new guard summer 2010 edition - young americans for freedom ( yaf )

8/9/2019 New Guard Summer 2010 Edition - Young Americans for Freedom ( YAF )

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/new-guard-summer-2010-edition-young-americans-for-freedom-yaf- 1/24

who is john galt?on the Gop’s failure todefend capitalism

middle east peace:drawing a line in the sand

tiananmen 2.0:how Facebook and Twitterdefeated communist china

Peace through strength: WHY REAL CONSERVATIVESFIGHT TYRANNY

Restoring American History: Why President GrantBelongs on the $ 50

THE MAGAZINE OAMERICANS FOR

SUmmer VOLUME Thirt

NUMBE

$ 1

E G U A R D

A dangerous precedent: the threat of obamacareand how to defeat it



IN THIS TIME of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of the youth of America

to af rm certain eternal truths.

WE , as young conservatives, believe:

THAT foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s 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 Constitution—the division of powers—is 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 than co-existence with, this

menace; and

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

The Sharon StatementAdopted in conference at Sharon, Connecticut, 10-13 September 1960,at the estate of William F. Buckley, Jr.

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.

THE New Guard Table of Contents

from the Editor’s Desk// Christopher Bedford 1

EconomyKeep Entrepreneurship AliveKill the Death Tax// Adam Nicholson 2

ObamaCare“Are You Serious?”Killing the Constitution for Health Care// Will Haun 3 Unconstitutional Mandate

Health Care’s Dangerous Precedent // Ramon Lopez 5Supreme Court Activism

An Insider’s Guide

// Carrie Severino 7

EducationCreating the “New Man”The Totalitarian Social Engineering Projects of the Academic New-Far-Left // Phillip Smyth 8

The YAF SceneFlorida YAFers Fight for Freedom// James Shackelford III 10YAF at CPAC 2010// Jordan Marks 11

Foreign AffairsThe Plain Facts of History

Middle East Peace: Drawing a line in the Sand // John Stapleton 13Tiananmen 2.0

How Facebook and Twitter defeated Communist China// Jim Geheron 15Peace Through StrengthWhy Real Conservatives Fight Tyranny Abroad // Adam Cassandra 17

Culture and HistoryWill the Real John GaltPlease Stand Up?

A Brief Examination of the GOP’s Failureto Defend Capitalism// Charles Olson 19Why General GrantBelongs on the $50 BillCorrecting the Record on a Great American

// Frank Scaturro 20

Cocktail New Guard Cocktail// Dane Nakamura 21



The past three months have seen many changes in the United States.Certainly not the change citizens voted for in 2008, but changenonetheless. We have seen the public persona of a president who,

just a year ago, had a friendly reputation and a seeming mandate, crumbleunder re, reforming as a bitter, sarcastic and dismissive politician. Wehave seen a spontaneous national movement for limited government con-tinue to grow and spread across the country, sinking its grassroots intolocal soil and celebrating its one-year anniversary in gatherings acrosshundreds of American cities and towns, rather than just a few. We haveseen a rattled GOP nd strength in its Conservative supporters and rally,presenting thoughtful alternatives and principled opposition. And wehave seen Young Americans for Freedom growing by as many as ftyactivists a day, discovering new leaders, launching bold campus initia-tives, raising national awareness and starting fresh chapters across the

country including Puerto Rico and Alaska.The New Guard , nally back from a long hiatus, has continued to grow

and change as well, comfortably falling back into her well-worn grooveas a journal of Conservative thought and activism to be reckoned with.Debuting at CPAC 2010, The New Guard has been welcomed warmly by

YAFers and other conservative activists, thinkers and writersacross the country, while also receiving the enthusiastic bless-ings of the “Old Guard”—YAF alumni ranging from former

ambassador John Bolton to founding New Guard editor Dr.Lee Edwards.

YAF’s catapult back onto the national stage comes not amoment too soon. This is a time of political upheaval likenone seen since the 1960s. Emboldened by their hollow, andtemporary, victory in the debate over health care, the hardLeft have escalated their attacks on American meritocracy,launching bids to transfer power from bloated banks to greedyunions, grind the United States economy to a halt with cap-and-trade legislation and publicly assault the Supreme Courtfor upholding the Constitutional right to free speech. And, asin the 1960s, the Right has risen to the challenge, escalatingmen and women of intelligence and substance to the forefront

of the debate for liberty raging across the newspapers, televi-sion broadcasts and congressional districts of the nation.

The New Guard , volume 34, issue 2, is divided into six sec-tions: health care, education, the economy, foreign affairs, cul-ture and history and activism. The subjects have been chosenbecause of their paramount importance to the preservation of the United States. The authors and articles have been chosen totackle the looming issues of the day and to help prepare youngConservatives across the country for the coming debates and

erce electoral battles necessary for a defense, and revival, of American ideals, American exceptionalism, America’s futureand the future of liberty itself.

In Freedom,

Christophe Executive EditorThe New Guard

From The editor’s Desk// By Christopher Bedford

New Guard, summer 2010 1

The New Guard staff at CPAC launch party.



Is entrepreneurship dead? Some say yes, point-ing to the struggling economy, President BarackObama’s tax-and-regulate agenda, and the

younger generation’s apparent fondness for liberalpolicies as their proof. But the data says otherwise.

A Wall Street Journal article last Decemberreported that the number of job-seekers starting theirown businesses nearly doubled during the depths of the recession, increasing from ve percent in 2008to nine percent in 2009. “Given the state of the econ-omy, and the state of the job market, many youngpeople are getting the push they needed to becomeentrepreneurs,” says Bo Fishback, vice president of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, a non-pro t organization that promotes entrepreneurship.

This trend should come as little surprise. Gen-eration Y is the iPhone generation. We like to haveaccess to as much information as possible so wecan do it ourselves, whether paying bills, repairinga computer, planning travel or nding a new apart-ment. Building a business is the next logical step formany.

The question, then, is not whether entrepreneur-ship is dead, but what government policies encour-age or discourage it? One of the most discouragingpolicies is the estate tax, or death tax as it is com-monly known.

The Death Tax was established three times in

the past to help cover the costs of military con icts.Each time it was repealed after the con ict ended. In1916 it was established a fourth time to support mili-tary buildup for World War I. But this time it was notrepealed until 2010 (92 years after the war ended),and it has been threatening entrepreneurs ever since.

Though established to pay for military expendi-tures, the 1916 death tax was quickly adopted bythe progressive movement, who saw it as a meansof social engineering. The progressives wanted toprevent successful entrepreneurs from passing their“ill-gotten gains” to future generations. It shouldcome as little surprise that Karl Marx was the rst to

call for the, “abolition of all rights of inheritance,” inhis Communist Manifesto.

The standard rules of the game say entrepreneurscan’t win without access to capital or nancing. Noentrepreneur starts from nothing and every businessneeds money to grow. The death tax removes thiscapital from the economy.

Since it was established, the death tax rate hasgone up and down, at one time con scating nearly80 percent of a family’s assets. Thanks to the 2001Bush Tax Relief, the Death Tax was graduallyreduced over the course of nine years and repealed

in 2010. Unfortunately, due to complex Senatebudgetary rules, this repeal was only temporary.And so, in 2011 the tax relief ends and the deathtax comes roaring back at the rate of 55 percent.That is over half of a family business’ assets.

This tax uniquely harms family businessesand entrepreneurs because it con scates indi-vidually-acquired capital, while exempting thecapital held by publicly traded corporations. Forinstance, a family-owned timber farmer whobuilt his company through savings and hard workwill leave his family facing the death tax whenhe dies, while his corporate competitor will not.The timber farmer typically reinvests his pro tsinto the company, acquiring new assets (forestland, machinery, inventory, vehicles), leavinghim little cash with which to pay the tax andputting his business in jeopardy. When the deathtax comes due, his family may be forced to selltimber, land, machinery—and in the worst cases,the entire business.

In the end, it is a tax on moderation, savingsand responsible dealings—if a dying individualwishes to y to Las Vegas and spent every centthey have on liquor and gambling, the govern-ment will take sales taxes and that will be it. If that person decides to save their money so theirfamily can bene t and their business survive, the

government swoops down to take nearly half.Government data from Congress’ bipartisan

Joint Economic Committee indicates that from1995 to 2005 estate taxes were paid by morethan 37,000 “closely-held businesses,” 50,000limited-partnerships and nearly 28,000 “other”non-corporate businesses, such as sole propri-etorships.

When small, familybusinesses can’t paytheir estate tax bills,they are often given“an offer they can’t

refuse” by their larger,c o r p o r a t e - o w n e dcompetitors. A recentstudy by Dr. AntonyDavies of DuquesneUniversity found thatfor every averageannual increase in theestate tax, 6,000 small

rms disappeared—often sold to theirlarger competitors.

The family business owner is not the only oneimpacted by the death tax. Small family businessesare responsible for more than half of all new jobs.When a family business is forced to reduce assets,employees often lose their jobs.

Repealing the death tax would allow moreemployers to spend their time and money expand-ing their businesses and creating jobs. EconomistDouglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Con-gressional Budget Of ce, found that permanentlyrepealing the death tax would free $1.6 trillion inbusiness capital, spurring the creation of as manyas 1.5 million new jobs.

The real tragedy is that the death tax destroysthe very businesses most integral to the Americandream—independently-owned small businesses.Without small businesses and the entrepreneursbehind them, capitalism becomes corporatism—the dull, static business model epitomized by theauto industry bailouts and the healthcare reformsweetheart deals with the insurance industry.

If Generation Y is to have its shot at the Ameri-can dream, the entrepreneurial spirit must be keptalive. Doing away with the death tax is one of thebest ways for Congress to support a thriving entre-preneurial ethic. Bringing the Death Tax back tolife—at the rate of 55 percent, or anywhere close—is the road to serfdom.

Adam Nicholson is director of communications and marketing for the American Family Business Insti-tute, a trade association of family business ownersand farmers ghting for permanent repeal of thedeath tax. Adam is also a M.A. student in political theory at the Catholic University of America.

Keep Entrepreneurship Alive; Kill the Death Tax/ / By Adam Nicholson

onomy

2 New Guard, summer 2010



W hen asked about the constitutional-ity of an individual health insurancemandate, House Speaker Nancy

Pelosi answered the question with a ques-tion: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”Her spokesperson, Nadeam Elshami, alsoof the belief that repetition yields revelation,later told the same reporter, “You can put thison the record. That is not a serious question.That is not a serious question.” The Speaker’sremarks demonstrate a predictable conse-quence of constitutional deviation: The further

away you go from the Constitution, the lesspublic of cials bother with justifying theiractions in light of it.

Many congressional leaders and admin-istration members have similarly dismissedconstitutional questions on health care. Sena-tor Leahy has said “[n]obody questions” theconstitutional authority to mandate individualhealth insurance. Robert Gibbs reinforcedLeahy’s view, as have two attorneys on theSenate HELP (health, education, labor andpensions) committee. Senate nance com-mittee chairman Max Baucus, when ruling

Senator Hatch’s recent amendment to expedite judicial review of an individual health insur-ance mandate as “out of order,” simply notedthat the Constitutional question was “novel.”Most recently, Congressman Phil Hare mincedno words, telling us all that he “doesn’t careabout the Constitution.”

It may seem ironic for members of Con-gress who swore to “support and defend theConstitution of the United States” to dismissconstitutional questions, but establishedSupreme Court precedents make it expected.The Supreme Court has not deemed a fed-eral tax or spending program unconstitutionalsince the New Deal. Great Society initiativessuch as Medicare and Medicaid also providepowerful precedents for Congress to imposeits self-determined spending power into healthcare. Barring recent limitations on intrastate,non-commercial activity, the Court’s modernview of Congress’ regulatory reach puts nearlyevery activity subject to its mandates. WhileCourt challenges to the Constitutionality of the individual mandate to purchase health

insurance possess some merit, (purchasing aproduct does not neatly fall into the “quintes-sentially economic” activities identi ed bythe Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Raich andcould thus fall outside Congress’ regulatorypower), this history gives Congressmen a rea-son to be reckless with the Constitution.

But this does not make it okay. Congres-sional indifference to constitutional questionsbased solely on Supreme Court precedentignores a fundamental aspect of Americangovernment. As Charles Warren noted inThe Supreme Court in United States History,

“however the Court may interpret the provi-sions of the Constitution, it is still the Consti-tution which is the law, not the decisions of theCourt.” Warren’s quote does not mean that theCourt’s decisions do not have the force of law.Rather, if the Court’s decisions, not the Con-stitution, are the basis for determining whetherlegislation is constitutional, the Court’s deci-sions, not the people’s document, would be the“supreme law” of the land.

Such a view cannot accord with the Found-ers. It would make little sense for AlexanderHamilton to call the judiciary in Federalist 78

“the least dangerous branch” if its unelected,life-serving members possessed the powerto de nitively declare, forever, the “supremelaw” of the land. Were that so, Andrew Jacksoncould not have rejected the Bank of the UnitedStates after McCulloch v. Maryland, andAbraham Lincoln could not have rejected thepro-slavery reasoning of the Dred Scott deci-sion. As alluded to by Chief Justice Marshallin Marbury v. Madison, every elected repre-

sentative swears to uphold the Constitution forthe purpose of developing their own opinionson the constitutionality of a given governmentaction. The various branches then perpetu-ally impose their constitutional opinions. It isfor that reason Barry Goldwater noted in TheConscience of a Conservative that he would“not attempt to discover whether legislation is‘needed’” before rst determining its consti-tutionality.

The Left’s intellectually dense dismissthis precept, and its intellectually honestexplain why. Writing for the majority in one

of the Court’s most activist decisions, Cop-per v. Aaron, Chief Justice Warren gives aclear articulation of the judicial supremacyembraced by the Left. “[T]he federal judi-ciary is supreme in the exposition of theConstitution,” and it thus follows “that theinterpretation … enunciated by this Court …is the supreme law of the land” which legis-lators swear to uphold. Accepting this view,Robert Gibbs dismissed legal challenges tohealth care reform because “there’s [not] alot of case law demonstrating the[ir] verac-ity.” The Left views their oaths to uphold the

Constitution as oaths to uphold the Consti-tution as understood by the Supreme Court.And the Supreme Court has returned thefavor, giving Congress nearly plenary spend-ing and regulatory power through their deci-sions. Yet the arrogance bred from decadesof precedent-permitted power grabs leavesthe Left open to ignore the challenges theirargument for an individual mandate faces incourt.

“AreYou Serious?”Killing the Constitution for Health Care

/ / By Will Haun

Congratulations to Young Americans for Freedom

for your commitment to the conservativecause and carrying on the torch of freedom.

—Sergio PicchioCalifornia YAF State Chairman, 1983 – 1985YAF National Chairman, 1986 – 1989California Republican Assembly, National Committeeman, 2009 – Present

New Guard, summer 20103

Oba



The proponents of an individual mandatewill likely rely upon the Constitution’s “Com-merce Clause” as their basis for enforcingthe mandate. Bastardized from its originalmeaning largely by the pro-New Deal Court,Congress need only a rational reason to con-clude what they wish to regulate substantiallyaffects interstate commerce, either by itself orin the aggregate, to enforce a federal mandate.The Supreme Court’s recent (and signi cant)holding in Gonzalez v. Raich makes clearthat, outside of traditional regulation of themovement of things across state lines, thisregulatory power includes “quintessentiallyeconomic” activities. Such activities includethe “production, distribution and consumptionof commodities.” Advocates for the mandatewill likely try and t it within one of these cat-egories (and thus in line with prior precedent).

Yet none of these categories contemplates theforced purchase of a product. All of these cat-egories presuppose at least a voluntary intentto engage within commerce. Fitting a coercedpurchase into “production, distribution, andconsumption” makes no sense at all.

Regardless of the fate of a Court challenge,Americans thankfully responded to the consti-tutional indifference of their representativeswith their own question: “are you serious?”A Georgia town hall with Congressman JackKingston erupted in applause when a man saidthat nobody is “talking about the constitution-

ality of any of this mess.” Despite recent civicliteracy reports from the Intercollegiate Stud-ies Institute indicating that only 51 percentof Americans can name the three branches of government, Americans have taken to educate

themselves about such terms as “reconcilia-tion,” “deem and pass” and the implicationsof an individual mandate. Conservatives inter-ested in conserving the Constitution shouldmake the most of this teaching moment, edu-cating the public about a government that’sgiven itself nearly unlimited power at theexpense of the Constitution. Making the Con-stitution a relatable part of our political conver-sation will allow Americans to know how andwhy to hold elected leaders accountable. Suchan act would force politicians not to pander tothe lowest common denominator in politicaldialogue, but rise to articulate their responsi-bilities within our Constitution—serving as aself-imposed limitation on future contrivancesof government excess. More than that, mem-bers of Congress took an oath to uphold theConstitution. While that may seem trite, the

Framers were relying on it, and so should we.

Will Haun is a Juris Doctor candidate at theCatholic University of America, ColumbusSchool of Law, where he serves as president of the Federalist Society and as an executive edi-tor on the Harvard Journal of Law and PublicPolicy. Prior to law school, Will performed legal research under former U.S. AttorneyGeneral Edwin Meese at the Heritage Foun-dation’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies,and served in the chambers of Chief Judge Paul

R. Michel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit. Will has written for NationalReview Online , The Daily Caller , Frum Forum and The Next Right . Politico , NRA News and many television and radio stations have inter-viewed him on legal and political topics.

THE New GuardContributors

Executive EditorChristopher Bedford

PublisherJordan Marks

EditorJohn Stapleton

DesignEmily Dalpiaz & Darin Miller

IllustratorsDr. Mysterious & Co.

Editorial AssistantEva Moreno

YAF National Chairman

Erik Johnson

The New Guard , Vol. 34, No. 2, Summer 2010.The New Guard is published quarterly by

Young Americans for Freedom.

For subscription orders, payments, donations,and other 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

should be sent to [email protected] advertising sales contact [email protected]

This issue went to press onMay 31, 2010.

Copyright 2010 ©Young Americans for Freedom

Young Americans for Freedom is a 501(c)(3)non-pro t organization and depends entirelyon the generosity of its members and alumni.

bamaCare




On March 21, 2010, Congress passed

Obamacare after a hard fought yearof debates, town hall meetings, andnegotiations. But within the rst few daysof its passage, eighteen states led lawsuitsagainst the federal government, alleging thatthe health insurance mandate, which is at thecore of the Democrats’ reform package, isunconstitutional. Ultimately, we may see thissuit nd its way to the Supreme Court, andthe nine sitting justices may have the nalsay as to whether or not Obamacare will beimplemented.

The pragmatic justi cation for a health

insurance mandate is that people who do nothave insurance are a drain on the health sys-tems’ resources. No one can be denied care,and, in many cases, when people are treatedfor catastrophic health conditions and do nothave insurance, the hospital, and therebythe public, wind up footing the bill. This isa powerful argument, though some Repub-lican leaders, most notably Rep. Paul Ryan,have proposed alternate solutions that coulddeal with this problem.

While the mandate may seem to be a prag-matically effective tool, our government is

limited in the actions it can take by the Con-stitution. Pragmatism cannot be a governingideology, as it has no natural boundaries.If any action taken must conform to whatis seen as ef cient or effective at the time,we would lose our sense of natural rights;“rights” would be subject to the effective-ness of a certain policy. If the governmentcan create mandates to control how peopleact in order to protect the public wealth, thenwhat is to stop them from encroaching onour basic individual liberties? If someonesmokes or is overweight, then they dispro-portionably make use of the medical system,and, according to this argument, ought to bemandated to lose weight and quit smoking orthey would face a ne. Pragmatism is obvi-ously untenable as a governing doctrine, andso we must look to the Constitution to deter-mine whether the government has the powerto implement such an overreaching law.

Many Democrats have attempted to drawa parallel between mandates on car insur-ance and mandates on health insurance,

stating that both must be in place in order

to prevent other parties from paying for thecost incurred by one individual. The problemwith this argument is that car insurance is amandate that comes with a certain action. If you buy a car you are required to have carinsurance, but if you choose not to purchasea car then there is no mandate. In the caseof health insurance, people are being forcedto purchase a product simply because theyexist, an unprecedented encroachment of government in uence into people’s personallives.

In terms of strict constitutionality, mostsupporters of this piece of legislation havepointed to the Commerce Clause, statingthat, because the government has the right toregulate interstate commerce, it can mandatethat people purchase health insurance. Thereare two main problems with this analysis.The rst is that individuals are not allowedto buy health insurance across state lines, soall economic activity is occurring within par-ticular states. But the second and most glar-ing problem with this assertion is that thegovernment is not regulating free economicactivity, but regulating because there is noeconomic activity. Under the CommerceClause, the government may have the rightto regulate economic activity, but it cannotmandate that people who choose not to par-ticipate in such activity do so.

But beyond the constitutional issues thatarise due to the implementation of a mandatesystem, there are serious moral issues thatmust be acknowledged. Our Constitution isrooted in social contract theory, which, undera Lockean interpretation, states that a gov-ernment can only be legitimate with the con-sent of the people. The people form a socialcontract, a constitution, sacri cing certainnatural rights in the creation of that socialcontract in order to defend a greater numberof rights that would otherwise be infringedupon in the state of nature (i.e. anarchy).By forming a social contract, we accept thatthere are certain obligations we naturallyhave, such as serving on juries, being calledto war, and paying taxes, all of which applyto us simply because we are alive and enjoythe bene ts of a stable society.

Under a mandate system we are creatingsomething never seen before: a social con-tract between the people and a private orga-nization. Just as we are required to pay taxesto the government in order to bene t fromthe public goods it provides, so too must wepay premiums to insurance companies inorder to bene t from the public goods theyprovide. If we renege on our social obliga-tion to pay taxes to the federal government,we can be ned and jailed. Similarly, if wechoose to defy the mandate and not pay ourtribute to the insurance companies we are

ned, though harsher penalties may even-tually be applied. Oddly enough, in theirattempts to moderate their healthcare pro-posal, the Democrats have constructed onethat is, philosophically, far more destruc-tive to America’s foundational ideals thantheir previous proposals of a public optionor a single-payer system. By forcing peopleto engage in economic activity against theirwill, this healthcare plan has fallen into crasscorporatism and infringes on the basic eco-nomic liberties every person holds.

Such a system is a gross distortion of theprinciples set forth by the Founding Fathersin the Declaration of Independence and theConstitution. In these documents, the sanc-tity of life, individual freedom and politi-cal equality were enshrined, protected anddeclared as rights that all men share. Thisbill, through its destruction of the originalconception of a social contract, and throughits dismissal of the Constitution, is drag-ging us toward a future inconceivable just adecade ago.

Unconstitutional MandateHealth Care’s Dangerous Precedent// By Ramon Lopez

“ Pragmatism cannot be a

governingideology , as

it has no naturalboundaries .”

Oba




It seems as if a mandate system is bothunconstitutional and immoral, and thereforemust be abandoned. However, Obama andhis supporters are right in their assertion thatthere is a problem that must be solved. TheUnited States has the best healthcare in the

world, but not all Americans have access tothese services, as it is also the most expen-sive healthcare in the world. If the Republi-can Party is to be a governing party, we mustalso present counter-proposals that bettermeet the needs of the American people whilemaintaining the integrity and structure of theConstitution.

Of all the Republican healthcare plans,Paul Ryan’s has received the most attention,with President Obama mentioning it by nameas a serious, legitimate proposal. Should werepeal this bill, through either judicial or leg-islative action, we ought to look into imple-menting the reforms he has proposed, whichwould increase access to healthcare, lowercosts and increase quality.

The rst necessary reform, which hasbeen detrimentally ignored by Democratsin Congress, is tort reform. According tothe New England Journal of Medicine, 40percent of all medical malpractice claimswere frivolous and were not due to medicalerror. The costs incurred by this system onthe medical community are not due to thedirect cost of these lawsuits, or even the highmedical insurance premiums doctors mustpay, but come from the cost of defensivemedicine doctors must now practice in orderto protect themselves from frivolous suits.Different studies show different results, but

the yearly savings tort reform would bringare in the tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars. While this would cause an immedi-ate reduction in medical costs, the long-termbene t is that more people are incentivizedto enter into the medical eld, thus increas-

ing the number of doctors and nurses avail-able to treat patients.

Tort reform, however, is not the nalanswer. We must also allow people to pur-chase their insurance across state lines,which would immediately open the industryto competition and lower prices. If there ischeaper insurance available in New York orWyoming or Nevada, someone living in Ten-nessee should not be prevented by the fed-eral government from buying it.

While the core of the Democrats’ bill, thehealth insurance mandate, must be repealed,there are measures within it that we shouldaccept. Barring insurance companies fromdenying people with pre-existing conditionsis a good idea, as is applying anti-trust lawsto insurance companies, who have long beenexempt from such regulations. While theDemocrats acted in a partisan manner, we donot need to follow suit. We can accept whenthe other side promotes a positive idea andshould work together with the Democrats onthese points of agreement.

But the biggest part of the Republicanhealthcare reform package, and the one thatwill nally free up the health insurance mar-ket to competition and innovation, is decou-pling people’s health insurance from theiremployer. The employer-based health insur-ance system is a holdover from the World

War II era, where, due to wage freezes,employers resorted to using health insurancepackages as a means to entice the best andbrightest to their companies. Currently, thefederal government subsidizes companiesin order to help them pay for part of their

employees’ healthcare costs. Paul Ryan’splan calls for the federal government to givethese tax rebates directly to the individualand thereby bypass the employer.

This would be a marked improvementover the current system, allowing people toengage in a free market and pick a healthinsurance policy tailored to their personalhealth needs. It would also mean that if aperson were to lose their job they would notalso lose their health insurance, as every sin-gle American would receive this tax rebate.The elderly, sick and poor would be givena higher tax rebate than the young, healthyand rich, thereby giving the most aid to thosewho are in the most vulnerable positions.

By implementing this reform, we wouldnot only create a universal healthcare sys-tem, but lower costs by creating a more com-petitive market, increase quality by allowingpeople to construct their own personal healthplans, and do so without a massive govern-ment takeover of healthcare. Additionally,the Congressional Budget Of ce has deter-mined that Ryan’s plan would not create themassive de cits we will see with Obamacareand will, coupled with his Social Securityand entitlement reform package, actuallybegin to reduce our national debt, eventuallyeliminating it entirely.

As citizens and defenders of the idealsthat founded this great nation we must notrest until we have repealed this bill, eitherthrough the courts or the legislature, andmust then replace it with one that lowerscost, increases quality and conforms to theprinciples of our founding. We must makeit clear that we are not opposed to change

itself, only to change that will bankrupt ourcountry’s future through ballooning de citsand an abandonment of our core values andprinciples. Repealing this bill is the neces-sary rst step, and must then be followed bytrue Conservative reform.

Ramon Lopez is a junior at the Universityof Central Florida where he is majoring ininternational relations and philosophy.

bamaCare




Where will our liberties be thirty yearsfrom now? President Obama is on theverge of nominating a new Supreme

Court justice who will have a lot to say aboutthat.

From racial preferences and abortion toproperty rights and terrorism, retiring JusticeStevens and his three decades of liberal activ-ism did tremendous damage to the Constitu-tion. His replacement has the potential to eitherbuild upon or roll back Steven’s “legacy.”

Remember, Supreme Court justices sit forlife (Stevens stayed on until he was ninety),and new issues are coming before the Court allthe time, from bailouts and buyouts to healthcare reform. While each justice only gets one

vote, one vote is all it takes on many of themost important issues of our day.

The judicial con rmation process includesmany steps. First, the President nominates acandidate he thinks will further his agenda andis con rmable. Second, the Senate judiciarycommittee will ask the nominee to complete anextensive questionnaire detailing more or lesseverything he or she has ever said, written, ordone. The committee will then hold televised

hearings, questioning the nominee and hear-ing the testimony of witnesses on both sides. If the candidate survives the judiciary committee

vote and then wins a majority of votes in thefull Senate, you can say hello to your next Su-preme Court justice.

The stakes can’t be any higher. Here are afew easy ways to magnify your voice and im-pact this nomination.

(1) Educate yourself. Read the paper, watchthe news, read legal blogs. NRO’s BenchMemos, Volokh Conspiracy, and our own Ju-dicial Crisis Network website are all great re-sources.

(2) Write your local or school paper. Gettingletters to the editor and op-eds out there will

help expose liberal activist nominees or helpdefend conservative ones. Don’t underestimatethe power of the pen.

(3) Call your senator. Bad nominees getthrough the nomination process because sena-tors think no one is watching. The only way toprove them wrong is by calling their of ces.(Email doesn’t count for nearly as much.)

(4) Call someone else’s senator. While thenominee is still in committee hearings, direct

your ire or praise to the senators on the judi-ciary committee; they can make or break anomination.

(5) Donate your time or money. There aremany conservative legal organizations thatneed your support on the local level. Also vol-unteer to help elect state judges who will re-spect the constitution and the rule of law.

(6) Vote in November. As then-SenatorBarak Obama said, “There’s one way to guar-antee that the judges who are appointed to theSupreme Court are judges that re ect our val-ues. And that’s to win elections.”

Carrie Severino is chief counsel and policydirector to the Judicial Crisis Network. Until

March 2010, she was an Olin/Searle Fellowand a Dean’s Visiting Scholar at Georgetown

Law Center. She previously served as a lawclerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice ClarenceThomas and to Judge David B. Sentelle of theU.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Sheis a graduate of Harvard Law School, cumlaude, of Duke University, and holds a Mas-ter’s degree in linguistics from Michigan StateUniversity.

Supreme Court Activism An Insider’s Guide // By Carrie Severino

e New Culture Wars

ORDER TOLL FREE- -

Fax: - - www.independent.org Swan Way • Oakland, CA -

e present debate raging over global warming exemplies the clashbetween two competing public religions. Environmentalists warn of certain catastrophes if we do not reduce greenhouse gases; economists areconcerned with whether these reductions will be worth the costs.

e New Holy Wars interprets such contemporary struggles as battlesbetween the competing secularized religions of economics and envi-ronmentalism and probes beneath the surface of the two movements touncover their fundamental theological commitments and visions.

“ e New Holy Wars raises hard and embarrassing questions about thebasis of environmentalism.”— DAN TARLOCK , Director of the Program inEnvironmental and Energy Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law

“Nelson compellingly argues that religion is a powerful force in economicand social life, . . . even if that fact is seldomrecognized by most academics and policy mak-ers.”—MAX L . STACKHOUSE , Rimmer and Ruthde Vries Professor of Reformed eology andPublic Life, Princeton eological Seminary

Pages| . ( ) | Available Now

Published In Cooperation WithPennsylvania State University Press

N E W


Oba



that. I think it is good to have in mind agoal. … [Don’t waste time debating dif-fering visions] otherwise you can spenddiscussing this utopian possibility versusthat utopian possibility, and in the meantime you are not acting in a way that wouldbring you closer to that.”

The old academic ideal of trying to objec-tively research a subject has been replacedby the academic-as-propagandist, bent oncleansing the history books of informationthat does not follow their narrative. Theseacademics actively attempt to confuse thereceptive student and encourage doubt inthe United States and her institutions withthe end goal of “destroying the system.”Ward Churchill, infamous faux-AmericanIndian, former SDSer and ex-University of Colorado at Boulder professor, went so far

as to claim that the 19 al Qaeda hijackerswere not, “‘fanatics’ devoted to ‘Islamicfundamentalism.’” He later commented,“U.S. off the planet. Out of existencealtogether.” With words like that, one canonly speculate as to what Churchill’s goalsincluded vis a vis his students.

In one of the projects listed by the How-ard Zinn education project called, “Whose

‘Terrorism?” project designer Bill Bigelowstates that his lesson plan is a “role-playto help high school students examine thede nition of terrorism in historical andcontemporary terms.” This lesson in learn-ing to hate America tries to con ate andcompare the actions taken by groups thatdeliberately target civilians for politicalends (i.e. terrorists) to actions and policiesof the United States government. Bigelowcontinues, “Given the widespread con a-tion of patriotism with support for U.S.government policies, I had no con dencethat students would be able to label anaction taken by their government as ‘ter-rorism’ unless I attached pseudonyms toeach country.”

Many Enlightenment thinkers, whoseideas were enshrined in our Constitution,

the Declaration of Independence and in ournational outlook, believed that “new men”would need to arise. These “new men”were not those who were beholden to a setideological system which utilized lies andpropaganda to further its goals, but freethinkers who thought and acted for them-selves. As the new-far-leftist academiahopes to funnel their Kool-Aid down the

throats of a new generation of Americans,we should remember the words of ThomasJefferson: “If a nation expects to be igno-rant and free, in a state of civilization, itexpects what never was and never will be.”Nevertheless, maybe, like the academicswho wish to push the ideology of the mass-murdering Mao Zedong on impression-able young minds, in their quixotic driveto change man and society, we too shouldtake a piece of advice from Chairman Mao.“Rather than keeping your eyes open andlistening to boring lectures, it is better toget some refreshing sleep. You don’t haveto listen to nonsense; you can rest yourbrain instead.”

Phillip Smyth is a senior at Suffolk Univer-sity in Boston. He is a freelance journalist

and makes frequent trips to Lebanon and the broader Middle East. He specializes inthe study of Middle Eastern Christian com-munities, regional nationalisms and Leba-nese politics. Phillip has extensive connec-tions with many Middle Eastern political leaders and has served as an adviser to anumber of regional NGO’s and political groups.

Do You Want to Win?Only the Leadership Institute gives you strategies for political and personal success.

Attend Leadership Institute schools to learn how to:• Lead others in the public policy process• Manage grassroots-oriented campaigns

for candidates of your choice• Form independent, conservative student

groups and publish independent,conservative campus newspapers

The Institute o ers 41 political training programs, a top-notch intern

program, the Campus Leadership Program, and a free EmploymentPlacement Service.

Don’t wait! Begin your career in conservative politics todayby visiting the Leadership Institute online atwww.LeadershipInstitute.org or call 1-800-827-LEAD.


eDu



The YA F S CEN E


AF Scene

Florida Atlantic University (FAU), a public university, madeits name by welcoming to campus professors and studentswith known ties to Hamas, Hezbollah, Neo-Nazis and a be-

lieved co-conspirator of the 1993 WTC bombing. Now FAU will

be known as the home to FAU YAF. Although, unlike the terroristslisted above YAF wasn’t welcomed with open arms—we had to

ght to bring freedom to FAU.I decided that FAU needed a conservative group on campus to

combat the left. With help from Florida YAF state chairman DanielDiaz, an FAU alum, we worked to spread the word of freedom andform a YAF chapter. We were met with insults from progressivestudents and professors offended by our courage, but determined todefend conservative principles on campus we continued to set uprecruitment tables, eventually giving refuge to over 75 conserva-tive students who now knew they were not alone.

With prior permission from the administration, we met with stu-dents on campus to organize a chapter only to have their meetingbe interrupted by an of cial who demanded they cease the meet-

ing and vacate the room. Diaz asked for an additional 15 minutesto wrap up, which he was granted. However upon hearing Diazaddress the liberal bias on the FAU campus, the administratorboorishly ordered the students to vacate the room, shutting off thelights, tearing down their YAF posters and calling the campus po-lice.

It didn’t end there. As we were leaving campus, the campus po-lice detained us for “trespassing.” After being interrogated by theof cers we were released for having done no wrong, but not beforehearing the lieutenant at the scene snipe that Diaz “probably hastea bags hanging out the back of his car.” It was clear YAF was be-ing targeted for our conservative beliefs.

F l o r i d a Y A F e r s F i g h t f o r F r e e d o m

/ / B y J a m e s S h a c k e l f o r d I I IBefore Diaz left campus he spoke to us, saying, “If we were

a Marxist, Socialist or liberal group they would have let us n-ish our meeting, but of cials and police harassed us because weare conservatives. This was the exact liberal bias on campus wewere discussing. This is no longer a place of open discussion andfreedom of expression, but a breeding ground of intolerance forconservatism.” It was time to take a stand.

The mainstream media ignored the story, but through bloggersand social networking, YAF was able to spread the word that free-

dom was under attack. With grassroots support of fellow patriotslike Karin Hoffman at DC Works for US, YAF alum Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, State Representative JenniferCarroll, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, LibertyCouncil and the Alliance Defense Fund, YAF bombarded the ad-ministration with thousands of e-mails, threatening legal action.

FAU immediately caved, calling me, begging us to, “call off your dogs.” With the support of many unknown faces, we claimedvictory when our YAF chapter was of cially recognized on theFAU campus.

The true victory came when I as chairman of FAU YAF hostedthe Heritage Foundation and a crowd of close to 150 people oncampus for the event, including superstar activist and ACORNcracker Hannah Giles and congressional candidate Ed Lynch.

We are taking the ght to campuses all over Florida, promotingthe principles of the Sharon Statement. We still face challenges,but now universities have heard that YAFers are coming and aretaking no prisoners. Even so, after hearing of our victory over theoppressive FAU administration and their suppression of freedom,many universities have decided not to take on the green berets of the conservative movement and let freedom ring!

James Shackelford III is a senior at FAU studying accounting. He is the student secretary for the FAU House of Representatives,hosts a conservative radio program “Owls with issues” and is theFAU coordinator of Marco Rubio for Senate 2010.

Clockwise from top left:Team YAF at the DC Freedom 5K run.AR YAF leader and Ozark Tea Party founder Richard Caster.NYC YAFers meet with Steve Forbes.UC San Diego YAFers host David Horowitz.Virginia YAFers protest Obamacare at George Mason Univerity.DC YAF protests Obamacare at the Capitol.TN YAFers meet for a leadership retreat.




YA

CPAC 2010 BY THE NUMBERS1 YAF alum received the CPAC Charlton Heston

Courage Under Fire Award2 YAF happy hours at CPAC4 YAFers spoke at CPAC (more than any otheryouth activist organization)7 YAF alumni spoke at CPAC37 years since YAF started CPAC with theAmerican Conservative Union234 Conservative activists joined YAF at CPAC3,000 copies of The New Guarddistributed

yaf at CPAC 2010

Penn State YAF’s Chairman Samuel Settle was one of YAF’s featured speak-

ers at the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) for hiscampus activism. Samuel organized the YAF protest on campus challengingthe university’s whitewash investigation of Climategate professor Michael Mann,calling for an independent review to uphold the academic integrity of Penn State.

The internal inquiry into Mann’s alleged scienti c misconduct concluded withthe virtual exoneration of his behavior, and ignored key evidence in the Climat-egate scandal. As feared, this inquiry was little more than a whitewash—an assaulton academic integrity.

Penn State’s internal review consisted of three Penn State employees who havestrong incentives to protect the school’s reputation and the millions of dollars itreceives from global warming research grants. There was no external oversight.

Penn State’s review consisted of looking at a mere 47 e-mails (out of thousandsin question), interviewing Mann, analyzing materials he submitted, and asking

only two biased sources about his credibility. Penn State hardly conducted a “thor-ough investigation” of alleged wrongdoing by Mann.

Penn State’s internal review ignored key passages in the e-mails under scrutiny.While the committee examined the use of the word “trick” in correspondencebetween Mann and colleague Phil Jones, it failed to explore the purpose of Mann’s “trick”—to “hide the decline [in global temperatures]”—which clear-ly suggests a manipulation of the data.

In short, Mann’s own claim of innocence is taken as proof of his innocence.Moreover, parts of the report are almost fawning in their description of Mann(e.g. “All were impressed by Dr. Mann’s composure and his forthright re-sponses.”)

Penn State YAF’s protest brought over 100 students, residents and com-munity leaders together and was covered by Fox News and the Wall StreetJournal. Settle and Penn State YAF are still continuing their ght for academicintegrity with a petition on www.yaf.com demanding a fair and independentinvestigation to preserve academic integrity and bring truth to ProfessorMann’s role in promoting the fallacy of global warming.

Jordan Marks is the Executive Director of Young Americans for Freedom. Alum M. Stanton Evans, author of the Sharon Statement and founder

of CPAC, at YAF’s CPAC 2010 booth.

Penn State YAF Chairman Samuel Settlespeaks at CPAC 2010.

Penn State YAF protests Climategate Professor Michael Mann.



In late March, Israeli Prime Minister Ben-

jamin Netanyahu came to Washingtonto meet with the President of the United

States. The Israeli Prime Minister, always asteadfast ally to America was greeted with acold shoulder. In what usually is viewed as ameeting between two great friends, this timeit would be made very clear that neither sidewas all that happy with the other. PresidentBarack Obama and his team even forbadeany media coverage and all photographs of meetings between the two. This was becausethe president’s team had recently lashed outat the prime minister for an announced hous-ing project and, as a result of this project,questioned Israel’s determination for peacein the Middle East. Stop the record. Thiscallous view of the Arab-Israeli situationdoes not take into account the plain facts of history. In a region as complicated and sto-ried as the Middle East, the administration’sposition is dangerous and unacceptable.Let’s review.

On May 14, 1948 the state of Israeldeclared its independence. In the followingdays, the armies of Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan,Syria and Egypt invaded the newly-estab-

lished state and war quickly commenced.

The ensuing con ict would become knownto the Israelis as their War for Independence.Over the next several months, Israeli defenseforces were able to defeat the Arab aggres-sors and emerge victorious. Unfortunately,this was only the beginning of a modernstruggle that still exists today.

Over the past sixty years, Israel has hadto meet its neighbors on the battle eldtime after time simply to defend its rightto exist. In the 1950s tensions continuedto brew. Early in the decade, Egypt refusedto allow Israeli ships access to the SuezCanal. Egyptian Foreign Minister Muham-mad Salah al-Din declared, “We shall notbe satis ed except by the nal obliterationof Israel from the map of the Middle East.”Egypt began building an arsenal for anothershowdown, with President Gamal AbdelNasser stating in October of 1956, “Ourhatred is very strong. There is no sense intalking about peace with Israel. There is noteven the smallest place for negotiations.”With declarations like these, blockadesof important waterways, and a rise in ter-ror attacks, Israel felt compelled to protectitself by launching a pre-emptive strike.

The Israelis captured the Gaza Strip, part


of the Sinai and Sharm al-Sheikh, beforewithdrawing from these areas under pres-sure from the United States and the UnitedNations.

In the mid-1960s the threats continued.Syria used the Golan Heights as a launch-ing pad to shell Israeli villages while Nassercontinued to speak about his dream of aworld without the Jewish state. By the endof the decade Israel found itself the target of another plan of attack, from Egypt, Syria andJordan, with arms and personnel suppliedfrom seven other countries. Once again,these countries would prove to be no matchfor Israel. Sensing an imminent attack, theIsraeli Air Force struck rst and within sixdays Israel had captured the Sinai, the GolanHeights, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.In less than one week, Israel tripled the sizeof the area it controlled.

Con icts between Arabs and Israelisraged on through the 1970s but in 1979 thereappeared to be a breakthrough. An historicpeace agreement was signed in March of that year between Israel and Egypt, normal-izing relations between the two states. Underthis agreement, Israel withdrew from the

Sinai and in return was guaranteed passage

The Plain Facts of HistoryMiddle East Peace: Drawing A line in the Sand / / By John Stapleton

Foreign A


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/new-guard-summer-2010-edition-young-americans-for-freedom-yaf- 16/24 14 New Guard, summer 2010

through the Suez Canal and other impor-tant waterways. While this agreement wasimportant to establishing peaceful relationsbetween the two states, Egypt paid a pricefor becoming the rst Arab state to recognizeIsrael—the Arab League suspended Egyptand moved its headquarters from Cairo toTunis. Anwar Sadat, the President of Egyptwho helped negotiate the peace treaty wasviewed as a traitor by many Arabs for agree-ing to receive economic and military aidfrom the United States. He was later assas-sinated by Islamic extremists. Accepting thestate of Israel cost him his life.

Continuing, the 1980s saw its fair shareof violence, but once again, signs of improvement appeared to be around thecorner by the early ’90s. The 1993 OsloAccords began a process in which Israel

agreed to relinquish control of parts of the West Bank and Gaza to a new Pal-estinian Authority, which would be anelected body, with promises that this newauthority would clamp down on terror-ism. In October 1994, Israel and Jordansigned their own peace treaty, tacklingsuch issues as security, border crossings,water allocation and refugees. This wasanother signi cant step towards peace inthe Middle East.

As time moved on, issues surround-ing territory controlled by Israel and the

creation of a Palestinian state remainedat the forefront of the Middle East peaceprocess. In 2000, President Bill Clinton,Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Pal-estinian Authority Chairman Yasir Arafatmet at Camp David to discuss a nal agree-ment to the con ict between the two. Atthese meetings, Ehud Barak offered Arafatwhat would eventually be over 90 percentof the West Bank and the entire Gaza Stripfor a future Palestinian state. Arafat refused.The talks fell through and a Second Intifadafollowed, costing both sides thousands of lives. Many, including Clinton, blame Arafatfor not accepting the deal and passing on anhistoric chance to make peace and create aPalestinian state.

In 2005, Israel withdrew its military andcivilians from Gaza, even forcefully evictingthose who refused to leave. Shortly there-after, Hamas, a violent political organiza-tion that repeatedly calls for the destructionof Israel and frequently launches rockets,

won a majority of the seats in the 2006 Pal-estinian parliamentary elections. In morerecent years, Iranian President MahmoudAhmadinejad has increased his vitriolic hatespeech towards Israel, denied the holocaustand has expanded nuclear technology thatwill undoubtedly be used for the develop-ment of nuclear weapons. And in the pastmonth, reports have surfaced that Syriahas transferred Scud missiles to the terrorgroup Hizballah, another group seeking thedestruction of Israel.

With this history, it is clear that Israel isconstantly worrying about where its nextattack will come from. This is because since

it declared independence in 1948, it wasimmediately under threat from its neighborsand terror groups. While progress has beenmade on certain fronts, the enemies of Israelcontinue to plot and plan their next attackand they will not rest until their dream of aworld without Israel has been accomplished.

Israel has always been a strong friend of the United States and a strong advocate forcrushing terrorism wherever it exists. Thislast point is not something that the currentAmerican administration seems to under-stand.

In March of this year, while Vice PresidentBiden was visiting Israel, the Israeli InteriorMinistry announced a housing expansion toa Jewish neighborhood in North Jerusalem.This was seen as an embarrassment for theObama Administration because they did notapprove of this expansion and while nothingwas nal, it sent senior of cials into panic

mode. Secretary Hillary Clinton scoldedPrime Minister Netanyahu in what turnedout to be a not-so-private 43-minute phonecall. She even went as far as saying thatIsrael needs to demonstrate its commitmentto peace. This was followed by PresidentObama’s chilly reception of the prime minis-ter at the White House just weeks later. Whathappened?

President Obama ran a campaign as theanti-President George W. Bush. It appearsthat he and his administration have a strongdisdain for a foreign policy that promotesdemocracy and stands steadfast besideAmerica’s allies. This was demonstrated

by his scrapping of a missile defenseshield in Eastern Europe, his refusalto meet publicly with the Dalai Lamaand his reaction to the rigged elec-

tions held in Iran last June. Withregard to those “elections” in Iran,President Obama stated that he wasnot interested in “meddling” in oth-ers states affairs. There seems to bean exception for Mr. Obama if youare an Israeli building houses in yourown capital city.

The handling of this Israeli hous-ing “crisis” has shown that the Obamateam has an alarmingly thin recollec-tion of history and a naïve understand-ing of who really wants peace in the

Middle East. The Israeli view of peaceis when those who live in the Middle

East can accept each other and live side byside. Israel’s enemies believe peace comesonly when Israel is nally destroyed.

It would be wise for this administrationto not publicly scold Israel—it gives theenemies of peace an excuse to say, “Yousee, even the U.S. thinks Israel is the oneobstructing peace.” This also provides littleincentive for the Palestinians to meet at anybargaining table. So far the administrationhas shown our allies a whole heap of audac-ity. Some may start to wonder where thehope went.

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

parative politics. John has also written forthe AU College Republican’s newsletter, TheRight Wing .

“The Israeli view of peace is when thosewho live in the Middle East

can accept each other

and live side by side.Israel’s enemies believe

peace comes only when Israel is finally

destroyed .”

reign Affairs




The courageous actions of two Chinesecitizens are showing the world how thepower of the Internet and virtual net-

working can defeat the tyranny of Communistrule in China.

All authoritarian governments rely on afundamental strategy of convincing the popu-lation that power lies with the ruler and notwith the governed. They spare no expense, beit military power, police forces, media controlor domestic spy networks, to intimidate andto convince citizens they have no power andthat any attempt to dispute the authority of the

state is futile.The past and present are full of examples of the fallacy of authoritarian power. The earlyChristians, though small in numbers, not onlybrought down the mighty Roman Empire, butconverted it from within. The solidarity of thePolish workers in the 1980s brought downthe Iron Curtain without a shot, right underthe noses of massive armies which had facedeach other with weapons of mass destructionfor four decades. And, of course, the pas-sionate persistence and moral high ground of

Martin Luther King Jr. galvanized the civilrights movement into a disciplined display of citizen power over the might of entrenchedsegregationists. The fact is, the power of rightalways sides with the people and no power onearth can hold a gun to its people forever. Thesituation of the 60-year Chinese CommunistRegime is no exception.

Many people, inside and outside of China,think that the Chinese Communist Party isa monolithic powerhouse—a governmentwhose enlightened policies have broughtstability and harmony to Chinese society.

The Chinese government spends mightily toperpetuate this myth. It spares no expense toood the media both directly and indirectly—

through surrogates in the academic and busi-ness world—to promote itself as a model of enlightened government, while it employs avast, and sophisticated army of cyber sleuthsto tightly repress the cries of its citizens.

However, no shield can resist the tide of truth. Cracks have begun to appear in thisfacade. In December of 2008, a brave bandof 303 highly respected Chinese intellectu-

als and professionals published a documentcalled Charter 08. In measured, factual tones,this document articulated the sordid historyof the Chinese communist regime, callingits attempts at modernizing Chinese society“disastrous.” Charter 08 went on to state thatcommunist party rule,” has stripped peopleof their rights, destroyed their dignity, andcorrupted normal human intercourse. Sowe ask,” the charter continues, “Where isChina headed in the twenty- rst century?Will it continue with ‘modernization’ underauthoritarian rule, or will it embrace universal

human values, join the mainstream of civi-lized nations, and build a democratic system?There can be no avoiding these questions.”

The document then proposed 18 speci crecommendations for restoring the politicaland human rights of Chinese citizens. Char-ter 08 appeared on the Internet on Decem-ber 10, 2008, the 50th anniversary of theUnited Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which China is a signa-tory. The reaction of the Communist regimewas as swift as it was predictable. It quickly

Tiananmen 2.0How Facebook and Twitter defeated Communist China/ / By Jim Geheran

Foreign A

Photo courtesy of Initiatives for China.



censored all mention of Charter 08 from theInternet, placed tight controls on the activitiesof the signatories, and arrested the assumedlead author, Liu Xiaobo. After being held formore than a year, Liu was sentenced to elevenyears in prison for subversion of the state. Butthe damage had been done. Despite the bestattempts of the communist rulers to eradicateCharter 08, it continues to circulate through-out China. To date, more than 10,000 Chinesecitizens have af xed their real names to Char-ter 08. This is no small feat in a country wheresuch action can mean the loss of one’s job andeven jail.

The appearance and rapid spread of Char-ter 08 via the Internet clearly illustrates whythe Chinese rulers are so avid about internetcensorship. The Internet’s ubiquity and speedgives ordinary citizens the power to confront

the myth of authoritarian rule. It is the greatequalizer of the digital age, much as the six-shooter was the great equalizer of the WildWest. In a recent speech, Chinese PresidentHu Jintao noted to his government of cialsthat the “socialist state” will be at risk unlessChina’s rewall bureaucracy can “purify”the Internet. Jintao’s words will prove highlyprophetic. He knows more than anyone in theWest how vulnerable tyranny is to an Internet-enabled citizenry.

As terrifying as the Internet’s ability to rap-idly disseminate information is to the Com-

munist rulers, the Internet’s power to gal-vanize citizens into proactive networks llsthem with dread. Nothing better illustratesthis than the amazing story of Feng Zhenghu.

Feng Zhenghu is a well renowned humanrights lawyer.He is also onthe infamousblacklist. Theblacklist isan instrumentof controldeployed by theChinese gov-ernment afterits crackdownon the 1989T i a n a n m e npro-democracymovement. Many of the Tiananmen demon-strators escaped to the West. In an effort toeradicate all traces of the movement, the Chi-nese government banned those Tiananmenleaders who had escaped from ever returning

to China. I am one of those on the blacklistand have been repeatedly denied entry intomy homeland even though I am a Chinesecitizen with avalid Chinesepassport. TheChinese gov-ernment contin-uously updatesthis blacklistto include anyi n d i v i d u a l sit considerspolitical unde-sirable. Since1989, no one onthe blacklist hasbeen allowed toreturn to China.

Many of these citizens live in a political noman’s land where they are completely cutoff from their homeland and families, whileunable to obtain full legal status in the U.S. orother free countries.

Feng Zhenghu is blacklisted for his outspo-ken defense of the rights of his fellow citizens.He has been arrested and imprisoned manytimes by the Chinese government on trumpedup charges, once for three years. Undeterred,Feng was among several Chinese intellectu-als who attended the Interethnic/InterfaithLeadership Conference in Washington, D.C.,

sponsored by Initiatives For China in Octo-ber 2009. At the conference, Mr. Feng spokepassionately about the illegal blacklistingpractices of the Chinese government, whichis expressly forbidden under Article 13 of the

United NationsU n i v e r s a lDeclaration of Human Rights,to which Chinais a signatory.

Feng’s amaz-ing saga beganshortly afterthe Conferencein November3, 2009 whenhe attempted to

y home after abrief and legal medical trip to Japan. He wasrefused entry into his home city of Shang-hai eight times between November and June2009. After the eighth refusal, Feng decidedto make a stand. After much arguing, Chinese


authorities at Shanghai Airport forcibly putFeng on a plane back to Japan’s Narita Airportwhere he voluntarily surrendered his Japanese

visa and vowedto remain atthe terminal infront of the cus-toms area untilthe Chineseg o v e r n m e n trecognized hisright to returnhome. For the

rst time since1989, a Chinesecitizen engagedin a disciplinedn o n - v i o l e n tcivil protest

against the practice of blacklisting. Onecitizen stood alone for many in the face of aworld superpower.

Word of Feng’s action quickly spreadthroughout the dissident Chinese commu-nity. Through Initiatives for China, a dissi-dent foundation, a series of “Tokyo Airlifts”were organized where supporters from as faraway as Australia and Germany ew intoTerminal One at Narita Airport where Fengwas encamped. They brought with them food,supplies, and equipment to sustain him duringhis vigil.

On December 24, I personally ew toTokyo to meet with Feng and to seek the aidof the Japanese government in resolving thesituation. On January 24, Japanese govern-ment of cials met with Feng at the Airportand promised to investigate the situation.

For over 90 long days and sleepless nights,Feng endured the Spartan, barren terrain of an airport customs area. There he would haveremained, dissolving into the woodwork likea cockroach while the crush of humanity bus-ily passed him by. Time was not on his sideand the Chinese government would even-tually pressure the Japanese authorities tosweep him out with the daily refuse.

But neither the Chinese government northe Japanese government factored in thepower of Twitter and Facebook. Early on inhis sit-in, supporters set up Facebook andTwitter accounts for Feng. One of the airliftsbrought him a netbook, which, combinedwith his cell phone, enabled him to commu-nicate with supporters around the world. Bymid-January, Feng had attracted a network of

reign Affairs

“But neither the Chinese government nor the

Japanese government

factored in the power of Twitter and

Facebook .”

“As terrifying as theInternet’s ability to rapidly disseminate information is to the Communist rul ers,

the Internet’s power to

galvanize citizens fills them with dread.”




over 20,000 followers around the world. Thisnetwork was growing by the day and wason verge of mushrooming into a worldwidecause célèbre. Instead of disappearing intothe woodwork as the Chinese governmenthad hoped, Feng was becoming an icon and asource of embarrassment for both the Chineseand Japanese governments.

On February 3, the Communists blinked.Journalists at the Voice of America studios inJapan called our of ce in Washington, D.C.to announce that the Chinese government hadagreed to let Feng join his family in Shanghai.In making the announcement Chinese of -cials in Beijing said Feng’s previous inabil-ity to enter Shanghai was the work of “localof cials” not authorized by the authorities inBeijing. Clearly this cover story illustrateshow quickly and quietly the Chinese govern-

ment wanted this situation to go away. In thecalculus of tyranny, it decided that it wouldcut its losses and not risk the unthinkable out-come that the social network of Twitter andFacebook would run amok over the facade of authoritarian control.

As this one personal story illustrates, theroad to democracy in China has been laid.

Charter 08 is the vehicle for democratic trans-formation in China. The superhighway of theInternet, Twitter and Facebook is the pathway.If Feng Zhenghu can break the blacklist andif Liu Xiaboo could punch through the GreatFirewall to tell the world that the spin mas-ters of Beijing are no more powerful thanthe Wizard of OZ, imagine what armies of Internet-empowered citizens can do and whatlegions of Twitter and Facebook networks canachieve!

So what can the Free World do to helpthe Liu Xiaobo’s and the Feng Zhenghu’sof China in their struggle? Technology nowexists that enables ordinary citizens to eas-ily and safely bypass the Great Firewall. It iscurrently in use by approximately one milliondissidents in China, Iran and Vietnam alone.With just a few million dollars, this technol-

ogy can be bolstered to give 50-100 millioncitizens unfettered access to an uncensoredInternet. At this point there will be so manyholes in the Firewall that it will overwhelmthe ability of the Chinese government tomaintain it. Freedom will come to Chinawithout a shot being red. Money has alreadybeen appropriated by Congress for this action.

Citizens can call their senator or the Depart-ment of State and tell them that they supportthe Internet Initiatives of Senators Brown-back, Casey, Kaufman and Kyl.

Another option is to take part in the pris-oner adoption program, which has just beeninitiated. Under this program, you can adopta political prisoner in China. Become famil-iar with his case. Use Facebook and Twitterto create awareness of his or her situation andurge your network to contact Congress to callfor action in obtaining their freedom. Thisaction will not only highlight the individualplight of the prisoners, it will give visibility tothe scope of repression and denial of libertythat goes on in China every day.

You can make a difference. Use the powerof the Internet and the networking of Twitterand Facebook to punch through the facade of

tyranny that governs China. For more infor-mation on how you can help, contact me, JimGeheran, director of Initiatives for China, at

[email protected].

Jim Geheran is the director of Initiatives forChina, a group formed to facilitate the peace-

ful transition to democracy in China.

PEACE THROUGH STRENGTHWhy Real Conservatives Fight Tyranny Abroad/ / By Adam Cassandra

Event speakers who denounce theevil nature of America’s empire and“interventionist” foreign policy usu-

ally appear at Communist Party meetingsor other leftist political rallies, but suchspeakers received a warm welcome at thisyear’s Conservative Political Action Con-ference.Congressman Ron Paul and his Cam-paign for Liberty disciples hosted several

events at CPAC where they perpetuatedthe notion that terrorist attacks againstthe United States are the result of Ameri-can involvement overseas. The libertarianwing of the Conservative movement hasopenly adopted leftist propaganda target-ing U.S. foreign policy and wrapped it ina Gadsden ag.

According to Paul, all the U.S. must doto stop the violence and hate of Islamistsis close all of our overseas military bases,bring every military and intelligence asset

back home and make a show of toler-ance for the rest of the world. “Youtolerate other religions and as long asthey’re not confrontational and vio-lent there’s no problem,” Paul told thisauthor when questioned at CPAC. “Theviolence comes when we are over thereten thousand miles from home drop-ping bombs on these people and occu-pying their territory.”

Ron Paul’s followers promoted thisdangerous agenda as the foreign policyof “real Conservatives” who adhere tothe Constitution in its CPAC event titled,“You’ve Been Lied To: Why Real Conser-vatives are Against the War on Terror.”

“Why is America the target of terror-ists and suicide bombers?” asked speakerPhilip Giraldi, a former CIA of cer.“Surely not because it has freedoms thatsome view negatively. As Osama binLaden put it, in possibly the only known

joke made by a terrorist, if freedoms were

the issue al-Qaida would be attackingSweden.”

If the problem is truly not ideological,then why are radical Muslims now callingfor a jihad against Switzerland?

The Swiss do not have a global empire,nor are they an aggressive state, but Lib-yan dictator Moamer Kadha wants Swit-zerland destroyed. Why threaten Switzer-land? Swiss voters approved a referendumby a margin of 57.5 percent to ban theconstruction of Islamic minarets. The ref-

“Some people just don’t

want to recognizeideology . There are a lot of people who didn’t want

to believe that Communist ideology

was a threat .”



erendum does not ban the construction of mosques—only of the minarets—whichthe Swiss People’s Party characterizedas symbols of political Islamism and itsdominion over neighborhoods.

“Jihad against Switzerland, againstZionism, against foreign aggression is notterrorism,” Kadha said. “Any Muslimaround the world who has dealings withSwitzerland is an in del [and is] againstIslam, against Muhammad, against God,against the Quran.”

American Muslims who recognize politi-cal Islamism as a threat to national secu-rity struggle to have their voices heardover in uential groups like the Councilon American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)and the Islamic Society of North America(ISNA), who both have strong ties to the

Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist ideology.Zeyno Baran, Senior Fellow at the HudsonInstitute’s Center for Islam, Democracyand the Future of the Muslim World, warnsWesterners about ignoring the ideologicalthreat of Islamism in her new book TheOther Muslims: Moderate and Secular.

Baran recently held a book launch atthe Hudson Institute where she was joinedby contributing authors Dr. Zuhdi Jasser,founder and president of the AmericanIslamic Forum for Democracy,and Hedieh Mirahmadi, presi-

dent of the World Organizationfor Resource Development andEducation. Baran said that theWest must recognize the dif-ference between the religion of Islam and the political Islamistideology if there is any hope of defeating the worldwide threatof violent Islamism.

Reacting to the policystances of Paul and his sup-porters, Baran told this author,“Some people just don’t wantto recognize ideology. Thereare a lot of people who didn’twant to believe that Commu-nist ideology was a threat. Idon’t really know how muchthey know about what Islamistsbelieve, what they do,” shesaid, adding, “If you’ve neverdone your homework … Iunderstand they would say,‘Oh it’s exaggerated. It’s only

American foreign policy,’ but the Wahhabimovement started before America waseven engaged with the Islamic world, orbefore Israel was even created as a state.”

Dr. Jasser said of Paul and his follow-ers, “I think if they dispense it onto foreignpolicy they’re feeding into the Islamistmantra which is that it’s not our prob-lem, that it’s somebody else’s, and they’reallowing them to shirk responsibility frominternal reform.”

“It’s revisionist history,” added Mirah-madi. “There are a lot of people who mayde ne history in ways which support theirargument, but I don’t think that Islamismas a … political phenomena resulted fromAmerican intervention. It resulted fromthe decline of Islamic civilization.”

Dr. J. Michael Waller, Walter and

Leonore Annenberg Professor of Interna-tional Communication at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., iden-ti es the threat of Islamism and how todefeat the ideology in his book, Fightingthe War of Ideas like a Real War.

“We are not targeting a religion,” writesWaller. “Radical Islamism is an extremistpolitical ideology. … Radical Islamists arepolitical extremists who seek to change ordestroy an established political order by


intimidation, terrorism and subversion:classical means of ideological warfare thatthe U.S. and other countries have success-fully fought and defeated in the past.”

Most Conservatives feel the same wayAnn Coulter does about the congressman:“If Ron Paul is behind it and it has nothingto do with foreign policy, I agree,” Coul-ter said when elding a question after herspeech at CPAC.

A Conservative foreign policy is nei-ther one that advocates retreat in the faceof mounting threats, nor does it promotepolicing all the world’s problems. A Con-servative foreign policy is de ned by pru-dence. President Washington paid tributeto the Barbary pirates because the UnitedStates did not have the military forcefor a strong defense. President Jefferson

used his newly built naval force to anni-hilate the Barbary pirates and the threatthey posed to America. In the war againsttotalitarian Islamism, paying tribute is nolonger an option.

Adam Cassandra recently graduated fromthe Institute of World Politics where hereceived a Master’s degree in statecraft and national security affairs, specializingin public diplomacy and political warfare.

reign Affairs



“W ho is John Galt?” Thisphrase, used to expressexasperation by the hope-

less populace in Ayn Rand’s novel AtlasShrugged, is appearing on signs and shirtsat Tea Party protests across the country. Itserves as a rallying cry for those who shareRand’s belief and understanding of indi-vidual rights and capitalism as the core val-ues of America and of all human life. It is aslogan for those who won’t sit idle as thoseprinciples are betrayed by our political lead-ership.

John Galt is the uncompromising hero of Atlas Shrugged. His integrity and dedicationto the ideal of individual liberty lead him tolaunch a world-wide rebellion against the

suffocating rule of a colossal collectivistgovernment. This rebellion is symbolized bythe resigning shrug of the Greek god Atlas,who holds the world aloft, leaving the Earthto its own helplessly destructive path.

In the book, a massive bureaucratic stateis built on the embers of a prosperous capi-talist society, seeking to redistribute wealthfrom its most productive members to itsmost unproductive. It operates on the Marx-ist slogan, “From each according to his abil-ity, to each according to his need.” This slo-gan represents the idea that an individual’s

need is a blank check to be cashed on everyother member of society, regardless of theirindividual situation or rights.

While Galt is frequently cited by the TeaParty activists the GOP seem so eager to har-ness, much of the agitation of the conserva-tive leadership in Congress over the recentpassage of President Barack Obama’s healthcare bill lacks the mark of principled andrational objection that characterized Rand’shero. No mainstream Republican will rejectthe concept that a person’s need creates amoral obligation on other people. This prem-ise is the altruistic belief that we all have amoral obligation to help the needy and, byextension, so does the State. This belief inself-sacri ce is shared by liberals and con-servatives alike—one, from a Marxist phi-losophy of collectivism, the latter from reli-gious doctrine.

The health care industry has been heavilyregulated and subsidized by the governmentfor decades. Obamacare is not revolutionaryin its expansion of government control andspending—Obamacare is merely the neces-

sary next step for a society that has acceptedthe underlying altruistic moral premise of the welfare state.

Over the last decade, with control of boththe White House and Congress, George W.Bush and his Republican allies oversaw themost massive expansion of the welfare statesince The Great Society. Among the Repub-licans’ achievements during this time was anexplosion in discretionary pork-barrel spend-ing, the generation of “faith-based” redistri-bution programs and a $727 billion prescrip-tion drug subsidization bill. The principles of “Compassionate Conservatism” necessitatedredistribution of wealth from the most pro-ductive citizens to the least productive based

on the principle of altruism. The “Neocon-servative” in uence encouraged a “prag-matic” abandonment of principles altogetherin favor of political self-preservation. Thiscombination of faulty principles and moralcompromise has led to the decline and defeatof Conservatism in the United States.

How can Conservative leaders hope toargue convincingly against Obamacare whenthey share the same basic moral premise asLiberals? How can Conservatives be takenseriously when they themselves acted tofurther expand government spending andcontrol during their time in power? Theapparent hypocrisy of Republicans arguingagainst Obamacare dogged them throughoutthe debate right up to the passage of the bill.If providing welfare to the needy is agreedupon by both Conservatives and Liberals as

a proper and necessary function of govern-ment, then what is left to debate but the nedetails of how best to take money and redis-tribute it? The attacks on Obamacare as “ s-cally irresponsible” ring hollow when altru-ism is accepted as a legitimate moral girdingfor government action.

Ideas matter. Without a principled defenseof capitalism and individual liberty, Conser-vatives are disarmed against liberal oppo-nents. An appeal to tradition, religion, orthe authority of the Founders is profoundlyinadequate as a philosophical argument forindividual rights and its corollary politicalsystem, capitalism. The justi cation for indi-vidual rights is found in man’s fundamentalrequirements for life. The system of capital-

ism is the political application of those r ightsin a social setting.The argument against universal health

care should be the same argument againstthe entire welfare state—it violates man’sindividual rights for the sake of the per-petually chimerical “collective good.” Thefact that a particular welfare scheme is “ s-cally irresponsible” may be true, but a muchmore sinister aw lies at the root of wealthredistribution. Until Conservatives pursuean understanding of the philosophical andmoral justi cations for individual rights and

capitalism, Statist and Collectivist politicswill continue to win by default.

John Galt was a symbol of uncompromis-ing reason and morality in a country hope-lessly abandoned to bureaucratic socialistparasites. The common man in the societyof Atlas Shrugged asked rhetorically, “Whois John Galt?” because that ideal had fadedinto legend. We must reclaim this ideal andresuscitate the philosophical defense of capi-talism in America if we are to save our coun-try from the coming fall.

Charles Olson is a 2007 graduate of Ameri-can University, where he received his B.A.in political science and Spanish and founded the Objectivist Club. He has worked in eco-nomics analysis at the Embassy of Mexicoand for the Asociación de Ayuda a las Víc-timas del 11-M, an organization based in

Madrid with the stated goal of preserving inthe Spanish consciousness the memory of thetrain bombings of March 11, 2004. Charlesis currently working as an assistant control-ler at George Mason University in Virginia.

Will the Real John Galt PLease Stand Up?A Brief Examination of the GOP’s Failure to Defend Capitalism / / By Charles Olson


Culture And H



There are a few memorials toUlysses S. Grant whose physical

prominence comes as a surprisetoday. His tomb in New York City is oneof the largest mausoleums in the WesternHemisphere, yet it has been a struggle inrecent years simply to maintain it. An eques-trian Grant memorial stands in front of theCapitol Building in Washington, D.C., yetthis aspect of one of the nation’s most rec-ognizable landmarks has itself gone largelyunnoticed and unmaintained. And then thereis the $50 bill. A bill recently introduced inCongress would replace the image of our18th president with that of our 40th—Presi-dent Ronald Reagan.

An unsettling thoughtoccurred to me during the effortto call attention to the disrepair of Grant’s Tomb during the 1990’s:Memorials to Grant re ect alevel of esteem he enjoyed onceupon a time, but no longer. LikePresident Abraham Lincoln, hewas credited with saving theUnion. Like Washington, heonce was called “ rst in war, rst

in peace, and rst in the hearts of his countrymen.” Regarded asthe equal of both men for manyyears, it is questionable whetheranyone in American history everdominated his era as he did. Yet the 20th cen-tury witnessed a battering of his reputationfrom which he still suffers in the eyes of somany Americans. The questions are why, andwas it deserved?

After six American wars and 26 presidents,his story remains unique. The sheer mag-nitude of his service as principal author of

Union victory and two terms as president atthe advent of modern America is staggering.The Civil War was this nation’s most tryingperiod, and in campaign after campaign, Gen-eral Grant brought success—with decisive-ness and on a scale comparable to history’sgreatest commanders—where so many oth-ers had met failure. During a war the countryneeded to win for its very survival, he wasnever defeated. Yet for years, this perspec-tive was distorted by the myth of the LostCause, which dei ed Confederate generals

and downplayed the role of slavery in thewar. Inconvenient facts were cast aside, and

Grant was dismissed as a butcher who won bysheer superiority of numbers. Even his unim-peachable character, integrity and an oftenunnoticed sensitivity gave way to the baselessimage of a course drunkard.

For a number of years, Grant’s reputation asgeneral has been coming back—to the pointthat he is commonly viewed among scholarsas not only the greatest Civil War general, butas a military leader unsurpassed in Americanhistory. The old myths, however, endure farmore among casual students of history.

Grant’s image as president may be even

more disturbing, considering that the polem-ics of his opponents applied a reckless de ni-tion of corruption in a way that diverted atten-tion from a rich array of domestic and foreignpolicy achievements. When he reached theWhite House, he appealed to the nationalconscience to support the prosecution of Reconstruction, and he made some of the

boldest moves a president has ever made dur-ing peacetime to protect the rights of formerslaves. “To him more than to any other man,”asserted Frederick Douglass, “the negro oweshis enfranchisement and the Indian a humanepolicy.” When the Alabama claims disputethreatened war between the United Statesand Great Britain, President Grant not onlysecured a peaceful resolution of the crisis, buthe did so with such success that the world wasgiven an unprecedented taste of the power of the principle of international arbitration. As

he intended, a movement followed from thisexample that culminated in attempts toward

international cooperation to nd alternativesto war.

Such was the rich legacy of the soldier-statesman; he was regarded by some at thetime of his death as the “Second Father of His Country.” Tragically, it is when thenation fails to meet the aspirations of thosegreat leaders who work to bring out its verybest, especially after they have left the stageof history, that we learn most painfully theprice of forgetting. W.E.B. DuBois seemedto recognize this when he lamented in 1935the “attack and libel” from which, “[n]ot a

single great leader of the nationduring the Civil War and Recon-struction has escaped,” in thehistory books. This nation for-got part of President Grant’slesson when it retreated fromReconstruction and allowedJim Crow to take its place inthe South. Perhaps it was sym-bolic that Grant’s remains wereplaced in his tomb less than ayear after the Supreme Court

decided the case of Plessy v.Ferguson, which legitimizedracial segregation in railroads.When he was president, Granthad secured a Civil Rights Act

that desegregated transportation. By 1897,our nation seemed to be unwittingly buryingpart of President Grant’s legacy just as it wasentombing his physical remains.

The process of correcting the historicalrecord has been slow, which perhaps explainsthe recurring threats to monuments of Grant(stone or paper) that seem deceptively out-

sized to modern eyes. Grant belongs on the$50 bill as a reminder of the nation’s greatestachievements and highest ideals—and of whywe should not allow ourselves to forget.

Frank Scaturro is a visiting assistant professor at Hofstra Law School. He formerlyserved as Counsel for the Constitution on theSenate Judiciary Committee and is president of the Grant Monument Association. He iscurrently a candidate for Congress in NewYork’s Fourth Congressional District.

Why general grant belongs on the $50 billCorrecting the Record on a Great American / / By Frank Scaturro


ulture and History



The Sazerac• 2 ounces Michter’s 10-year Single

Barrel Straight Rye Whiskey • 1 teaspoon ultra fine sugar • 5 dashes Peychaud’s Bitters• 1/4 ounce Leopold’s Bros. Absinthe

Verte• 1 flamed lemon peel to garnish• Served up in a rocks glass

Fill a rocks glass with ice and

water and set aside while theglass chills. In a mixing glass,or standard pint glass, combineultra fine sugar and Peychaud’sBitters with just a small splash of

water. Add Michter’s 10-year S.B.S.R. Whiskey into the mixing glass withsugar and bitters and fill threequarters of the glass with ice. Stir for 20 seconds. Empty your chilledrocks glass and coat the glass

with the Leopold’s Bros. Absinthe Verte. Strain your rye, sugar andPeychauds Bitters mixture intothe absinthe-washed glass. Cut a quarter-sized lemon zest with a potato peeler and squeeze the oilsof the zest through a match flameinto the drink. Rim the glass withthe lemon zest and either place itin the drink or discard.

The New Guard Cocktail The Sazerac / / By Dane Nakamura

T he of cial cocktail of New Orleans—the Sazerac—is an Amer-ican icon. And like so many other great American icons, it issteeped in legend. A dedicated number of historians and curious

imbibers have worked to uncover what we know and, today, theteam at YAF presents the long and delicious tale of an Americaninnovation to you, the readers, in the second installment of The NewGuard Cocktail.

In 1795 Antoine Amadie Peychaud, a young Creole apothecary,settled in the French Quarter of New Orleans to ful ll the Ameri-can dream of opening his own small business. By 1830, he sold the

rst commercial bitters—Peychaud’s bitters—which he had createdfrom an old family recipe. In the evenings, Peychaud would mixthe bitters with cognac, sugar and water, creating a delicious drink

for his friends. Peychaud served his creation in a two-sided egg cupcalled a coquetier. It is rumored that a mispronunciation of this wordis the original source of the modern term, “cocktail.”

By 1850, the Sazerac was immensely popular as Americans usedbitters as a creative means to thwart Big Brother and the temperancemovement’s attacks on the freedom to relax after a day’s work witha drink. By 1873, Thomas Handy, who was by then the proprietorof Sazerac House, changed the main ingredient from cognac to ryewhiskey in a re ection of changing American tastes. This move wasalso a display of American ingenuity as the phylloxera plague dev-astated Europe’s grape crops, dramatically limiting the supply of cognac. As one industry falls, the invisible hand raises another inits stead.

Somewhere along the way, a clever bartender decided to washthe glass with absinthe before serving the sazerac, but the relentlessmarch of the nanny state soon rendered this delicious liquor illegal.

In 2007, however, a dedicated businessman who envisioned apro table American trade for absinthe hired a law rm to tango withthe government, eventually emerging victorious with a “new” drinkand a freer market. The absinthe used in The New Guard Sazerac isthe product of a family owned and operated small batch distillery inDenver, Colorado. Each delicious batch is handmade by an artisandistiller in, “a 40 gallon hand-hammered copper pot that is so smallyou could literally wrap your arms around it.”

The bourbon chosen for The New Guard Sazerac can trace its his-tory to 1753, when a farmer in Schaefferstown, Pennsylvania begandistilling whiskey from hard rye.

Today, we present this product of centuries of history, hard-work-ing industry, self-reliant ingenuity, free markets and American tastesto you. Enjoy!

Dane Nakamura is a professional bartenderat Bourbon in the GloverPark neighborhood of Washington, D.C.

When drinking America’s rst cocktail, one of the most impor-tant things is to rst enjoy the nose of the drink. The clean, slightly

smoky, amed lemon zest accentuates the delicious smell of aniseand citrus from the Leopold’s Absinthe Verte wash. As you lean backto take a sip, the Peychaud’s Bitters and smell of new charred oakbarrel straight rye whiskey ll your nose and all the componentsbegin to play together. As the drink hits your tongue you will noticeit is slightly sweet from the sugar, the pisco-based absinthe and thevanilla and caramel notes in the rye. As the drink coats your tongue,the tastes gain balance as the rye spice and dry (almost tannic) in u-ence of the oak wood comes through. The Peychaud’s bitters cleansethe pallet with slightly bitter, oral notes and leaves you wanting totake another sip and search for the incredible oral arrangement youthought you almost put your nger on. Go ahead, have another!


Co



PPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP - REPLY FORM FOR SUPPORTERSoung Americans for Freedom, 2300 M Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20037m in agreement with the Sharon Statement and wish to apply for membership.

AME____________________________________________________________DDRESS__________________________________________________________TY___________________________ STATE _______ZIP__________________

HONE_____________________ EMAIL_________________________________ERMANENT ADDRESS_____________________________________________

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

GrassTopsUSA.com

Waging WebWarfare Againstthe LiberalEstablishment.

Giving YourValues A Voice.

www.GrassTopsUSA.com

new guard summer 2010 edition - young americans for freedom ( yaf )

Documents