20
ETERNAL TRUTHS: AN EXAMINATION OF YAF’S GUIDING CONSERVATIVE/ LIBERTARIAN PRINCIPLES STRANGE BEDFELLOWS: ISLAMISM AND THE LEFT LIFE LIBERTY AND... HEALTHCARE? WHY OBAMACARE IS NOT A NATURAL RIGHT THE FIRST OF 2010 THE ELECTION OF SCOTT BROWN THE MAGAZINE OF YOUNG AMERICANS FOR FREEDOM WINTER 2010 VOLUME Thirty-Four NUMBER ONE $1.00 NEW GUARD

YAF New Guard Magazine Vol. 34 Issue 1

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

The New Guard Magazine is the offical publication of Young Americans for Freedom (YAF). This magazine disucsses the issues of the day while advocating for the principles of the Sharon Statement (www.yaf.com) indvidiaul civil liberties, limited government, stong national security, and upholding the constitution. We are the voice of the conservative youth!

Citation preview

Page 1: YAF New Guard Magazine Vol. 34 Issue 1

ETERNAL TRUTHS: AN EXAMINATION OF YAF’S GUIDING CONSERVATIVE/LIBERTARIAN PRINCIPLES

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS: ISLAMISM AND THE LEFT

LIFE LIBERTY AND...HEALTHCARE?WHY OBAMACARE IS NOT A NATURAL RIGHT

THE FIRST OF 2010THE ELECTION OF SCOTT BROWN

THE MAGAZINE OF YOUNG AMERICANS FOR FREEDOM

WINTER 2010VOLUME Thirty-Four

NUMBER ONE

$1.00NEW

GUARD

Page 2: YAF New Guard Magazine Vol. 34 Issue 1

IN THIS TIME of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of the youth of America to affirm certain eternal truths. WE, as young conservatives, believe: THAT foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force; THAT liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom; THAT the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;

THAT when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty; THAT the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power; THAT the genius of the Constitution—the division of powers—is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people, in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government; THAT the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs; THAT when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both; THAT we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies; THAT the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties; THAT the United States should stress victory over, rather than co-existence with, this menace; and

THAT American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?

In memory of William F. Buckley, Jr., our founder and longtime friend, whose life work we honor with our efforts today.

The Sharon StatementAdopted in conference at Sharon, Connecticut, on 11 September 1960, at the estate of William F. Buckley, Jr. (pictured on page 2)

THE New GuardTable of Contents

A Guiding LightOn Conservative/Libertarian principles// Christopher Bedford 1

American AwakeningOn the Tea Party movement// Michael Johns 4

Walking SoftlyOn Obama’s foreign policy // John Stapleton 6

Islamism and the Left On strange bedfellows// Phillip Smythand Brian Higdon 7

Life, Liberty, andHealthcare?On rights theory// Ramon Lopez 9

Hot, Flat, and CrowdedOn global warming hysteria // Joy Welborn 10

The Big Apple Circus On KSM civilian trials// Brad Marks 11

Alan Greenspan:The Good Shepherd?On the Fed// Lance Christopher 12

A New RevolutionOn the future of the movement// Tyler Perry 14

Brown from the Ground On the Scott Brown election// Brian Higdon 15

Today and TomorrowOn global hegemony// John Stapleton 16

The New Guard Cocktail On cheer and libation// Dane Nakamura 17

Note: The opinions expressed in this magazine are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the views held by the editors or the official position of YAF.

1925 - 2008

Page 3: YAF New Guard Magazine Vol. 34 Issue 1

Adopted in Conference at Sharon, Con-necticut, on September 11, 1960, the Sharon Statement is the guiding light of

the Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) and the staff at The New Guard. But it is not only this; it is also an incredible statement of tra-ditional Conservative thought that, if adhered to, can guide this country through the liberal storm and back to the Republic our Founding Fathers intended for us. When first presented at the home of William F. Buckley, the YAF founders felt it necessary to write:

“In this time of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of the youth of America to affirm certain eternal truths.”

The election of a quasi-socialist, hard Left president has re-invigorated young Conser-vatives across America, launching a renewed call for the founding American values of free market, free will, strong defense, personal lib-erty and adherence to the Constitution. The New Guard has returned to answer this call.

As concerned Americans fill the avenues of Washington and town halls across the coun-try; as university students begin to wonder if re-canned, tired old socialism is the “change” they were promised; and as conservative poli-ticians around the nation take back the states and districts they lost, YAFers and the staff at The New Guard will be hard at work. We will stand up beside you, as we did 50 years ago, against a political elite that believed Conser-vatism was dead and socialism was king, to affirm the following certain and eternal truths.

Below is presented the entirety of the Sha-ron Statement alongside commentary on its relevance and place today in a movement 50 years later.

“We, as young conservatives be-lieve: That foremost among the transcendent values is the individu-al’s use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force.”

The use of “God-given” is essential in this opening line. It pronounces that our individual free will comes from something greater than government. But at its core, this acknowledge-ment of an undeniable natural right that cannot

be given and must not be taken away, draws us deeper.

As conservatives, it is as important today as ever to remember that we are not simply a base creature made up of material needs, but we are a spiritual creature as well. These aspects of man—the spiritual and the economic—are in-tertwined and indivisible by any law or politi-cal philosophy that seeks to be in accordance with nature. Man’s greatest feature is his spirit. It sets him apart from common animals, and it is the mortal aspect of man’s spirit that makes

every person a unique individual, setting him apart from his peers. This truth helps expose the all-too-common collectivist attempts to speak for the “common” man—this mate-rial animal their schemes claim, falsely, in the name of kindness and humanity, to serve.

“That liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom.”

While the threat of forced nationalization is no longer imminent or realistic, politicians on both sides of the aisle continue to shackle the people, squandering their earnings on a bloat-ed welfare state, a sprawling federal bureau-cracy and a massive overseas presence. The costs of running this farcical utopia has lead to some citizens being made to spend half of their week as labor working for a government some falsely believe has a legitimate claim to as much of their wealth as it sees fit. Now members of the Left are pulling our health care into the grasp of government.

The late Senator Barry Goldwater once wrote that while their strategy has changed,

collectivists “understand that private property can be confiscated as effectively through taxa-tion as by expropriating it. They understand that the individual can be put at the mercy of the State, not only by making the state his em-ployer, but by divesting him of the means to provide for his personal needs and by giving the State the responsibility of caring for those needs from cradle to grave.”

As the fruits of our labor are redistributed by a supposedly benign state, our freedom to choose our future, own property, save money and better ourselves, our families and our communities is being taken away. We are, indeed, on what Frederick Hayek called “the road to serfdom.”

“That the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice.”

Though the State’s right to maintain order and administer justice is not questioned by any major party today, there is much to dis-cuss about the statement that comes between. Though no major parties today question that the government has a duty to defend the na-tion, the question of how the United States can best provide for the defense of our people, our land and our property has been on the minds of Conservatives since the days of our Revolu-tion. This question is ever more pertinent since the end of the Cold War and the launch of the Global War on Terror.

While conservatives in the tradition of Buckley and Goldwater demand a strong na-tional defense to combat our enemies around the world, the issue of how to use those forces is fiercely debated by right-wing sides as ex-tremely different as the Neo-Conservatives and the Libertarians. While different sides within the broader conservative movement argue over what must be done, it is largely ac-cepted that strong action and basic change—be it a massive or modest scaling back, or a redistribution of forces—is necessary. In the coming months and years, The New Guard will seek to air these differing views and its editors will do their best to help the Right grow in strength as a better understanding of the arguments and, eventually, a consensus is achieved.

A Guiding LightThe Sharon Statement, Past and Present // By Christopher Bedford

New Guard, Winter 2010 1

Page 4: YAF New Guard Magazine Vol. 34 Issue 1

“That when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty.”

Whether our heads of state mean well when they disregard the Constitution is irrelevant. As Hayek once warned in a speech before the Economic Club of Detroit, “The danger is the greater because we may choose the wrong way not by deliberation and concerted decision, but because we seem to be blundering into it.”

The danger he spoke of was one he, along with other members of the Austrian School of Economics, had witnessed firsthand in Ger-many and nearby Russia: reaching a state of totalitarianism through the increased govern-ment power necessary for central planning.

The dangers of enlargement and abuse of power were also witnessed firsthand by our Founding Fathers who, like the Austrian economists, were not simply enlightened stu-dents of history, but victims of history. They had witnessed the abuses of power flagrantly wielded by a government unafraid of its peo-ple and unchained by a constitution. Benjamin Franklin famously said to a concerned woman outside the Constitutional Delegation that the delegates had given the people “a Republic, if you can keep it.” The warnings of these men must be remembered and kept constantly in mind if we are to reclaim, and keep, ours.

“That the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering govern-ment to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentra-tion and abuse of power.”

Though not a perfect document, the Consti-tution is the nearest thing to perfect that man-made government has ever seen. Still, it fails if it is ignored. All Conservatives have heard the argument that the Constitution is old; its authors could not foresee the changes this country would go through and the stumbling blocks future gen-erations would face. This, alongside a warp-ing of the meanings of “the general welfare” clause and “interstate commerce,” has been used to justify every action from non-strategic foreign aid to the Department of Education, Roe v. Wade and the Left’s assault on gun rights.

Those who further this argument do so in blind ignorance or dark malice. The Founding Fathers were well aware of the changes of time and many were even wary for the present. That is why they wrote in the ability to amend the

Constitution—an ability that has been used, for better or for worse, and began with the Bill of Rights. Indeed, it is possible to change, but it is difficult and so not subject to the whims of a moody populace. This document must be followed to the letter if government is to fulfill its proper role and be restrained from concen-tration and abuse of power.

“That the genius of the Constitu-tion—the division of powers—is summed up in the clause that re-serves primacy to the several states, or to the people in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Fed-eral government.”

An essential weapon in the defense of lib-erty is the division of powers. It is not high-sounding rhetoric or promises on a piece of paper, but the competition of interests and in-ability of any power to control the entire gov-ernment, that safeguards our freedom. Limited government is not an abstraction, but a prac-tical guideline for how the Founding Fathers wanted the government constructed. And it was not a rhetorical device when they referred to themselves as citizens of their respective states. It is the essential characteristic of the Constitution.

Yet the sacred place of states’ rights has been swept away and is in more danger ev-ery day. The political will to stand up and reclaim what belongs to the states is lacking in the halls of power across the country. With the promise of “free money”—what Frédéric Bastiat called “legal plunder”—Congress bends the will of governors. Be it for roads or education, the end game is the government in Washington spending money it should not have on people and states that should have al-ready had that money had it not been taxed by Washington in the first place. These states and people then must become the beggar who is allowed to use the money at the discretion of their “generous” taskmasters in Washington. This must end.

“That the market economy, allocat-ing resources by the free play of sup-ply and demand, is the single eco-nomic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs.”

The right to life, liberty, and property is one of the revolutionary cries of our forefathers. The desire for wealth leads to innovation, and the desire by others to make money off those innovations leads to competition. People have a moral right to the fruits of their labor that government should not be able to take away. In practical terms, the market economy also brings about a higher quality of product, as entrepreneurs compete with one another to de-liver the greatest value to the consumer.

The more the government steps away and removes heavy regulation from this organic system, the more entrepreneurship grows. The more freedom people have, the better the economy functions. People know what they need and want, and businesses will create and provide accordingly.

More importantly, the government does not have an unlimited mandate to confiscate the wealth its citizens have created, nor does it have the right to force its citizens into economic serfdom by making them work to pay ever higher tax-es. The free market is not just the most e ff ic ien t eco-

2 New Guard, Winter 2010

Page 5: YAF New Guard Magazine Vol. 34 Issue 1

nomic system it is the only moral economic system.

“That when government interferes with the work of the market econo-my, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation, that when it takes from one to bestow on another, it diminishes the incen-tive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both.”

As Conservatives we believe that it is man’s spiritual side—rather than his material—that makes him great. In a nation as charitable as ours, to steal from a man’s neighbor to prop him up crushes the spirit of both men and, in-deed, makes villains of their government.

“That we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citi-zens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies.”

In a world where even so-called “conser-vative” leaders are calling for a New Order, more global treaties, and an ever-expanding European Union, it is important for the United States to assert itself as separate, untangled and unbowed. Not succumbing to the false, utopian promises of world government is nec-essary to the survival of our liberties.

Just as we must insist on states’ rights to guarantee our freedom, so too must we insist on national sovereignty to prevent our Consti-tution from being subverted by global treaties and international authorities that the American people cannot hold to account. There is no authority in this country higher than the Con-stitution and no international authority, inter-national law or global public opinion can take away the sovereignty of the American people.

Ronald Reagan once said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protect-ed and handed on for them to do the same.” Conservatives today must be ready to continue this fight.

“That the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these lib-erties; [and] that the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistence with this menace.”

When the authors of the Sharon Statement

wrote this clause they were well aware of the current global-political climate and believed that, were their ideas on strong national de-fense to be followed, the current political cli-mate would someday change for the better. They, therefore, wisely included the phrase “at present,” thereby using “the forces of in-ternational Communism” as a placeholder in the Statement with the ability to change as the ever shifting, but always focused, enemies of liberty changed shape.

And though the forces of international Communism are no longer the threat they once were, much can be gained from our pre-decessor’s strategies on dealing with those Hydra’s heads that have arisen in its place to attack the tenets of classical liberalism.

In today’s complex world, the international danger comes not only from the Reds, but from any totalitarian state and movement any-where. Be it Venezuela or Iran, the men and armies who crush freedom and reign bloodily over their people mean harm not simply to the world but to the very ideal of liberty we hold dear. We must continue to see these enemies of democracy for what they are—despots, whether they carry the banners of Stalinism or Islamic Fundamentalism. And, as in our previous battles, co-existence may at times seem comfortable and alluring, but ultimately our enemies know they are at war and fight for victory—every day we ignore their menacing tenacity is a day they grow in strength and we are weakened. Our greatest weapons against the Red Menace were our love of liberty, our powerful military and our will to fight. These characteristics will lead us to triumph in the coming battles again and again.

“And that American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?”

Amen, and welcome to The New Guard 2010.

Christopher Bedford, 23, is the executive edi-tor of The New Guard. He is a 2008 gradu-ate of American University in Washington, DC, where he received his bachelor’s degree in written journalism with a minor in world politics. He has also reported for HSToday, The American Observer and The American University Eagle.

This article was contributed to by YAF Nation-al Director Nicole Gonzalez-Knowlton.

THE New GuardContributors

Executive EditorChristopher Bedford

PublisherJordan Marks

EditorJohn Stapleton

Layout DesignEmily Dalpiaz & Darin Miller

Cover DesignJoe Rotondi

IllustratorsDr. Mysterious & Co.

Editorial AssistantsNicole Gonzalez-Knowlton

& Eva Moreno

YAF National ChairmanErik Johnson

The New Guard, Vol. 34, No. 1, Winter 2010. The New Guard is published quarterly by

Young Americans for Freedom.

For subscription orders, payments, donations, and other subscription inquiries:

By Phone: 202-596-7923

By Internet: www.YAF.com

By Mail: Young Americans for Freedom 2300 M Street, NW

Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20037

Article Submissions, inquiries and letters to the editor should be sent to Christopher

Bedford at [email protected].

For advertising sales contact [email protected]

This issue went to press on January 31, 2010.

Copyright 2010 ©Young Americans for Freedom

Young Americans for Freedom is a non-profit organization and depends entirely on the generosity of its members and alumni.

New Guard, Winter 2010 3

Page 6: YAF New Guard Magazine Vol. 34 Issue 1

It is the distinction of our nation that nearly every generation of Americans has been called to defend the liberties fought

for—and won by—America’s founding fa-thers. The liberties promised us on July 4, 1776 have proven unmatched in this world: a rule of law, guaranteed by the Constitution, that ensures liberty to each American born to this nation since. And while the United States owes its comparatively rapid geopolit-ical and economic ascent to many things, it is the freedom of America and Americans that has been at the core of this greatness.

Since the American Revolution, the un-derlying common denominator in American history has been a brave and rugged Ameri-can people continually resisting the en-croachment of tyranny at home and abroad. This, in short, has proven the American story.

For those Americans living in these earli-est days of the 21st century, this history lives on. Asked in October 2009 what part of the Constitution empowered the American fed-eral government to require all Americans to purchase health insurance, as called for in Congress’ health care legislation, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi summarized the extent of our current challenge, respond-ing, ”Are you serious?” It is just one of many examples of a nation whose political leader-ship has devolved from merely distorting the Constitution, as was done with many Ameri-can liberal initiatives in the late 20th century, to those that now forthrightly dismiss its very relevance.

In 2009, consistent with this history of resisting the greatest threats and encroach-ments on our liberty, the statist enemies of liberty again met with resistance. The American Tea Party movement has marked a reawakening for the nation, which in a mere year has gone from being sold nebu-lous promises of “hope” and “change” to re-alizing—as it has historically—that the true greatness of our nation is not what our gov-ernment does, but the climate of liberty that it creates for its citizens.

To be sure, we are still in the early chap-ters of the Tea Party movement. Will it be a transforming, historical movement that re-

news and regenerates a deep appreciation for limited government and Constitutionally-protected liberties, or will it prove a transient one that impacts the debate for a short period of time but has no enduring impact or influ-ence? The answer to that question rests in what this movement does next.

But what has it done so far? Whatever the future holds, this much is sure: it is the Tea Party movement, not the Republican Party or traditional Washington, D.C.-based conser-vative institutions, that has held the Obama agenda at bay this past year. This administra-

tion has held sway over all three branches of government since January 2009. In that year, the Obama administration and its Congres-sional allies pursued some of the most ambi-tious challenges to America’s Constitutional liberties. But it is a tribute to the influence of the nation’s Tea Party movement that few of these threatening initiatives were adopted. In fact, by early 2010, each appeared greatly on the defensive.

The origins of the Tea Party movement date back to 2008, even before the November 2008 election. But the movement blossomed nationally on April 15, 2009 with hundreds of Tea Party protests across the nation in nearly every major city and community. Throughout 2009, some five million Ameri-cans attended several thousand Tea Party events. Perhaps even more impressively, the movement made remarkable progress in

winning the hearts and minds of the Ameri-can people, including those who did not con-sider themselves members of the movement. A series of polls showed that the Tea Party agenda is embraced by the American peo-ple. According to a 2009 Rasmussen Poll, a majority of Americans, 51 percent, viewed the Tea Party movement either “favorably” or “very favorably” and there clearly exists upside potential for continued growth in this popularity as the movement matures in the year to come.

What has drawn Americans to the Tea Party movement? In my year-long, exten-sive interaction with the movement, I find it is a deeply-held (and accurate) belief that the bridge between the American people and its government, unstable as it may always have been, has been utterly severed. With each passing year, the federal government has taken on new and vastly enhanced func-tional responsibilities. With many of them, it has been the political self-interest of central-ized power and dependency, not the underly-ing interests of the nation, that has motivated our lawmakers and governmental bureaucra-cies. Increasingly, government has grown more and more distant from the people who elected it. Members of Congress have more routinely dodged the will of the people and done more and more to conceal accountabil-ity for their actions and their ensuing rami-fications.

Like the American people themselves, the Tea Party movement has not seen much to like in its federal government—and, as the movement has progressed, millions more Americans have been drawn to it. In the pro-cess, it has become something of an enigma to the Washington establishment, which is unaccustomed to mass grassroots outpour-ings of opposition manifesting so quickly and effectively with minimal resources. Also, while the Republican Party is increas-ingly looking with favor upon the Tea Party movement, there exists a universal disap-pointment among Tea Party activists that the Republican Party has not done more to hold back the massive growth and intrusive-ness of our federal government. It is true that there exist many good, liberty-loving elected officials in the U.S. Congress. But it is also true that, despite their efforts, they have failed to reverse the troubling course of our government.

While its numbers have grown (and con-tinue to grow), however, the Tea Party move-

American AwakeningOn the Rise, Challenges and Future of the Tea Party Movement //By Michael Johns

“Since theAmerican Revolution, the under-lying common denomi-nator in American his-tory has been a brave and rugged American people continually re-sisting the encroach-ment of tyranny at home and abroad.”

4 New Guard, Winter 2010

Page 7: YAF New Guard Magazine Vol. 34 Issue 1

ment also faces growth pains. Unlike many grassroots political movements, whose lead-ers’ passion exceeds those they lead, the Tea Party movement has faced almost the op-posite challenge: Its grassroots have been strong, but its leadership has been less de-veloped, resisting much-needed collabora-tion and sometimes demonstrating a politi-cal naiveté that represents a challenge to the movement’s continued growth. And while national conservative and libertarian orga-nizations have tried to ride (and direct) Tea Party momentum, they too have often failed to connect with the grassroots foundation of the movement. To meet the next stage of its growth challenges, this issue of representa-tive, accountable and inclusive leadership may well be the movement’s greatest chal-lenge.

As the Tea Party movement has grown, however, it does have a foundation of unifi-cation around core principles that likely will define its agenda and tactics in the year and years to come.

First, there is universal belief among the Tea Party movement that America is unique among nations of the world and that its freedom, while treasured, is by no means guaranteed. The movement sees the existing federal government as being insufficiently protective of state and individual rights. It is committed to seeing some more routine

process, such as the Enumerated Powers Act, that would require the administration and Congress to evaluate and explain the constitutionality of its administrative and legislative actions before, not after, their implementation.

Second, the Tea Party movement seems well-positioned to be the biggest driving force in the 2010 congressional and 2012 presidential and congressional elections. A movement that succeeded in holding Wash-ington’s worst policies at bay for a year now seems committed to removing those mem-bers of Congress who have been unrespon-sive to its core concerns. In all probability, as the election of Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts demonstrated, this means that candidates embracing the Tea Party move-ment and its associated policies can likely win anywhere in the nation—and are posi-tioned to do so.

Finally, as the Tea Party movement as-cends to a position of major political rel-evance across the nation, it also appears poised to have a major impact not only on the nation’s policy debate but on both ma-jor political parties. Liberals in both parties first ignored the Tea Party movement, even as its size, passion and commitment became abundantly evident to others. It then sought to minimize and discredit the movement, but that failed to work either. Now, forced with

facing the reality of the Tea Party move-ment’s enduring influence, the message being conveyed is that the movement’s ul-timate impact will be to divide the Repub-lican Party in ways that prove beneficial to Democrats.

But this is highly unlikely. The more probable outcome is that the Republican Party, and its elected officials and candi-dates, will endeavor to understand and em-brace the Tea Party movement, making the Grand Old Party a more liberty-oriented party that becomes less complicit in taxation and the mass growth of our federal govern-ment—and, in so doing, develops a broader political embrace of the American people. Perhaps the ultimate question is whether it also has a similar impact on the Democrats, making that largely liberal party more cen-trist. Whichever the case, the engagement of many millions of dedicated Tea Party activ-ists into the political process seems likely to be a major factor in changing the Congres-sional makeup in 2010 and beyond in ways that rivals, and even exceeds, the election of 2008.

Michael Johns, a former White House speechwriter, Heritage Foundation policy analyst and editor of The New Guard, is chairman of the Patriot Caucus—a national Tea Party organization.

New Guard, Winter 2010 5

Page 8: YAF New Guard Magazine Vol. 34 Issue 1

Obama’s First Year on the World Stage

// By John Stapleton

Throughout the presidential campaign of 2008, then candidate Barack Obama promised to “restore our standing in

the world.” He was implying that President George Bush was so unpopular with citizens of other countries, that governments of for-eign states were starting to think that Amer-ica had lost its edge on the world stage and could no longer be seen as a nation willing to cooperate in a multi-lateral fashion.

There were several events and actions that led the Obama camp to use this as a political tool. George W. Bush had, among other things, launched wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, held enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, nixed the Kyoto Protocol Treaty and strongly advocated for the advancement of de-mocracy abroad. As President Bush’s approval rating declined at home, his critics attacked, espousing the belief that being the anti-Bush candidate must mean the world would gladly align with the U.S. on many of the objectives that American Leftists desired. These goals included the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, the closing of Guantanamo Bay, a global warming treaty that the international community could unite behind and showing to the world that America is not interested in telling other governments how to run their countries—a blatant swipe at democracy promotion. We are now a full year into Presi-dent Obama’s tenure and it appears that it is, in fact, his administration that is damaging America’s standing in the world.

On his arrival to the Oval Office, Presi-dent Obama immediately demoted the War on Terror on his list of priorities. Only two days after being sworn in, the president or-dered the closing of the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay, with the goal of having the terrorists moved to another location within the year. The administra-tion claims that the existence of the prison itself is the best recruiting tool for future ji-hadists. This is flawed thinking. There were no al-Qaeda terrorists being housed at that

facility before the attacks on September 11. Telling the American people that Guanta-namo needs to be shut down because it will dent al-Qaeda’s recruiting campaign demon-strates an extremely naïve grasp of contem-porary history. What inspired the bombing of the USS Cole, the embassies in Africa, the Khobar Towers or even the first attack on the World Trade Center? It wasn’t the existence of a prison for terrorists. Guantanamo Bay should not be closed.

The administration has also banned its members from even uttering the phrase “war on terror.” This was, to the amusement of many, followed by the dubbing of terror attacks as “man-caused disasters.” And the administration has decided that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and friends should stand trial in civilian court instead of a military tribunal,

granting them the very same constitutional rights designed to protect America’s citizens and legal residents, not its enemies. All of this was done to show the world that Amer-ica is out to make peace and not war so that others would not yearn to attack us. Yet on Christmas Day a man trained by al-Qaeda in Yemen boarded a plane with the intent of blowing it up. If it were not for several courageous passengers who stopped him, that could have been one giant “man-caused disaster” in the sky.

Regarding a global warming treaty, Presi-dent Obama represented the U.S. at a climate change summit in Copenhagen at a time when many around the world were finally starting to see that CO2 emissions from hu-man activity are not having an effect on an ever-changing climate. Mojib Latif, a pro-fessor at Kiel University in Germany and one of the world’s leading experts on climate change, believes that the world may see sus-tained cooling over the next thirty years be-

fore the warming starts again. The left uses this issue to try and pass big government policies and suggest that those who stand in the way do not care for the environment. While Al Gore and others fly around the world in their fuel-exhausting jets preaching energy conservation, it is becoming clearer and clearer that the world’s climate is con-stantly changing and its future is unpredict-able. President Obama was humiliated at Copenhagen for not coming away with any sort of substantive agreement after the Chi-nese refused to sign on to any binding deal that would drastically curb their emissions.

After a year of promising to not only en-gage our friends, but also our enemies, the Ayatollahs in Iran are closer than ever to ac-quiring a nuclear weapon. President Obama and his team graciously extended their hand

to the Iranians, hoping to achieve a dip-lomatic accord, only to have that hand slapped away. Within the past year the Iranians have admitted to having a secret underground uranium plant near the city of Qum, declared their intent to build ten more nuclear facilities and have held a rigged election where candidates were vetted, women were prohibited from running and protesters were shot at and beaten in the streets when they tried to voice opposition to the results of an un-fair process.

Once provided an opportunity to stand with democratic activists who challenged

the Ayatollahs in the streets of Tehran, the administration chose to remain almost silent, stating that the U.S. should not “meddle” in another state’s affairs. Meanwhile the world was able to see how oppressive and brutal the Iranian regime really is when they turned the police and the Revolutionary Guard on their own people. Imagine that same regime with a nuclear weapon.

There are many other issues facing Presi-dent Obama and others yet to come. In his first year, he has so far chosen to walk softly. If he wants the U.S. to continue being re-spected by both allies and enemies, he better pick up a stick.

John Stapleton, 27, is an editor for The New Guard. He is a 2009 graduate of American University, where he earned an M.A. in po-litical science with a concentration in com-parative politics. John has also written for the AU College Republican’s newsletter, The Right Wing.

Walking Softly

6 New Guard, Winter 2010

Page 9: YAF New Guard Magazine Vol. 34 Issue 1

Following the terrorist attacks of Sep-tember 11, 2001, the world has been a silent witness to a strange synthesis

of the far-Left and radical Islamism. The two ideologies couldn’t be more different, if not diametrically opposed to each other. How could the expressly atheistic system of Com-munism, which destroyed Islamic Khanates in Central Asia, oppressed Muslim Uighurs in China and fought the Mujahadeen in Af-ghanistan, find common cause to not only coexist with, but support and work with, radical Islamists? Islamists, such as the late Ayatollah Khomeini who even went so far as to say, “I despise the treacherous grouplets, whether communist or Marxist … I consider them traitors to the country, to Islam.”

The Arabian proverb, “My enemy’s en-emy is my friend,” speaks volumes about the alliance of far-Leftists and Islamists. To an outside observer, it would seem that the left has embraced an incomprehensible level of Neolithic incompetence. With friends like this, who needs enemies? Nevertheless, the confluence of interests between these two radical groups is enough to create a strong bond. The totality of both ideologies—their nihilistic drive to destroy liberal democratic systems, Christianity and the West—is para-mount to understanding their current alli-ance.

The fundamental precepts of Islamism, a political-religious movement, have been embraced by groups attempting to awaken the masses, advocating a regression back to Islam and away from the secular West-ern philosophies they blame for the region’s misfortune. The left often holds the West in contempt and blames Western governments and societies for troubles in other global re-gions. Islamists get to play victim while the Leftists act as self-arranged allies to the per-ceived Islamic “victim-group.”

Unlike the utopian Islamist worldview, Western society and government, inspired by the Enlightenment, were developed as two separate entities with religion omitted from the latter. Thomas Jefferson constructed the American Declaration of Independence with a foundation established in the precepts of John Locke—religion existing as a private affair for men and absent from the work-ings of government. These classically liberal principles of government are rooted in man’s potential to exercise sound reason in the ab-sence of religion, which is said to corrupt the discourse and free flow of ideas. These con-cepts form some of the basic ideals for the separation of church and state. On the other hand, Islamic states thrive in a condition which has no basis in a constitution of indi-vidual rights. Instead, faith is placed in tra-

ditional Islamic texts to dictate the societal life. And in the radical Left, individualism is to be replaced by communalism as dictated by Marx, Lenin or Mao. The Muslim world doesn’t function in schisms of fiscal years and seasonal Christian holidays, but rather views reality by millennia with a basis in history, the Quran and Allah. As with their Islamic brothers-in-arms, the Left sees the world in elongated phases, all leading up to an eventual revolution or a Trotskyite con-tinuous revolution.

The shared anti-capitalism of the far-Left and the Islamists is also noteworthy. In July, 2009, Hizb ut-Tahrir (Party of Liberation), a Sunni Islamist party calling for a global ca-liphate and the imposition of Shariah Law, held a conference in suburban Chicago. Former members of the group include A-list terrorists such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (a man responsible for the deaths of thousands across the Middle East) and 9/11 architect Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. One of the high-lights of the conference was a video presen-tation entitled, “The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam.” The movie offered half-baked explanations as to why capitalism was evil, accusing the system of free enterprise for causing World War I and II. The movie even included a line that could come directly from a 1968 edition of Pravda: “[Capitalism] was and is responsible for all of the wars and terrorism in the world.” The “expert” who lends his credibility to this farce is none

Islamism and the LeftTwenty-First Century Bedfellows / / By Phillip Smyth and Brian Higdon

New Guard, Winter 2010 7

“The fundamental precepts of Islamism have been embraced

by groups attempting to awaken the masses, advocating a regres-

sion back to Islam and away from the secular Western philosophies they blame for the re-

gion’s misfortune.”

Page 10: YAF New Guard Magazine Vol. 34 Issue 1

other than Charles Lewis, a former “60 Min-utes” producer who founded the Center for Public Integrity and is a journalism professor at American University.

With the rise of post-Christian and post-theism that is now gripping the West, Islam, the all encompassing religion, is seen as a welcome and exotic ideology. Additionally, to the far-Left, Muslims are simply seen as the “oppressed.” In a system that values be-ing “counter-culture,” Islam, especially in its radicalized forms, is welcomed with open arms. 1970s leftist and arch-terrorist Illich Ramirez Sánchez (A.K.A. “Carlos the Jack-al”) went so far as to convert to Islam and claim in his recent book that he had embraced a new, “revolutionary Islam,” which “attacks the ruling classes in order to achieve a more equitable redistribution of wealth.” Karl Marx once stated that “the social principles of Christianity preach cowardice, self-con-tempt, abasement, submission, humility, in a word all the qualities of the canaille.” When juxtaposed to Osama bin Laden’s statement that “every Muslim, from the moment they realize the distinction in their hearts, hates Americans, hates Jews and hates Christians. For as long as I can remember, I have felt tormented and at war, and have felt hatred and animosity for Americans,” it is easy to see a connection of ideals.

The Islamist Hamas is the leading militant group in the struggle against the “Western” Israel and is fawned over by the far-Left. Supporters of Code Pink even went so far as to attempt the delivery of a “peace letter” from Hamas to President Obama. This was despite the fact that Hamas’ charter openly states that, “Israel … will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it” and “there is no solution for the Palestinian question ex-cept through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”

The newly reorganized Students for Dem-ocratic Society (SDS) urges its followers to “end the occupations now: Iraq, Afghani-stan, Palestine.” One SDS organizer went on to say, “The Afghan people have a right to self-determination, and a right to live in a country that is not being constantly bombed by U.S. and NATO forces.” In keeping with the far-Leftist tradition of myopia, the Tal-iban’s and al-Qaida’s actions of deliberately targeting civilians are ignored. The fact that those heavily armed groups would destroy any legitimate, popular quests for self-deter-

mination is of little concern—America and the West are the evil ones.

The far-Left’s obsession with granting chosen groups victimhood has amounted to their imposition of a permanent victim sta-tus on the Muslim population of the Middle East. During the Danish cartoon controversy, Professor Deepa Kumar stated, in a 2006 edition of the socialist Monthly Review, that she was “fed up with an anti-war movement in the United States that will do nothing to defend Muslims against all the attacks they have faced both domestically and interna-tionally.” Let us forget the 2003 anti-war protest in Oakland, California where one speaker was quoted saying he was there to

fight the “wave of jingoism and anti-Muslim propaganda.” This is simply not good enough for the Left. Who cares if a 2007 Newsweek poll showed that most Americans view Muslim-Americans as a peaceable minor-ity? America’s interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo to save the Muslims of those coun-tries must be yet another example of Western intransigence. Islamists, whether they are burning down a Danish embassy, exploding themselves on crowded buses or ethnically cleansing Christian neighborhoods in Bagh-dad are merely reacting to Western oppres-sion. They are the real victims.

Even though the left decries the West’s so-called human-rights abuses, any group that has adopted a pro-American outlook or “looks too Western,” is usually neglected or ignored. There is no outcry by the far-Left regarding the condition, nor quests for self-determination by the pro-U.S. Assyrian, Chaldean or Syriac Christians in Iraq. While

only forming three to five percent of the Iraqi population, those groups make up half of all refugees from Iraq. The far-Left-Islamist al-liance is further deepened by the fact that Islamists work to kill and convert, cleans-ing the Middle East of its Christian popu-lation. The Western based far-Leftists find Christianity equally distasteful, outdated and more dangerous than Islam. Christian is equated with being Western, despite the fact that these Middle Eastern Christian groups are both native and oppressed, they are ex-plained away in Leftist doublespeak as mere agents of Western-Christian imperium.

Professional pontificator and MIT lin-guistics professor Noam Chomsky stated in 2002, “Jingoism, racism, fear, religious fundamentalism: these are the ways of ap-pealing to people if you’re trying to organize a mass base of support for policies that are really intended to crush them.” A little over four years later, Chomsky picked a great way to demonstrate his hatred of “jingoism, rac-ism fear, [and] religious fundamentalism” when he was led around Lebanon by the an-ti-Semitic, religiously fundamentalist terror-ist group Hizballah (note: Hizballah means “Party of God”). While Chomsky claims to be a libertarian socialist, he chose to align with a group that wishes to push the Iranian version of Islamist totalitarianism (wilayat al-faqih) on pluralistic Lebanon. Chomsky, who railed against the “deep racism of West-ern culture,” even made an appearance on al-Manar, Hizballah’s telivision network. In 2004, the network received international condemnation for its airing of “Al-Shatat” (“The Diaspora”). The show featured Jews ritualistically slitting the neck of a Christian boy, in order to use his blood for matzo, and forming cabals to control the world.

Many within the realms of Left and far-Left have taken ideological satisfaction in aligning the situation in Iraq and the broader Middle East to misjudgments by the Bush administration in the decision to invade. The reality which exists, and that which unfolded on the lap of U.S. forces from 2001 to the present, is due to the massive anti-Western storm which has been embraced by the far Left and Islamic societies to achieve their prospective goals. Often individuals fall victim to societal dogma and lofty pretens-es which blind them from truth, producing a twisted vision of reality. As the far-Left and Islamist alliance becomes more amal-gamated, it has demonstrated a clear real-

8 New Guard, Winter 2010

“To thefar-Left, Muslimsare simply seen as

the ‘oppressed.’ In a system that values

being ‘counter-culture,’ Islam,especially in its

radicalized forms,is welcomed with

open arms.”

Page 11: YAF New Guard Magazine Vol. 34 Issue 1

Life, Liberty,and Healthcare?/ / By Ramon Lopez

As the debate over health care continues, it has become commonplace to label health-care as a fundamental human right. Sup-

porters of the president’s health care plan argue that because we have the right to life we also have the right to health care, as without it our life could end due to inadequate coverage. While on its face this argument seems sound, if we look into rights theory we will see that no, health care is not a human right, and rather than using emotional rhetoric to pass the healthcare bill it should be debated on its merits and the effects it will have on our country.

First, what is a human right? What do we mean when we are talking about natural, inalien-able rights? A human right is one that we have simply by virtue of our being human. Whether derived from God or nature, our Founding Fa-thers believed that there are certain basic rights that all people naturally enjoy and that are not given to them by the government. If the gov-ernment has the power to distribute these rights then it also has the power to take these rights away. The idea that we derive our rights from a higher power, from a greater law than that of the state, was at the time a revolutionary con-cept. This belief is one of the rationales behind

the Bill of Rights, which is essentially meant to protect us against infringement by the state and is a list of things the government cannot do.

If human rights are rights that we enjoy with-out the state, then they cannot rely on the state to exist. If they are derived from the state, then countries like Sudan and Burma are perfectly justified in murdering their own citizens because they have not granted their people the right to life or liberty. The truth is that we have the right to life because we are naturally alive; we have the right to liberty because we are naturally free; and we have the right to pursue property be-cause we possess the natural faculties to reason and exercise our potential.

These are called negative rights, as they are rights against infringement (e.g. Bob is prohib-ited from acting in some way towards Mary). While these rights may be infringed upon with-out the state to protect them, they still norma-tively exist because we are autonomous, ratio-nal creatures that have decision-making powers over our own lives.

Healthcare cannot be a natural right because it requires the government to create it. These types of rights are called positive rights and are essentially entitlements (eg: Bob is obliged to act in some way towards Mary). Positive rights are rights artificially created by society in order to benefit the people of that society, and include things like public education, marriage, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. For public-run health care to exist, it would require govern-ment to obligate some people to help pay for other people’s healthcare. We do not naturally have the right to healthcare because it requires other people to pay for it, meaning the state must involve itself. Positive rights ought to be debated on their merits and whether they benefit society, but the “right” to things like healthcare does not exist unless first created by the govern-ment, and it is, therefore, not a human right.

A core problem with the modern American left is that it sees all human wants and needs as rights. If we blur the lines between positive and negative rights then we must turn govern-ment into the necessary distributor of our rights. Not only that, but we will lose ourselves in an ever-expanding obligatory welfare state. Some people do not have or are not satisfied with, their healthcare: therefore we should have govern-ment-funded healthcare programs. Some people do not have, or are not satisfied with, their hous-ing situation: therefore we should have govern-ment-funded housing programs. Some people do not have, or are not satisfied with, their food: therefore we should have government-funded feeding programs. The Left’s infinite grasp ig-nores the reality of a finite monetary situation and will eventually bankrupt any state.

As we expand our “rights” we dilute them, eventually losing our quality of living altogeth-er. As Margaret Thatcher said, “Socialism works until you run out of other people’s money.” Nothing in life is free, and all these programs come at a heavy price. They cost us our wealth, our standard of living, and, eventually, our liber-ties.

Ramon Lopez, 20, is a junior at the University of Central Florida majoring in international rela-tions and philosophy.

ity which exists in today’s global arena, and has existed for decades in the convoluted shadows of politics. This new actuality of the convergence of totalitarian ideologies is a growing threat to peaceful liberal de-mocracy. To our foes, the world is black and white. The Islamists see those not embracing their ideology as living in a state of “jahili-yyah” (ignorance), while the Leftists divide the world between oppressive bourgeoisie and oppressed proletariat. To many in both ideologies, the opposing group is to be mili-tantly destroyed. As the United States, a

leader in liberal democracy, we should em-brace nations and individuals who support the empowerment of citizenry to flourish through man’s ability to exercise his rational potential. We must realize, as a human race, that if those who love freedom cannot find a solution, those who don’t will.

Phillip Smyth, 22, is a senior at Suffolk Uni-versity in Boston. He is a freelance journalist and makes frequent trips to Lebanon and the broader Middle East. He specializes in the study of Middle Eastern Christian commu-

nities, regional nationalisms and Lebanese politics. Phillip has extensive connections with many Middle Eastern political leaders and has served as an adviser to a number of regional NGO’s and political groups.

Brian Higdon, 24, is a sophomore at Suf-folk University in Boston and a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps. With the Marines, he successfully completed two deployments in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He most recently served as a volunteer for the Scott Brown campaign.

New Guard, Winter 2010 9

YAFers counterprotesting Senator Burris at MoveOn.org candlelight vigil for death of government-run healthcare

Page 12: YAF New Guard Magazine Vol. 34 Issue 1

M y curiosity was piqued when I learned that Hot, Flat, and Crowded was my freshman summer reading. For all the

global warming debates swirling around aca-demic communities these days, I personally had done very little research on the subject. I picked up the book with an open mind, prepared myself to think critically about this divisive issue and began to read. What I found was extremely alarming. But it wasn’t the environment that concerned me. Rather, I was troubled after reading Hot, Flat, and Crowded because of the distorted view and inconsistencies I saw repre-sented therein. I questioned Thomas Friedman’s supposed global crisis and his solutions for the environment; so, to gain a well-rounded viewpoint with which to compare and contrast both sides of the issue, I also read Chris-topher C. Horner’s The Politically In-correct Guide to Global Warming and Roy W. Spencer’s Climate Confusion. Here are my thoughts based on the combination of these readings.

First, Friedman asserts that there is a “consensus” among “knowledge-able” scientists that harmful, man-made global warming is occurring. He acknowledges—in a highly simplified list that stereotypes everyone oppos-ing global warming—that there is a “small minority” of scientists, “who have looked at the data and conclud-ed for different reasons that the rapid and extensive increase in greenhouse gas emissions since the Industrial Revolution is not a major threat to the planet’s livability.” Friendman accuses these scientists of muddying the issue of climate change and preventing drastic “save-the-world” action. I disagree with this entire line of thought. Is “consensus” to be valued in the scientific community? After all, if a consensus was all that was needed to prove the validity of scientific theories, we would still believe the earth was flat. Just as Galileo was persecuted for his heliocentric theory, is it possible that scientists today are refrain-ing from voicing their doubts about global

warming in order to avoid being belittled in books like Hot, Flat, and Crowded? A “con-sensus” proves nothing—science is not a democracy.

Second, Hot, Flat, and Crowded men-tiones multiple times how the earth’s sur-face temperature has drastically risen in the past few decades. Since it is impossible to measure every area of the earth, the earth’s surface temperature is simply an average of temperatures collected from weather stations

around the world. In order to understand the global mean temperature, we must first look at where the temperatures are coming from. From 1989-1992, the beginning of the “hot-test decade” ever, the Soviet Union was col-lapsing. This lead to thousands of Russian measuring stations closing, as well as many other stations around the world. Because many of the closed stations were in Sibe-ria and other cold-weather areas, the global mean temperature naturally rose. Hence, global warming!

According to graphs from the past cen-tury, global temperature is constantly shift-ing. The world warmed from 1895-1940, cooled from 1940-1975, warmed from 1975 to 1998, and is currently in a cooling trend, comparatively. The weather we are experi-encing now is neither historically unusual nor unprecedented.

Finally, the solutions put forth by Thomas Friedman and the government are unrealistic and crippling at best, and absolutely cata-

strophic for the U.S. economy at worst. The overall cost required to implement the “solutions” would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars. The overall effect would maybe be a reduction in the earth’s surface temperature of a hun-dredth-of-a-degree-Celsius over a period of many years. If, based on the substantial doubts I’ve briefly mentioned above, there is no cause for global warming alarm, and the cost to the economy would be ab-solutely fatal to the United States. Tighter, unbearable regulations would force businesses to move to countries such as India and China, thereby negating our attempt to re-duce CO2 in the atmosphere.

The global warming alarmist campaign is a highly politicized campaign rooted in big govern-ment ideals. For the purpose of ad-vancing more government regula-tions, Hot, Flat, and Crowded and global warming advocates ignore simple, obvious facts. The left’s

disregard for scientific evidence is a discred-it to science. Fortunately, independent-think-ing American individuals can recognize the logical fallacies Thomas Friedman and other global warming advocates routinely assume.

Joy Welborn, 18, is a freshman at George Washington University where she is major-ing in political communications. Beyond YAF, she is a member of the College Republi-cans, GW Republican Women and the Young Americans Foundation.

Hot , Flat, and CrowdedBook Review / / By Joy Welborn

10 New Guard, Winter 2010

Page 13: YAF New Guard Magazine Vol. 34 Issue 1

I n a 1789 letter to his attorney general Edmund Jennings Randolph, Presi-dent George Washington wrote, “The

true administration of justice is the firm-est pillar of good government.” These words are etched upon the stoic state court-house abutting the Manhattan Federal Courthouse where Attorney General Eric Holder would like to try Khalid Sheikh Mo-hammed and four other enemy combatants.

For over 200 years our country has used military tribunals to prosecute enemy combatants, from British spies during the Revolutionary War to Nazi spies and war criminals during, and after, World War II. Following this well-established American jurisprudence, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which authorized military tribunals (that provide due process and appellate review) as the means for pros-ecuting enemy combatants, many of which are actively working to kill Americans and destroy our country.

Some opponents of military tribunals ar-gue that our government has recently tried terrorists in civilian courts, as was the case with Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. There are, however, several distinctions between the Abdel-Rahman trial and the upcoming terrorist trials. In 1993 there was no War on Terrorism and that attack was viewed as an isolated inci-dent. As former New York City Mayor and United States Attorney Rudolph Giuliani stated with respect to the 1993 attack, “We did not recognize it as an act of war. We tried them in the Southern district in New York; it did no good.” Essentially, Abdel-Rahman was tried in Civilian Court because at the time there were no congressionally authorized military tribunals in which to try him.

Prosecuting enemy combatants in civilian court creates logistical imprac-ticalities, especially when dealing with evidence and national security. The on-going War on Terrorism has sensitive documents related to ongoing mission, investigations, undercover agents and government strategies for fighting this unconventional war. If the terrorists

and their lawyers request this information, will the government have to turn over the requested items without being held to se-crecy? Will jurors and defense counsel need security clearance to review such evidence? And if a juror and/or a defense lawyer can-not be given security clearance will the court be forced to declare a mistrial? Will we face another Lynne Stewart situation where a lawyer for the terrorists will be able to leak confidential information to other terror-ists? And if the government seeks to protect against such leaks, the defense may cry foul, alleging that the government is spying on them. Furthermore, the Sixth Amendment provides for a jury of one’s peers. Since the accused are non-citizen enemy combatants, will the government be required to provide a jury pool randomly selected from the laity of Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia?

Aside from the legal and logistical im-practicalities of a civilian trial for enemy combatants, there is the concern that Attor-ney General Holder may be using these tri-als to score political points for the Obama administration. This concern is based upon

the arbitrary way in which the Justice De-partment has chosen to prosecute some en-emy combatants in civilian court and others in military tribunals, as is the case with those charged with the bombing of the USS Cole. There is also the concern that Holder will use the civilian proceedings to put the previous administration’s policies on trial, particu-larly when it comes to the use of supposed torture as a means of eliciting information from captured terrorists.

It is no secret that Sheikh Mohamed was water-boarded. The question now is whether or not Holder will defend the prior adminis-tration’s tactics. If Holder chooses to level accusations of torture, will he opt not to uti-lize any evidence obtained from these criti-cal CIA interrogations, even at the risk of a not-guilty verdict? These civilian trials also appear political in nature because various Justice Department officials have said that if Holder’s prosecution fails to secure convic-tions, the Obama administration will keep Sheikh Mohamed and his co-conspirators locked up forever as enemy combatants any-way.

The true administration of justice requires that the enemy combatants be tried in military tribunals as pre-scribed by Congress and not in a po-litically motivated fiasco which will cost taxpayers upwards of $200 mil-lion a year and disrupt New York’s ongoing efforts to rebuild from 9/11.

Even if Holder is to be believed, and the only reason he could justify going to civilian trial—that supposed symbolic show of the benign mercy of the Obama administration—is he is sure of a conviction, then these tri-als are inherently farcical and send no great message on due process and a fair system. Hopefully Holder’s show trials can do more than just show the enemy our hand—but we doubt it.

Brad Marks, 26, is a graduate of Touro Law Center in Long Island as well as SUNY Stony Brook, where he earned his B.A. in economics. He is currently practicing law in New York City, where he serves as the YAF New York State Chairman.

The Big Apple CircusThe Madness of Civilian Trials for Enemy Combatants / / By Brad Marks

New Guard, Winter 2010 11

Page 14: YAF New Guard Magazine Vol. 34 Issue 1

The prophet, the messiah, the maestro: a post-modern iconoclast of free mar-kets and central banking—harbinger of

the golden ’90s. Oh yes, we remember that Greenspan—the iconoclastic glue that made free markets and central banking appear to be a divine couple and not the polar oppo-sites they truly are. However contradictory the two terms of free markets and central banking are, Alan Greenspan held this spe-cial status. It wasn’t too far back in the last millennium when Greenspan went on his vitriolic crusade against fiat currency, central banking and regulation as a prime disciple of Ayn Rand herself. Most economists re-member the twelve interest cuts of this last decade—especially the drop to one percent, and the steady 5.25 percent rate of the ’90s—deviating infrequently. Most Americans felt at ease be-cause they knew that the expert and chief of the money supply would keep the good times roll-ing in perpetuity. The modicum of Libertarians and Objectivists remember the Greenspan essays in Ayn Rand’s book Capitalism, which introduced Greenspan as a late nineteenth century nostalgic for laissez-faire capitalism—an era in the United States void of central banking.

However, this is not the Alan Greenspan most people are familiar with today. Allow me to reintroduce the proclaimed maestro of yesteryear—how his hypocrisy, contradic-tions and actions fueled a megalithic bubble that played the most important factor in the scale and ensuing damage of the current crash.

We have always had bubbles, panics, crashes, recessions and depressions. This is not unique to just central banking. This is a natural part of the growth of any free enterprise system—raising living standards through the roof or, in the words of Andrew Carnegie, “Turning luxuries into necessi-ties.” Think of the things we feel we need, as Americans, that most of the world goes without: cell phones, the Internet, cars, heat, electricity—the list can go on for days. As stated previously, this system comes with booms and recessions. However, different policies, rules and regulations can turn a

boom into a bubble and a standard recession into a depression. None is more important to the amplification of booms and busts than a central banking system.

It is arguable that the subprime bust was bound to happen even without the Federal Reserve lowering its key interest rates to one prcent in the bubble years. The bust probably would have occurred simply given the regu-lation dictated by the Community Re-In-vestment Act and the quasi-government-run Fannie and Freddie bundling of mortgages (by leveraging against low capital reserves). Though worth mentioning, this is another topic in itself and I am not going to entangle

the main point in talk of options, derivatives, futures, credit default swaps and mortgage backed securities.

Though these played huge factors, they pale in comparison to what Greenspan did to the American economy. Without the infu-sion of credit from the Fed, would the crisis have been a crisis in the first place? Would financial firms have been so exposed? Would unemployment be at five to six percent in-stead of 10 percent? Greenspan, who once believed that any form of currency must be made honest by gold, found himself spear-heading the world’s top central bank—a bank which spews so much paper money it makes Monopoly money seem like sheets of gold leaf. Greenspan’s views were be-yond inconsistent as he transformed into a bureaucrat. He not only sold his Randian ideals for moderation (some might say that this moderation was a form of his Monetarist inclinations), Greenspan ultimately sold that

moderation for the aphrodisiac of power. Just because Greenspan was the Chair-

man of the Federal Reserve did not neces-sarily make him power hungry, at least in the beginning, but one does get suspicious when we find there is absolutely no academic un-derpinning for the interest rate targeting that took place. The “Taylor Rule,” an equation used to help a central bank dictate interest rates that control inflation and promote sta-bility in monetary policy that was followed nearly piecemeal in the ’90s (and, most might say, worked to perfection) was suddenly de-viated from in the early 2000’s to, supposed-ly, “combat” the tech recession. Recessions

make way for technological advancement and properly al-located resources. Remember the aforementioned statement about a central banking entity amplifying recessions? That is just what happened. The good times can never flow perpetu-ally if they require that the economy is stagnant: life is stochastic, not deterministic. During the years of the inter-est rate deviations from the Taylor Rule, the Fed “loose fit” its Federal Funds Rate. When there should have been an interest rate spike to 300 basis points by the fourth

quarter of 2002, the Fed lowered its rate to 150 basis points. The deviations followed until 2005 when the Fed suddenly hiked interest rates to the five percent where they were supposed to have been since at least 2004. Some might ask how small injections of billions of dollars in credit from the Fed could cause a problem in the trillions. Eas-ily—it’s called the money multiplier effect: banks can lend out money on a 9:1 ratio to actual reserves held in deposit. Therefore, you can easily see how money is created and how this can multiply into a problem in the trillions, especially when there was a trend in the market in favor of betting the house on, well, the house.

In his famed essay, “Gold and Economic Freedom,” the Greenspan who once abhorred regulation said, in effect, not verbatim, the ultimate force behind regulation is a gun. This same man found himself the Chairman of the Federal Reserve in 1987. I guess not

Alan Greenspan: The Good Shepherd?/ / By Lance Christopher

The Federal Reserve Building in Washington, DC

12 New Guard, Winter 2010

Page 15: YAF New Guard Magazine Vol. 34 Issue 1

is over.” It need not be mentioned that even in the “Golden ’90s” there still was a regu-latory body for nearly every single industry in the United States. Albeit some restraints were let go to allow more freedom in the banking sector; but citing that is like saying that only eating meat twice a week makes a vegetarian. The Fed lowering its key inter-est rates is not a bigger headline than greedy Wall Street executives, so the Fed story wasn’t exhaustively covered in the media—it simply doesn’t sell over “greed” at AIG. Yes, greed is an important factor and most of the time for the best, but when Greenspan decided to lower rates to an abysmal one per-cent it fueled the subprime bubble. While the chairman was busy getting this new mythical place called “Bubblonia” drunk off of credit, the nation could not offset or cushion against a recession with a healthy supply in national savings and capital reserves for our leading financial institutions.

Greenspan’s only defense was that savers in Asia (Asian Savings Glut) were causing the suppression of long-term rates by some-how saving too much. Although he raised interest rates back up in 2004, it was already too late—a secular trend had started in the market with extra liquidity from the Fed to bet on the subprime bubble. Even if Asian savers were to have suppressed long-term rates, why didn’t he raise interest rates back up during the prime bubble years? It’s like saying the cure for the alcoholic is more alcohol. Amazingly that’s what the logic was: liquidity, liquidity and more liquidity. The more alcohol you give the alcoholic the worse the ensuing hangover and withdrawal will be; the more credit you infuse into a bubble the worse the ensuing chaos and damage will be.

So, let us remember, in this new decade, to never invest our faith in mobs, maestros or false messiahs. Let us remember that gov-ernment distorts to get what it wants, even if that includes making you believe that the Chairman of the Fed represents the free mar-ket. Before trusting in these experts, have faith in a free market, your own abilities and your own talents. Let us remain eternally vigilant in the pursuit of liberty, and let us never forget the only “great” thing Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve did—make this recession a “Great” Recession.

Lance Christopher, 22, is a sophomore at the University of the District of Columbia where he is double majoring in mathematics and physics. He is a leader of YAF D.C.

many people notice hypocrisy when it ap-plies to them; surely Greenspan did not. The once fierce, primetime Objectivist against regulation and intervention, had become the printer-in-chief of the money supply and sy-cophant to the bureaucratic elite. While he was supposed to be an intellectual flag bearer of the monetarist movement, Greenspan had no real defense by Monetarism for his ac-tions as chairman. This should have been the first nail in the coffin for any sense of com-petence and stability for Greenspan’s tenure as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Not only was Greenspan hypocritical by having a job antithetical to everything he supposedly believed in, he was full of inherent contradictions. One of these con-tradictions can be considered the crème de la crème for the former chairman’s incon-sistency. A free market is a system where nearly all goods and services are privatized and allocated through supply and demand, including the money supply and excluding military and police services and basic gov-

ernment infrastructure. In a September 2007 interview with Jon Stewart, Greenspan was asked a very central question: “So we’re not a free market then?” Greenspan emphatical-ly replied, “You’re quite correct. To the ex-tent that there is a central bank governing the amount of money in the system, that is not a free market. Most people call it regulation.”

Fast forward to 2008 amidst financial con-tagion, a serious contraction of credit, bail-outs and populist politics. Greenspan found himself trembling before socialist Henry Waxman, D-Calif., when asked, “Were you wrong?” Greenspan responded, “Partially,” adding that he was wrong to believe that “self-regulation” could work and that there is a “flaw.” But how could that have been possible when, a year prior, Greenspan stat-ed that the United States is not a free market to the extent that it has a central authority governing the supply of credit? The same central authority he governed!

This reality is a far cry from the Clinton proclamation that “the era of big government

New Guard, Winter 2010 13

Page 16: YAF New Guard Magazine Vol. 34 Issue 1

Thomas Jefferson once said, “Every gen-eration needs a new revolution.” For the generation of the 1980s, it was the

“Reagan Revolution.” As great as it was, it is unfortunate that the era of Reagan is even referred to as a “revolution” at all. The prin-ciples for which it stood were not pillars of some new political philosophy, but were simply the foundational blocks of the United States. The government had gotten so large and out of control that a return to traditional American values was a breath of fresh air.

The “Reagan Revolution” is over and we are, as much as we hate to admit it, right back where we started from over twenty years ago. Once again, government has gorged it-self on the individual freedoms of the people as well as the free enterprise system, expand-ing to a size of gargantuan proportions. And once again, the people have allowed it to be-come this way.

A cry is rising up from our generation. We are dissatisfied with the status quo. The latest

als—still remain. The political philosophies of the Left are simply repackaged versions of what Carter offered years ago and we know how his administration ended. What we need now is a return to our foundation, a restructured version of what Reagan offered. We know the kind of impact he had not only on the nation, but on the world as well. It is time for true leadership and real reform. It is time for a “new revolution.” In the words of Winston Churchill, “Let us go forward to-gether.”

packaging of big government does not im-press us. We want real leadership. We want real reform. So what is to be done?

Voting for the Republican Party has in-deed been a hard pill to swallow for many in recent elections, as so-called “moderates” have infiltrated the ranks. While the Republi-can Party is often the lesser of two evils, it is an evil nonetheless. So what should we do? Shall we as conservatives break off and start a third party, leaving our dirty house simply to build another? Certainly not. The answer is to clean house and I believe we will find that our “house” is not as dirty as it seems. With the Republican Party, we have a stage to stand on, an audience to speak to. We need not start from scratch. What we need now most of all is a leader, someone to stand on the stage and speak to the audience, and I be-lieve that that leader may very well be within the ranks of young Conservatism.

While the “Reagan Revolution” has come to a close, its principles—its American ide-

A New RevolutionThe Future of the Conservative/Libertarian Movement // By Tyler Perry

Tyler Perry, 18, is a senior at Cass City High School in Deford, Michigan.

The Y A F S CENE

Clockwise from top left:1. YAFers volunteer in the New York 23rd Congressional District Election2. YAF at Americans For Prosperity rally against government healthcare3. Pacific Union College YAFers host a freedom fundraiser4. YAFers, with actor Brian Dennehy, rally against KSM trial in NYC5. YAFers wish alumnus Eugene Degaudio a happy birthday6. San Diego YAFers at the Leadership Institute Youth Leadership School7. YAFers protest Harry Reid and socialist professor Cornell West8. YAF New York State Chairman Brad Marks

Winner of YAF’s Matt Zandi Essay Contest:

Page 17: YAF New Guard Magazine Vol. 34 Issue 1

To many young adult residents of Massachusetts, Sena-tor Ted Kennedy, along with the entire Kennedy fam-ily, was a political figure and legendary icon who we

grew up with. Our old school Boston Democrat families por-trayed the liberal ideals of Kennedy politics as foundations for the good in our society and the morals we should live by. What took place this past fall was a movement which, at the heart of the most liberal state machine in the country, rejuvenated the souls of citizens who have been cultivated in the epicenter of our nation’s most revolutionary history. We were reminded that government must always represent the voice of the people—not its own partisan motivations.

Republican Senator Scott Brown evoked the essence of liberal de-mocracy by delivering a message rooted in the most fundamental principles of our nation. Citi-zens of the Commonwealth were reminded of a government created to function with respect to the dignity of the people and their interests, not the interests of partisan party politics or an extreme ideological agenda. They were reminded that the American government should act as a collective body of healthy debate and dissent in order to digest the concerns of the

Brown From the Ground

citizenry and craft legislation free of bias or partisan agenda. We found a candidate who wished to take from the voices of human reason and intuition, and deliver policy in a govern-ment that functions through a free flow of ideas. These are the

foundations of American democ-racy: recognition of human dignity, love of liberty and the exercise of sound reason in the governing of our affairs.

On behalf of the opposition, Sen-ator Brown is a right-wing radical who wishes to stomp attempts at a government-mandated health care plan and implement a reactionary interpretation of the Constitution. Once the dogmatic filter has been removed, these convoluted accusa-tions become evidence of a govern-ment that has grown accustomed to enacting policy without the consent of the people. To Senator Brown’s

supporters in the Commonwealth, he is a leader who wishes to restore the fundamentals of liberal democratic society by representing a citizenry in the face of a partisan majority. To our new senator on Capitol Hill: Thank you for reminding the world of a representative government which functions to en-sure man can flourish free from the demands of an overwhelm-ing majority.

“Republican SenatorScott Brown evoked the

essence of liberaldemocracy by delivering a message rooted in the most fundamental prin-

ciples of our nation.”

New Guard, Winter 2010 15

A Local Account of Scott Brown’s Victory From the Heart of the Commonwealth

/ / By Brian Higdon

Page 18: YAF New Guard Magazine Vol. 34 Issue 1

In constructing a sound foreign policy, every administration de-bates the best ways to advance the nation’s interests. As the dy-namics of what is taking place within other countries change over

time, so to do relations with friends and foes.There were stark differences in how officials from the Bush I team

viewed the world and the views of officials from George W.’s team twelve years later. The first Bush felt that the global politics, during his term, necessitated delicate handling. There were many significant geo-political changes during his tenure, including the breakup of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the War in the Persian Gulf. As a result, Bush I put forward a “realist” foreign policy, leav-ing a tumultuous world largely to itself while prioritizing the security of the state and other national interests above all.

When George W. Bush came to the White House, it seemed that he intended to pursue the same course. However, the ter-rorist attacks on September 11 drastically changed the way his administration viewed Ameri-ca’s role in the world. After the attacks, Bush declared that any state that harbored terrorists would be considered tantamount to a terror organization itself. Wars were then waged in Afghanistan and Iraq, with smaller battles taking place in Somalia and Southeast Asia. It was an aggressive policy to try and defeat terrorism by toppling oppressive dictators and advo-cating for democratic reform and human rights. These were contro-versial elements of what later became known as the “Bush Doctrine,” quickly earning many members of the administration the label of ideologue and neo-conservative.

While very different, both approaches realize that the world is a dangerous and ever-evolving place. A strong foreign policy is a ne-cessity, and it would be wise for future administrations to beat back any calls for an isolationist approach. Isolationism is a foreign policy that amalgamates a non-interventionist military policy, which would prohibit a country from getting involved in any alliance or military conflict that is not seen as a direct threat to its own borders, with a protectionist economic policy that would set up boundaries and bar-riers with regard to international trade.

Considering certain international events and the way they are por-trayed, a non-interventionist approach may seem attractive to many voters. Terrorists are still trying to attack America, the wars in Af-ghanistan and Iraq are now reaching their ninth and seventh year respectively and the cost in both blood and treasure for keeping a strong presence around the world can really wear on a country. There are also politicians and candidates who have, and will continue to, run for office while preaching an isolationist approach. Don’t fall for it.

America is a strong nation because of the alliances it has formed and the coalitions it has built. Whether it’s from strong commercial

ties or military partnerships, the United States should continue to build upon its superpower status so that any challenge can be met. The current adminis-tration, as well as future ones, can maintain this edge by re-fraining from an interventionist approach. It is important that America engages, while never dictating, in world affairs. As we have seen very clearly in the past, the internal struggles of another state can have an im-

pact on the U.S. Very few people would have advocated for a war in Afghanistan before 9/11. Yet after the horrendous events of that day, many governments came to realize that a brutal regime like the Taliban cannot be allowed to control a state where terror groups are allowed to plot and plan their next attack. The politics and econom-ics in some states can directly affect the security of another. Today we continue to see this problem in countries such as Yemen, North Korea, Pakistan and Iran.

Retreating from our position as a superpower by slashing the de-fense budget, walking away from crucial economic alliances and re-scinding our commitments to protect our friends will only suggest to our enemies that America is no longer interested in being the global hegemon. The United States must continue to seek out and destroy any and all grave and gathering threats, while at the same time pro-moting freedom, advocating for human rights and championing de-mocracy. Only a strong and moral foreign policy can truly serve the best interests of the United States, today and tomorrow.

Today and TomorrowA Case for America’s Continued Involvement in Global Affairs

/ / By John Stapleton

“Retreating from our position as a superpower by slashing the defense budget, walking away from crucial economic alliances and rescinding our commitments to protect our

friends will only suggest to our ene-mies that America is no longer inter-ested in being the global hegemon.”

16 New Guard, Winter 2010

Page 19: YAF New Guard Magazine Vol. 34 Issue 1

The New Guard CocktailThe Colonel Taylor Julep / / By Dane Nakamura

New Guard, Winter 2010 17

E dmund Haynes Taylor, Jr. (1830-1923) was a pioneer in America’s young bourbon industry, working to guide it to its lofty place as one of the world’s greatest spirits. By crafting

his bourbon with time-honored methods and working to legitimize his industry through the legislated disruption of illegal and fraudu-

lent pretenders, Taylor embodied the Conservative ideal: simultaneously rais-ing the standards of an industry while en-

suring free and unsullied competition.Colonel Taylor’s biography by the

Buffalo Trace Distillery (the ances-tor of his endeavors) describes the

Conservative American spirit of the man best: “It is said that Taylor followed a career that linked the ‘classic and modern eras’ of bourbon making—a bridge, which he in large part

contributed to build. He was a traditional-ist, yet an innovator. He was a proud, com-petitive distiller, yet he championed the entire bourbon industry and left a legacy that has benefited bourbon makers and bourbon lovers for generations.”

This issue’s Colonel Taylor Julep is the first in a long line of Conservative cocktails

brought to you by The New Guard magazine. This cocktail honors the spirit of E.H. Taylor through a mixture of time-honored tradi-tion and young innovation. It was researched, crafted and pictured by Dane Nakamura, 23, a professional bartender at Bourbon in Washington, D.C.’s Glover Park neighborhood. The Colonel Tay-lor Julep has already been thoroughly enjoyed by the editors at The New Guard and is presented here by Mr. Nakamura so that other YAF members and young conservatives can enjoy it not simply with its fresh minty aromas and American autumn tastes, but with a true sense and knowledge of American history.

The Colonel Taylor Julep

• 2 ounces E.H. Taylor Bourbon• 1/2 ounce mulled simple syrup (made

by boiling equal parts sugar and water with allspice, cinnamon, clove and star anise until a syrup has been achieved; cool before using)

• 1/4 of a roasted apple (cut apple into quarters and roast with mulling spices at 375 degrees for 30 minutes)

• 5-7 mint leaves Muddle the mint leaves, roasted apple and simple syrup until the roasted apple is nicely macerated. Add the bourbon and serve on crushed ice in highball glass with a slice of fresh apple and a sprig of mint to garnish. Finish with a light topping of confectioner’s sugar.

Dane Nakamura, 23, is a professional bartender at Bourbon in the Glover Park neighborhood of Washington, DC.

SHAWN STEEL AND ASSOCIATESA PROFESSIONAL LAW FIRM

Proudly announces the association of Matt Zandi, Former Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Civil Rights Division.

Locations: Los Angeles, Newport Beach, San FranciscoContact: 1.800.626.0003Emphases:• Major personal injury• Employment law• Qui tam

Shawn Steel & Associates cares about you, your family, your chiroprac-tic office and your legal problems. We will strive to provide high quality, dynamic and dependable legal representation to our clients and their doc-tors. Our leadership and strong reputation will assure just compensation for you and your patients. We are serious lawyers for serious problems.

Shawn Steel and Matt Zandi both served as YAF State Chairmen for California.

Page 20: YAF New Guard Magazine Vol. 34 Issue 1

APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP - REPLY FORM FOR SUPPORTERSYoung Americans for Freedom, 2300 M Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20037I am in agreement with the Sharon Statement and wish to apply for membership.NAME____________________________________________________________ADDRESS__________________________________________________________CITY___________________________ STATE _______ZIP__________________PHONE_____________________ EMAIL_________________________________PERMANENT ADDRESS_____________________________________________CITY___________________________ STATE _______ZIP__________________AGE_________ OCCUPATION OR SCHOOL____________________________“YAF is a non-profit organization and depends entirely on the generosity of alumni and donors. Please send your donations to YAF. Thank you!”

CHECK ALL THAT APPLYAnnual Membership: $5Associate Membership (over 40): $20 annuallyI enclosed a donation for $____I would like more info about YAF I would like to start a YAF chapter

for more information visit

www.YAF.com

He served in the Second World War,Then moved to Hell’s Kitchen;He won an Oscar,And led the NRA.Damn right he read The New Guard!