the new guard vol 34 no 1

8/3/2019 The New Guard Vol 34 No 1

1/20

ETERNAL TRUTHS:AN EXAMINATION OF YAFSGUIDING CONSERVATIVE/LIBERTARIAN PRINCIPLES

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS:ISLAMISM AND THE LEFT

LIFE LIBERTY AND...HEALTHCARE?

WHY OBAMACARE IS NOTA NATURAL RIGHT

THE FIRST OF 2010 THE ELECTION OFSCOTT BROWN

THE MAGAZINE OAMERICANS FOR

WINTE VOLUME Thirt

NUMBE

$ 1

E G U A R D


2/20

IN THIS TIME of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of the youth of Americato af rm certain eternal truths.

WE , as young conservatives, believe:

THAT foremost among the transcendent values is the individuals use of his God-given freewill, 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 economicfreedom;

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 forempowering government to ful ll its proper role, while restraining it from the concentrationand abuse of power;

THAT the genius of the Constitutionthe division of powersis summed up in the clausethat reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people, in those spheres not speci callydelegated 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 andconstitutional 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 reducethe moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it takes from one man to bestowon another, it diminishes the incentive of the rst, the integrity of the second, and the moralautonomy of both;

THAT we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States issecure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizensconcertedly defend their rights against all enemies;

THAT the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat tothese liberties;

THAT the United States should stress victory over, rather thanco-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 Guard Table of Contents

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

American AwakeningOn the Tea Party movement // Michael Johns 4

Walking SoftlyOn Obamas foreign policy // John Stapleton 6

Islamism and the LeftOn 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 CircusOn 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 GroundOn the Scott Brown election

// Brian Higdon 15

Today and TomorrowOn global hegemony// John Stapleton 16

The New Guard CocktailOn cheer and libation// Dane Nakamura 17

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

1925 - 2008


3/20

Adopted in Conference at Sharon, Con-

necticut, on September 11, 1960, theSharon Statement is the guiding light of

the Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) andthe staff at The New Guard . But it is not onlythis; it is also an incredible statement of tra-ditional Conservative thought that, if adheredto, can guide this country through the liberalstorm and back to the Republic our FoundingFathers intended for us. When rst presentedat the home of William F. Buckley, the YAFfounders felt it necessary to write:

In this time of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of the

youth of America to af rm certaineternal truths.

The election of a quasi-socialist, hard Leftpresident has re-invigorated young Conser-vatives across America, launching a renewedcall for the founding American values of freemarket, free will, strong defense, personal lib-erty and adherence to the Constitution. The

New Guard has returned to answer this call.As concerned Americans ll 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 changethey were promised; and as conservative poli-ticians around the nation take back the statesand districts they lost, YAFers and the staff atThe New Guard will be hard at work. We willstand up beside you, as we did 50 years ago,against a political elite that believed Conser-vatism was dead and socialism was king, toaf rm the following certain and eternal truths.

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

We, as young conservatives be-lieve: That foremost among thetranscendent values is the individu-als 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 thisopening line. It pronounces that our individualfree will comes from something greater thangovernment. 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 basecreature made up of material needs, but we area spiritual creature as well. These aspects of manthe spiritual and the economicare in-tertwined and indivisible by any law or politi-cal philosophy that seeks to be in accordancewith nature. Mans greatest feature is his spirit.It sets him apart from common animals, and itis the mortal aspect of mans spirit that makes

every person a unique individual, setting himapart from his peers. This truth helps exposethe all-too-common collectivist attempts tospeak for the common manthis mate-rial animal their schemes claim, falsely, in thename 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 isno longer imminent or realistic, politicians onboth 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. Thecosts of running this farcical utopia has leadto some citizens being made to spend half of their week as labor working for a governmentsome falsely believe has a legitimate claimto as much of their wealth as it sees t. Nowmembers of the Left are pulling our healthcare into the grasp of government.

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

collectivists understand that private property

can be con scated as effectively through taxa-tion as by expropriating it. They understandthat 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 toprovide for his personal needs and by givingthe State the responsibility of caring for thoseneeds from cradle to grave.

As the fruits of our labor are redistributedby a supposedly benign state, our freedom tochoose our future, own property, save moneyand better ourselves, our families and ourcommunities is being taken away. We are,indeed, on what Frederick Hayek called theroad to serfdom.

That the purpose of government isto protect those freedoms throughthe preservation of internal order,the provision of national defense,and the administration of justice.

Though the States right to maintain orderand administer justice is not questioned byany major party today, there is much to dis-cuss about the statement that comes between.Though no major parties today question thatthe government has a duty to defend the na-tion, the question of how the United States canbest provide for the defense of our people, ourland and our property has been on the mindsof Conservatives since the days of our Revolu-tion. This question is ever more pertinent sincethe end of the Cold War and the launch of theGlobal War on Terror.

While conservatives in the tradition of Buckley and Goldwater demand a strong na-tional defense to combat our enemies aroundthe world, the issue of how to use those forcesis ercely debated by right-wing sides as ex-tremely different as the Neo-Conservativesand the Libertarians. While different sideswithin the broader conservative movementargue over what must be done, it is largely ac-cepted that strong action and basic changebe it a massive or modest scaling back, or aredistribution of forcesis necessary. In thecoming months and years, The New Guard will seek to air these differing views and itseditors will do their best to help the Rightgrow in strength as a better understanding of the arguments and, eventually, a consensus isachieved.

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

New Guard, Winter 2010 1


4/20

That when government venturesbeyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends todiminish order and liberty.

Whether our heads of state mean well whenthey disregard the Constitution is irrelevant.As Hayek once warned in a speech before theEconomic Club of Detroit, The danger is thegreater because we may choose the wrong waynot by deliberation and concerted decision, butbecause we seem to be blundering into it.

The danger he spoke of was one he, alongwith other members of the Austrian School of Economics, had witnessed rsthand 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 abuseof power were also witnessed rsthand byour Founding Fathers who, like the Austrianeconomists, were not simply enlightened stu-dents of history, but victims of history. Theyhad witnessed the abuses of power agrantlywielded by a government unafraid of its peo-ple and unchained by a constitution. BenjaminFranklin famously said to a concerned womanoutside the Constitutional Delegation that thedelegates had given the people a Republic, if you can keep it. The warnings of these menmust be remembered and kept constantly inmind 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 ful ll its proper role, whilerestraining 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 failsif it is ignored.

All Conservatives have heard the argumentthat the Constitution is old; its authors couldnot foresee the changes this country would gothrough and the stumbling blocks future gen-

erations would face. This, alongside a warp-ing of the meanings of the general welfareclause and interstate commerce, has beenused to justify every action from non-strategicforeign aid to the Department of Education,Roe v. Wade and the Lefts assault on gunrights.

Those who further this argument do so inblind ignorance or dark malice. The FoundingFathers were well aware of the changes of timeand many were even wary for the present. Thatis why they wrote in the ability to amend the

Constitutionan ability that has been used,for better or for worse, and began with the Billof Rights. Indeed, it is possible to change, butit is dif cult and so not subject to the whimsof a moody populace. This document must befollowed to the letter if government is to ful llits proper role and be restrained from concen-tration and abuse of power.

That the genius of the Constitu-tionthe division of powersissummed up in the clause that re-serves primacy to the several states,or to the people in those spheres not speci cally 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. Limitedgovernment is not an abstraction, but a prac-tical guideline for how the Founding Fatherswanted the government constructed. And itwas not a rhetorical device when they referredto themselves as citizens of their respectivestates. It is the essential characteristic of theConstitution.

Yet the sacred place of states rights hasbeen swept away and is in more danger ev-ery day. The political will to stand up andreclaim what belongs to the states is lacking

in the halls of power across the country. Withthe promise of free moneywhat FrdricBastiat called legal plunderCongressbends the will of governors. Be it for roadsor education, the end game is the governmentin Washington spending money it should nothave on people and states that should have al-ready had that money had it not been taxed byWashington in the rst place. These states andpeople then must become the beggar who isallowed 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 therequirements of personal freedomand constitutional government,and that it is at the sametime the most productivesupplier of humanneeds.

The right to life, liberty, and property is oneof the revolutionary cries of our forefathers.The desire for wealth leads to innovation, andthe desire by others to make money off thoseinnovations leads to competition. People havea moral right to the fruits of their labor thatgovernment should not be able to take away.In practical terms, the market economy alsobrings about a higher quality of product, asentrepreneurs compete with one another to de-liver the greatest value to the consumer.

The more the government steps away andremoves heavy regulation from this organicsystem, the more entrepreneurship grows.The more freedom people have, the better theeconomy functions. People know what theyneed and want, and businesses will create andprovide accordingly.

More importantly, the government does nothave an unlimited mandate to con scate thewealth its citizens have created, nor does ithave the right to force its citizens intoeconomic serfdom by making themwork to pay ever higher tax-es. The free market isnot just the moste ff ic ien teco-

2 New Guard, Winter 2010


5/20

nomic system it is the only moral economicsystem.

That when government interfereswith 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 bestowon another, it diminishes the incen-tive of the rst, the integrity of thesecond, and the moral autonomy of both.

As Conservatives we believe that it is mansspiritual siderather than his materialthatmakes him great. In a nation as charitable asours, to steal from a mans neighbor to prophim up crushes the spirit of both men and, in-deed, makes villains of their government.

That we will be free only so longas the national sovereignty of the

United States is secure; that historyshows periods of freedom are rare,and can exist only when free citi-

zens concertedly defend their rightsagainst all enemies.

In a world where even so-called conser-vative leaders are calling for a New Order,more global treaties, and an ever-expandingEuropean Union, it is important for the UnitedStates to assert itself as separate, untangledand 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 toguarantee our freedom, so too must we insiston national sovereignty to prevent our Consti-tution from being subverted by global treatiesand international authorities that the Americanpeople cannot hold to account. There is noauthority in this country higher than the Con-stitution and no international authority, inter-national law or global public opinion can takeaway the sovereignty of the American people.

Ronald Reagan once said, Freedom isnever more than one generation away fromextinction. We didnt pass it to our children inthe bloodstream. It must be fought for, protect-ed and handed on for them to do the same.Conservatives today must be ready to continuethis ght.

That the forces of international Communism are, at present, thegreatest single threat to these lib-erties; [and] that the United Statesshould stress victory over, ratherthan coexistence with this menace.

When the authors of the Sharon Statement

wrote this clause they were well aware of thecurrent global-political climate and believedthat, 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 phraseat present, thereby using the forces of in-ternational Communism as a placeholder inthe Statement with the ability to change as theever shifting, but always focused, enemies of liberty changed shape.

And though the forces of internationalCommunism are no longer the threat theyonce were, much can be gained from our pre-decessors strategies on dealing with thoseHydras heads that have arisen in its place toattack the tenets of classical liberalism.

In todays complex world, the internationaldanger comes not only from the Reds, but

from any totalitarian state and movement any-where. Be it Venezuela or Iran, the men andarmies who crush freedom and reign bloodilyover their people mean harm not simply to theworld but to the very ideal of liberty we holddear. We must continue to see these enemiesof democracy for what they aredespots,whether they carry the banners of Stalinismor Islamic Fundamentalism. And, as in ourprevious battles, co-existence may at timesseem comfortable and alluring, but ultimatelyour enemies know they are at war and ght forvictoryevery day we ignore their menacing

tenacity is a day they grow in strength and weare weakened. Our greatest weapons againstthe Red Menace were our love of liberty, ourpowerful military and our will to ght. Thesecharacteristics will lead us to triumph in thecoming battles again and again.

And that American foreign policymust be judged by this criterion:does it serve the just interests of theUnited 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 bachelors degreein written journalism with a minor in world

politics. He has also reported for HSToday ,The American Observer and The AmericanUniversity 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 Assistants

Nicole 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 Freedom2300 M Street, NW

Suite 800Washington, D.C. 20037

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

Bedford at [email protected].

For advertising sales contact [email protected]

This issue went to press onJanuary 31, 2010.

Copyright 2010 Young Americans for Freedom

Young Americans for Freedom is a non-pro torganization and depends entirely on thegenerosity of its members and alumni.

New Guard, Winter 20103


6/20

It is the distinction of our nation thatnearly every generation of Americans hasbeen called to defend the liberties fought

forand won byAmericas 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 bornto this nation since. And while the UnitedStates owes its comparatively rapid geopolit-ical and economic ascent to many things, itis the freedom of America and Americansthat has been at the core of this greatness.

Since the American Revolution, the un-derlying common denominator in Americanhistory 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 liveson. Asked in October 2009 what part of theConstitution empowered the American fed-eral government to require all Americansto purchase health insurance, as called for

in Congress health care legislation, U.S.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi summarizedthe extent of our current challenge, respond-ing, Are you serious? It is just one of manyexamples of a nation whose political leader-ship has devolved from merely distorting theConstitution, as was done with many Ameri-can liberal initiatives in the late 20th century,to those that now forthrightly dismiss itsvery 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. TheAmerican Tea Party movement has markeda reawakening for the nation, which in amere year has gone from being sold nebu-lous promises of hope and change to re-alizingas it has historicallythat the truegreatness of our nation is not what our gov-ernment does, but the climate of liberty thatit creates for its citizens.

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

news and regenerates a deep appreciation forlimited government and Constitutionally-protected liberties, or will it prove a transientone that impacts the debate for a short periodof time but has no enduring impact or in u-ence? The answer to that question rests inwhat this movement does next.

But what has it done so far? Whatever thefuture holds, this much is sure: it is the TeaParty movement, not the Republican Party ortraditional Washington, D.C.-based conser-vative institutions, that has held the Obamaagenda 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 Americas Constitutionalliberties. But it is a tribute to the in uence of the nations Tea Party movement that few of these threatening initiatives were adopted. In

fact, by early 2010, each appeared greatly onthe defensive.

The origins of the Tea Party movementdate back to 2008, even before the November2008 election. But the movement blossomednationally on April 15, 2009 with hundredsof Tea Party protests across the nation innearly every major city and community.Throughout 2009, some ve million Ameri-cans attended several thousand Tea Partyevents. 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 Partyagenda is embraced by the American peo-ple. According to a 2009 Rasmussen Poll, amajority of Americans, 51 percent, viewed

the Tea Party movement either favorablyor very favorably and there clearly existsupside potential for continued growth in thispopularity as the movement matures in theyear to come.

What has drawn Americans to the TeaParty movement? In my year-long, exten-sive interaction with the movement, I ndit is a deeply-held (and accurate) belief thatthe bridge between the American people andits government, unstable as it may alwayshave been, has been utterly severed. Witheach passing year, the federal governmenthas taken on new and vastly enhanced func-tional responsibilities. With many of them, ithas been the political self-interest of central-ized power and dependency, not the underly-ing interests of the nation, that has motivatedour lawmakers and governmental bureaucra-cies. Increasingly, government has grownmore and more distant from the people whoelected it. Members of Congress have moreroutinely dodged the will of the people anddone more and more to conceal accountabil-ity for their actions and their ensuing rami-

cations.Like the American people themselves, theTea Party movement has not seen much tolike in its federal governmentand, as themovement has progressed, millions moreAmericans have been drawn to it. In the pro-cess, it has become something of an enigmato the Washington establishment, which isunaccustomed to mass grassroots outpour-ings of opposition manifesting so quicklyand 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 thatthe Republican Party has not done more tohold back the massive growth and intrusive-ness of our federal government. It is truethat there exist many good, liberty-lovingelected of cials in the U.S. Congress. Butit is also true that, despite their efforts, theyhave 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 denominator in American history has been a braveand rugged American people continually re-

sisting the encroach- ment of tyranny at home and abroad.



7/20

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

As the Tea Party movement has grown,however, it does have a foundation of uni -cation around core principles that likely willde ne its agenda and tactics in the year andyears to come.

First, there is universal belief among theTea Party movement that America is uniqueamong nations of the world and that itsfreedom, while treasured, is by no meansguaranteed. The movement sees the existingfederal government as being insuf cientlyprotective of state and individual rights. Itis committed to seeing some more routine

process, such as the Enumerated PowersAct, that would require the administrationand Congress to evaluate and explain theconstitutionality of its administrative andlegislative actions before, not after, theirimplementation.

Second, the Tea Party movement seemswell-positioned to be the biggest drivingforce in the 2010 congressional and 2012presidential and congressional elections. Amovement that succeeded in holding Wash-ingtons worst policies at bay for a year nowseems 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 inMassachusetts demonstrated, this means thatcandidates embracing the Tea Party move-ment and its associated policies can likelywin anywhere in the nationand 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 appearspoised to have a major impact not only onthe nations policy debate but on both ma-

jor political parties. Liberals in both partiesrst ignored the Tea Party movement, even

as its size, passion and commitment becameabundantly evident to others. It then soughtto minimize and discredit the movement, butthat failed to work either. Now, forced with

facing the reality of the Tea Party move-ments enduring in uence, the messagebeing conveyed is that the movements ul-timate impact will be to divide the Repub-lican Party in ways that prove bene cial toDemocrats.

But this is highly unlikely. The moreprobable outcome is that the RepublicanParty, and its elected of cials and candi-dates, will endeavor to understand and em-brace the Tea Party movement, making theGrand Old Party a more liberty-orientedparty that becomes less complicit in taxationand the mass growth of our federal govern-mentand, in so doing, develops a broaderpolitical embrace of the American people.Perhaps the ultimate question is whether italso 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 tobe a major factor in changing the Congres-sional makeup in 2010 and beyond in waysthat rivals, and even exceeds, the election of 2008.

Michael Johns, a former White Housespeechwriter, Heritage Foundation policyanalyst and editor of The New Guard , ischairman of the Patriot Caucusa national Tea Party organization.

New Guard, Winter 20105


8/20

Obamas First Year on theWorld Stage

// By John Stapleton

Throughout the presidential campaignof 2008, then candidate Barack Obamapromised to restore our standing in

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

There were several events and actionsthat led the Obama camp to use this asa political tool. George W. Bush had,among other things, launched warsin Afghanistan and Iraq, held enemycombatants at Guantanamo Bay, nixedthe Kyoto Protocol Treaty and stronglyadvocated for the advancement of de-mocracy abroad. As President Bushsapproval rating declined at home, hiscritics attacked, espousing the belief that being the anti-Bush candidate mustmean the world would gladly align withthe U.S. on many of the objectives thatAmerican Leftists desired. These goalsincluded the immediate withdrawal of troopsfrom Iraq, the closing of Guantanamo Bay, aglobal warming treaty that the internationalcommunity could unite behind and showingto the world that America is not interested intelling other governments how to run theircountriesa blatant swipe at democracypromotion. We are now a full year into Presi-dent Obamas tenure and it appears that it is,in fact, his administration that is damagingAmericas standing in the world.

On his arrival to the Oval Of ce, Presi-dent Obama immediately demoted the Waron Terror on his list of priorities. Only twodays after being sworn in, the president or-dered the closing of the terrorist detentioncenter at Guantanamo Bay, with the goalof having the terrorists moved to anotherlocation within the year. The administra-tion claims that the existence of the prisonitself is the best recruiting tool for future ji-hadists. This is awed thinking. There wereno 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 willdent al-Qaedas recruiting campaign demon-strates an extremely nave grasp of contem-porary history. What inspired the bombing of the USS Cole, the embassies in Africa, theKhobar Towers or even the rst attack on theWorld Trade Center? It wasnt the existenceof a prison for terrorists. Guantanamo Bayshould not be closed.

The administration has also banned itsmembers from even uttering the phrasewar on terror. This was, to the amusementof many, followed by the dubbing of terrorattacks as man-caused disasters. And theadministration has decided that Khalid SheikMohammed and friends should stand trial incivilian court instead of a military tribunal,

granting them the very same constitutionalrights designed to protect Americas citizensand 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 thatothers would not yearn to attack us. Yet onChristmas Day a man trained by al-Qaedain Yemen boarded a plane with the intentof blowing it up. If it were not for severalcourageous 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 climatechange summit in Copenhagen at a timewhen many around the world were nallystarting to see that CO2 emissions from hu-man activity are not having an effect on anever-changing climate. Mojib Latif, a pro-fessor at Kiel University in Germany andone of the worlds leading experts on climatechange, believes that the world may see sus-tained cooling over the next thirty years be-

fore the warming starts again. The left usesthis issue to try and pass big governmentpolicies and suggest that those who standin the way do not care for the environment.While Al Gore and others y around theworld in their fuel-exhausting jets preachingenergy conservation, it is becoming clearerand clearer that the worlds climate is con-stantly changing and its future is unpredict-able. President Obama was humiliated atCopenhagen for not coming away with anysort of substantive agreement after the Chi-nese refused to sign on to any binding dealthat would drastically curb their emissions.

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

to the Iranians, hoping to achieve a dip-lomatic accord, only to have that handslapped away. Within the past year theIranians have admitted to having a secretunderground uranium plant near the cityof Qum, declared their intent to build tenmore nuclear facilities and have held arigged election where candidates werevetted, women were prohibited fromrunning and protesters were shot at andbeaten in the streets when they tried tovoice opposition to the results of an un-fair process.

Once provided an opportunity to standwith democratic activists who challengedthe Ayatollahs in the streets of Tehran, theadministration chose to remain almost silent,stating that the U.S. should not meddle inanother states affairs. Meanwhile the worldwas able to see how oppressive and brutalthe Iranian regime really is when they turnedthe police and the Revolutionary Guard ontheir own people. Imagine that same regimewith a nuclear weapon.

There are many other issues facing Presi-dent Obama and others yet to come. In his

rst 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 betterpick up a stick.

John Stapleton, 27, is an editor for The NewGuard . He is a 2009 graduate of AmericanUniversity, where he earned an M.A. in po-litical science with a concentration in com-

parative politics. John has also written forthe AU College Republicans newsletter, TheRight Wing.

WalkingSoftly



9/20

Following the terrorist attacks of Sep-tember 11, 2001, the world has been

a silent witness to a strange synthesisof the far-Left and radical Islamism. The twoideologies couldnt be more different, if notdiametrically opposed to each other. Howcould the expressly atheistic system of Com-munism, which destroyed Islamic Khanatesin Central Asia, oppressed Muslim Uighursin China and fought the Mujahadeen in Af-ghanistan, nd common cause to not onlycoexist with, but support and work with,radical Islamists? Islamists, such as the lateAyatollah Khomeini who even went so far asto say, I despise the treacherous grouplets,whether communist or Marxist I considerthem traitors to the country, to Islam.

The Arabian proverb, My enemys en-emy is my friend, speaks volumes about thealliance of far-Leftists and Islamists. To anoutside observer, it would seem that the lefthas embraced an incomprehensible level of Neolithic incompetence. With friends likethis, who needs enemies? Nevertheless, thecon uence of interests between these tworadical groups is enough to create a strongbond. The totality of both ideologiestheirnihilistic drive to destroy liberal democraticsystems, Christianity and the Westis para-mount to understanding their current alli-ance.

The fundamental precepts of Islamism,a political-religious movement, have been

embraced by groups attempting to awakenthe masses, advocating a regression backto Islam and away from the secular West-ern philosophies they blame for the regionsmisfortune. The left often holds the West incontempt and blames Western governmentsand societies for troubles in other global re-gions. Islamists get to play victim while theLeftists act as self-arranged allies to the per-ceived Islamic victim-group.

Unlike the utopian Islamist worldview,Western society and government, inspired bythe Enlightenment, were developed as twoseparate entities with religion omitted fromthe latter. Thomas Jefferson constructed theAmerican Declaration of Independence witha foundation established in the precepts of John Lockereligion existing as a privateaffair for men and absent from the work-ings of government. These classically liberalprinciples of government are rooted in manspotential to exercise sound reason in the ab-sence of religion, which is said to corrupt thediscourse and free ow of ideas. These con-cepts form some of the basic ideals for theseparation of church and state. On the otherhand, Islamic states thrive in a conditionwhich has no basis in a constitution of indi-vidual rights. Instead, faith is placed in tra-

ditional Islamic texts to dictate the societallife. And in the radical Left, individualism isto be replaced by communalism as dictatedby Marx, Lenin or Mao. The Muslim worlddoesnt function in schisms of scal yearsand seasonal Christian holidays, but ratherviews reality by millennia with a basis inhistory, the Quran and Allah. As with theirIslamic brothers-in-arms, the Left sees theworld in elongated phases, all leading up toan eventual revolution or a Trotskyite con-tinuous revolution.

The shared anti-capitalism of the far-Leftand the Islamists is also noteworthy. In July,2009, Hizb ut-Tahrir (Party of Liberation), aSunni 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-listterrorists such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (aman responsible for the deaths of thousandsacross 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 andthe Rise of Islam. The movie offered half-baked explanations as to why capitalism wasevil, accusing the system of free enterprisefor causing World War I and II. The movieeven included a line that could come directlyfrom a 1968 edition of Pravda: [Capitalism]was and is responsible for all of the warsand terrorism in the world. The expertwho lends his credibility to this farce is none

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


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- gions misfortune.


10/20

other than Charles Lewis, a former 60 Min-utes producer who founded the Center forPublic Integrity and is a journalism professorat 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 awelcome and exotic ideology. Additionally,to the far-Left, Muslims are simply seen asthe oppressed. In a system that values be-ing counter-culture, Islam, especially in itsradicalized forms, is welcomed with openarms. 1970s leftist and arch-terrorist IllichRamirez Snchez (A.K.A. Carlos the Jack-al) went so far as to convert to Islam andclaim in his recent book that he had embraceda new, revolutionary Islam, which attacksthe ruling classes in order to achieve a moreequitable redistribution of wealth. KarlMarx once stated that the social principlesof Christianity preach cowardice, self-con-tempt, abasement, submission, humility, in aword all the qualities of the canaille. When

juxtaposed to Osama bin Ladens statementthat every Muslim, from the moment theyrealize the distinction in their hearts, hatesAmericans, hates Jews and hates Christians.For as long as I can remember, I have felttormented and at war, and have felt hatredand animosity for Americans, it is easy tosee a connection of ideals.

The Islamist Hamas is the leading militant

group in the struggle against the WesternIsrael and is fawned over by the far-Left.Supporters of Code Pink even went so faras to attempt the delivery of a peace letterfrom Hamas to President Obama. This wasdespite the fact that Hamas charter openlystates that, Israel will continue to existuntil Islam will obliterate it and there isno solution for the Palestinian question ex-cept through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals andinternational conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

The newly reorganized Students for Dem-

ocratic Society (SDS) urges its followers toend the occupations now: Iraq, Afghani-stan, Palestine. One SDS organizer wenton to say, The Afghan people have a rightto self-determination, and a right to live in acountry that is not being constantly bombedby U.S. and NATO forces. In keeping withthe far-Leftist tradition of myopia, the Tal-ibans and al-Qaidas actions of deliberatelytargeting civilians are ignored. The fact thatthose heavily armed groups would destroyany legitimate, popular quests for self-deter-

mination is of little concernAmerica andthe West are the evil ones.

The far-Lefts obsession with grantingchosen groups victimhood has amounted totheir imposition of a permanent victim sta-tus on the Muslim population of the MiddleEast. During the Danish cartoon controversy,Professor Deepa Kumar stated, in a 2006edition of the socialist Monthly Review, thatshe was fed up with an anti-war movementin the United States that will do nothing todefend Muslims against all the attacks theyhave faced both domestically and interna-tionally. Let us forget the 2003 anti-warprotest in Oakland, California where onespeaker was quoted saying he was there to

ght the wave of jingoism and anti-Muslimpropaganda. This is simply not good enoughfor the Left. Who cares if a 2007 Newsweekpoll showed that most Americans viewMuslim-Americans as a peaceable minor-ity? Americas interventions in Bosnia andKosovo to save the Muslims of those coun-tries must be yet another example of Westernintransigence. Islamists, whether they areburning down a Danish embassy, exploding

themselves on crowded buses or ethnicallycleansing Christian neighborhoods in Bagh-dad are merely reacting to Western oppres-sion. They are the real victims.

Even though the left decries the Westsso-called human-rights abuses, any groupthat has adopted a pro-American outlook orlooks too Western, is usually neglected orignored. There is no outcry by the far-Leftregarding the condition, nor quests for self-determination by the pro-U.S. Assyrian,Chaldean or Syriac Christians in Iraq. While

only forming three to ve percent of the Iraqipopulation, those groups make up half of allrefugees from Iraq. The far-Left-Islamist al-liance is further deepened by the fact thatIslamists work to kill and convert, cleans-ing the Middle East of its Christian popu-lation. The Western based far-Leftists ndChristianity equally distasteful, outdatedand more dangerous than Islam. Christian isequated with being Western, despite the factthat these Middle Eastern Christian groupsare both native and oppressed, they are ex-plained away in Leftist doublespeak as mereagents of Western-Christian imperium.

Professional ponti cator and MIT lin-guistics professor Noam Chomsky statedin 2002, Jingoism, racism, fear, religiousfundamentalism: these are the ways of ap-pealing to people if youre trying to organizea mass base of support for policies that arereally intended to crush them. A little overfour years later, Chomsky picked a great wayto demonstrate his hatred of jingoism, rac-ism fear, [and] religious fundamentalismwhen he was led around Lebanon by the an-ti-Semitic, religiously fundamentalist terror-ist group Hizballah (note: Hizballah meansParty of God). While Chomsky claims tobe a libertarian socialist, he chose to alignwith a group that wishes to push the Iranianversion of Islamist totalitarianism (wilayatal-faqih) on pluralistic Lebanon. Chomsky,

who railed against the deep racism of West-ern culture, even made an appearance onal-Manar, Hizballahs telivision network.In 2004, the network received internationalcondemnation for its airing of Al-Shatat(The Diaspora). The show featured Jewsritualistically slitting the neck of a Christianboy, in order to use his blood for matzo, andforming cabals to control the world.

Many within the realms of Left and far-Left have taken ideological satisfaction inaligning the situation in Iraq and the broaderMiddle East to misjudgments by the Bush

administration in the decision to invade. Thereality which exists, and that which unfoldedon the lap of U.S. forces from 2001 to thepresent, is due to the massive anti-Westernstorm which has been embraced by the farLeft and Islamic societies to achieve theirprospective goals. Often individuals fallvictim to societal dogma and lofty pretens-es which blind them from truth, producinga twisted vision of reality. As the far-Leftand Islamist alliance becomes more amal-gamated, it has demonstrated a clear real-


To the

far-Left, Muslims are simply seen as the oppressed. In a system that values

being counter- culture, Islam,especially in its

radicalized forms,is welcomed with

open arms.


11/20

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

As the debate over health care continues, ithas become commonplace to label health-

care as a fundamental human right. Sup-porters of the presidents health care plan arguethat because we have the right to life we alsohave the right to health care, as without it our lifecould end due to inadequate coverage. While onits face this argument seems sound, if we lookinto rights theory we will see that no, healthcare is not a human right, and rather than usingemotional rhetoric to pass the healthcare bill itshould be debated on its merits and the effects itwill have on our country.

First, what is a human right? What do wemean when we are talking about natural, inalien-

able rights? A human right is one that we havesimply by virtue of our being human. Whetherderived from God or nature, our Founding Fa-thers believed that there are certain basic rightsthat all people naturally enjoy and that are notgiven to them by the government. If the gov-ernment has the power to distribute these rightsthen it also has the power to take these rightsaway. The idea that we derive our rights froma 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 toprotect us against infringement by the state andis 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 stateto exist. If they are derived from the state, thencountries like Sudan and Burma are perfectly

justi ed in murdering their own citizens becausethey have not granted their people the right tolife or liberty. The truth is that we have the rightto life because we are naturally alive; we havethe right to liberty because we are naturally free;and we have the right to pursue property be-cause we possess the natural faculties to reasonand exercise our potential.

These are called negative rights, as they arerights 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 powersover our own lives.

Healthcare cannot be a natural right becauseit requires the government to create it. Thesetypes of rights are called positive rights and areessentially entitlements (eg: Bob is obliged toact in some way towards Mary). Positive rightsare rights arti cially created by society in orderto bene t the people of that society, and include

things like public education, marriage, SocialSecurity, Medicare and Medicaid. For public-run health care to exist, it would require govern-ment to obligate some people to help pay forother peoples healthcare. We do not naturallyhave the right to healthcare because it requiresother people to pay for it, meaning the statemust involve itself. Positive rights ought to bedebated on their merits and whether they bene tsociety, but the right to things like healthcaredoes not exist unless rst created by the govern-ment, and it is, therefore, not a human right.

A core problem with the modern Americanleft is that it sees all human wants and needsas rights. If we blur the lines between positiveand negative rights then we must turn govern-ment into the necessary distributor of our rights.

Not only that, but we will lose ourselves in anever-expanding obligatory welfare state. Somepeople do not have or are not satis ed with, theirhealthcare: therefore we should have govern-ment-funded healthcare programs. Some peopledo not have, or are not satis ed with, their hous-ing situation: therefore we should have govern-ment-funded housing programs. Some peopledo not have, or are not satis ed with, their food:therefore we should have government-fundedfeeding programs. The Lefts in nite grasp ig-nores the reality of a nite monetary situationand 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 worksuntil you run out of other peoples money.Nothing in life is free, and all these programscome 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 todays global arena, andhas existed for decades in the convolutedshadows of politics. This new actuality of the convergence of totalitarian ideologiesis a growing threat to peaceful liberal de-mocracy. To our foes, the world is black andwhite. The Islamists see those not embracingtheir ideology as living in a state of jahili-yyah (ignorance), while the Leftists dividethe world between oppressive bourgeoisieand oppressed proletariat. To many in bothideologies, 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 supportthe empowerment of citizenry to ourishthrough mans ability to exercise his rationalpotential. We must realize, as a human race,that if those who love freedom cannot nd asolution, those who dont 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 thebroader Middle East. He specializes in thestudy of Middle Eastern Christian commu-

nities, regional nationalisms and Lebanese politics. Phillip has extensive connectionswith many Middle Eastern political leadersand has served as an adviser to a number of regional NGOs 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 deploymentsin support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Hemost recently served as a volunteer for theScott Brown campaign.


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


12/20

My curiosity was piqued when I learnedthat Hot, Flat, and Crowded was myfreshman summer reading. For all the

global warming debates swirling around aca-demic communities these days, I personallyhad done very little research on the subject.I picked up the book with an open mind,prepared myself to think critically aboutthis divisive issue and began to read. What Ifound was extremely alarming. But it wasntthe environment that concerned me. Rather,I was troubled after reading Hot, Flat,and Crowded because of the distortedview and inconsistencies I saw repre-

sented therein. I questioned ThomasFriedmans supposed global crisis andhis solutions for the environment; so,to gain a well-rounded viewpoint withwhich to compare and contrast bothsides of the issue, I also read Chris-topher C. Horners The Politically In-correct Guide to Global Warming andRoy W. Spencers Climate Confusion .Here are my thoughts based on thecombination of these readings.

First, Friedman asserts that thereis a consensus among knowledge-

able scientists that harmful, man-made global warming is occurring. Heacknowledgesin a highly simpli edlist that stereotypes everyone oppos-ing global warmingthat there is asmall minority of scientists, whohave looked at the data and conclud-ed for different reasons that the rapidand extensive increase in greenhousegas emissions since the IndustrialRevolution is not a major threat to theplanets livability. Friendman accuses thesescientists of muddying the issue of climatechange and preventing drastic save-the-world action. I disagree with this entireline of thought. Is consensus to be valuedin the scienti c community? After all, if aconsensus was all that was needed to provethe validity of scienti c theories, we wouldstill believe the earth was at. Just as Galileowas persecuted for his heliocentric theory, isit possible that scientists today are refrain-ing from voicing their doubts about global

warming in order to avoid being belittled inbooks like Hot, Flat, and Crowded ? A con-sensus proves nothingscience is not ademocracy.

Second, Hot, Flat, and Crowded men-tiones multiple times how the earths sur-face temperature has drastically risen in thepast few decades. Since it is impossible tomeasure every area of the earth, the earthssurface temperature is simply an average of temperatures collected from weather stations

around the world. In order to understand theglobal mean temperature, we must rst lookat 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 Russianmeasuring stations closing, as well as manyother stations around the world. Becausemany of the closed stations were in Sibe-ria and other cold-weather areas, the globalmean 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 1975to 1998, and is currently in a cooling trend,comparatively. The weather we are experi-encing now is neither historically unusualnor unprecedented.

Finally, the solutions put forth by ThomasFriedman and the government are unrealisticand crippling at best, and absolutely cata-

strophic for the U.S. economy atworst. The overall cost required toimplement the solutions would

amount to hundreds of billions of dollars. The overall effect wouldmaybe be a reduction in the earthssurface temperature of a hun-dredth-of-a-degree-Celsius over aperiod of many years. If, based onthe substantial doubts Ive brie ymentioned above, there is no causefor global warming alarm, and thecost to the economy would be ab-solutely fatal to the United States.Tighter, unbearable regulationswould 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 alarmistcampaign is a highly politicizedcampaign rooted in big govern-ment ideals. For the purpose of ad-vancing more government regula-tions, Hot, Flat, and Crowded andglobal warming advocates ignoresimple, obvious facts. The lefts

disregard for scienti c evidence is a discred-it to science. Fortunately, independent-think-ing American individuals can recognize thelogical fallacies Thomas Friedman and otherglobal warming advocates routinely assume.

Joy Welborn, 18, is a freshman at GeorgeWashington 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



13/20

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

true administration of justice is the rm-est pillar of good government. Thesewords are etched upon the stoic state court-house abutting the Manhattan FederalCourthouse where Attorney General EricHolder would like to try Khalid Sheikh Mo-hammed and four other enemy combatants.

For over 200 years our country hasused military tribunals to prosecute enemycombatants, from British spies during theRevolutionary War to Nazi spies and warcriminals during, and after, World War II.

Following this well-established American jurisprudence, Congress passed the MilitaryCommissions Act of 2006, which authorizedmilitary tribunals (that provide due processand appellate review) as the means for pros-ecuting enemy combatants, many of whichare actively working to kill Americans anddestroy our country.

Some opponents of military tribunals ar-gue that our government has recently triedterrorists in civilian courts, as was the casewith Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman afterthe 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

There are, however, several distinctionsbetween the Abdel-Rahman trial andthe upcoming terrorist trials. In 1993there was no War on Terrorism and thatattack was viewed as an isolated inci-dent. As former New York City Mayorand United States Attorney RudolphGiuliani stated with respect to the1993 attack, We did not recognize itas an act of war. We tried them in theSouthern district in New York; it didno good. Essentially, Abdel-Rahmanwas tried in Civilian Court because atthe time there were no congressionallyauthorized military tribunals in whichto try him.

Prosecuting enemy combatants incivilian court creates logistical imprac-ticalities, especially when dealing withevidence and national security. The on-going War on Terrorism has sensitivedocuments related to ongoing mission,investigations, undercover agents andgovernment strategies for ghting thisunconventional war. If the terrorists

and their lawyers request this information,will the government have to turn over therequested items without being held to se-crecy? Will jurors and defense counsel needsecurity clearance to review such evidence?And if a juror and/or a defense lawyer can-not be given security clearance will the courtbe forced to declare a mistrial? Will we faceanother Lynne Stewart situation where alawyer for the terrorists will be able to leakcon dential information to other terror-ists? And if the government seeks to protectagainst such leaks, the defense may cry foul,alleging that the government is spying onthem. Furthermore, the Sixth Amendment

provides for a jury of ones peers. Since theaccused 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 enemycombatants, there is the concern that Attor-ney General Holder may be using these tri-als to score political points for the Obamaadministration. 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 othersin military tribunals, as is the case with thosecharged with the bombing of the USS Cole.There is also the concern that Holder will usethe civilian proceedings to put the previousadministrations policies on trial, particu-larly when it comes to the use of supposedtorture as a means of eliciting informationfrom captured terrorists.

It is no secret that Sheikh Mohamed waswater-boarded. The question now is whetheror not Holder will defend the prior adminis-trations 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 anot-guilty verdict? These civilian trials alsoappear political in nature because variousJustice Department of cials have said that if Holders prosecution fails to secure convic-tions, the Obama administration will keepSheikh Mohamed and his co-conspiratorslocked up forever as enemy combatants any-way.

The true administration of justicerequires that the enemy combatants

be tried in military tribunals as pre-scribed by Congress and not in a po-litically motivated asco which willcost taxpayers upwards of $200 mil-lion a year and disrupt New Yorksongoing efforts to rebuild from 9/11.

Even if Holder is to be believed,and the only reason he could justifygoing to civilian trialthat supposedsymbolic show of the benign mercyof the Obama administrationis heis sure of a conviction, then these tri-als are inherently farcical and send nogreat message on due process and afair system. Hopefully Holders showtrials can do more than just show theenemy our handbut we doubt it.

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

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



14/20

The prophet, the messiah, the maestro:a post-modern iconoclast of free mar-kets and central bankingharbinger of the golden 90s. Oh yes, we remember thatGreenspanthe iconoclastic glue that madefree markets and central banking appear tobe a divine couple and not the polar oppo-sites they truly are. However contradictorythe two terms of free markets and centralbanking are, Alan Greenspan held this spe-cial status. It wasnt too far back in the lastmillennium when Greenspan went on hisvitriolic crusade against at currency, centralbanking and regulation as a prime discipleof Ayn Rand herself. Most economists re-member the twelve interest cutsof this last decadeespecially

the drop to one percent, and thesteady 5.25 percent rate of the90sdeviating infrequently.Most Americans felt at ease be-cause they knew that the expertand chief of the money supplywould keep the good times roll-ing in perpetuity. The modicumof Libertarians and Objectivistsremember the Greenspan essaysin Ayn Rands book Capitalism,which introduced Greenspan as alate nineteenth century nostalgic

for laissez-faire capitalismanera in the United States void of central banking.

However, this is not the Alan Greenspanmost people are familiar with today. Allowme to reintroduce the proclaimed maestro of yesteryearhow his hypocrisy, contradic-tions and actions fueled a megalithic bubblethat played the most important factor in thescale and ensuing damage of the currentcrash.

We have always had bubbles, panics,crashes, recessions and depressions. Thisis not unique to just central banking. Thisis a natural part of the growth of any freeenterprise systemraising living standardsthrough the roof or, in the words of AndrewCarnegie, Turning luxuries into necessi-ties. Think of the things we feel we need,as Americans, that most of the world goeswithout: cell phones, the Internet, cars, heat,electricitythe list can go on for days. Asstated previously, this system comes withbooms and recessions. However, differentpolicies, rules and regulations can turn a

boom into a bubble and a standard recessioninto a depression. None is more important tothe ampli cation of booms and busts than acentral banking system.

It is arguable that the subprime bust wasbound to happen even without the FederalReserve lowering its key interest rates to oneprcent in the bubble years. The bust probablywould have occurred simply given the regu-lation dictated by the Community Re-In-vestment Act and the quasi-government-runFannie and Freddie bundling of mortgages(by leveraging against low capital reserves).Though worth mentioning, this is anothertopic in itself and I am not going to entangle

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

Though these played huge factors, theypale in comparison to what Greenspan didto the American economy. Without the infu-sion of credit from the Fed, would the crisishave been a crisis in the rst place? Would

nancial rms have been so exposed? Wouldunemployment be at ve to six percent in-stead of 10 percent? Greenspan, who oncebelieved that any form of currency must bemade honest by gold, found himself spear-heading the worlds top central bankabank which spews so much paper money itmakes Monopoly money seem like sheetsof gold leaf. Greenspans views were be-yond inconsistent as he transformed into abureaucrat. He not only sold his Randianideals for moderation (some might say thatthis moderation was a form of his Monetaristinclinations), 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 thebeginning, but one does get suspicious whenwe nd there is absolutely no academic un-derpinning for the interest rate targeting thattook place. The Taylor Rule, an equationused to help a central bank dictate interestrates that control in ation and promote sta-bility in monetary policy that was followednearly piecemeal in the 90s (and, most mightsay, worked to perfection) was suddenly de-viated from in the early 2000s to, supposed-ly, combat the tech recession. Recessions

make way for technologicaladvancement and properly al-

located resources. Rememberthe aforementioned statementabout a central banking entityamplifying recessions? That is

just what happened. The goodtimes can never ow perpetu-ally if they require that theeconomy is stagnant: life isstochastic, not deterministic.During the years of the inter-est rate deviations from theTaylor Rule, the Fed loose

t its Federal Funds Rate.

When there should have beenan interest rate spike to 300basis points by the fourth

quarter of 2002, the Fed lowered its rate to150 basis points. The deviations followeduntil 2005 when the Fed suddenly hikedinterest rates to the ve percent where theywere supposed to have been since at least2004. Some might ask how small injectionsof billions of dollars in credit from the Fedcould cause a problem in the trillions. Eas-ilyits called the money multiplier effect:banks can lend out money on a 9:1 ratio toactual reserves held in deposit. Therefore,you can easily see how money is created andhow this can multiply into a problem in thetrillions, especially when there was a trend inthe market in favor of betting the house on,well, the house.

In his famed essay, Gold and EconomicFreedom, the Greenspan who once abhorredregulation said, in effect, not verbatim, theultimate force behind regulation is a gun.This same man found himself the Chairmanof the Federal Reserve in 1987. I guess not

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

The Federal Reserve Building in Washington, DC



15/20

is over. It need not be mentioned that evenin the Golden 90s there still was a regu-latory body for nearly every single industryin the United States. Albeit some restraintswere let go to allow more freedom in thebanking sector; but citing that is like sayingthat only eating meat twice a week makes avegetarian. The Fed lowering its key inter-est rates is not a bigger headline than greedyWall Street executives, so the Fed storywasnt exhaustively covered in the mediait simply doesnt sell over greed at AIG.Yes, greed is an important factor and mostof the time for the best, but when Greenspandecided to lower rates to an abysmal one per-cent it fueled the subprime bubble. While thechairman was busy getting this new mythicalplace called Bubblonia drunk off of credit,the nation could not offset or cushion againsta recession with a healthy supply in nationalsavings and capital reserves for our leading

nancial institutions.Greenspans only defense was that saversin Asia (Asian Savings Glut) were causingthe suppression of long-term rates by some-how saving too much. Although he raisedinterest rates back up in 2004, it was alreadytoo latea secular trend had started in themarket with extra liquidity from the Fed tobet on the subprime bubble. Even if Asiansavers were to have suppressed long-termrates, why didnt he raise interest rates backup during the prime bubble years? Its likesaying the cure for the alcoholic is more

alcohol. Amazingly thats what the logicwas: liquidity, liquidity and more liquidity.The more alcohol you give the alcoholic theworse the ensuing hangover and withdrawalwill be; the more credit you infuse into abubble the worse the ensuing chaos anddamage will be.

So, let us remember, in this new decade,to never invest our faith in mobs, maestrosor false messiahs. Let us remember that gov-ernment distorts to get what it wants, evenif that includes making you believe that theChairman of the Fed represents the free mar-ket. Before trusting in these experts, havefaith in a free market, your own abilities andyour own talents. Let us remain eternallyvigilant in the pursuit of liberty, and let usnever forget the only great thing AlanGreenspan and the Federal Reserve didmake this recession a Great Recession.

Lance Christopher, 22, is a sophomore at theUniversity of the District of Columbia wherehe 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. Theonce erce, primetime Objectivist againstregulation and intervention, had become theprinter-in-chief of the money supply and sy-cophant to the bureaucratic elite. While hewas supposed to be an intellectual ag bearerof the monetarist movement, Greenspan hadno real defense by Monetarism for his ac-tions as chairman. This should have been the

rst nail in the cof n for any sense of com-petence and stability for Greenspans tenureas the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Not only was Greenspan hypocriticalby having a job antithetical to everythinghe supposedly believed in, he was full of inherent contradictions. One of these con-tradictions can be considered the crme dela crme for the former chairmans incon-sistency. A free market is a system wherenearly all goods and services are privatized

and allocated through supply and demand,including the money supply and excludingmilitary and police services and basic gov-

ernment infrastructure. In a September 2007interview with Jon Stewart, Greenspan wasasked a very central question: So were nota free market then? Greenspan emphatical-ly replied, Youre quite correct. To the ex-tent that there is a central bank governing theamount of money in the system, that is not afree market. Most people call it regulation.

Fast forward to 2008 amidst nancial con-tagion, a serious contraction of credit, bail-outs and populist politics. Greenspan foundhimself trembling before socialist HenryWaxman, D-Calif., when asked, Were youwrong? Greenspan responded, Partially,adding that he was wrong to believe thatself-regulation could work and that thereis a aw. But how could that have beenpossible when, a year prior, Greenspan stat-ed that the United States is not a free marketto the extent that it has a central authoritygoverning the supply of credit? The same

central authority he governed!This reality is a far cry from the Clintonproclamation that the era of big government



16/20

Thomas Jefferson once said, Every gen-eration needs a new revolution. Forthe generation of the 1980s, it was theReagan Revolution. As great as it was, itis unfortunate that the era of Reagan is evenreferred to as a revolution at all. The prin-ciples for which it stood were not pillars of some new political philosophy, but weresimply the foundational blocks of the UnitedStates. The government had gotten so largeand out of control that a return to traditionalAmerican values was a breath of fresh air.

The Reagan Revolution is over and weare, as much as we hate to admit it, right backwhere we started from over twenty years

ago. Once again, government has gorged it-self on the individual freedoms of the peopleas well as the free enterprise system, expand-ing to a size of gargantuan proportions. Andonce again, the people have allowed it to be-come this way.

A cry is rising up from our generation. Weare dissatis ed with the status quo. The latest

alsstill remain. The political philosophiesof the Left are simply repackaged versionsof what Carter offered years ago and weknow how his administration ended. Whatwe need now is a return to our foundation, arestructured version of what Reagan offered.We know the kind of impact he had not onlyon the nation, but on the world as well. It istime for true leadership and real reform. Itis time for a new revolution. In the wordsof Winston Churchill, Let us go forward to-gether.

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

Voting for the Republican Party has in-deed been a hard pill to swallow for manyin recent elections, as so-called moderateshave in ltrated the ranks. While the Republi-can Party is often the lesser of two evils, it isan evil nonetheless. So what should we do?Shall we as conservatives break off and starta third party, leaving our dirty house simplyto build another? Certainly not. The answeris to clean house and I believe we will ndthat 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 neednot start from scratch. What we need nowmost of all is a leader, someone to stand onthe stage and speak to the audience, and I be-lieve that that leader may very well be withinthe ranks of young Conservatism.

While the Reagan Revolution has cometo a close, its principlesits American ide-

A N e w R e v o l u t i o n

The Future of the Conservative/Libertarian Movement// By Tyler Perry

Tyler Perry, 18,is a senior at

Cass City High

School in Deford,

Michigan.

The YAF SCE NE

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 fundraiser

4. YAFers, with actor Brian Dennehy, rally against KSM trial in NYC5. YAFers wish alumnus Eugene Degaudio a happy bir thday6. 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 YAFs Matt ZandiEssay Contest :


17/20

T o many young adult residents of Massachusetts, Sena-tor Ted Kennedy, along with the entire Kennedy fam-ily, was a political gure and legendary icon who wegrew up with. Our old school Boston Democrat families por-trayed the liberal ideals of Kennedypolitics as foundations for the goodin our society and the morals weshould live by. What took place thispast fall was a movement which, atthe heart of the most liberal statemachine in the country, rejuvenatedthe souls of citizens who have beencultivated in the epicenter of ournations most revolutionary history.We were reminded that governmentmust always represent the voice of

the peoplenot its own partisanmotivations.

Republican Senator Scott Brownevoked the essence of liberal de-mocracy by delivering a messagerooted in the most fundamental principles of our nation. Citi-zens of the Commonwealth were reminded of a governmentcreated to function with respect to the dignity of the peopleand their interests, not the interests of partisan party politicsor an extreme ideological agenda. They were reminded thatthe American government should act as a collective body of healthy debate and dissent in order to digest the concerns of the

BrownFrom 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 ow of ideas. These are thefoundations 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 radicalwho wishes to stomp attempts at agovernment-mandated health careplan and implement a reactionaryinterpretation of the Constitution.Once the dogmatic lter has been

removed, these convoluted accusa-tions become evidence of a govern-ment that has grown accustomed toenacting policy without the consentof the people. To Senator Browns

supporters in the Commonwealth, he is a leader who wishesto restore the fundamentals of liberal democratic society byrepresenting a citizenry in the face of a partisan majority. Toour new senator on Capitol Hill: Thank you for reminding theworld of a representative government which functions to en-sure man can ourish free from the demands of an overwhelm-ing majority.

Republican Senator Scott Brown evoked the

essence of liberal democracy by delivering a message rooted in the

most fundamental principles of our nation.


A Local Account of Scott Browns Victory From the Heart of the Commonwealth

/ / By Brian Higdon


18/20

In constructing a sound foreign policy, every administration de-bates the best ways to advance the nations 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 of cials from the Bush I team

viewed the world and the views of of cials from George W.s teamtwelve years later. The rst Bush felt that the global politics, duringhis term, necessitated delicate handling. There were many signi cantgeo-political changes during his tenure, including the breakup of theSoviet Union, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the War in the PersianGulf. As a result, Bush I put forward a realist foreign policy, leav-ing a tumultuous world largelyto itself while prioritizing thesecurity of the state and othernational interests above all.

When George W. Bush cameto the White House, it seemedthat he intended to pursue the

same course. However, the ter-rorist attacks on September 11drastically changed the way hisadministration viewed Ameri-cas role in the world. After theattacks, Bush declared that anystate that harbored terroristswould be considered tantamount to a terror organization itself. Warswere then waged in Afghanistan and Iraq, with smaller battles takingplace in Somalia and Southeast Asia. It was an aggressive policy totry 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 adangerous and ever-evolving place. A strong foreign policy is a ne-cessity, and it would be wise for future administrations to beat backany calls for an isolationist approach. Isolationism is a foreign policythat amalgamates a non-interventionist military policy, which wouldprohibit a country from getting involved in any alliance or militarycon ict that is not seen as a direct threat to its own borders, with aprotectionist 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 manyvoters. Terrorists are still trying to attack America, the wars in Af-ghanistan and Iraq are now reaching their ninth and seventh yearrespectively and the cost in both blood and treasure for keeping astrong presence around the world can really wear on a country. Thereare also politicians and candidates who have, and will continue to,run for of ce while preaching an isolationist approach. Dont fallfor it.

America is a strong nation because of the alliances it has formedand the coalitions it has built. Whether its from strong commercial

ties or military partnerships, theUnited States should continueto build upon its superpowerstatus so that any challenge canbe met. The current adminis-tration, as well as future ones,can maintain this edge by re-

fraining from an interventionistapproach. It is important thatAmerica engages, while neverdictating, in world affairs. Aswe have seen very clearly inthe past, the internal strugglesof another state can have an im-

pact on the U.S. Very few people would have advocated for a warin Afghanistan before 9/11. Yet after the horrendous events of thatday, many governments came to realize that a brutal regime like theTaliban cannot be allowed to control a state where terror groups areallowed 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, NorthKorea, 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 toour enemies that America is no longer interested in being the globalhegemon. The United States must continue to seek out and destroyany 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 thebest interests of the United States, today and tomorrow.

Today and TomorrowA Case for Americas Continued Involvement in Global Affairs

/ / By John Stapleton

Retreating from our position as a superpower by slashing the defensebudget, walking away from crucial economic alliances and rescinding

our commitments to protect our friends will only suggest to our enemies that America is no longer inter-

ested in being the global hegemon.



19/20

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


E dmund Haynes Taylor, Jr. (1830-1923) was a pioneer inAmericas young bourbon industry, working to guide it to itslofty place as one of the worlds greatest spirits. By crafting

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

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

suring free and unsullied competition.Colonel Taylors biography by the

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

Conservative American spirit of the man best: It is said thatTaylor followed a career thatlinked the classic and moderneras of bourbon makingabridge, 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 theentire bourbon industry and left a legacythat has bene ted bourbon makers andbourbon lovers for generations.

This issues Colonel Taylor Julep is therst in a long line of Conservative cocktails

brought to you by The New Guard magazine. This cocktail honorsthe spirit of E.H. Taylor through a mixture of time-honored tradi-tion and young innovation. It was researched, crafted and picturedby Dane Nakamura, 23, a professional bartender at Bourbon inWashington, 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 otherYAF members and young conservatives can enjoy it not simplywith its fresh minty aromas and American autumn tastes, but with atrue 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 intoquarters and roast with mullingspices 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 thebourbon and serve on crushed icein highball glass with a slice offresh apple and a sprig of mint togarnish. Finish wi

the new guard vol 34 no 1

Documents