who is john galt?

on the Gop’s failure to
defend capitalism
middle east peace:
drawing a line in the sand
tiananmen 2.0:
how Facebook and Twitter
defeated communist china
Peace through strength:
WHY REAL CONSERVATIVES
FIGHT TYRANNY
Restoring American History:
Why President Grant
Belongs on the $50
THE MAGAZINE OF YOUNG
AMERICANS FOR FREEDOM
SUmmer 2010
VOLUME Thirty-Four
NUMBER TWO
$1.00
N
E
W
G
U
A
R
D
A dangerous precedent:
the threat of obamacare
and how to defeat it
IN THIS TIME of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of the youth of America
to affrm certain eternal truths.

WE, as young conservatives, believe:

THAT foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free
will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;

THAT liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic
freedom;

THAT the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of
internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;
THAT when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power,
which tends to diminish order and liberty;

THAT the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for
empowering government to fulfll its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration
and abuse of power;

THAT the genius of the Constitution—the division of powers—is summed up in the clause
that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people, in those spheres not specifcally
delegated to the Federal government;

THAT the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand,
is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and
constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of
human needs;

THAT when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce
the moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it takes from one man to bestow
on another, it diminishes the incentive of the frst, the integrity of the second, and the moral
autonomy of both;

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

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

THAT the United States should stress victory over, rather than co-existence with, this
menace; and
THAT American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just
interests of the United States?
The Sharon Statement
Adopted 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 refect the views held by the editors or the
offcial position of YAF.
THE New Guard
Table of Contents
from the Editor’s Desk
// Christopher Bedford 1
Economy
Keep Entrepreneurship Alive
Kill 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 5
Supreme Court Activism
An Insider’s Guide
// Carrie Severino 7
Education
Creating the “New Man”
The Totalitarian Social Engineering Projects of
the Academic New-Far-Left
// Phillip Smyth 8
The YAF Scene
Florida YAFers Fight for Freedom
// James Shackelford III 10
YAF at CPAC 2010
// Jordan Marks 11
Foreign Affairs
The Plain Facts of History
Middle East Peace: Drawing a line in the Sand
// John Stapleton 13
Tiananmen 2.0
How Facebook and Twitter defeated Communist
China
// Jim Geheron 15
Peace Through Strength
Why Real Conservatives Fight Tyranny Abroad
// Adam Cassandra 17
Culture and History
Will the Real John Galt
Please Stand Up?
A Brief Examination of the GOP’s Failure
to Defend Capitalism
// Charles Olson 19
Why General Grant
Belongs on the $50 Bill
Correcting the Record on a Great American
// Frank Scaturro 20
Cocktail
New Guard Cocktail
// Dane Nakamura 21
T
he past three months have seen many changes in the United States.
Certainly not the change citizens voted for in 2008, but change
nonetheless. We have seen the public persona of a president who,
just a year ago, had a friendly reputation and a seeming mandate, crumble
under fre, reforming as a bitter, sarcastic and dismissive politician. We
have seen a spontaneous national movement for limited government con-
tinue to grow and spread across the country, sinking its grassroots into
local soil and celebrating its one-year anniversary in gatherings across
hundreds of American cities and towns, rather than just a few. We have
seen a rattled GOP fnd strength in its Conservative supporters and rally,
presenting thoughtful alternatives and principled opposition. And we
have seen Young Americans for Freedom growing by as many as ffty
activists 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, fnally back from a long hiatus, has continued to grow
and change as well, comfortably falling back into her well-worn groove
as 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 writers
across 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 a
moment too soon. This is a time of political upheaval like
none seen since the 1960s. Emboldened by their hollow, and
temporary, victory in the debate over health care, the hard
Left have escalated their attacks on American meritocracy,
launching bids to transfer power from bloated banks to greedy
unions, grind the United States economy to a halt with cap-
and-trade legislation and publicly assault the Supreme Court
for upholding the Constitutional right to free speech. And, as
in the 1960s, the Right has risen to the challenge, escalating
men 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 chosen
because of their paramount importance to the preservation of
the United States. The authors and articles have been chosen to
tackle the looming issues of the day and to help prepare young
Conservatives across the country for the coming debates and
ferce electoral battles necessary for a defense, and revival, of
American ideals, American exceptionalism, America’s future
and the future of liberty itself.
In Freedom,

Christopher Bedford

Executive Editor
The New Guard
From The editor’s Desk
// By Christopher Bedford
New Guard, summer 2010 1
The New Guard staff at CPAC launch party.
I
s entrepreneurship dead? Some say yes, point-
ing to the struggling economy, President Barack
Obama’s tax-and-regulate agenda, and the
younger generation’s apparent fondness for liberal
policies as their proof. But the data says otherwise.
A Wall Street Journal article last December
reported that the number of job-seekers starting their
own businesses nearly doubled during the depths of
the recession, increasing from fve percent in 2008
to nine percent in 2009. “Given the state of the econ-
omy, and the state of the job market, many young
people are getting the push they needed to become
entrepreneurs,” says Bo Fishback, vice president of
the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, a non-
proft organization that promotes entrepreneurship.
This trend should come as little surprise. Gen-
eration Y is the iPhone generation. We like to have
access to as much information as possible so we
can do it ourselves, whether paying bills, repairing
a computer, planning travel or fnding a new apart-
ment. Building a business is the next logical step for
many.
The question, then, is not whether entrepreneur-
ship is dead, but what government policies encour-
age or discourage it? One of the most discouraging
policies 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 conficts.
Each time it was repealed after the confict ended. In
1916 it was established a fourth time to support mili-
tary buildup for World War I. But this time it was not
repealed 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 by
the progressive movement, who saw it as a means
of social engineering. The progressives wanted to
prevent successful entrepreneurs from passing their
“ill-gotten gains” to future generations. It should
come as little surprise that Karl Marx was the frst to
call for the, “abolition of all rights of inheritance,” in
his Communist Manifesto.
The standard rules of the game say entrepreneurs
can’t win without access to capital or fnancing. No
entrepreneur starts from nothing and every business
needs money to grow. The death tax removes this
capital from the economy.
Since it was established, the death tax rate has
gone up and down, at one time confscating nearly
80 percent of a family’s assets. Thanks to the 2001
Bush Tax Relief, the Death Tax was gradually
reduced over the course of nine years and repealed
in 2010. Unfortunately, due to complex Senate
budgetary rules, this repeal was only temporary.
And so, in 2011 the tax relief ends and the death
tax comes roaring back at the rate of 55 percent.
That is over half of a family business’ assets.
This tax uniquely harms family businesses
and entrepreneurs because it confscates indi-
vidually-acquired capital, while exempting the
capital held by publicly traded corporations. For
instance, a family-owned timber farmer who
built his company through savings and hard work
will leave his family facing the death tax when
he dies, while his corporate competitor will not.
The timber farmer typically reinvests his profts
into the company, acquiring new assets (forest
land, machinery, inventory, vehicles), leaving
him little cash with which to pay the tax and
putting his business in jeopardy. When the death
tax comes due, his family may be forced to sell
timber, land, machinery—and in the worst cases,
the entire business.
In the end, it is a tax on moderation, savings
and responsible dealings—if a dying individual
wishes to fy to Las Vegas and spent every cent
they 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 their
family can beneft and their business survive, the
government swoops down to take nearly half.
Government data from Congress’ bipartisan
Joint Economic Committee indicates that from
1995 to 2005 estate taxes were paid by more
than 37,000 “closely-held businesses,” 50,000
limited-partnerships and nearly 28,000 “other”
non-corporate businesses, such as sole propri-
etorships.
When small, family
businesses can’t pay
their estate tax bills,
they are often given
“an offer they can’t
refuse” by their larger,
cor por at e- owned
competitors. A recent
study by Dr. Antony
Davies of Duquesne
University found that
for every average
annual increase in the
estate tax, 6,000 small
frms disappeared—
often sold to their
larger competitors.
The family business owner is not the only one
impacted by the death tax. Small family businesses
are 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 more
employers to spend their time and money expand-
ing their businesses and creating jobs. Economist
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Con-
gressional Budget Offce, found that permanently
repealing the death tax would free $1.6 trillion in
business capital, spurring the creation of as many
as 1.5 million new jobs.
The real tragedy is that the death tax destroys
the very businesses most integral to the American
dream—independently-owned small businesses.
Without small businesses and the entrepreneurs
behind them, capitalism becomes corporatism—
the dull, static business model epitomized by the
auto industry bailouts and the healthcare reform
sweetheart deals with the insurance industry.
If Generation Y is to have its shot at the Ameri-
can dream, the entrepreneurial spirit must be kept
alive. Doing away with the death tax is one of the
best ways for Congress to support a thriving entre-
preneurial ethic. Bringing the Death Tax back to
life—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 owners
and farmers fghting for permanent repeal of the
death 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
Economy
2 New Guard, summer 2010
W
hen asked about the constitutional-
ity of an individual health insurance
mandate, House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi answered the question with a ques-
tion: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
Her spokesperson, Nadeam Elshami, also
of the belief that repetition yields revelation,
later told the same reporter, “You can put this
on the record. That is not a serious question.
That is not a serious question.” The Speaker’s
remarks demonstrate a predictable conse-
quence of constitutional deviation: The further
away you go from the Constitution, the less
public offcials bother with justifying their
actions in light of it.
Many congressional leaders and admin-
istration members have similarly dismissed
constitutional questions on health care. Sena-
tor Leahy has said “[n]obody questions” the
constitutional authority to mandate individual
health insurance. Robert Gibbs reinforced
Leahy’s view, as have two attorneys on the
Senate HELP (health, education, labor and
pensions) committee. Senate fnance 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 noted
that the Constitutional question was “novel.”
Most recently, Congressman Phil Hare minced
no words, telling us all that he “doesn’t care
about the Constitution.”
It may seem ironic for members of Con-
gress who swore to “support and defend the
Constitution of the United States” to dismiss
constitutional questions, but established
Supreme Court precedents make it expected.
The Supreme Court has not deemed a fed-
eral tax or spending program unconstitutional
since the New Deal. Great Society initiatives
such as Medicare and Medicaid also provide
powerful precedents for Congress to impose
its self-determined spending power into health
care. Barring recent limitations on intrastate,
non-commercial activity, the Court’s modern
view of Congress’ regulatory reach puts nearly
every activity subject to its mandates. While
Court challenges to the Constitutionality of
the individual mandate to purchase health
insurance possess some merit, (purchasing a
product does not neatly fall into the “quintes-
sentially economic” activities identifed by
the Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Raich and
could thus fall outside Congress’ regulatory
power), 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 questions
based solely on Supreme Court precedent
ignores a fundamental aspect of American
government. As Charles Warren noted in
The 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 the
Court.” Warren’s quote does not mean that the
Court’s decisions do not have the force of law.
Rather, if the Court’s decisions, not the Con-
stitution, are the basis for determining whether
legislation 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 Alexander
Hamilton to call the judiciary in Federalist 78
“the least dangerous branch” if its unelected,
life-serving members possessed the power
to defnitively declare, forever, the “supreme
law” of the land. Were that so, Andrew Jackson
could not have rejected the Bank of the United
States after McCulloch v. Maryland, and
Abraham Lincoln could not have rejected the
pro-slavery reasoning of the Dred Scott deci-
sion. As alluded to by Chief Justice Marshall
in Marbury v. Madison, every elected repre-
sentative swears to uphold the Constitution for
the purpose of developing their own opinions
on the constitutionality of a given government
action. The various branches then perpetu-
ally impose their constitutional opinions. It is
for that reason Barry Goldwater noted in The
Conscience of a Conservative that he would
“not attempt to discover whether legislation is
‘needed’” before frst determining its consti-
tutionality.
The Left’s intellectually dense dismiss
this precept, and its intellectually honest
explain why. Writing for the majority in one
of the Court’s most activist decisions, Cop-
per v. Aaron, Chief Justice Warren gives a
clear articulation of the judicial supremacy
embraced by the Left. “[T]he federal judi-
ciary is supreme in the exposition of the
Constitution,” and it thus follows “that the
interpretation … 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 to
health care reform because “there’s [not] a
lot 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 the
favor, giving Congress nearly plenary spend-
ing and regulatory power through their deci-
sions. Yet the arrogance bred from decades
of precedent-permitted power grabs leaves
the Left open to ignore the challenges their
argument for an individual mandate faces in
court.
“Are You Serious?”
Killing the Constitution for Health Care
/ / By Will Haun
Congratulations to
Young Americans for Freedom
for your commitment to the conservative
cause and carrying on the torch of freedom.
—Sergio Picchio
California YAF State Chairman, 1983 – 1985
YAF National Chairman, 1986 – 1989
California Republican Assembly, National Committeeman, 2009 – Present
New Guard, summer 2010 3
ObamaCare
The proponents of an individual mandate
will likely rely upon the Constitution’s “Com-
merce Clause” as their basis for enforcing
the mandate. Bastardized from its original
meaning largely by the pro-New Deal Court,
Congress need only a rational reason to con-
clude what they wish to regulate substantially
affects interstate commerce, either by itself or
in the aggregate, to enforce a federal mandate.
The Supreme Court’s recent (and signifcant)
holding in Gonzalez v. Raich makes clear
that, outside of traditional regulation of the
movement of things across state lines, this
regulatory power includes “quintessentially
economic” activities. Such activities include
the “production, distribution and consumption
of commodities.” Advocates for the mandate
will likely try and ft it within one of these cat-
egories (and thus in line with prior precedent).
Yet none of these categories contemplates the
forced purchase of a product. All of these cat-
egories presuppose at least a voluntary intent
to engage within commerce. Fitting a coerced
purchase into “production, distribution, and
consumption” makes no sense at all.
Regardless of the fate of a Court challenge,
Americans thankfully responded to the consti-
tutional indifference of their representatives
with their own question: “are you serious?”
A Georgia town hall with Congressman Jack
Kingston erupted in applause when a man said
that nobody is “talking about the constitution-
ality of any of this mess.” Despite recent civic
literacy reports from the Intercollegiate Stud-
ies Institute indicating that only 51 percent
of 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 implications
of an individual mandate. Conservatives inter-
ested in conserving the Constitution should
make the most of this teaching moment, edu-
cating the public about a government that’s
given itself nearly unlimited power at the
expense of the Constitution. Making the Con-
stitution a relatable part of our political conver-
sation will allow Americans to know how and
why to hold elected leaders accountable. Such
an act would force politicians not to pander to
the lowest common denominator in political
dialogue, but rise to articulate their responsi-
bilities within our Constitution—serving as a
self-imposed limitation on future contrivances
of government excess. More than that, mem-
bers of Congress took an oath to uphold the
Constitution. While that may seem trite, the
Framers were relying on it, and so should we.
Will Haun is a Juris Doctor candidate at the
Catholic University of America, Columbus
School of Law, where he serves as president of
the Federalist Society and as an executive edi-
tor on the Harvard Journal of Law and Public
Policy. Prior to law school, Will performed
legal research under former U.S. Attorney
General 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 National
Review 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 Guard
Contributors
Executive Editor
Christopher Bedford
Publisher
Jordan Marks
Editor
John Stapleton
Design
Emily Dalpiaz & Darin Miller
Illustrators
Dr. Mysterious & Co.
Editorial Assistant
Eva 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 Freedom
2300 M Street, NW
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20037
Article Submissions, inquiries and letters
should be sent to NewGuard@YAF.com.
For advertising sales contact info@YAF.com
This issue went to press on
May 31, 2010.
Copyright 2010 ©
Young Americans for Freedom
Young Americans for Freedom is a 501(c)(3)
non-proft organization and depends entirely
on the generosity of its members and alumni.
ObamaCare
4 New Guard, summer 2010
O
n March 21, 2010, Congress passed
Obamacare after a hard fought year
of debates, town hall meetings, and
negotiations. But within the frst few days
of its passage, eighteen states fled lawsuits
against the federal government, alleging that
the health insurance mandate, which is at the
core of the Democrats’ reform package, is
unconstitutional. Ultimately, we may see this
suit fnd its way to the Supreme Court, and
the nine sitting justices may have the fnal
say as to whether or not Obamacare will be
implemented.
The pragmatic justifcation for a health
insurance mandate is that people who do not
have insurance are a drain on the health sys-
tems’ resources. No one can be denied care,
and, in many cases, when people are treated
for catastrophic health conditions and do not
have insurance, the hospital, and thereby
the public, wind up footing the bill. This is
a powerful argument, though some Repub-
lican leaders, most notably Rep. Paul Ryan,
have proposed alternate solutions that could
deal 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 governing
ideology, as it has no natural boundaries.
If any action taken must conform to what
is seen as effcient 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 government
can create mandates to control how people
act in order to protect the public wealth, then
what is to stop them from encroaching on
our basic individual liberties? If someone
smokes or is overweight, then they dispro-
portionably make use of the medical system,
and, according to this argument, ought to be
mandated to lose weight and quit smoking or
they would face a fne. Pragmatism is obvi-
ously untenable as a governing doctrine, and
so we must look to the Constitution to deter-
mine whether the government has the power
to implement such an overreaching law.
Many Democrats have attempted to draw
a 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 the
cost incurred by one individual. The problem
with this argument is that car insurance is a
mandate that comes with a certain action. If
you buy a car you are required to have car
insurance, but if you choose not to purchase
a car then there is no mandate. In the case
of health insurance, people are being forced
to purchase a product simply because they
exist, an unprecedented encroachment of
government infuence into people’s personal
lives.
In terms of strict constitutionality, most
supporters of this piece of legislation have
pointed to the Commerce Clause, stating
that, because the government has the right to
regulate interstate commerce, it can mandate
that people purchase health insurance. There
are two main problems with this analysis.
The frst is that individuals are not allowed
to buy health insurance across state lines, so
all economic activity is occurring within par-
ticular states. But the second and most glar-
ing problem with this assertion is that the
government is not regulating free economic
activity, but regulating because there is no
economic activity. Under the Commerce
Clause, the government may have the right
to regulate economic activity, but it cannot
mandate that people who choose not to par-
ticipate in such activity do so.
But beyond the constitutional issues that
arise due to the implementation of a mandate
system, there are serious moral issues that
must be acknowledged. Our Constitution is
rooted in social contract theory, which, under
a Lockean interpretation, states that a gov-
ernment can only be legitimate with the con-
sent of the people. The people form a social
contract, a constitution, sacrifcing certain
natural rights in the creation of that social
contract in order to defend a greater number
of rights that would otherwise be infringed
upon in the state of nature (i.e. anarchy).
By forming a social contract, we accept that
there are certain obligations we naturally
have, such as serving on juries, being called
to war, and paying taxes, all of which apply
to us simply because we are alive and enjoy
the benefts of a stable society.
Under a mandate system we are creating
something never seen before: a social con-
tract between the people and a private orga-
nization. Just as we are required to pay taxes
to the government in order to beneft from
the public goods it provides, so too must we
pay premiums to insurance companies in
order to beneft from the public goods they
provide. If we renege on our social obliga-
tion to pay taxes to the federal government,
we can be fned and jailed. Similarly, if we
choose to defy the mandate and not pay our
tribute to the insurance companies we are
fned, though harsher penalties may even-
tually be applied. Oddly enough, in their
attempts to moderate their healthcare pro-
posal, the Democrats have constructed one
that is, philosophically, far more destruc-
tive to America’s foundational ideals than
their previous proposals of a public option
or a single-payer system. By forcing people
to engage in economic activity against their
will, this healthcare plan has fallen into crass
corporatism and infringes on the basic eco-
nomic liberties every person holds.
Such a system is a gross distortion of the
principles set forth by the Founding Fathers
in the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution. In these documents, the sanc-
tity of life, individual freedom and politi-
cal equality were enshrined, protected and
declared as rights that all men share. This
bill, through its destruction of the original
conception of a social contract, and through
its dismissal of the Constitution, is drag-
ging us toward a future inconceivable just a
decade ago.
Unconstitutional Mandate
Health Care’s Dangerous Precedent
// By Ramon Lopez
“ Pragmatism
cannot be a
governing
ideology, as
it has no natural
boundaries.”
ObamaCare
New Guard, summer 2010 5
It seems as if a mandate system is both
unconstitutional and immoral, and therefore
must be abandoned. However, Obama and
his supporters are right in their assertion that
there is a problem that must be solved. The
United States has the best healthcare in the
world, but not all Americans have access to
these 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 must
also present counter-proposals that better
meet the needs of the American people while
maintaining the integrity and structure of the
Constitution.
Of all the Republican healthcare plans,
Paul Ryan’s has received the most attention,
with President Obama mentioning it by name
as a serious, legitimate proposal. Should we
repeal this bill, through either judicial or leg-
islative action, we ought to look into imple-
menting the reforms he has proposed, which
would increase access to healthcare, lower
costs and increase quality.
The frst necessary reform, which has
been detrimentally ignored by Democrats
in Congress, is tort reform. According to
the New England Journal of Medicine, 40
percent of all medical malpractice claims
were frivolous and were not due to medical
error. The costs incurred by this system on
the medical community are not due to the
direct cost of these lawsuits, or even the high
medical insurance premiums doctors must
pay, but come from the cost of defensive
medicine doctors must now practice in order
to protect themselves from frivolous suits.
Different studies show different results, but
the yearly savings tort reform would bring
are in the tens, if not hundreds of billions of
dollars. While this would cause an immedi-
ate reduction in medical costs, the long-term
beneft is that more people are incentivized
to enter into the medical feld, thus increas-
ing the number of doctors and nurses avail-
able to treat patients.
Tort reform, however, is not the fnal
answer. We must also allow people to pur-
chase their insurance across state lines,
which would immediately open the industry
to competition and lower prices. If there is
cheaper insurance available in New York or
Wyoming 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, the
health insurance mandate, must be repealed,
there are measures within it that we should
accept. Barring insurance companies from
denying people with pre-existing conditions
is a good idea, as is applying anti-trust laws
to insurance companies, who have long been
exempt from such regulations. While the
Democrats acted in a partisan manner, we do
not need to follow suit. We can accept when
the other side promotes a positive idea and
should work together with the Democrats on
these points of agreement.
But the biggest part of the Republican
healthcare reform package, and the one that
will fnally free up the health insurance mar-
ket to competition and innovation, is decou-
pling people’s health insurance from their
employer. 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 insurance
packages as a means to entice the best and
brightest to their companies. Currently, the
federal government subsidizes companies
in order to help them pay for part of their
employees’ healthcare costs. Paul Ryan’s
plan calls for the federal government to give
these tax rebates directly to the individual
and thereby bypass the employer.
This would be a marked improvement
over the current system, allowing people to
engage in a free market and pick a health
insurance policy tailored to their personal
health needs. It would also mean that if a
person were to lose their job they would not
also lose their health insurance, as every sin-
gle American would receive this tax rebate.
The elderly, sick and poor would be given
a higher tax rebate than the young, healthy
and rich, thereby giving the most aid to those
who are in the most vulnerable positions.
By implementing this reform, we would
not only create a universal healthcare sys-
tem, but lower costs by creating a more com-
petitive market, increase quality by allowing
people to construct their own personal health
plans, and do so without a massive govern-
ment takeover of healthcare. Additionally,
the Congressional Budget Offce has deter-
mined that Ryan’s plan would not create the
massive defcits we will see with Obamacare
and will, coupled with his Social Security
and entitlement reform package, actually
begin to reduce our national debt, eventually
eliminating it entirely.
As citizens and defenders of the ideals
that founded this great nation we must not
rest until we have repealed this bill, either
through the courts or the legislature, and
must then replace it with one that lowers
cost, increases quality and conforms to the
principles of our founding. We must make
it clear that we are not opposed to change
itself, only to change that will bankrupt our
country’s future through ballooning defcits
and an abandonment of our core values and
principles. Repealing this bill is the neces-
sary frst step, and must then be followed by
true Conservative reform.
Ramon Lopez is a junior at the University
of Central Florida where he is majoring in
international relations and philosophy.
ObamaCare
6 New Guard, summer 2010
W
here will our liberties be thirty years
from now? President Obama is on the
verge of nominating a new Supreme
Court justice who will have a lot to say about
that.
From racial preferences and abortion to
property rights and terrorism, retiring Justice
Stevens and his three decades of liberal activ-
ism did tremendous damage to the Constitu-
tion. His replacement has the potential to either
build upon or roll back Steven’s “legacy.”
Remember, Supreme Court justices sit for
life (Stevens stayed on until he was ninety),
and new issues are coming before the Court all
the time, from bailouts and buyouts to health
care reform. While each justice only gets one
vote, one vote is all it takes on many of the
most important issues of our day.
The judicial confrmation process includes
many steps. First, the President nominates a
candidate he thinks will further his agenda and
is confrmable. Second, the Senate judiciary
committee will ask the nominee to complete an
extensive questionnaire detailing more or less
everything he or she has ever said, written, or
done. 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 the
full Senate, you can say hello to your next Su-
preme Court justice.
The stakes can’t be any higher. Here are a
few easy ways to magnify your voice and im-
pact this nomination.
(1) Educate yourself. Read the paper, watch
the news, read legal blogs. NRO’s Bench
Memos, Volokh Conspiracy, and our own Ju-
dicial Crisis Network website are all great re-
sources.
(2) Write your local or school paper. Getting
letters to the editor and op-eds out there will
help expose liberal activist nominees or help
defend conservative ones. Don’t underestimate
the power of the pen.
(3) Call your senator. Bad nominees get
through the nomination process because sena-
tors think no one is watching. The only way to
prove them wrong is by calling their offces.
(Email doesn’t count for nearly as much.)
(4) Call someone else’s senator. While the
nominee is still in committee hearings, direct
your ire or praise to the senators on the judi-
ciary committee; they can make or break a
nomination.
(5) Donate your time or money. There are
many conservative legal organizations that
need 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-Senator
Barak Obama said, “There’s one way to guar-
antee that the judges who are appointed to the
Supreme Court are judges that refect our val-
ues. And that’s to win elections.”
Carrie Severino is chief counsel and policy
director to the Judicial Crisis Network. Until
March 2010, she was an Olin/Searle Fellow
and a Dean’s Visiting Scholar at Georgetown
Law Center. She previously served as a law
clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence
Thomas and to Judge David B. Sentelle of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. She
is a graduate of Harvard Law School, cum
laude, of Duke University, and holds a Mas-
ter’s degree in linguistics from Michigan State
University.
Supreme Court Activism
An Insider’s Guide // By Carrie Severino
e New Culture Wars
ORDER TOLL FREE
8oo-oi~-8~::
Fax: s:o-sõ8-õo±o
www.independent.org
 Swan Way • Oakland, CA -
Te present debate raging over global warming exemplifies the clash
between two competing public religions. Environmentalists warn of
certain catastrophes if we do not reduce greenhouse gases; economists are
concerned with whether these reductions will be worth the costs.
e New Holy Wars interprets such contemporary struggles as battles
between the competing secularized religions of economics and envi-
ronmentalism and probes beneath the surface of the two movements to
uncover their fundamental theological commitments and visions.
“e New Holy Wars raises hard and embarrassing questions about the
basis of environmentalism.” — DAN TARLOCK, Director of the Program in
Environmental and Energy Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law
“ Nelson compellingly argues that religion is a powerful force in economic
and social life, . . . even if that fact is seldom
recognized by most academics and policy mak-
ers.”— MAX L. STACKHOUSE, Rimmer and Ruth
de Vries Professor of Reformed Teology and
Public Life, Princeton Teological Seminary
¡:o Pages | s+,.,s (uc) | Available Now
Published In Cooperation With
Pennsylvania State University Press
N
E
W
New Guard, summer 2010 7
ObamaCare
F
or far-leftists of all stripes, their rev-
olutions were about more than just
destroying capitalism, representa-
tive democracy and the established consti-
tutional checks and balances on which the
United States prides itself. In all of these
far-leftist ideologies there was another
strain of totalitarianism, one which sought
to control the mind. These leftist revolu-
tions necessitated that the new
political order must change the
way people think, a sort of grand
social engineering project on the
neuron level. The very concept of
radically altering the human mind
is a bedrock belief of the far Left
and has led groups and individu-
als of that ideology to engage in
acts of great evil in the quest for
some version of social change.
Leon Trotsky devoted an eight
chapter book, Literature and
Revolution to what the “new
man” who would arise from a
Communist revolution would
embody: “The new man will love
in a better and stronger way than
did the old people. … [People]
will once again enter the stage of
radical reconstruction. … Man
will make it his goal … to create a higher
socio-biological type, a superman.” While
old school Marxist-Leninists are receding
into the pages of history, the new far Left,
which has found its haven in academia, has
continued the policy of social engineering
in order to achieve their goal of creating
“new men.”
History is rife with examples of far-leftist
experiments to create their versions of uto-
pia and their “new men.” The late 1960’s
witnessed Mao’s “Cultural Revolution,”
which in the words of one Maoist propa-
ganda poster sought to, “smash the old
world [and] establish a new world.” Mao’s
attempts to create this version of the “new
man” resulted in anywhere from half a mil-
lion to three million deaths and the destruc-
tion of countless archeological artifacts,
art and anything deemed “counter-revolu-
tionary.” During the Khmer Rouge’s brutal
policy of de-urbanization, “New People”
were crafted by forcing city dwellers into
rural Cambodia, thousands were killed by
disease, overwork and maltreatment. The
motto the Khmer regime imposed upon the
“New People” was, “To keep you is no ben-
eft. To destroy you is no loss.” The inglori-
ous people’s dystopia that is North Korea
went so far as to declare a program named,
“Let’s trim our hair in accordance with the
socialist lifestyle.” The Kim Jong Il tyr-
anny stated that an improper haircut was
detrimental to “human intelligence devel-
opment” and longer hair “consumes a great
deal of nutrition.” In all cases, even the
ridiculous, a complete destruction of the
past, of objective truths and a forced stan-
dard of living was fostered by all regimes.
With the revelations that Stalin, Mao
and other two-bit leftist totalitarian despots
engaged in mass-murder and other abhor-
rent activities, the new-far-leftists have
altered their original Marxian dreams and
added a veneer supportive of anarchism.
While urging followers to fght authority,
the very policies utilized by these academ-
ics follow the same line of their more vio-
lent antecedents. Even though America’s
academic new-far-Left hasn’t had the abil-
ity to force people into their idealized egal-
itarian-vegetarian-anarcho-eco-collectives,
they are utilizing policies of ideologically-
based re-education in schools to “smash”
history and replace it with their worldview.
To education theorist, former member
of the Students for Democratic
Society (SDS) and co-founder
of the Weather Underground ter-
rorist group Bill Ayers, “Educa-
tion is the motor-force of revolu-
tion.” Linguist and much fawned
over leftist Noam Chomsky once
stated that education is, “a system
of indoctrination of the young.”
In keeping with these principles,
Chomsky and his, “old and very
close friend,” recently deceased
historian and supporter of the cop-
killer, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Howard
Zinn, began a system of indoctri-
nation through different programs
(namely the Howard Zinn Edu-
cation Project and the Rethink-
ing Schools group) that pushed,
among other far-Left projects,
“social justice” and the teaching
of a radical narrative that America is an
aggressive, racist, imperialistic power built
on oppressing the poor.
The Workers World, press organ for the
radical communist Workers World Party,
described Zinn’s writings and plays as, “a
weapon in the class struggle.” In Zinn’s
narrative the real revolutionaries were not
Thomas Jefferson or John Adams, whom
Zinn refers to as people whom, “did not do
it [the American Revolution] for the equal
right of all to life, liberty and equality.”
Instead for Zinn, the racist and militant
Black Panthers and violent anarchists, such
as Emma Goldman, are to be emulated.
In a tone reminiscent of former commu-
nist theoreticians, Zinn stated, “We cannot
create [the] blueprint for future society
now, but I think it is good to think about
Creating the “New Man”
The Totalitarian Social Engineering Projects of the Academic New-Far-Left
/ / By Phillip Smyth
“The old academic
ideal of trying to objectively
research a subject has been
replaced by the academic-as-
propagandist,
bent on cleansing the history
books of information that does
not follow their
narrative.”
8 New Guard, summer 2010
education
that. I think it is good to have in mind a
goal. … [Don’t waste time debating dif-
fering visions] otherwise you can spend
discussing this utopian possibility versus
that utopian possibility, and in the mean
time you are not acting in a way that would
bring you closer to that.”
The old academic ideal of trying to objec-
tively research a subject has been replaced
by the academic-as-propagandist, bent on
cleansing the history books of information
that does not follow their narrative. These
academics actively attempt to confuse the
receptive student and encourage doubt in
the United States and her institutions with
the end goal of “destroying the system.”
Ward Churchill, infamous faux-American
Indian, former SDSer and ex-University of
Colorado at Boulder professor, went so far
as to claim that the 19 al Qaeda hijackers
were not, “‘fanatics’ devoted to ‘Islamic
fundamentalism.’” He later commented,
“U.S. off the planet. Out of existence
altogether.” With words like that, one can
only speculate as to what Churchill’s goals
included vis a vis his students.
In one of the projects listed by the How-
ard Zinn education project called, “Whose
‘Terrorism?” project designer Bill Bigelow
states that his lesson plan is a “role-play
to help high school students examine the
defnition of terrorism in historical and
contemporary terms.” This lesson in learn-
ing to hate America tries to confate and
compare the actions taken by groups that
deliberately target civilians for political
ends (i.e. terrorists) to actions and policies
of the United States government. Bigelow
continues, “Given the widespread confa-
tion of patriotism with support for U.S.
government policies, I had no confdence
that students would be able to label an
action taken by their government as ‘ter-
rorism’ unless I attached pseudonyms to
each country.”
Many Enlightenment thinkers, whose
ideas were enshrined in our Constitution,
the Declaration of Independence and in our
national outlook, believed that “new men”
would need to arise. These “new men”
were not those who were beholden to a set
ideological system which utilized lies and
propaganda to further its goals, but free
thinkers who thought and acted for them-
selves. As the new-far-leftist academia
hopes to funnel their Kool-Aid down the
throats of a new generation of Americans,
we should remember the words of Thomas
Jefferson: “If a nation expects to be igno-
rant and free, in a state of civilization, it
expects what never was and never will be.”
Nevertheless, maybe, like the academics
who wish to push the ideology of the mass-
murdering Mao Zedong on impression-
able young minds, in their quixotic drive
to change man and society, we too should
take a piece of advice from Chairman Mao.
“Rather than keeping your eyes open and
listening to boring lectures, it is better to
get some refreshing sleep. You don’t have
to listen to nonsense; you can rest your
brain 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 in
the 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 a
number 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 ofers 41 political training programs, a top-notch intern
program, the Campus Leadership Program, and a free Employment
Placement Service.
Don’t wait! Begin your career in conservative politics today
by visiting the Leadership Institute online at
www.LeadershipInstitute.org or call 1-800-827-LEAD.
New Guard, summer 2010 9
eDucation
T he Y AF SCENE
10 New Guard, summer 2010
YAF Scene
F
lorida Atlantic University (FAU), a public university, made
its name by welcoming to campus professors and students
with 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 terrorists
listed above YAF wasn’t welcomed with open arms—we had to
fght 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 Daniel
Diaz, an FAU alum, we worked to spread the word of freedom and
form a YAF chapter. We were met with insults from progressive
students and professors offended by our courage, but determined to
defend conservative principles on campus we continued to set up
recruitment 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 meeting
be interrupted by an offcial who demanded they cease the meet-
ing and vacate the room. Diaz asked for an additional 15 minutes
to wrap up, which he was granted. However upon hearing Diaz
address the liberal bias on the FAU campus, the administrator
boorishly ordered the students to vacate the room, shutting off the
lights, 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 the
offcers we were released for having done no wrong, but not before
hearing the lieutenant at the scene snipe that Diaz “probably has
tea bags hanging out the back of his car.” It was clear YAF was be-
ing targeted for our conservative beliefs.
F
l
o
r
id
a
Y
A
F
e
r
s
F
ig
h
t
f
o
r
F
r
e
e
d
o
m

//ByJam
esShackelfordIII
Before Diaz left campus he spoke to us, saying, “If we were
a Marxist, Socialist or liberal group they would have let us fn-
ish our meeting, but offcials and police harassed us because we
are conservatives. This was the exact liberal bias on campus we
were discussing. This is no longer a place of open discussion and
freedom of expression, but a breeding ground of intolerance for
conservatism.” It was time to take a stand.
The mainstream media ignored the story, but through bloggers
and social networking, YAF was able to spread the word that free-
dom was under attack. With grassroots support of fellow patriots
like Karin Hoffman at DC Works for US, YAF alum Gary Kreep of
the United States Justice Foundation, State Representative Jennifer
Carroll, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Liberty
Council 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 claimed
victory when our YAF chapter was offcially recognized on the
FAU campus.
The true victory came when I as chairman of FAU YAF hosted
the Heritage Foundation and a crowd of close to 150 people on
campus for the event, including superstar activist and ACORN
cracker Hannah Giles and congressional candidate Ed Lynch.
We are taking the fght to campuses all over Florida, promoting
the principles of the Sharon Statement. We still face challenges,
but now universities have heard that YAFers are coming and are
taking no prisoners. Even so, after hearing of our victory over the
oppressive 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 the
FAU 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.
New Guard, summer 2010 11
YAF Scene
CPAC 2010 BY THE NUMBERS
1 YAF alum received the CPAC Charlton Heston
Courage Under Fire Award
2 YAF happy hours at CPAC
4 YAFers spoke at CPAC (more than any other
youth activist organization)
7 YAF alumni spoke at CPAC
37 years since YAF started CPAC with the
American Conservative Union
234 Conservative activists joined YAF at CPAC
3,000 copies of The New Guard distributed
yaf at CPAC 2010
P
enn State YAF’s Chairman Samuel Settle was one of YAF’s featured speak-
ers at the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) for his
campus activism. Samuel organized the YAF protest on campus challenging
the 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 scientifc misconduct concluded with
the 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 assault
on academic integrity.
Penn State’s internal review consisted of three Penn State employees who have
strong incentives to protect the school’s reputation and the millions of dollars it
receives 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 thousands
in 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 correspondence
between 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 Street
Journal. Settle and Penn State YAF are still continuing their fght for academic
integrity with a petition on www.yaf.com demanding a fair and independent
investigation to preserve academic integrity and bring truth to Professor
Mann’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 Settle
speaks at CPAC 2010.
Penn State YAF protests Climategate Professor Michael Mann.
I
n late March, Israeli Prime Minister Ben-
jamin Netanyahu came to Washington
to meet with the President of the United
States. The Israeli Prime Minister, always a
steadfast ally to America was greeted with a
cold shoulder. In what usually is viewed as a
meeting between two great friends, this time
it would be made very clear that neither side
was all that happy with the other. President
Barack Obama and his team even forbade
any media coverage and all photographs of
meetings between the two. This was because
the president’s team had recently lashed out
at the prime minister for an announced hous-
ing project and, as a result of this project,
questioned Israel’s determination for peace
in the Middle East. Stop the record. This
callous view of the Arab-Israeli situation
does not take into account the plain facts of
history. In a region as complicated and sto-
ried as the Middle East, the administration’s
position is dangerous and unacceptable.
Let’s review.
On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel
declared its independence. In the following
days, the armies of Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan,
Syria and Egypt invaded the newly-estab-
lished state and war quickly commenced.
The ensuing confict would become known
to the Israelis as their War for Independence.
Over the next several months, Israeli defense
forces were able to defeat the Arab aggres-
sors and emerge victorious. Unfortunately,
this was only the beginning of a modern
struggle that still exists today.
Over the past sixty years, Israel has had
to meet its neighbors on the battlefeld
time after time simply to defend its right
to exist. In the 1950s tensions continued
to brew. Early in the decade, Egypt refused
to allow Israeli ships access to the Suez
Canal. Egyptian Foreign Minister Muham-
mad Salah al-Din declared, “We shall not
be satisfed except by the fnal obliteration
of Israel from the map of the Middle East.”
Egypt began building an arsenal for another
showdown, with President Gamal Abdel
Nasser stating in October of 1956, “Our
hatred is very strong. There is no sense in
talking about peace with Israel. There is not
even the smallest place for negotiations.”
With declarations like these, blockades
of important waterways, and a rise in ter-
ror attacks, Israel felt compelled to protect
itself by launching a pre-emptive strike.
The Israelis captured the Gaza Strip, part
New Guard, summer 2010 13
of the Sinai and Sharm al-Sheikh, before
withdrawing from these areas under pres-
sure from the United States and the United
Nations.
In the mid-1960s the threats continued.
Syria used the Golan Heights as a launch-
ing pad to shell Israeli villages while Nasser
continued to speak about his dream of a
world without the Jewish state. By the end
of the decade Israel found itself the target of
another plan of attack, from Egypt, Syria and
Jordan, with arms and personnel supplied
from seven other countries. Once again,
these countries would prove to be no match
for Israel. Sensing an imminent attack, the
Israeli Air Force struck frst and within six
days Israel had captured the Sinai, the Golan
Heights, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
In less than one week, Israel tripled the size
of the area it controlled.
Conficts between Arabs and Israelis
raged on through the 1970s but in 1979 there
appeared to be a breakthrough. An historic
peace agreement was signed in March of
that year between Israel and Egypt, normal-
izing relations between the two states. Under
this agreement, Israel withdrew from the
Sinai and in return was guaranteed passage
The Plain Facts of History
Middle East Peace: Drawing A line in the Sand / / By John Stapleton
Foreign Affairs
14 New Guard, summer 2010
through the Suez Canal and other impor-
tant waterways. While this agreement was
important to establishing peaceful relations
between the two states, Egypt paid a price
for becoming the frst Arab state to recognize
Israel—the Arab League suspended Egypt
and moved its headquarters from Cairo to
Tunis. Anwar Sadat, the President of Egypt
who helped negotiate the peace treaty was
viewed as a traitor by many Arabs for agree-
ing to receive economic and military aid
from the United States. He was later assas-
sinated by Islamic extremists. Accepting the
state of Israel cost him his life.
Continuing, the 1980s saw its fair share
of violence, but once again, signs of
improvement appeared to be around the
corner by the early ’90s. The 1993 Oslo
Accords 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 an
elected body, with promises that this new
authority would clamp down on terror-
ism. In October 1994, Israel and Jordan
signed their own peace treaty, tackling
such issues as security, border crossings,
water allocation and refugees. This was
another signifcant step towards peace in
the Middle East.
As time moved on, issues surround-
ing territory controlled by Israel and the
creation of a Palestinian state remained
at the forefront of the Middle East peace
process. In 2000, President Bill Clinton,
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Pal-
estinian Authority Chairman Yasir Arafat
met at Camp David to discuss a fnal agree-
ment to the confict between the two. At
these meetings, Ehud Barak offered Arafat
what would eventually be over 90 percent
of the West Bank and the entire Gaza Strip
for a future Palestinian state. Arafat refused.
The talks fell through and a Second Intifada
followed, costing both sides thousands of
lives. Many, including Clinton, blame Arafat
for not accepting the deal and passing on an
historic chance to make peace and create a
Palestinian state.
In 2005, Israel withdrew its military and
civilians from Gaza, even forcefully evicting
those who refused to leave. Shortly there-
after, Hamas, a violent political organiza-
tion that repeatedly calls for the destruction
of Israel and frequently launches rockets,
won a majority of the seats in the 2006 Pal-
estinian parliamentary elections. In more
recent years, Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad has increased his vitriolic hate
speech towards Israel, denied the holocaust
and has expanded nuclear technology that
will undoubtedly be used for the develop-
ment of nuclear weapons. And in the past
month, reports have surfaced that Syria
has transferred Scud missiles to the terror
group Hizballah, another group seeking the
destruction of Israel.
With this history, it is clear that Israel is
constantly worrying about where its next
attack will come from. This is because since
it declared independence in 1948, it was
immediately under threat from its neighbors
and terror groups. While progress has been
made on certain fronts, the enemies of Israel
continue to plot and plan their next attack
and they will not rest until their dream of a
world without Israel has been accomplished.
Israel has always been a strong friend of
the United States and a strong advocate for
crushing terrorism wherever it exists. This
last point is not something that the current
American administration seems to under-
stand.
In March of this year, while Vice President
Biden was visiting Israel, the Israeli Interior
Ministry announced a housing expansion to
a Jewish neighborhood in North Jerusalem.
This was seen as an embarrassment for the
Obama Administration because they did not
approve of this expansion and while nothing
was fnal, it sent senior offcials into panic
mode. Secretary Hillary Clinton scolded
Prime Minister Netanyahu in what turned
out to be a not-so-private 43-minute phone
call. She even went as far as saying that
Israel needs to demonstrate its commitment
to peace. This was followed by President
Obama’s chilly reception of the prime minis-
ter at the White House just weeks later. What
happened?
President Obama ran a campaign as the
anti-President George W. Bush. It appears
that he and his administration have a strong
disdain for a foreign policy that promotes
democracy and stands steadfast beside
America’s allies. This was demonstrated
by his scrapping of a missile defense
shield in Eastern Europe, his refusal
to meet publicly with the Dalai Lama
and his reaction to the rigged elec-
tions held in Iran last June. With
regard to those “elections” in Iran,
President Obama stated that he was
not interested in “meddling” in oth-
ers states affairs. There seems to be
an exception for Mr. Obama if you
are an Israeli building houses in your
own capital city.
The handling of this Israeli hous-
ing “crisis” has shown that the Obama
team 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 peace
is when those who live in the Middle
East can accept each other and live side by
side. Israel’s enemies believe peace comes
only when Israel is fnally destroyed.
It would be wise for this administration
to not publicly scold Israel—it gives the
enemies of peace an excuse to say, “You
see, even the U.S. thinks Israel is the one
obstructing peace.” This also provides little
incentive for the Palestinians to meet at any
bargaining table. So far the administration
has shown our allies a whole heap of audac-
ity. Some may start to wonder where the
hope went.
John Stapleton is an editor for The New
Guard. He is a 2009 graduate of American
University, where he earned a M.A. in politi-
cal science with a concentration in com-
parative politics. John has also written for
the AU College Republican’s newsletter, The
Right Wing.
“The Israeli view
of peace is when those
who 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.”
Foreign Affairs
New Guard, summer 2010 15
T
he courageous actions of two Chinese
citizens are showing the world how the
power of the Internet and virtual net-
working can defeat the tyranny of Communist
rule in China.
All authoritarian governments rely on a
fundamental strategy of convincing the popu-
lation that power lies with the ruler and not
with the governed. They spare no expense, be
it military power, police forces, media control
or domestic spy networks, to intimidate and
to convince citizens they have no power and
that 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 early
Christians, though small in numbers, not only
brought down the mighty Roman Empire, but
converted it from within. The solidarity of the
Polish workers in the 1980s brought down
the Iron Curtain without a shot, right under
the noses of massive armies which had faced
each other with weapons of mass destruction
for four decades. And, of course, the pas-
sionate persistence and moral high ground of
Martin Luther King Jr. galvanized the civil
rights movement into a disciplined display of
citizen power over the might of entrenched
segregationists. The fact is, the power of right
always sides with the people and no power on
earth can hold a gun to its people forever. The
situation of the 60-year Chinese Communist
Regime is no exception.
Many people, inside and outside of China,
think that the Chinese Communist Party is
a monolithic powerhouse—a government
whose enlightened policies have brought
stability and harmony to Chinese society.
The Chinese government spends mightily to
perpetuate this myth. It spares no expense to
food 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 a
vast, and sophisticated army of cyber sleuths
to tightly repress the cries of its citizens.
However, no shield can resist the tide of
truth. Cracks have begun to appear in this
facade. In December of 2008, a brave band
of 303 highly respected Chinese intellectu-
als and professionals published a document
called Charter 08. In measured, factual tones,
this document articulated the sordid history
of the Chinese communist regime, calling
its attempts at modernizing Chinese society
“disastrous.” Charter 08 went on to state that
communist party rule,” has stripped people
of their rights, destroyed their dignity, and
corrupted normal human intercourse. So
we ask,” the charter continues, “Where is
China headed in the twenty-frst century?
Will it continue with ‘modernization’ under
authoritarian 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 specifc
recommendations for restoring the political
and human rights of Chinese citizens. Char-
ter 08 appeared on the Internet on Decem-
ber 10, 2008, the 50th anniversary of the
United Nations’ Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, to which China is a signa-
tory. The reaction of the Communist regime
was as swift as it was predictable. It quickly
Tiananmen 2.0
How Facebook and Twitter defeated Communist China
/ / By Jim Geheran
Foreign Affairs
Photo courtesy of Initiatives for China.
censored all mention of Charter 08 from the
Internet, placed tight controls on the activities
of the signatories, and arrested the assumed
lead author, Liu Xiaobo. After being held for
more than a year, Liu was sentenced to eleven
years in prison for subversion of the state. But
the damage had been done. Despite the best
attempts of the communist rulers to eradicate
Charter 08, it continues to circulate through-
out China. To date, more than 10,000 Chinese
citizens have affxed their real names to Char-
ter 08. This is no small feat in a country where
such action can mean the loss of one’s job and
even jail.
The appearance and rapid spread of Char-
ter 08 via the Internet clearly illustrates why
the Chinese rulers are so avid about internet
censorship. The Internet’s ubiquity and speed
gives ordinary citizens the power to confront
the myth of authoritarian rule. It is the great
equalizer of the digital age, much as the six-
shooter was the great equalizer of the Wild
West. In a recent speech, Chinese President
Hu Jintao noted to his government offcials
that the “socialist state” will be at risk unless
China’s frewall bureaucracy can “purify”
the Internet. Jintao’s words will prove highly
prophetic. He knows more than anyone in the
West 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 flls
them with dread. Nothing better illustrates
this than the amazing story of Feng Zhenghu.
Feng Zhenghu is a well renowned human
rights lawyer.
He is also on
the infamous
blacklist. The
blacklist is
an instrument
of control
deployed by the
Chinese gov-
ernment after
its crackdown
on the 1989
Ti a n a n me n
pro-democracy
movement. Many of the Tiananmen demon-
strators escaped to the West. In an effort to
eradicate all traces of the movement, the Chi-
nese government banned those Tiananmen
leaders who had escaped from ever returning
to China. I am one of those on the blacklist
and have been repeatedly denied entry into
my homeland even though I am a Chinese
citizen with a
valid Chinese
passport. The
Chinese gov-
ernment contin-
uously updates
this blacklist
to include any
i n d i v i d u a l s
it considers
political unde-
sirable. Since
1989, no one on
the blacklist has
been allowed to
return to China.
Many of these citizens live in a political no
man’s land where they are completely cut
off from their homeland and families, while
unable to obtain full legal status in the U.S. or
other free countries.
Feng Zhenghu is blacklisted for his outspo-
ken defense of the rights of his fellow citizens.
He has been arrested and imprisoned many
times by the Chinese government on trumped
up charges, once for three years. Undeterred,
Feng was among several Chinese intellectu-
als who attended the Interethnic/Interfaith
Leadership Conference in Washington, D.C.,
sponsored by Initiatives For China in Octo-
ber 2009. At the conference, Mr. Feng spoke
passionately about the illegal blacklisting
practices of the Chinese government, which
is expressly forbidden under Article 13 of the
United Nations
U n i v e r s a l
Declaration of
Human Rights,
to which China
is a signatory.
Feng’s amaz-
ing saga began
shortly after
the Conference
in November
3, 2009 when
he attempted to
fy home after a
brief and legal medical trip to Japan. He was
refused entry into his home city of Shang-
hai eight times between November and June
2009. After the eighth refusal, Feng decided
to make a stand. After much arguing, Chinese
16 New Guard, summer 2010
authorities at Shanghai Airport forcibly put
Feng on a plane back to Japan’s Narita Airport
where he voluntarily surrendered his Japanese
visa and vowed
to remain at
the terminal in
front of the cus-
toms area until
the Chinese
g o v e r n me n t
recognized his
right to return
home. For the
frst time since
1989, a Chinese
citizen engaged
in a disciplined
n o n - v i o l e n t
civil protest
against the practice of blacklisting. One
citizen stood alone for many in the face of a
world superpower.
Word of Feng’s action quickly spread
throughout the dissident Chinese commu-
nity. Through Initiatives for China, a dissi-
dent foundation, a series of “Tokyo Airlifts”
were organized where supporters from as far
away as Australia and Germany few into
Terminal One at Narita Airport where Feng
was encamped. They brought with them food,
supplies, and equipment to sustain him during
his vigil.
On December 24, I personally few to
Tokyo to meet with Feng and to seek the aid
of the Japanese government in resolving the
situation. On January 24, Japanese govern-
ment offcials met with Feng at the Airport
and 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 have
remained, dissolving into the woodwork like
a cockroach while the crush of humanity bus-
ily passed him by. Time was not on his side
and the Chinese government would even-
tually pressure the Japanese authorities to
sweep him out with the daily refuse.
But neither the Chinese government nor
the Japanese government factored in the
power of Twitter and Facebook. Early on in
his sit-in, supporters set up Facebook and
Twitter accounts for Feng. One of the airlifts
brought him a netbook, which, combined
with his cell phone, enabled him to commu-
nicate with supporters around the world. By
mid-January, Feng had attracted a network of
Foreign Affairs
“But neither the Chinese
government nor the
Japanese government
factored in the power of
Twitter and
Facebook.”
“As terrifying as the
Internet’s ability to rapidly
disseminate information
is to the Communist rulers,
the Internet’s power to

galvanize citizens
fills them with dread.”
New Guard, summer 2010 17
over 20,000 followers around the world. This
network was growing by the day and was
on verge of mushrooming into a worldwide
cause célèbre. Instead of disappearing into
the woodwork as the Chinese government
had hoped, Feng was becoming an icon and a
source of embarrassment for both the Chinese
and Japanese governments.
On February 3, the Communists blinked.
Journalists at the Voice of America studios in
Japan called our offce in Washington, D.C.
to announce that the Chinese government had
agreed to let Feng join his family in Shanghai.
In making the announcement Chinese off-
cials in Beijing said Feng’s previous inabil-
ity to enter Shanghai was the work of “local
offcials” not authorized by the authorities in
Beijing. Clearly this cover story illustrates
how quickly and quietly the Chinese govern-
ment wanted this situation to go away. In the
calculus of tyranny, it decided that it would
cut its losses and not risk the unthinkable out-
come that the social network of Twitter and
Facebook would run amok over the facade of
authoritarian control.
As this one personal story illustrates, the
road to democracy in China has been laid.
Charter 08 is the vehicle for democratic trans-
formation in China. The superhighway of the
Internet, Twitter and Facebook is the pathway.
If Feng Zhenghu can break the blacklist and
if Liu Xiaboo could punch through the Great
Firewall to tell the world that the spin mas-
ters of Beijing are no more powerful than
the Wizard of OZ, imagine what armies of
Internet-empowered citizens can do and what
legions of Twitter and Facebook networks can
achieve!
So what can the Free World do to help
the Liu Xiaobo’s and the Feng Zhenghu’s
of China in their struggle? Technology now
exists that enables ordinary citizens to eas-
ily and safely bypass the Great Firewall. It is
currently in use by approximately one million
dissidents in China, Iran and Vietnam alone.
With just a few million dollars, this technol-
ogy can be bolstered to give 50-100 million
citizens unfettered access to an uncensored
Internet. At this point there will be so many
holes in the Firewall that it will overwhelm
the ability of the Chinese government to
maintain it. Freedom will come to China
without a shot being fred. Money has already
been appropriated by Congress for this action.
Citizens can call their senator or the Depart-
ment of State and tell them that they support
the 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 been
initiated. Under this program, you can adopt
a political prisoner in China. Become famil-
iar with his case. Use Facebook and Twitter
to create awareness of his or her situation and
urge your network to contact Congress to call
for action in obtaining their freedom. This
action will not only highlight the individual
plight of the prisoners, it will give visibility to
the scope of repression and denial of liberty
that goes on in China every day.
You can make a difference. Use the power
of the Internet and the networking of Twitter
and Facebook to punch through the facade of
tyranny that governs China. For more infor-
mation on how you can help, contact me, Jim
Geheran, director of Initiatives for China, at
jgeheran@initiativesforchina.org.
Jim Geheran is the director of Initiatives for
China, a group formed to facilitate the peace-
ful transition to democracy in China.
PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH
Why Real Conservatives Fight Tyranny Abroad
/ / By Adam Cassandra
E
vent speakers who denounce the
evil nature of America’s empire and
“interventionist” foreign policy usu-
ally appear at Communist Party meetings
or other leftist political rallies, but such
speakers received a warm welcome at this
year’s Conservative Political Action Con-
ference.
Congressman Ron Paul and his Cam-
paign for Liberty disciples hosted several
events at CPAC where they perpetuated
the notion that terrorist attacks against
the United States are the result of Ameri-
can involvement overseas. The libertarian
wing of the Conservative movement has
openly adopted leftist propaganda target-
ing U.S. foreign policy and wrapped it in
a Gadsden fag.
According to Paul, all the U.S. must do
to stop the violence and hate of Islamists
is 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. “You
tolerate other religions and as long as
they’re not confrontational and vio-
lent there’s no problem,” Paul told this
author when questioned at CPAC. “The
violence comes when we are over there
ten thousand miles from home drop-
ping bombs on these people and occu-
pying their territory.”
Ron Paul’s followers promoted this
dangerous agenda as the foreign policy
of “real Conservatives” who adhere to
the 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 speaker
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA offcer.
“Surely not because it has freedoms that
some view negatively. As Osama bin
Laden put it, in possibly the only known
joke made by a terrorist, if freedoms were
the issue al-Qaida would be attacking
Sweden.”
If the problem is truly not ideological,
then why are radical Muslims now calling
for a jihad against Switzerland?
The Swiss do not have a global empire,
nor are they an aggressive state, but Lib-
yan dictator Moamer Kadhaf wants Swit-
zerland destroyed. Why threaten Switzer-
land? Swiss voters approved a referendum
by a margin of 57.5 percent to ban the
construction of Islamic minarets. The ref-
“Some people just don’t
want to recognize
ideology. 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—which
the Swiss People’s Party characterized
as symbols of political Islamism and its
dominion over neighborhoods.
“Jihad against Switzerland, against
Zionism, against foreign aggression is not
terrorism,” Kadhaf said. “Any Muslim
around the world who has dealings with
Switzerland is an infdel [and is] against
Islam, 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 heard
over infuential groups like the Council
on 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 Hudson
Institute’s Center for Islam, Democracy
and the Future of the Muslim World, warns
Westerners about ignoring the ideological
threat of Islamism in her new book The
Other Muslims: Moderate and Secular.
Baran recently held a book launch at
the Hudson Institute where she was joined
by contributing authors Dr. Zuhdi Jasser,
founder and president of the American
Islamic Forum for Democracy,
and Hedieh Mirahmadi, presi-
dent of the World Organization
for Resource Development and
Education. Baran said that the
West must recognize the dif-
ference between the religion of
Islam and the political Islamist
ideology if there is any hope of
defeating the worldwide threat
of violent Islamism.
Reacting to the policy
stances of Paul and his sup-
porters, Baran told this author,
“Some people just don’t want
to recognize ideology. There
are a lot of people who didn’t
want to believe that Commu-
nist ideology was a threat. I
don’t really know how much
they know about what Islamists
believe, what they do,” she
said, adding, “If you’ve never
done your homework … I
understand they would say,
‘Oh it’s exaggerated. It’s only
American foreign policy,’ but the Wahhabi
movement started before America was
even engaged with the Islamic world, or
before Israel was even created as a state.”
Dr. Jasser said of Paul and his follow-
ers, “I think if they dispense it onto foreign
policy they’re feeding into the Islamist
mantra which is that it’s not our prob-
lem, that it’s somebody else’s, and they’re
allowing them to shirk responsibility from
internal reform.”
“It’s revisionist history,” added Mirah-
madi. “There are a lot of people who may
defne history in ways which support their
argument, but I don’t think that Islamism
as a … political phenomena resulted from
American intervention. It resulted from
the 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-
tifes the threat of Islamism and how to
defeat the ideology in his book, Fighting
the War of Ideas like a Real War.
“We are not targeting a religion,” writes
Waller. “Radical Islamism is an extremist
political ideology. … Radical Islamists are
political extremists who seek to change or
destroy an established political order by
18 New Guard, summer 2010
intimidation, terrorism and subversion:
classical means of ideological warfare that
the U.S. and other countries have success-
fully fought and defeated in the past.”
Most Conservatives feel the same way
Ann Coulter does about the congressman:
“If Ron Paul is behind it and it has nothing
to do with foreign policy, I agree,” Coul-
ter said when felding a question after her
speech at CPAC.
A Conservative foreign policy is nei-
ther one that advocates retreat in the face
of mounting threats, nor does it promote
policing all the world’s problems. A Con-
servative foreign policy is defned by pru-
dence. President Washington paid tribute
to the Barbary pirates because the United
States did not have the military force
for a strong defense. President Jefferson
used his newly built naval force to anni-
hilate the Barbary pirates and the threat
they posed to America. In the war against
totalitarian Islamism, paying tribute is no
longer an option.
Adam Cassandra recently graduated from
the Institute of World Politics where he
received a Master’s degree in statecraft
and national security affairs, specializing
in public diplomacy and political warfare.
Foreign Affairs
“W
ho is John Galt?” This
phrase, used to express
exasperation by the hope-
less populace in Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas
Shrugged, is appearing on signs and shirts
at Tea Party protests across the country. It
serves as a rallying cry for those who share
Rand’s belief and understanding of indi-
vidual rights and capitalism as the core val-
ues of America and of all human life. It is a
slogan for those who won’t sit idle as those
principles are betrayed by our political lead-
ership.
John Galt is the uncompromising hero of
Atlas Shrugged. His integrity and dedication
to the ideal of individual liberty lead him to
launch a world-wide rebellion against the
suffocating rule of a colossal collectivist
government. This rebellion is symbolized by
the resigning shrug of the Greek god Atlas,
who holds the world aloft, leaving the Earth
to its own helplessly destructive path.
In the book, a massive bureaucratic state
is built on the embers of a prosperous capi-
talist society, seeking to redistribute wealth
from its most productive members to its
most 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 every
other member of society, regardless of their
individual situation or rights.
While Galt is frequently cited by the Tea
Party activists the GOP seem so eager to har-
ness, much of the agitation of the conserva-
tive leadership in Congress over the recent
passage of President Barack Obama’s health
care bill lacks the mark of principled and
rational objection that characterized Rand’s
hero. No mainstream Republican will reject
the concept that a person’s need creates a
moral obligation on other people. This prem-
ise is the altruistic belief that we all have a
moral obligation to help the needy and, by
extension, so does the State. This belief in
self-sacrifce 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 heavily
regulated and subsidized by the government
for decades. Obamacare is not revolutionary
in its expansion of government control and
spending—Obamacare is merely the neces-
sary next step for a society that has accepted
the underlying altruistic moral premise of
the welfare state.
Over the last decade, with control of both
the White House and Congress, George W.
Bush and his Republican allies oversaw the
most massive expansion of the welfare state
since The Great Society. Among the Repub-
licans’ achievements during this time was an
explosion 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” necessitated
redistribution of wealth from the most pro-
ductive citizens to the least productive based
on the principle of altruism. The “Neocon-
servative” infuence encouraged a “prag-
matic” abandonment of principles altogether
in favor of political self-preservation. This
combination of faulty principles and moral
compromise has led to the decline and defeat
of Conservatism in the United States.
How can Conservative leaders hope to
argue convincingly against Obamacare when
they share the same basic moral premise as
Liberals? How can Conservatives be taken
seriously when they themselves acted to
further expand government spending and
control during their time in power? The
apparent hypocrisy of Republicans arguing
against Obamacare dogged them throughout
the debate right up to the passage of the bill.
If providing welfare to the needy is agreed
upon by both Conservatives and Liberals as
a proper and necessary function of govern-
ment, then what is left to debate but the fne
details of how best to take money and redis-
tribute it? The attacks on Obamacare as “fs-
cally irresponsible” ring hollow when altru-
ism is accepted as a legitimate moral girding
for government action.
Ideas matter. Without a principled defense
of capitalism and individual liberty, Conser-
vatives are disarmed against liberal oppo-
nents. An appeal to tradition, religion, or
the authority of the Founders is profoundly
inadequate as a philosophical argument for
individual rights and its corollary political
system, capitalism. The justifcation for indi-
vidual rights is found in man’s fundamental
requirements for life. The system of capital-
ism is the political application of those rights
in a social setting.
The argument against universal health
care should be the same argument against
the entire welfare state—it violates man’s
individual rights for the sake of the per-
petually chimerical “collective good.” The
fact that a particular welfare scheme is “fs-
cally irresponsible” may be true, but a much
more sinister faw lies at the root of wealth
redistribution. Until Conservatives pursue
an understanding of the philosophical and
moral justifcations for individual rights and
capitalism, Statist and Collectivist politics
will continue to win by default.
John Galt was a symbol of uncompromis-
ing reason and morality in a country hope-
lessly abandoned to bureaucratic socialist
parasites. The common man in the society
of Atlas Shrugged asked rhetorically, “Who
is John Galt?” because that ideal had faded
into legend. We must reclaim this ideal and
resuscitate 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 Mexico
and for the Asociación de Ayuda a las Víc-
timas del 11-M, an organization based in
Madrid with the stated goal of preserving in
the Spanish consciousness the memory of the
train bombings of March 11, 2004. Charles
is 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
New Guard, summer 2010 19
Culture And History
T
here are a few memorials to
Ulysses S. Grant whose physical
prominence comes as a surprise
today. His tomb in New York City is one
of the largest mausoleums in the Western
Hemisphere, yet it has been a struggle in
recent years simply to maintain it. An eques-
trian Grant memorial stands in front of the
Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., yet
this aspect of one of the nation’s most rec-
ognizable landmarks has itself gone largely
unnoticed and unmaintained. And then there
is the $50 bill. A bill recently introduced in
Congress would replace the image of our
18th president with that of our 40th—Presi-
dent Ronald Reagan.
An unsettling thought
occurred to me during the effort
to call attention to the disrepair of
Grant’s Tomb during the 1990’s:
Memorials to Grant refect a
level of esteem he enjoyed once
upon a time, but no longer. Like
President Abraham Lincoln, he
was credited with saving the
Union. Like Washington, he
once was called “frst in war, frst
in peace, and frst in the hearts of
his countrymen.” Regarded as
the equal of both men for many
years, it is questionable whether
anyone in American history ever
dominated his era as he did. Yet the 20th cen-
tury witnessed a battering of his reputation
from which he still suffers in the eyes of so
many Americans. The questions are why, and
was 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 at
the advent of modern America is staggering.
The Civil War was this nation’s most trying
period, and in campaign after campaign, Gen-
eral Grant brought success—with decisive-
ness and on a scale comparable to history’s
greatest commanders—where so many oth-
ers had met failure. During a war the country
needed to win for its very survival, he was
never defeated. Yet for years, this perspec-
tive was distorted by the myth of the Lost
Cause, which deifed Confederate generals
and downplayed the role of slavery in the
war. Inconvenient facts were cast aside, and
Grant was dismissed as a butcher who won by
sheer superiority of numbers. Even his unim-
peachable character, integrity and an often
unnoticed sensitivity gave way to the baseless
image of a course drunkard.
For a number of years, Grant’s reputation as
general has been coming back—to the point
that he is commonly viewed among scholars
as not only the greatest Civil War general, but
as a military leader unsurpassed in American
history. The old myths, however, endure far
more 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 defni-
tion of corruption in a way that diverted atten-
tion from a rich array of domestic and foreign
policy achievements. When he reached the
White House, he appealed to the national
conscience 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 former
slaves. “To him more than to any other man,”
asserted Frederick Douglass, “the negro owes
his enfranchisement and the Indian a humane
policy.” When the Alabama claims dispute
threatened war between the United States
and Great Britain, President Grant not only
secured a peaceful resolution of the crisis, but
he did so with such success that the world was
given an unprecedented taste of the power of
the principle of international arbitration. As
he intended, a movement followed from this
example that culminated in attempts toward
international cooperation to fnd alternatives
to war.
Such was the rich legacy of the soldier-
statesman; he was regarded by some at the
time of his death as the “Second Father of
His Country.” Tragically, it is when the
nation fails to meet the aspirations of those
great leaders who work to bring out its very
best, especially after they have left the stage
of history, that we learn most painfully the
price of forgetting. W.E.B. DuBois seemed
to recognize this when he lamented in 1935
the “attack and libel” from which, “[n]ot a
single great leader of the nation
during the Civil War and Recon-
struction has escaped,” in the
history books. This nation for-
got part of President Grant’s
lesson when it retreated from
Reconstruction and allowed
Jim Crow to take its place in
the South. Perhaps it was sym-
bolic that Grant’s remains were
placed in his tomb less than a
year after the Supreme Court
decided the case of Plessy v.
Ferguson, which legitimized
racial segregation in railroads.
When he was president, Grant
had secured a Civil Rights Act
that desegregated transportation. By 1897,
our nation seemed to be unwittingly burying
part of President Grant’s legacy just as it was
entombing his physical remains.
The process of correcting the historical
record has been slow, which perhaps explains
the 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 greatest
achievements and highest ideals—and of why
we should not allow ourselves to forget.
Frank Scaturro is a visiting assistant pro-
fessor at Hofstra Law School. He formerly
served as Counsel for the Constitution on the
Senate Judiciary Committee and is president
of the Grant Monument Association. He is
currently a candidate for Congress in New
York’s Fourth Congressional District.
Why general grant belongs on the $50 bill
Correcting the Record on a Great American / / By Frank Scaturro
20 New Guard, summer 2010
Culture 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 the
glass chills. In a mixing glass,
or standard pint glass, combine
ultra fine sugar and Peychaud’s
Bitters with just a small splash of
water. Add Michter’s 10-year S.B.S.R.
Whiskey into the mixing glass with
sugar and bitters and fill three
quarters of the glass with ice. Stir
for 20 seconds. Empty your chilled
rocks glass and coat the glass
with the Leopold’s Bros. Absinthe
Verte. Strain your rye, sugar and
Peychauds Bitters mixture into
the absinthe-washed glass. Cut a
quarter-sized lemon zest with a
potato peeler and squeeze the oils
of the zest through a match flame
into the drink. Rim the glass with
the lemon zest and either place it
in the drink or discard.
The New Guard Cocktail
The Sazerac / / By Dane Nakamura
T
he offcial cocktail of New Orleans—the Sazerac—is an Amer-
ican icon. And like so many other great American icons, it is
steeped in legend. A dedicated number of historians and curious
imbibers have worked to uncover what we know and, today, the
team at YAF presents the long and delicious tale of an American
innovation to you, the readers, in the second installment of The New
Guard Cocktail.
In 1795 Antoine Amadie Peychaud, a young Creole apothecary,
settled in the French Quarter of New Orleans to fulfll the Ameri-
can dream of opening his own small business. By 1830, he sold the
frst commercial bitters—Peychaud’s bitters—which he had created
from an old family recipe. In the evenings, Peychaud would mix
the bitters with cognac, sugar and water, creating a delicious drink
for his friends. Peychaud served his creation in a two-sided egg cup
called a coquetier. It is rumored that a mispronunciation of this word
is the original source of the modern term, “cocktail.”
By 1850, the Sazerac was immensely popular as Americans used
bitters as a creative means to thwart Big Brother and the temperance
movement’s attacks on the freedom to relax after a day’s work with
a drink. By 1873, Thomas Handy, who was by then the proprietor
of Sazerac House, changed the main ingredient from cognac to rye
whiskey in a refection of changing American tastes. This move was
also 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 in
its stead.
Somewhere along the way, a clever bartender decided to wash
the glass with absinthe before serving the sazerac, but the relentless
march of the nanny state soon rendered this delicious liquor illegal.
In 2007, however, a dedicated businessman who envisioned a
proftable American trade for absinthe hired a law frm to tango with
the government, eventually emerging victorious with a “new” drink
and a freer market. The absinthe used in The New Guard Sazerac is
the product of a family owned and operated small batch distillery in
Denver, Colorado. Each delicious batch is handmade by an artisan
distiller in, “a 40 gallon hand-hammered copper pot that is so small
you 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 began
distilling whiskey from hard rye.
Today, we present this product of centuries of history, hard-work-
ing industry, self-reliant ingenuity, free markets and American tastes
to you. Enjoy!
Dane Nakamura is a
professional bartender
at Bourbon in the Glover
Park neighborhood of
Washington, D.C.
When drinking America’s frst cocktail, one of the most impor-
tant things is to frst enjoy the nose of the drink. The clean, slightly
smoky, famed lemon zest accentuates the delicious smell of anise
and citrus from the Leopold’s Absinthe Verte wash. As you lean back
to take a sip, the Peychaud’s Bitters and smell of new charred oak
barrel straight rye whiskey fll your nose and all the components
begin to play together. As the drink hits your tongue you will notice
it is slightly sweet from the sugar, the pisco-based absinthe and the
vanilla and caramel notes in the rye. As the drink coats your tongue,
the tastes gain balance as the rye spice and dry (almost tannic) infu-
ence of the oak wood comes through. The Peychaud’s bitters cleanse
the pallet with slightly bitter, foral notes and leaves you wanting to
take another sip and search for the incredible foral arrangement you
thought you almost put your fnger on. Go ahead, have another!
New Guard, summer 2010 21
Cocktail
APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP - REPLY FORM FOR SUPPORTERS
Young Americans for Freedom, 2300 M Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20037
I am in agreement with the Sharon Statement and wish to apply for membership.
NAME____________________________________________________________
ADDRESS__________________________________________________________
CITY___________________________ STATE _______ZIP__________________
PHONE_____________________ EMAIL_________________________________
PERMANENT ADDRESS_____________________________________________
CITY___________________________ STATE _______ZIP__________________
AGE_________ OCCUPATION OR SCHOOL____________________________
YAF is a non-proft organization and depends entirely on the generosity of alumni and
donors. Please send your donations to YAF. Thank you!
CHECK ALL THAT APPLY
Annual Membership: $5
Associate Membership (over 40):
$20 annually
I enclosed a donation for $____
I would like more info about YAF
I would like to start a YAF chapter
For more information, visit
www.YAF.com
GrassTopsUSA.com

Waging Web
Warfare Against
the Liberal
Establishment.

Giving Your
Values A Voice.
www.GrassTopsUSA.com