both short-sighted and unfair. Bush began in 2003 to urge Congress to pass dramatic regulations for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, yet the thin Republican majority in both houses was inadequate to accomplish the job. Democrats filibustered the attempts repeatedly, and denied the president support even when the came into office in 2007. Because (and thank God) the president is not a dictator, Bush was powerless to regulate the markets without Democrat support, and so they fell into a tailspin during his last few months in office.

George W. Bush may not turn out to be the greatest president of all time, yet without a shadow of doubt his legacy must be respected with the truth--not some poor excuse for partisan hit jobbery. If America wants to remain free, then it must have honest reporting and fair assessments; neither of which were given to the former president. It is time for some well-needed change.



Andrew Rimmer

National Alliance Vice President for Communications

A New American Doctrine

Since 2001, America has been in the trenches; our brave troops courageously fighting for the domestic security of all citizens and the ushering in of democratic principles in Afghanistan as well as throughout the Middle East. Our country has bled internally with countless lives lost, trillions spent, and history changed for the people of the Middle East; for the Arabs, Pakistanis and Muslims, a grand effort to unite and end violence between the West and the culture of the region once and for all. A mission embraced by leaders around the world--even at the expense of reelection campaigns.Above all, a policy of intervention in a zone that has broken the futures of some and molded public opinion regarding figureheads around the world. It could probably be fairly said that the Middle Eastern conflicts have made--or broken the popularity of so many American figureheads.



And what good has it done? Despite the sacrifice, the mere incident of a radical pastor choosing to burn a Muslim Qu'ran in Florida caused the Muslims to riot twice, murdering troves of children and continuing their vicious assaults on the soldiers in their country trying to give them a better life. We continue to give everything for these people, and the gratitude is non-existent. Considering how little America has gained out of the long-standing conflict, it suggests that perhaps the solution is rather simple: pull out and stop interfering. If their quality of life rots, then let them recover from it by themselves, be it under democracy as we would desire, or beneath the radicals, who they are so unwilling to reject.

Wondrous as this possibility might sound, it is of course unrealistic. American superpower status would inevitably devour hopes for a humbler foreign interventionist policy, leading us to once again stay plugged into the international stage. After all, as long as Americans desire the capitalist paradise, they will need to accept the fact it can only continue to exist if we are number 1--not third or fourth.

Instead of withdrawing however, here is the other option in front of the foreign policy table: use all colonies for resource and economic gain through the spread of American cultural statues. Sure, this quickly might draw the ire of those who oppose empires, yet why should America truly care? In the end, we give the most military aid worldwide, and the response is almost a uniform snubbing by the citizens in Europe and Asia. We strive to put their interests first. and they spit in our faces, so why continue with the helpful charade?

A cultural revolution run by America would help "win the future," to quote Barack Obama, by ensuring that foreign nations agree with American values--whether their current society does or not. Rather than the disastrous policy of today, this colonist mindset would ensure that the future generations in the Middle East adhered to a pro-West view instead of the hate that spews from their borders in the modern day. As with Lebanon, we would create a new state in which the anti-Westerners would be suppressed and slowly eliminated as more moderate families moved in a propogated, cutting off future threats to international security.

No solution is full proof as it relates to the Middle East, yet it would be far better to have a general fix to this costly problem than none at all. As long as we fight this war, it will cost us and gain very little. With the rise of American colonialism, this could very well change.



Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues