YAF's New Guard Magazine Spring 2011

Sen. Jim DemintNo Room for Compromise

Social Security can be SolveDThe Road to Prosperity

a return to conStitutionaliSmWhat Liberty Needs, the Left Hates

online revolutionTech Tools for 2011

PubliSheD by yaF Foundation

Spring 2011$5.00

neW

GuarD

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

THAT when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty; THAT the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power; THAT the genius of the Constitution—the division of powers—is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people, in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government; THAT the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs; THAT when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;

THAT we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies; THAT the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties; THAT the United States should stress victory over, rather than co-existence with, this menace; and

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

Th e Sh a r o n

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 reflect the views held by the editors or the official position of YAF Foundation.

the neW GuarDcontributorS

Executive EditorChristopher Bedford

PublisherJordan Marks

Deputy EditorJohn Stapleton

Associate EditorsEva Moreno

Benjamin HackettAdam Cassandra

DesignersNathan CurbyCherise Curby

IllustratorMr. Mysterious

YAF National ChairmanMichael Jones

The New Guard, Vol. 35, No.3, Spring 2011. The New Guard is published quarterly by

YAF Foundation.

For subscription orders, payments, donations and other inquiries:

By Phone: 202-596-7923

By Internet: www.YAF.com

Twitter: @Hardcoreyaf

By Mail: YAF Foundation 2300 M Street, NW

Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20037

Article submissions, inquiries and letters should be sent to [email protected].

For advertising sales contact [email protected]

This issue went to press on January 29, 2011.

Copyright 2011 ©YAF Foundation

The New Guard Magazine is printed byDay and Night Printing, Inc.

www.dayandnight.com

ST a T e m e n T

William F. Buckley Jr., 1925-2008

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

CPAC 2011 will be unlike any our generation has ever witnessed. As grassroots conservatives and libertarians gain speed and influence in the government and the GOP, it appears that, for the first time in decades, the presidential field is wide open. As the time to choose a candidate approaches, we, as young activists, are back to our roots. In the upcoming battle for America’s future, Young Americans

for Freedom has the opportunity to stand up and take our historic place as the point of the right’s spear. It is a familiar role. At our founding in 1960, YAFers led Barry Goldwater to a primary victory just as he led us onto the streets of America. In 1980, after years of “glorious disaster,” the hard work, dedication and unwavering support of YAFers across the country saw our honorary chairman, Gov. Ronald Reagan, win the nomination and the presidency.

This first national victory of the conservative revolution was over thirty years ago. In the decades since, its legacy–that of Reagan, Goldwater, Buckley and YAF–has been squandered by a GOP that talks like “us,” but governs like “them.” But as the deficit spirals and government expands, the Silent Majority has taken to the streets. After the November election, and much to the chagrin of the elites of both parties, they have not, and will not, return quietly to their homes. Once again, it is our time. Fortune favors the brave, and we are the brave. As the front line of the activist movement –“the first, the best, the original”–it will be up to Young Americans to retake the helm of the Republican Party. For too long, conservatives and libertarians have stood by while the Beltway chooses the leaders and co-opts our candidates.

The choices ahead are multiple and unclear, but with eternal truths and the Sharon Statement as our guide, chapters across America can pull through and make a real impact. We will have to move strategically, but with a boldness that is unmistakable. Take to the campuses and streets, speak loudly and clearly, and, with a smile on your face, let America and the GOP know who you support. In the words of Ronald Reagan, it is “a time for choosing.”

Ronald Reagan turned 100 years old this month. Just as many so often look to the sky and think of him, there is no doubt he is looking down on us now. And there is no doubt he is proud. While others search in vain for the “next Reagan,” we in YAF know that the strong leadership, unwavering faith, fierce patriotism and bold vision that he embodied is within YAFers across the country, just as the ideals he lived by are embodied in our guiding document. And as we seize the reins of the party for the candidate who represents these eternal truths, we must be mindful that someday soon the day will come when it is we who will stand up and do our duty.

To that end, The New Guard, Volume 35, Number 3, has been compiled to best connect the leaders of tomorrow on current events, as well as timeless principals. In these pages, you will hear a dire warning from the leader of the conservative GOP revolt, Sen. Jim DeMint. You can read on the way for America to successfully reform Social Security to save our nation from debt while ensuring a secure retirement for our people. You can see the case for why it is more important now than ever that the United States defend liberty abroad. You will learn of a little-known hero whose military genius has led to victory in Iraq. You can take a look at the early days that formed Reagan’s character and you can even learn how to make a prohibition-era version of his favorite cocktail. Enjoy! And God Bless.

from the Editor’s

DeskEditor’s

Desk

In Freedom,

Christopher BedfordExecutive Editor

neWGuarD

9. DomesticThe Treasure of the Andes// Christopher Bedford

Raiders at the Gate// Steven Greenhut

Regulators Gone Wild// Benjamin M. Hackett

19. the yaF SceneCelebrating 50 Years of YAF // Naphtali Rivkin

Let Freedom Ring// Grae Stafford

YAF and ADF Fight for the First Amendment at Palm Beach State // Casey Mattox

21. Foreign affairsThe Well-Read Fighter Pilot// Andy Swanson

Scalpels, Not Machetes// Adam Cassandra

Now Extend the Bush Doctrine // John Stapleton

25. culture and PhilosophyActivist 2.0// Adam Radman

30. the new Guard cocktail The Orange Gipper//Dane Nakamura

contentS SPRiNG 2011

T h e A m e r i c a n E c o n o m y - S h i n i n g B r i g h t i n i t s D a r k e s t H o u r

// Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) | page 17

Time toRemember

We are now faced with a choice between the social democracy of Europe or the constitutional

republic left to us by our forefathers.

// Ramon Lopez | page 25

THIS MAGAZINE OPERATES SOLELY ON YOUR GENEROSITY. PLEASE MAKE YOUR TAX-DEDUCTIBLE CONTRIBUTIONS AT WWW.YAFFOUNDATION.COM.

Constitutionalism and the Culture of Entitlement

spring 2011 | new Guard 4

It is easy to see how Eureka College could be Ronald Reagan’s alma mater. In fact, it is almost impossible to

imagine him anyplace else. Given his many comments over the years about his love of the school, it is clear he never saw himself at a “diploma factory,” as he said on the eve of the 1980 election while speaking at the school.

The small institutions of Reagan’s youth were important to his intellectual maturation as within each, individuals were allowed to flourish. For Reagan, the classic liberal, nothing was more important that the dignity and the privacy of the individual.

Reagan spoke at his old school and other colleges and universities many times, and some of his most important policy pronouncements were made before young people, from Eureka to Notre Dame to Moscow University. The Gipper enjoyed talking to young Americans, especially about the future. He is one of the few post-World War II presidents who could go onto a college campus without fear of reprisals or protests.

Young Americans returned the affection. When he was re-elected in 1984, he received 59 percent of the overall popular vote. Among voters under thirty, he received a stunning 65 percent. And when he left office in January of 1989, Gallup put his overall approval rating at 73 percent. But among voters under 30, his approval rating was—as my own children would say—an “amaaazzzing” 85 percent!

Maybe it was because Reagan was young

at heart, and spoke to the hearts of young people. Maybe it was because he helped restore a future which had been robbed by the recessionary policies of Jimmy Carter. Maybe it was because he rallied young Americans’ pride in their country. Maybe it simply was as he once said—people liked him because he liked people. We know it was all this and more.

Many associate Reagan with the West, especially California. But Reagan spent his formative years at his tiny college in western Illinois and the nearby towns of Dixon and Tampico, where he was born. It is here, in the early parts of the 20th Century, that his character was forged in the deprivations and joys of a young man of the Midwest. The Great Depression left its scar on Reagan, just as it did on most Americans without means. He joined many who survived the era in calling it the seminal event of his lifetime.

But there can be no doubt that, like many of his time, his childhood was rough and poorly long before the Depression. Tough times were especially pronounced in the rural Midwest. My mother—who is also from Illinois—told of how one Thanksgiving she, her brothers and parents had peanut butter sandwiches for their meal. She tells of how her entire family lived in one room and how her brothers slept on the floor while she shared a bed with her parents. Christmas gifts consisted of a handkerchief and a piece of fruit.

Reagan’s youth was no different. He was born in a second floor flat with no running water, heated by coal brought up for the

stove. His father struggled to hold jobs while Reagan and his brother “Moon” did what they could to bring in an extra few pennies. One summer, Jack Reagan bought a trailer full of potatoes on “spec” and had his young sons work for days on end in the hot trailer sorting the good potatoes from the bad. After time, the heat had turned most of the spuds into mush and they reeked, turning the boys off on that particular vegetable.

Yet, in each instance, Reagan was learning. He was dynamic that way. He was a freshman at Eureka just as the Great Depression was washing across America. Funding shortfalls at the Disciples of Christ school meant the firing of some professors, which meant some students could not graduate in their majors. A young freshman was recruited to lead a student strike— Reagan. For the first time in his life, he gave a political speech. Hundreds of his fellow students were awed and impressed. The strike was successful and alternative funding was secured to keep the professors at the school.

There is something about the Midwest and the people there that evokes Reagan. A kindness, but also a toughness of character, of faith: a “community of shared values,” as Reagan said in 1980.

As we observe the 100th birthday of one of America’s greatest presidents, some in the elites, who had once ignored him, then derided him, but now can’t deny him, are trying to remake him into something he was not. But this is a man who once said, “If you get into bed with government, you

“

Yo u n g

r e a g a n 1 0 0

it would be wise for the new Young Americans to seek Reagan on your own, rather than let the liberal media misshape his legacy.

M r. R e a g a n// by Craig Shirley

are going to get up with more than just a good night’s sleep.” This was a man who challenged conventional wisdom and the status quo, and the elites despised him for it.

Over the course of many years of speaking and lecturing about Reagan, I have been often asked, “Who is the next Ronald Reagan?” and I reply, “No one.” This was a singular man, just as other great American leaders have been singular in their own right. We take Reagan for granted because his life ended only recently and his legacy is only beginning to be written. But 100 years from now—assuming again his legacy is not sullied by those in the media and academia with a political agenda—Americans will regard Reagan with the same admiration as they do Teddy Roosevelt.

The next Ronald Reagan will not be the next Ronald Reagan. In other words, the next populist conservative leader will be their own person, making their own case for the future and for freedom and for all those principles upon which this nation was founded and which we know are currently under assault. The next Reagan will be the man or woman who understands this argument and can present themselves as an acceptable alternative to President Obama.

Finally, the next meaningful conservative leader will not be the tool of unprincipled celebrity consultants. The parasitic,

permanent political classes that have come to dominate the GOP have nearly destroyed it by convincing Republicans to do un-conservative things. From 2001 to 2008, America had two “big government” parties and conservatives were left out in the cold, which of course lead to the rise of the Tea Party movement, the most significant development since the emergence of the “Reagan Democrat.”

In other words, pandering is bad policy and, ultimately, bad politics.

Reagan was always deeply fond of Young Americans for Freedom. He always went to the conferences, always answered the letters and always cherished his role as honorary chairman of the “YAFers.” Your parents knew him. It would be wise for you, the new Young Americans, to seek Reagan on your own, rather than let some in the liberal media misshape his legacy into something unrecognizable.

William Faulkner said history is not “was” but “is.” Reagan is gone but his legacy lives on. Reagan “is” just as Washington “is,” just as Lincoln “is,” just as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. “is.” We study these great men because of their enormous and lasting contributions. In each of their own fashions, these men are not “was”

but “is,” and that makes them important. Seek your own truth about Reagan. Go to the Reagan Library in Simi Valley or the Reagan Center in Santa Barbara. But also go to Eureka. Go to Tampico. Go to Dixon.

And go see how a great president was made.

Craig Shirley is the author of two critically acclaimed books, Reagan’s Revolution, about the 1976 campaign, and Rendezvous with Destiny, about the 1980 campaign. He just returned from participating at a conference on Reagan at Eureka, where he will soon be teaching a course on Reagan’s campaigns as the school’s first Reagan Scholar. He is currently working on a biography of Newt Gingrich and a book on World War II, as well as three more books on Reagan.

NG Note: Learn more about Reagan’s special relationship with YAF by checking out the speeches he gave at our national conventions. Visit our YouTube page at www.youtube.com/yafhardcore for these and many more great videos!

Happy 100th

Birthday to YAF’s

Honorary National Chairman

from 1962-2004.

www.YAF.com

Political campaigns do not just involve candidates. There are many instances when “causes”

and “issues” are far more important than the candidates involved. Sometimes, entrenched public sector union representatives and other constituencies, through daily contact with elected officials, can overpower the will of the people simply because the officials never hear the voice of the electorate.

In the typical elected official’s office—be they city, county or parish, state or even federal officials–it is possible to have public sector union members in contact with them throughout the day.

A hint here, an innuendo there, a highly propagandized statement made as an assertion of fact by unionized public employees during office hours, repeated often enough, can creep into the mind of otherwise conservative officials with the result that they start to take on socialistic positions as being reasonable. This, obviously, is what has happened to so many conservatives who, after being exposed to the “Beltway mentality,” betray their conservative values and vote as though their real interests emanate from big government, big welfare and big taxation. Nobody— not even judges—is immune from this phenomenon.

It seems that this galloping progressivism has trotted its way down to the lowest levels of government, including local planning commissions and social organizations. Indeed, not even the supposedly free enterprise world is immune as has been shown by many left-leaning positions nowadays being taken.

So, how do conservative, family-oriented Americans take back control of these most important issues-oriented campaigns?

Of course, communications is the key and the Freedom of Information Act is the key-turner. In order to communicate directly with both government and corporate officials, you need to know inexpensive, yet powerful, communication modalities

and ways to access them.The most vital method of

communication is the lowly fax machine. Did you know that the lowly fax machine brought down the Evil Empire of the Soviet Union almost single-handedly? This is a true, but mostly forgotten, part of history. In the USSR, the communists controlled every single method of communication (including TV, radio, mail and e-mail, to the extent it existed) except one: faxing. While the Soviets were sophisticated in all technologies, the surreptitious use of faxing to spread freedom news around the vast USSR caught them totally by surprise. Once informed, it became an unstoppable force that ultimately liberated the minds of millions of fellow-Russians who had previously languished under the yoke of communism.

Today, the Freedom of Information Act in every state and in the federal government can be used to obtain vital fax numbers to which important freedom messages can be transmitted. Once received, these fax messages become official governmental records which cannot be destroyed by law. Talk about getting your message through! By virtue of public records that are required to be filed by all corporations, along with a few deft phone calls, private businesses are just as susceptible to fax communications as are government officials.

Finally, the “speech” or communications outlined in this short article is political speech. Thus, the federal law against unsolicited faxing (47 USC §227) is wholly inapplicable as it (and all similar state laws) can control only the advertising of the commercial availability or quality of physical property, goods or services.

Good faxing and don’t quit until you succeed!

Charles Benninghoff, Father of Faxography™, is an alumnus of YAF and the president of Grassroots Campaign Creations, Ltd.

Successful Political Campaigns for Conservatives

9 new Guard | spring 2011

In 1935, the United States adopted Social Security. At that time, America was in the grip of the Great Depression.

Unemployment was over 20 percent and desperate men and boys left their loved ones in search of the little needed to get their families by. Many never returned.

According to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, these desperate times called for desperate measures. In answer to the Depression, he undertook sweeping reforms, massively enlarging the scope of government power and putting millions of citizens at its mercy. One of the hallmarks of this New Deal was Social Security—a Ponzi scheme backed on the American taxpayers’ credit. Just last year, it turned 75.

In the time since FDR launched his experiment, the average American life expectancy has grown by more than 15 years and the cost of this scheme has continued to mount. While the young pay a portion of each paycheck, the old withdraw funds at an unsustainable rate. Most economists estimate this system is set to collapse by 2042. All serious economists know it is unsustainable. And no matter how many cuts the United States makes in other programs, the fact remains that if Social Security, and its close cousin Medicare, are not abolished or massively reformed, nothing can stop America from plunging into the insolvency now tearing down the social fabric and civil order of our European cousins.

But the old have paid their dues. All their working days, they lost a portion of their checks and many planned their lives around this forced “investment.” No doubt, to take this away would be unjust. Many in government would have you believe there is no solution! They are either poor students of history, liars or, in the most likely case, both. But the essential reality is, they believe Americans are too stupid to make

decisions about their own futures. Not only can the system be solved, it has been. And with a level of success that puts the United States to shame. The lesson lies in Chile. So far, 17 countries have followed suit. America must be next.

In 1924, almost a decade before FDR even came to power, Chile embarked on the experiment of social security. They soon, however, learned that it was both inefficient and unsustainable. Lacking the massive credit resources of the United States, Chile did away with the scheme the very day Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president.

Since that day, economists have carefully observed the success of the Chilean privatization experiment. They watch as it continues to grow and thrive, as it survives dictatorship and recessions, war and unrest. And most importantly, they watch as the privatized Chilean system outperforms America’s nearly 5:1.

The model is simple. The Chilean government allows seven private, closely-regulated (I know, I know) companies to handle social insurance. While the government continues to offer its plan, the citizen now have options. Eight, in fact.

Citizen were given the choice to stay with the government or withdraw their account and move to one of the private firms. With the firms, they receive control over the retirement account, including reports on their savings and the freedom to move about the firms. The beauty is that the private sector not only generates significantly higher returns, it creates competition and gives citizens the knowledge and control they had previously lacked.

As a pillar of Milton Friedman’s “three pillar” plan to revitalize the Chilean economy, Labor Minister Jose Pinera launched the privatized model after convincing reluctant anti-Communist

dictator Augusto Pinochet and his generals that the Chilean people could handle their own finances. With the reforms, Chileans gained control of their retirement through their own “individual capital accounts.” Only the individual—and not their employer—pays into this account. Within government guidelines, the company they chose is able to invest this money in the economy. Instead of sitting idly by or being spent on government projects, these billions of dollars in investment capital have spurred Chile’s amazing economic growth. Roberto Fuentes, research director at the association of private-sector administrators, says the system acts like, “a virtuous circle that... lowers the cost of capital, generates investments and leads to new jobs with higher salaries.”

The gains these investments make aren’t simply macro—they directly affect the individual. While Pinera initially promised Chileans 4 percent, in 2010 the average return on investment was 9.23 percent. This return outpaces the average annual inflation rate by 10.3 percent. In the United States, the average return over the next decade is expected to be 1-2 percent. By law, if the pension falls below 70 percent of the last month’s salary, the company, backed by the government, is required to make up the shortfall.

This brings the conversation to a key word—“guaranteed.” That the GOP has failed to capitalize on this word is nothing short of shameful. Every decent attempt to privatize America’s Social Security system has been defeated by the Democrat’s simple use of this word. The left’s line is that the GOP wants to feed the peoples’ life savings to greedy bankers and lose it all in a market downturn. The left cannot even be blamed—responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of foolish Republican politicians and marketers. Informing people

Treasure How Chile and Milton Freidman provide the words and example necessary for real Social Security reform.

of the Andes// by Christopher Bedford

The


D o m e S t i c

that the current system is not “guaranteed,” but is actually “doomed,” is an attack on a foe who has already launched a strong offensive and it doesn’t establish the merits of privatization. It is important to take the word and use it. A closer look shows that privatization can be guaranteed just as surely as the public system cannot!

The left’s fear of the market is based on the experience of downturns, recessions and depressions. The market goes up, but it also comes down. In that down, men and women can lose big time. What the left glosses over is that this is not a one-year investment—it is a thirty or forty-year investment. At no point in the history of the modern market have the stocks not grown in value over that time span. Economists have gone as far as to run the Chilean model through the Great Depression and still come out with a higher rate of return than the public system offers. This reality frees the government to do another very important thing—say that magic word: “guarantee.” In Chile, for all investments of at least 15 percent of income over twenty years, the government guarantees the minimum the individual would have received had they stayed in the public program. The occasional flukes that require a government payout do not add up to a tiny fraction of the taxpayer money they had to spend to hold a strictly public system together.

With the safety of this guarantee, combined with the individual control and increased returns of the private system, within ten years of its introduction 95 percent of those enlisted in Chile’s public social security option had switched to the private firms. The system, and the growing economy it accompanied, also allowed more of the general population to enlist in the program. While in 1985 only 58 percent were involved, within five years that number had grown to 92 percent. After that, things only got better.

The plan’s allowance of control also provides incentives for citizens to take more account of their future. Though the official retirement ages for men and women are 65 and 60 respectively, many pay more than required into their accounts and, upon reaching 110 percent of their minimum pension, may retire on the plan early. The average man can take retirement nine years early. On average, women can retire seven

years early.The path forward is clear. Though the

initial investment in an overhaul would be costly, Chilean-style privatization would lift a massive portion of the debt burden off the country, put more money in the pockets of hardworking Americans, inject more capital into the economy and guarantee a safe retirement for generations to come. Just as importantly, it would be a moral victory for the human spirit as a step away from the welfare state mentality and

towards personal responsibility, dignity and liberty.

Polling conducted by The New York Times in January indicates how unpopular cuts in Social Security and other New Deal entitlements will be. Yet, for the second year in a row, Social Security is running in the red. This year, the Congressional Budget Office estimates Social Security will pay out $45 billion more in benefits than it collects in taxes. The system is broken and tanking even faster than last year’s estimates had predicted. The battle is upon us, but if conservatives are to win this fight they will need to frame the debate properly. Right now, the American people are listening—and they want solutions. The words and phrases necessary to re-route the “third rail of politics” are “guaranteed,” “more cash in your hand,” “more jobs,” “freedom” and

“the time is now.”With the popular wave against

Obamacare, for the first time in history Americans have turned en masse on an entitlement program. Meanwhile, a refreshed and conservative GOP has turned its sights on spending, and in the freshman class, enthusiasm for real change is not lacking. If a solution cannot be achieved now, it is unlikely one will be reached before the storm is upon us.

Equipped with the necessary phrases and

the truth, conservatives can win this battle. To quote the founder of the welfare state, “we have nothing to fear but fear itself.” Seventy-five years after Social Security’s founding, and daily approaching the cliff’s edge, we also do not have a choice.

Christopher Bedford is the executive editor of The New Guard, vice-chairman of YAF and the editor of Richard Viguerie’s ConservativeHQ.com. He is a 2008 graduate of American University in Washington, DC, where he received his Bachelor’s degree in Written Journalism and a minor in World Politics. He has also written for The American Thinker, Homeland Security Today, The Daily Caller, Voices, The American Observer and The American University Eagle.


The economy is hurting, the unemployment rate is high and many Americans are struggling to

pay their bills, but one class of Americans is doing quite well—government workers. Their pay levels are soaring, they enjoy unmatched benefits and they remain largely immune from layoffs, except for some overly publicized cutbacks around the margins. To make matters worse, government employees, thanks largely to the power of their unions, have carved out special protections that exempt them from many of the rules that other working Americans must live by. California has been on the cutting edge of this dangerous trend—which has essentially turned government employees into a special class of citizens—but the problem is nationwide.

Why should young Americans, and young Americans in particular, care about this state of affairs?

From a practical standpoint, young people are the ones who must shoulder this massive debt burden. Stanford University estimated California’s unfunded pension liability (its debt) at a half a trillion dollars,

and other reports pinpoint the national pension debt at around $3 trillion.

Because pension promises are a senior obligation for government, retired government employees are guaranteed their often times six-figure, cost-of-living-adjusted retirement incomes. Governments will have to cut other programs before touching these retirements. That means that the public services that most Americans have come to expect will be slashed so that pensions will be paid.

If serious reforms are not enacted, young Americans are going to see a declining level of infrastructure spending, worsening schools and slashed budgets for parks and other programs. Yes, government is far too big and intrusive and should be cut down to size. Those necessary services should be contracted out to the private sector. Unless the pension debt is brought under control, government will cut those services that Americans need the most. In the private sector, cash-strapped businesses tend to root out waste and inefficiency so that they don’t erode the quality of their products and thereby lose customers. The public

sector does the reverse. It leaves the waste and redundancy and cuts the programs most valued by consumers.

To make matters worse, when times are tight, government often lobbies heavily for higher taxes. So unless these massive pension debts are controlled, Americans will face a future of worsening services and higher taxes.

Beyond dollars and cents, conservatives should be concerned about the kind of society we’re creating. In a free society—a small republican society—the people are self-governing. America is not supposed to be a place where the ruling elite live better than the rest of us. The same laws that apply to average citizens are supposed to apply to government officials as well.

Unfortunately, many conservatives are often insufficiently concerned about the public employee union problem because of their support for “public safety” professions—notably police, firefighters and prison guards. Yet it is these groups of government employees (whose unions typically support Democratic politicians, by the way) that are the biggest part of the

aidersRat the gate

Battle against the unions’ looting of America’s future// by Steven Greenhut


D o m e S t i c

problem because they receive the largest pension benefits and engage in the most egregious pension-spiking scams.

When I appeared on Glenn Beck’s TV show to discuss California’s dreadful fiscal situation in 2009, I mentioned that in Orange County, where I had been a columnist for The Orange County Register for 11 years, the average pay and benefit package for firefighters was $175,000 per year. After the show, I heard from viewers who couldn’t believe the figure, but it’s true. Firefighters, like all public-safety officials in California, receive a gold-plated retirement plan: a defined-benefit annual pension that offers 90 percent or more of the worker’s final year’s pay, guaranteed for the rest of his life (and the life of his spouse).

Government employees use various

scams to boost their already generous benefits, which include fully-paid health care and cost-of-living adjustments. The Sacramento Bee coined the term “chief ’s disease,” to refer, for example, to the 82 percent (in 2002) of chief ’s-level employees at the California Highway Patrol who discovered a disabling injury about one year before retiring. That provides an extra year off work, with pay, and shields 50 percent of their final retirement pay from taxes. Most of these disabilities stem from back pain, knee pain, irritable bowel syndrome and the like—not from taking bullets from bad guys. The disability numbers soared after CHP disbanded its fraud unit.

As I document in my book, Plunder!, government employees of all stripes have manipulated the system to spike their pensions, oftentimes on a retroactive basis. Because California bases pensions for employees on their final year’s salary, some workers move to other jurisdictions for just that final year to increase their pay and thus the pension. Even government employees convicted of on-the-job crimes continue to

collect benefits.Many government employees provide

core services, of course, but that doesn’t mean that the taxpaying public should turn a blind eye to excesses and abuses, or to the lack of accountability spawned by union power.

The old deal seemed fair: public employees would earn lower salaries than Americans working in the private sector, but would receive a somewhat better retirement and more days off. Now, public employees get higher average pay, far higher benefits, many more days off and other fringe benefits. They have also obtained greatly reduced work schedules, thus limiting public services even as pay and benefits shoot even higher.

The new deal is starting to raise

eyebrows thanks to efforts by groups such as the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility, which publishes the $100,000 Club—a list of thousands of California government retirees with six-figure, taxpayer-guaranteed incomes.

The story doesn’t end with the imbalance in pay and benefits. Government workers also enjoy absurd protections.

The Los Angeles Times published a series about the city’s public school district, which doesn’t even try to fire incompetent teachers and is seldom able to get rid of those credibly accused of misconduct or abuse. Misbehaving teachers are sometimes kept from teaching, but they may spend years, even a decade, getting paid while they fight attempts to fire them.

A state law referred to as the Peace Officer’s Bill of Rights, along with excessive privacy restrictions, likewise makes it nearly impossible to fire police officers who abuse their authority.

What kind of society are we creating?It’s certainly not looking like the free,

market-oriented society envisioned by our

founders. In their view, government should be strictly limited. Checks and balances keep government officials from abusing their power.

Instead, we’ve created a society with an enormous government with nearly unlimited powers. To make matters worse, the government’s employees live far better than the citizenry and are held to a different standard. Their unions dominate the political process and create a permanent lobby for more government and higher taxes.

When I wrote my book in 2009, I did so to focus public attention on this problem. Since then, the debate has changed and there is a great push for solutions. The math is simple. We need to reduce the size of government pensions. New employees

should receive defined contribution plans similar to the 401(k) plans received in the private sector. Pension-spiking schemes should be outlawed. New laws are needed to eliminate the special protections government employees receive and legislators should eliminate collective bargaining for government employees.

There is a need to rein in existing pensions by putting those employees on a lower benefit level going forward. This is how many private sector employers have fixed their pension debts. The courts generally won’t allow that last idea, but there are some possibilities for legal challenge. The technical solutions are straightforward —the problem, of course, is political. Steven Greenhut is director of the Pacific Research Institute’s Journalism Center in Sacramento, California and author of Plunder! How Public Employee Unions Are Raiding Treasuries, Controlling Our Lives, and Bankrupting The Nation.

We’ve created a society with an enormous government with nearly unlimited

powers and, to make matters worse, the government’s employees live far

better than the citizenry and are held to a different standard.

“


Those modeling themselves in the philosophical mode of Reagan and Friedman must take a stronger stand against the blatant overreach by those at the EPA, FDA, FCC and their ilk. Today, the EPA is hard at work realizing the statist agenda.

Using the Clean Air Act, a 1970 statute intended only to rein in air pollutants, the EPA has projected itself into regulation of gases alleged to be primarily responsible for global warming. By attempting to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, those friendly

bureaucrats are, quite literally, regulating one’s ability to breathe.

Surely, the folks over at EPA are not targeting masses of mouth-breathing liberals—those typically found backing such ill-informed regulatory over-extension. Hyperbole aside, the EPA admits, and The Heritage Foundation reports that “such regulations could impact millions of small businesses and impose costs well into the thousands of dollars for every one of them.”

In one frightening example, over a million commercial buildings could find themselves at the paper-pushing mercy of a detached, unmotivated and overworked bureaucracy, hundreds or thousands of miles away. Even infamous RINO Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) sees this anti-democratic affront and is behind a resolution that would rescind the EPA’s endangerment finding.

Pick an agency, and find a pile of outdated, unconstitutional and horrifically intrusive regulatory overexertion. Next to that pile, find the pervasive (read: perverse) regulatory fantasies of unprincipled men.

For those tactful enough to still have some leftist or statist friends in their digital rolodex, there are copious examples of regulatory overreach one can set as traps to aid in moving their misaligned ideological needles. Obama’s FCC invented regulations to deal with a non-problem in its net neutrality rule-making. In doing so, the FCC overrode the wishes of the people and rulings of the court. Obama collects czars and issues executive orders faster than he burns through a pack of Reds. Some of those executive orders promote further incursion into battlefields in the contentious Afghanistan-Pakistan theater.

Italy, Spain, Turkey and Thailand. Hot

spot vacation destinations? Not

quite. These are just a few of the

nations whose aggregate GDP falls short of the estimated regulatory

cost albatross saddled upon the American economy by the runaway

regulatory regime. The Code of Federal Regulations is well over

200 volumes, sporting hundreds of thousands of pages. The costs of

these regulations: an estimated 1.75 trillion dollars. Yes, with a “T.”

There are well over 50 regulatory agencies in the United States, each

with their own code, rules, penalties and enforcement mechanisms.

Acronyms such as the FDA, EPA and OSHA certainly fail to generate

any association to the concepts of clarity, economy and efficiency.

Bureaucratic nomenclature including regulation, executive orders, and

rule-making similarly fail to provide the impetus for entrepreneurs to

engage in the market.

// by Benjamin M. Hackett

W i L D R e g u l a t o r s G o n e


Under Bush, the statist left would have screamed bloody murder.

This is to say nothing about Congress’s continued efforts to purposefully shirk its constitutional responsibility of oversight and maintaining a clear, unambiguous environment in which free enterprise can thrive. One understands that members of Congress are busy, but that is no excuse. Recently, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), among other policymakers, have made strong rhetorical moves, increasing the issue’s saliency.

Congress continues to embrace an expanding trend of passing legislation without ensuring oversight of its enactment. The most grievous recent examples are the numerous boards and powers created for yet-unnamed regulators in Dodd-Frank, the financial regulatory reform bill. Without spelling out controls and mechanisms, a new regime of unlimited bailout ability and unintended consequences was born.

And then, of course, is the naked circumvention of the democratic process for political ends.

Cap and Tax rejected by the people, Congress and good economists? Worry not; the EPA will regulate it into existence. Morally opposed to fossil fuels, but unable to deal with the reality that Americans wish to explore and develop the many untapped domestic reserves? No problem! The Department of Interior is more than willing to abusively piggyback on the BP crisis to enact and fortify a de facto block on oil and gas exploration.

Who will speak up for regulatory sanity? Some are heeding the call. Sen. Coburn introduced the Enumerated Powers Act, requiring Congressional acts to cite their constitutional authority per each section. In September, Sen. DeMint brought forth the Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny, or REINS Act. A particularly promising proposal, the REINS Act would require joint Congressional approval and a signature by the president for all “major rules” devised by federal agencies. For the record, a “major rule” is a rule that has a projected effect of $100 million or more on the U.S. economy. Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) most recently started a push for a 10th Amendment Regulatory Reform Act, allowing the states an additional avenue to

challenge the constitutionality of proposed regulations.

As our environment grows ever more complex, the easiest remedies are often the simplest to enact. In addition to undoing the damage already done, Congress must sternly assume more accountability in crafting the laws it creates and passes,

reasserting its role in the policy process.As both liberals and conservatives

own small businesses and lead active and productive lives, this burden is shared. Ending this administration’s expanded practice of undemocratic and unconstitutional government via regulation is a crucial step in restoring a more responsive republic. Congress must reign in the regulatory regime. America’s 310 million citizens are certain to generate trillions of ideas of immeasurable value in their lifetime. Yet how many individuals will be able to navigate America’s excessive regulatory regime and bring said ideas into fruition?

Simple advice for would-be kings: tune up the American economic engine by lowering the barrier to entry in the marketplace, reducing uncertainty and reigning in the regulatory regime through constitutionally-informed governance.

Benjamin Hackett is an associate editor of The New Guard, a 2010-2011 National Review Fellow and a policy analyst. He is a board member of various Republican, conservative and libertarian organizations in the DC Metro Area. He invites readers to follow him on Twitter: @BenjaminHackett.

America’s 310 million citizens are certain to generate trillions of

ideas of immeasurable value in their lifetime.

Yet, how many individuals will be able to navigate America’s excessive regulatory

regime and bring said ideas into fruition?

D o m e S t i c

“

W i L D


Time to Remember

The United States was in the throes of the Great Depression and Carl feared layoffs were coming. He had a feeling there would be more opportunity for stable work at the new facility. The Russians were even running advertisements in U.S. papers boasting the free healthcare and paid vacations that awaited them. So Carl made a decision, along with thousands of other Americans at the time, to leave the shores of freedom for Stalin’s Russia.

I learned of his story from a book written about Carl’s family. It is a tragic tale. The Soviet auto park was not the paradise workers were promised. The rooms were squalid, the food was rationed and one night Carl was snatched away by

the secret police and never seen again. A little while later, they came for his daughter, Margaret. She was sentenced to ten years hard labor in a Siberian prison and by some miracle, became the only American woman to ever survive the gulag. His wife, Elisabeth, was left to fend for herself and barely lived. To this day, we know very little about the other Americans who followed the same path.

It was saddening to think there was a time in our history—our recent history— when U.S. citizens, who wanted nothing more than to work honestly and take care of their families, felt they had to leave the country to do so. A man, roughly the same age as my grandfather, felt the American

dream was no longer available to him and turned to communism for help, taking his wife and daughter with him.

Today, it has again become difficult for people to find work. Americans don’t suffer nearly the same conditions they did during the 1930s, but we are again being tempted by government promises to provide. As a result, a shift has occurred on such a scale that less than one month after President Obama was inaugurated, the cover of Newsweek magazine declared, “We are all socialists now.” And that was before he took over the U.S. healthcare system.

The 2008 financial crisis and presidential election swept an ideological faction of people into power who are more

IIn 1932, a man named Carl Werner packed up his family to leave Detroit for the Soviet Union. Carl was an employee of Ford Motor Company, which was helping the Soviets build a modern automotive plant.

// by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC)

T ime to Remember

The most important time to remember why America has the strongest economy in the world is when it struggles the mostThe most important time to remember why America has the strongest economy in the world is when it struggles the most// by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC)


than willing to exchange their liberty for benefits from the government. They are on television. They are writing newspaper articles, books and magazines. They are running multimillion dollar non-profit and lobbying organizations. They are working in your government.

And, all day and all night, they are trying to recruit you.

At any moment there is someone, usually with sterling Ivy League credentials, who thinks getting a government-issued insurance card is better than choosing your own health care. Who says we can have the homes we want if we let the government seize mortgage companies. Who claims jobs will become plentiful if Uncle Sam runs the energy sector. And higher salaries will be paid as soon as employees waive their right to a secret ballot and let union bosses take over the workplace.

In every case, they’re willing to surrender liberty for a socialist delusion that will

never come true. They want political favors more than they want freedom for their fellow man.

This is the mindset motivating the single most powerful group in modern American politics: the unions. In pursuit of cushy contracts and pensions, courtesy of the taxpayer, unions spent hundreds of millions the last election cycle to defeat anyone who stood between them and federal coffers. Public employee unions alone spent more than $200 million to defeat Republican candidates. The top state employees’ union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, spent more than $87 million in the 2010 cycle.

The National Education Association was the top spender in federal and state campaigns during the 2007-2008 cycle that secured a Democrat majority in Washington. Teachers unions contribute 95 percent of their election funds to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Teachers who are willing to strike against the education of our children for a pay raise have bought and paid for the party currently running

most of the U.S. government.A determined swell of Americans know

this approach will destroy opportunity for the next generation. Deep in the tradition of the popular movements in our history—from the Great Awakening that gave rise to the American Revolution to the conservative revival that helped elect Ronald Reagan—millions of Americans are demanding a return to our constitutional principles of a fair, just and limited government that have made America the most prosperous country in the history of the world.

The Tea Party is a reaction to a government that has tried to pull America to the left of Europe. It’s built upon the knowledge that freedom to succeed is a precious gift and not worth giving up for anything; a distinctly American idea. Corrupt, controlling government is a failed European one. There is no room for compromise between these competing philosophies.

Both sides are strong. Over the last two years, the government has been on a rampage to take over various sectors of private enterprise, sentencing the next generation to servitude under trillions of new debt. Ye President Obama’s approval ratings hover around 50 percent. His speeches make it sound like the principles of freedom can remain strong under tyrannical conditions. He’s the best salesman of socialism this country has ever seen. The allure of a government that can provide healthcare, jobs and housing has made people unable to see the differences between democracy and dependency.

It isn’t the first time. A year before the Werner family left the United States, the celebrated playwright and Nobel Prize Winner George Bernard Shaw went on the radio to encourage poor U.S. citizens to move to the Soviet Union for work. He said the Soviet Union had been established in the tradition of America’s founders, assuring listeners the Russians had taken “command of the Soviets, and established the Union of Socialist Soviet

Republics exactly as Washington and Jefferson and Hamilton and Franklin and Thomas Paine had established the United States of America 141 years before.”

The two governments were not the same. Nothing close to the American dream could be achieved in the midst of the Soviet nightmare the Werner family walked into. Just as it was then, it is now. The American dream is only available in America.

Carl Werner’s story was written by his grandson, who is about my age. He never got to meet his grandfather. It took nearly 30 years for his grandmother and mother to fight their way back to the United States. He wanted the world to know the pain they suffered. At the end of the book he quoted Mark 8:18 from the Bible: “Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don’t you remember?”

We must be thankful that 200 years after our founding, America still remains

the beacon of freedom in the world, a stark contrast to authoritarian regimes like the Soviet Union in the 1930s. And, we must be committed to keeping it that way. There has been a disturbing trend, however, of Americans relying on more government to solve social ills. This is a dangerous path others have taken. Freedom in America is not guaranteed. It must be preserved by each generation. Carl Werner’s sad fate should serve as a sober warning to anyone tempted to trade America’s freedom for the siren song of socialism.

Senator Jim DeMint is the junior U.S. Senator from South Carolina, serving since 2005. He is an active leader of the Tea Party movement and his PAC, the Senate Conservatives Fund, contributed millions of dollars to conservative Republicans—even those running primaries against party favorites. From 1999-2005, he served as the U.S. Representative for South Carolina’s 4th congressional district. He plans to retire in 2016, in accordance with a self-imposed term limit.

in every case, they’re willing to surrender liberty for a socialist delusion that will never come true. They want political favors more than they want freedom for their fellow man.

D o m e S t i c

“

Celebrating 50 Years of YAFA contract between the past, present and those yet unborn // by Naphtali Rivkin

Young Americans for Freedom have always charged their peers and superiors alike to live a strenuous, but wholesome duality: pioneering

political discourse in an ever-evolving world while staying firmly rooted in the values of our forefathers. Last October, we celebrated 50 years of struggle and success with those who adopted the Sharon Statement, those who ran Barry Goldwater’s campaign and those who worked in the Reagan White House. They stuck to their guns when communist Russia got tough, and they clung to their Bibles when hedonistic beatniks tried to take over their universities. And with a few toasts and a pat on the back, they all seemed to say, “Here’s to the next 50 years of YAF.”

Granted, the 50th anniversary dinner itself was a riot, and many attendees interviewed for the purposes of this article could not recount a coherent memory after certain points in the evening. What else would you expect from a YAF event? But no one could forget the overwhelming camaraderie around dinner tables that spanned languages, religions and generations. Each YAFer earned his or her spot at one of those tables by dedicating countless hours of work to promoting what “We as Young Conservatives Believe.” A gentleman sitting next to me brought two duffel bags with him full of YAF paraphernalia from the ‘70s and ‘80s to prove it. The bags included stickers like “Speak softly, and build the B-1!” and some vintage New Guard magazines. He started the evening saying his wife made him give the “YAF crap” away, but I think he changed his mind, zipped his bags and took it all home before long.

It doesn’t matter how old you are, it’s tough to leave Young Americans for Freedom. Quite simply, we all understand that the natural course of history almost never arrives at individual liberty and economic freedom—those are causes that must continually be fought for, even if only to maintain them. Just twenty-four hours before our dinner, Christopher Bedford sat beside The New Guard ’s founder, Dr. Lee Edwards, facing a crowd of three-hundred at Western CPAC’s main hall on a panel sponsored by the YAF Foundation. They were discussing the future of the conservative movement. Bedford, our current editor, spoke about how the Sharon Statement is as relevant today as it was when Dr. Edwards signed it. It has been as central to YAF alumni Rep. Dana Rohrabacher’s and Rep. Ed Royce’s policy making as YAF was to their first elections to public office many years ago. Neither Dr. Edwards nor the Congressmen would ever leave YAF, even though they’ve served their country —and stayed true to the Sharon Statement— over the last 50 years to a degree that’s near legendary. But there is always work to be done, and so I look forward to sharing the same exact sentiment at the 100th anniversary celebration.

Naphtali Rivkin is a senior at both The Frisch School in Paramus, New Jersey, and at the Lucy Moses Center for Music and Dance in New York, NY. He will be attending Washington and Lee University in the Fall. He is YAF’s National High School Chair, and most recently, YAF’s New Jersey State Chair.

The YAF scene


If there’s an award for worst free speech policies, Palm Beach State College is a strong contender. Even though the college receives public taxpayer funds, officials have total authority to

allow or deny literature distribution or completely ban it. In fact, groups must get permission two weeks in advance to even meet off campus. And because administrators have complete discretion to

recognize student groups, YAF’s application for club recognition mysteriously hangs in limbo today.

YAF is fighting back! In a federal lawsuit, filed free of charge by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, YAF is challenging the constitutionality of Palm Beach State’s restrictions on student speech and association. And we’re finding success. In early January, the school agreed to be ordered by the Court to permit two YAF members to distribute literature on campus several times per month and has pledged to revise its remaining policies by March 1st. This is just the first step toward eliminating PBSC’s unconstitutional policies. If PBSC fails to fully comply with the First Amendment, YAF and ADF will continue to fight for the rights of all PBSC students.

YAF PBSC Chairwoman Christina Beattie said, “Sometimes college administrators need to be reminded that we live in America.” YAF and ADF are working to remind them.

To see the video shown on Fox News, go to www.youtube.com/yafhardcore. You can read more about the case at www.adfmedia.org. If you have concerns about policies on your campus, you can tell ADF your story at www.speakupmovement.org/StudentStories/MyStory.

Casey Mattox is senior legal counsel at Alliance Defense Fund.

Let Freedom Ring // by Grae Stafford

On September 18th, Young Americans for Freedom joined with Let Freedom Ring and other conservative organizations to celebrate the Constitution of the United

States of America.In honor of this auspicious day, people from all over the United

States went to www.wereadtheconstitution.com and registered to host events where they and other patriots read the Constitution.

YAF, the YAF Foundation and Let Freedom Ring held a cash prize contest seeking the best photo and best video from their event.

The winner of the best photo was Shak Hill of Virginia, for this patriotic picture of George Washington, kneeling before all those gathered to offer a prayer. Well done, Shak!

After long deliberation, the judges decided that the winner for the best video was Anna Parker and her crew of young patriots from Merrimack, New Hampshire. This amazing group of young high school students organized a community reading with over 50 people in attendance.

The judges were very impressed with the quality of the video. Anna’s footage captured the spirit of community the We Read the Constitution project was intended to foster.

Anna’s video, and others, can to be viewed on YAF’s YouTube page: www.youtube.com/yafhardcore. The winning photo can be viewed on YAF’s Facebook page at www.facebook.com/YAFreedom.

Thank you to all those who took part. We look forward to

seeing you all next September for the 2011 reading of the Constitution. And don’t forget—starting this summer, we have the newest event: We Read the Declaration.

Grae Stafford is the creative director for Young Americans for Freedom. He also heads up YAF’s International Outreach Program. Prior to YAF, he was the communications director for Sacred-Honor.org and a consultant on communication strategy for various political organizations.

YAF and ADF Fight for the First Amendment at Palm Beach State// by Casey Mattox


To be or to do? Fighter pilot and retired Air Force Colonel John Boyd would pose the question to younger

officers: do you want to be promoted or do you want to do what is right? John Boyd lived through his mantra—even if that included bucking the system, ruffling the feathers of superior officers, and even making enemies—but he did what was right. Throughout his career, John Boyd carried a significantly greater amount of influence than his rank allowed—a cardinal sin in military culture. To his detractors, he was brash, arrogant and unruly; to his supporters, he was one of the greatest military minds of the 20th century.

Boyd’s most significant contribution to society and piece de resistance was the OODA Loop concept. Boyd conceptualized that decision making, in a competitive environment, happens in

recurring chains of observation, orientation, decision, and action. The key aspect of this theory is to complete OODA Loops at a faster tempo than your adversary in order to “get inside” your opponent’s decision process and, thus, gain the advantage. Your opponent would consequently be unable to respond effectively enough to the unfolding circumstances and collapse in defeat. Boyd’s concept of “out thinking”

your enemy was a cornerstone in the victories of the first Gulf War and in the counterinsurgency (COIN) manual.

Boyd’s concept of fast, smart and maneuverable warfare came to light in the Gulf War. The coalition forces favored a strategy of maneuver warfare over the concept of attrition warfare that was the main war stratagem in the U.S. military until the end of the Vietnam War. The collapse of the Iraqi forces was testament that the coalition could win wars by getting inside of the enemies’ decision cycle. During the war, John Boyd took great pride in hearing commanding officers being interviewed by the media refer to “out thinking, and getting inside of the decision process” of Iraqi forces. After Boyd’s death in 1997, Commandant of the Marine Corps, General C. C. Krulak, offered these words of praise in a letter to the editor of Inside the

Pentagon: “John Boyd was an architect of the victory as surely as if he’d commanded a fighter wing or a maneuver division in the desert.”

General David Petraeus, architect of the COIN manual, and John Boyd are remarkably similar. Both are students of history, both are great synthesizers, and both believe in the importance of the

intellectual side of warfare. Written in the dark days of pre-surge Iraq, the COIN manual almost explicitly channels Boyd’s theories. Before the COIN manual, American forces had great difficulty adapting to the ever-evolving tactics of insurgents and were taking increasing amounts of casualties. The manual helped to change the way that commanders in the field thought about combating the

insurgents. In the COIN manual Petraeus verbalized this notion by saying, “Every unit needs to be able to make observations, draw lessons, apply them, and assess results.” Petraeus goes on to say, “a skillful counter-insurgent is able to adapt at least as fast as the insurgent.” In Boydian, every unit must be capable of completing OODA Loops, and capable of adapting to the changing environment and unfolding circumstances faster than his adversary.

In addition to the OODA Loop concept, Boyd was a strong proponent of decentralization of decision making. Boyd believed that it was necessary to permit and trust that junior level officers in the field will make the right decision that is within the overall command’s intent. The COIN manual states that “successful mission command results from subordinate commanders at all echelon levels exercising disciplined initiative within the commander’s intent…” Petraeus’ COIN manual, and the subsequent implementation of it, has been credited by many experts as the turning point of the American experience in Iraq. With the successful stabilization of Iraq, it can be argued that Boyd has implicitly, if not explicitly, been the architect of the United States’ victory.

John Boyd never received fame, never made general officer, and never attained wealth—he didn’t care about that. Boyd cared about making a difference in the way that we fight wars—and he did. Boyd has transformed the way that senior leadership in the Pentagon thinks, and consequently, fights over the last two decades. And, most importantly, through the adoption of maneuver warfare and COIN, Boyd has indirectly saved countless American lives on the frontlines.

John Boyd: you have made a difference and for that, a grateful nation salutes you.

Andy Swanson is a graduate of American University in Washington, DC where he majored in International Studies.

The Well-Read Fighter Pilot // by Andy Swanson

John Boyd and his continuing influence on the way America fights, and wins, wars

F o r e i G n a F F a i r S


Thousands of federal bureaucrats fill offices in large white buildings all across Washington, DC,

performing jobs in areas never authorized by the U.S. Constitution, but the only Cabinet level official in the Obama administration talking about massive layoffs is the Secretary of Defense.

As part of an effort to help cut back on spending, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced plans in January to reduce the size of the Army by 27,000 soldiers and cut 15,000 to 20,000 Marines from the Marine Corps starting in 2015.

That means almost 50,000 men and women, whose job description includes putting their lives on the line to defend the United States, will not be essential federal employees in the near future. So how come every department is not cutting 50,000 workers?

Shrinking the size of the Army and Marines comes as part of a plan by Sec. Gates to trim $78 billion from the defense budget over the next five years. Gates cited “extreme fiscal duress” when proposing the cuts that include reducing the number of military generals, reducing the naval fleet and halting several weapons programs.

Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), the new Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he was “not happy” with the proposed cuts.

“I will not stand idly by and watch the White House gut defense when Americans are deployed in harm’s way,” McKeon said

Defending America’s sovereign borders and citizens is supposed to be the primary function of the federal government. In an America with over $14 trillion in debt, and unprecedented deficit levels, there should be no sacred cows in cutting budgets—including the Department of Defense. But planning to cut manpower and resources from defense during wartime, with no real end to hostilities in sight, is irresponsible.

While refusing to secure America’s borders or propose a strategy to defeat the worldwide Islamist threat, President Obama

wants massive defense cuts and to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

But President Obama will make sure you buy health care (maybe the Department of Health and Human Services is hiring).

Border security and the constant threat of Islamists are not the only problems we face. Dictators and unrest in Lebanon, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Egypt and Venezuela also pose potential security problems for the United States.

While it remains doubtful that the U.S. military will need to have a physical presence in all of these countries in the near future, the escalation of violence in any of the above mentioned areas could spark the next regional or world war.

America’s best hope for defending itself from hostile forces is to have the strongest military possible. This includes having the most advanced weapons systems, superior naval and Air Force capabilities, and highly trained and equipped military personnel.

Several prominent conservatives co-signed a letter last November calling on Republicans to cut wasteful defense

spending, saying, “Ignoring the burden military spending places on the taxpayers promotes the same reckless spending ethos that led to failed “stimulus” policies, government bailouts and a prolonged economic recession.”

Wasteful spending is a problem. Every dollar the federal government uses should be spent efficiently, and constitutionally. Unlike the stimulus or bailouts, Americans actually want money spent on defense, and it is one of few activities undertaken by the federal government expressly assigned to it in the Constitution.

Cut wasteful spending and unnecessary military personnel if need be, but defeat our enemies, secure our borders and defend American lives first—at any cost.

Adam Cassandra is an associate editor of The New Guard, assistant editor of Richard Viguerie’s ConservativeHQ.com and Maryland YAF state chairman. He is a 2009 graduate of the Institute of World Politics, where he earned his M.A. in Statecraft and National Security Affairs.

Scalpels, Not Machetes// by Adam Cassandra

Budget cuts must not hurt military readiness



In December, President Obama reached an accord with the Senate GOP to extend the Bush tax cuts at their

current rates for at least another two years. This was a surprise to all who, in 2008, heard then-Senator Obama promise never to do so. The move appears to be part of a strategy of moving towards the center to strengthen his re-election chances in 2012. If the president is serious about doing so, he should revamp his foreign policy agenda and extend the Bush Doctrine as well. There are many who do not understand the Bush Doctrine and how it came about. Many critics simply cringe at anything bearing the name of our former president. However, when articulated correctly and understood soundly, it is a wise and worthy approach to United States foreign policy.

There are four main pillars to the Bush Doctrine, a phrase first coined in June of 2001 by Charles Krauthammer. Then, it was employed in reference to the administration’s unilateral withdrawals from the Kyoto Protocol and ABM Treaty. President Bush and his team felt that Kyoto was economically damaging and that the ABM Treaty stood in the way of their missile defense agenda. Citing economic and security purposes, the administration withdrew from both.

A few months later, America was brutally attacked by terrorists, killing an estimated 3,000 people. While terrorism was not new, a new strategy was needed to deter and prevent future attacks. In his speech to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001, President Bush established the second pillar when he made it clear that America would consider states that sponsor and protect terror groups tantamount to terror organizations themselves. This was a new approach, which is remembered for its “with us or

with the terrorists” mentality. At the time, the president was lauded for concise and simple declaration. Years later he would be derided as closed-minded and stubborn for the use of the very same language.

As Bush and his team further broadened the war on terror to include toppling Saddam Hussein in Iraq, pre-emptive military action became the third pillar. This is sometimes mistakenly remembered as the sole thrust of the Bush Doctrine, and it is a misconception that was highlighted in the famous Charlie Gibson-Sarah Palin interview. The fact that it was Gibson, and not Palin, who got it wrong may come as a surprise to some, but not those who were paying attention.

The fourth and final pillar is democracy promotion and the spread of freedom across the globe. This last aspect of the Bush Doctrine is the most important, and should remain an unshakeable pillar in the making of all American foreign policy. This pillar was introduced during Bush’s second inaugural address in January 2005, when he stated that it is the responsibility of the United States to support democratic movements and institutions around the world with the goal of “ending tyranny in our world.” This seemed like an unattainable and lofty goal, but it plays into what the administration was trying to achieve in Afghanistan, Iraq and other parts of the Middle East. It was their belief that the spread of freedom and democracy will ultimately lead to a more secure world.

At times, its critics have disregarded the democratic peace theory as simply a way for Neoconservatives to promote their next war. Others believe that it is a form of American or Western cultural imperialism, and that some societies cannot live up to the responsibilities that democracy demands. These arguments present themselves as realist, but at their core they are arguments

against liberty, natural rights and the human spirit. President Obama and the rest of the world would benefit greatly from promoting his own version of the freedom agenda.

When it comes to democratic advancements, the Obama team has looked weak in the past for missing out on opportunities to scold friends and foes alike. With an amazing chance in 2009 to stand on the side of the Iranian people who were fighting for a fair election in the streets of Tehran, the administration chose near silence for fear of appearing to “meddle” in another country’s affairs. They were too worried about being compared to the “cowboy” diplomacy of George Bush. Meanwhile, democracy advocates in Iran were beaten, shot, imprisoned and tortured.

That same month in Honduras, when Hugo Chavez protégée President Manuel Zelaya ignored congress, defied the supreme court and led a socialist mob to attack an army base, the United States not only stood by, but, in a shameless attempt to curry favor with Venezuela’s dictator, opposed Honduras’s brave attempts to defend their democracy from the aims of the would-be socialist strongman. Amazingly, the people of Honduras were successful in securing their democracy from the designs of regional dictators, even without assistance from the United States.

More recently, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Liu Xiaobo, a jailed political activist from China. In response to this prize, the White House released a statement congratulating Xiaobo but also crediting the Chinese government for “lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty” through economic reform. Did the White House miss the point of this award? Xiaobo was not only the first recipient to be unable to attend his own

When it comes to democratic advancements, the Obama team has looked weak in the past for missing out on opportunities to scold friends and foes alike.

// by John Stapleton


Now E x T E N D the Bush Doctrine


ceremony since 1991, but the communist tyrants who imprison him did not even allow him to send a representative to accept the award on his behalf.

It is not simply American adversaries –such as Cuba, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Burma, Zimbabwe and North Korea- who need to be pushed in the democratic direction, but also America’s friends. More transparent elections, political parties, newspapers and other media outlets are needed in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Jordan. If President Obama can take his “hope” and “change” message from the campaign trail of 2008 and turn it

towards his foreign policy, he could inspire dissidents and movements across the globe who are on the front lines of freedom’s fight to continue advocating for democratic reforms within their own countries. More democratic governments around the world would result in better global security and more protections for human rights.

The first three pillars of what is known as the Bush Doctrine remain important ways to put America’s security and interests first. It is, however, the fourth pillar that can and must continue on through different administrations. If America wishes to be the beacon of hope and freedom,

then advocating for democracy in other countries is a wonderful and necessary message. Fortunately, America might have the world’s best messenger. It is time for Barack Obama to embrace the freedom agenda that his predecessor so ardently advocated. He did a good job extending the Bush tax cuts. Now let him extend the Bush Doctrine.

John Stapleton is the deputy editor of The New Guard. He received his M.A. in Comparative Politics from American University in May 2009, and lives with his wife, Nealey, in Chevy Chase, Maryland.

Young Americans for Freedom was founded at the height of the Cold War. America’s security was at risk from internal and external enemies. The Sharon Statement makes several

references to the need to secure America.Today, conservatives are once again being called on to

successfully meet the challenges of the world. These challenges are at home and abroad, and they place the American people at constant risk.

Sadly, it is not uncommon to hear news reports about an American embassy under attack, a van loaded with explosives parked in Times Square or the building of a massive mosque in the shadow of the World Trade Center.

To win this war against our determined enemies, we must confront them and let our elected officials know that we demand their active support in exposing and opposing the radicalization of segments of our society.

Recently, the House of Representative’s Committee on Homeland Security announced that it will conduct hearings on the radicalization of Muslims in the United States. Secure America Now is working with this committee to help educate the American people and to assist in supporting efforts to combat this growing internal threat.

Our projects include:• Continued opposition to the Ground Zero mosque.• Defense of journalists and media projects who are

threatened when they deal with Islamism-related issues (such as the threats against South Park).

• Support for a credible military option against Iran attaining nuclear weapons.

• Opposition against movements in schools and on campuses that glorify opponents of the United States of America.

Secure America Now is a grassroots, multi-media organization that gives Americans the information to understand and confront all who endanger our First Amendment rights, physically threaten innocent Americans and appease our sworn enemies.

If Americans do not start speaking up on security issues then our elected officials will continue to enact policies that will embolden our enemies. The reaction to the Ground Zero mosque showed the great divide between President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg, and the vast majority of the American people.

The organizers of Secure America Now provided research and organization against the Ground Zero mosque and we will do the same on related issues, such as opposition to trying terrorists in civilian courts. Join us today!Allen Roth is the founder of www.SecureAmericaNow.org.

Secure America Now: Determined to defend the United States


and the culture of

// by Ramon Lopez

On January 5, 2011, the newly elected Congress opened the legislative session by reading the Constitution aloud—a historic

first. The 112th had been elected in the Tea Party wave of 2010. In deference to the strong convictions of those who had swept them into power, this new Congress hoped to send a powerful message: We, unlike far too many previous congresses, will govern within the parameters of the Constitution. Immediately, the mainstream media and liberals in Congress dismissed the symbolic act, declaring it to be nothing more than political showmanship. And, to an extent, part of it was political theater. But what the left has failed to grasp is that it also represents a shift in the American political character. We are now experiencing a return to constitutionalism.

The 2008 election was meant to herald a new age of progressivism. Just as 1980 saw the election of Ronald Reagan and a shift by the electorate to the right, Barack Obama’s victory was lauded as a paradigm shift in American politics. But in 2009 and 2010, the Democrats in Congress and the White House continually misread the American public. From the stimulus, to cap and trade, to financial reform and a healthcare overhaul—the left overreached. The Tea Parties were a reaction to this overreach, and the broader public became increasingly concerned with the amount of government spending and control.

Americans are now engaged in a great public debate concerning the role of government. What sorts of services and entitlements ought the government to provide? Can unelected government bureaucrats—such as those in the EPA—create new taxes and regulations on individuals and businesses in order to coerce them to act in a way the government approves of? And, perhaps most importantly, is the government justified in telling its citizens what kinds of products they must buy in the private arena? In search of answers to these questions, Americans have returned to our founding document—the Constitution.

The Constitution is the social contract upon which this country is built. No law that violates this contract can be justified, for it would violate the collective historical agreement We The People have instituted. This, however, is problematic for the left, as the Constitution is a biased document. As I wrote in the The New Guard, volume 35, No. 1, the United States was founded on Lockean and conservative principles, and so the Constitution is a naturally conservative-libertarian document. The Bill of Rights explicitly spells out what the government cannot do, and the Constitution sets very limited guidelines as to what its role ought to be. Because this conflicts with the progressive ideal of a social democracy, the progressive movement has held disdain toward the Constitution since its inception in the late 19th century.

Recently, there have been a slew of articles and comments by the left deriding the value of the Constitution. An article in Time magazine lambastes the new constitutionalism as a “cult,” while another in Salon asks why conservatives seem to have a “fetish” for the Constitution. One article in Salon claims that a belief in small government is rooted in a “neo-Confederate ideology,” and is titled “Let’s stop pretending the Constitution is sacred.”

Even more troubling is that this mentality seems to be shared by the Democratic political establishment. When asked where in the Constitution Congress derives the power to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance, then Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) scoffed, asking “Are you serious…are you serious?” And in an 2001 interview, President Obama discussed the “tragedy” that “major redistributive change” can’t be easily accomplished through the courts because “the institution just isn’t structured that way.” He also lamented the fact that the Warren Court failed to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.

As an historicist ideology, progressivism denies that there are eternal truths, thus rejecting the

Constitutionalism

Entitlement


c u lt u r e & P h i l o S o P h y

conservative belief that the Constitution is valuable precisely because it exemplifies those truths. John Dewey, the great progressive philosopher, once said that “natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythological social zoology,” and that freedom is not “something that individuals have as a ready-made possession,” instead being “something to be achieved.” The Constitution is a document written to limit the government’s ability to infringe upon those natural rights and natural liberties, but for the progressive movement, rights and liberties can only come through the state. It becomes government’s job to liberate us, to free us, by guiding us on our way to achieving our potentials through social programs. Thus, the Constitution becomes just another tradition that stands in the way of the indomitable march of history.

The encroaching power of government’s most dangerous characteristic is the debilitating effect it has on the American character. New social programs are rarely repealed because of the culture of entitlement they engender. In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville predicts this effect, writing about “an immense protective power” that would keep its citizens “in perpetual childhood” by caring for their potential wants and needs. This power then “covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd.”

For decades, welfare had this effect on the least fortunate in American society, infantilizing them and causing them to become wholly reliant on the government. In one of the rare instances in which an entitlement program was reformed, when Welfare-to-Work was passed in 1996, we witnessed millions who had previously

been caught in that culture of entitlement escape it.

Too often, though, the left is able to expand upon the role of government. The strong push to pass healthcare reform, and the assumption that Americans will like the new programs once they’ve been implemented, reflect the fact that entitlements breed a culture that becomes dependent on them. As long as the left is able to push closer to a social democracy, even if it causes short-term losses, the American culture will be slowly changed and reformed. This year, we will see the Democrats calling for a more “democratic process,” in which institutions that limit radical change, such as the filibuster, will be attacked. Without the procedures and rules our Founding Fathers built to limit Congress’s ability to radically alter America’s political culture, the left will be able to fulfill their century-long dream of

an American social democracy.We can see our prospective future by

looking to Europe. On March 5, 2010, riots erupted throughout Greece. For decades, the government spent beyond its means, providing extensive social entitlement programs to a population whose economic foundations could not afford such government largess. The state had systematically conned investors and foreign governments by cooking its books and now the people were paying the price. Greece was bankrupt, forcing Germany and other European Union states to step in and bailout an entire country.

And so protesters marched in the streets, burned cars, and fought with police officers. Not because their government had wrecked the economy. Not because their elected officials had engaged in widespread fraud. And even though young people made up a disproportionate number of the protesters, it wasn’t even because the Greek government had gambled away their futures. Greeks were protesting the austerity measures the

government had been forced to adopt, and the cuts in entitlement spending that went with them.

In France, students rioted as the retirement age was raised from 60 to 62. Spending cuts in Spain lead to its first general strike in eight years, with an estimated 100,000 Spaniards marching in the streets. All across Europe, “austerity protests” have begun to emerge as European governments are forced to retreat from their expansive social democratic programs due to ballooning budget deficits. These widespread protests can be seen in stark contrast to the Tea Party protests experienced in the United States over the past two years, with American demonstrations calling for cuts in government spending and entitlement programs. The difference between the two main pillars of Western Civilization is that one has raised an entire generation within

an entitlement culture, while the other still maintains its individualistic nature.

For 223 years, the Constitution has served as a bulwark against the encroaching culture of entitlement. Today, this last line of defense must be strengthened and revitalized, and the rise of constitutionalism will aid in that endeavor. Our Constitution has created a framework in which a culture of individualism can flourish, and it is one of the reasons why we have been able to maintain such an exceptional nature. The American ethos will be lost if we become, as de Tocquville warns, “nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” We are now faced with a choice between the social democracy of Europe or the constitutional republic left to us by our forefathers. Let us hope that we choose wisely.

Ramon Lopez is a senior at University of Central Florida, where he is majoring in International Relations and Philosophy.

We are now faced with a choice between the social democracy of Europe or the constitutional republic left to us by our forefathers. Let us hope that we choose wisely.

“


For tech enthusiasts and online activists, 2010 will most likely be remembered as the year Facebook

surpassed Google as the most visited website in the United States. But it should also be remembered as the year the Internet became the main news source for Americans between the ages of 18 and 29. In 2010, 65 percent of young people cited the Internet as their preferred news source over television and newspapers. Even television viewership has shifted to include aspects of the web, as seen in devices such

as Roku and Boxee. People now have more ability to personalize their news sources than ever before.

So what does this mean for online activists? A lot. It is vitally important that activists understand the changing trends in media consumption and capitalize on them. It is no longer acceptable to simply have a website—you must engage people where they are. To help activists move forward, here is a list of eleven free or inexpensive services, products and websites that should help make a real difference in 2011.

1. FACEbook - With over 500 million users worldwide (and 41 percent of Americans), it is clear that you must have a presence on Facebook. What’s not clear is how you actively engage that audience. Creating a Facebook Fan page is a good start, but don’t forget about Facebook’s advertising service. The social network knows a lot about its users. Therefore, your advertising can be highly targeted and done relatively cheap, thus helping to expand

your presence.2. TwITTEr - At roughly 20

million active U.S. users, Twitter isn’t nearly as large as Facebook. However, users continually invent new ways to use the service. From live-tweeting actual events such as plane crashes to promoting interesting and important information, Twitter has become a vital tool for the online activist.

3. SMArT PhoNES - Whether it’s an iPhone or a Droid, smart phones are perhaps the most valuable tool available to an activist. From tweeting events as they happen to capturing the next Bob Etheridge on video, the diversity of these phones prevents you from being caught off guard. In addition, the vast quantities of mobile applications available almost guarantee you’ll never be without the ability to do something you need while traveling.

4. EvErNoTE - Consider it your personal filing cabinet with all the information you’ll be gathering from Twitter and Facebook. It’s one of the most robust note-taking and archiving services around. Available on the web, for mobile phones and desktops, it is the perfect way to capture, store and organize your notes, pictures and audio files.

5. FourSquArE - Geo-location services like Foursquare, Gowalla and Facebook Places are currently in their infancy, but it doesn’t mean they cannot be effectively utilized to motivate real world

Eleven essential tools for fighting for freedom in 2011// by Adam Radman

Activist 2.0


EASY rEADING: I was on a flight to awful DC from lovely Boston, when God decided I was done with that Ayn Rand character and had me leave We the Living on the plane. I was faced with the choice to crack Thomas Aquinas or take a break. I took a break, and I can comfortably say that Decision Points is the best break I’ve taken yet. From the inside scoop on Katrina, to our former president’s experience on September 11th, from the childhood of a young Texan to the war council at Camp David, Decision Points is an incredible look at the personal thoughts and recollections of the decade’s most influential man. Love him or hate him, George W. Bush’s memoirs deserve your time. That, combined with its breezy style and pace, leave you little excuse for not picking this one up.

hEADY STuFF: When he spoke of the birth of the modern conservative movement, Bill Buckley never left out mention of the man who defined the cause. In his definitive masterpiece, The Conservative Mind, Russell Kirk traces the philosophy from Edmund Burke to John Adams to T.S. Eliot. In its pages, he strings together, for the first time, the comprehensive world view that is conservatism. What had previously been seen as a series of reactionaries and traditionalists, he frames as the routed defenders of God’s plan for men on Earth. The Conservative Mind is a must-read for any serious thinker.

For ThE PorCh: For a book both immensely entertaining and eye-opening, pick up Water for Elephants. Based on the recollections of an old man who escapes from his nursing home, Sarah Gruen tells the tale of a veterinary student who flees Cornell University and joins a circus in the midst of the Great Depression. The book provides a beautiful and heart-wrenching look at the daily lives of unseen men and women trying to survive behind the scenes of one of our nation’s most trying eras. In this illuminating work, Gruen walks the line between comedy, history and tragedy with the precision of a tight rope walker. Enjoy this modern classic with this month’s Prohibition-era New Guard cocktail!

Bedford’s springtime reading

Activist 2.0

c u lt u r e & P h i l o S o P h y

activism. By encouraging people to “check-in” at events, rallies or protests, you’re enabling your membership to take an ownership role in your cause while providing you with tangible evidence of their activity. As these services continue to mature, additional uses will become evident.

6. FlIP CAMErAS - These cheaply-priced digital video cameras (around $200 for an HD version) are simple and easy to use. Activists can use these cameras to perform opposition research—such as taping candidates on the stump to recording an impromptu press conference—without having to carry around any additional equipment. There is also value in the quick upload speed of videos. The flip-out USB connector allows your footage to upload to sites like YouTube in minutes with minimal editing options. While the speed and ease is nice, don’t expect anything fancy from it. These cameras don’t possess many advanced features like zoom.

7. wIkIPEDIA - One of the most influential and authoritative sites on the Internet, Wikipedia has become one of the first websites that people turn to for answers. It’s rated between the 6th and 8th most visited site in the U.S. Additionally, search engines place Wikipedia in high regard. If a topic has a Wikipedia entry, it’s usually within the first ten search results. It’s necessary for every activist to understand the rules of Wikipedia and engage in promoting accurate information on the site.

8. kICkSTArTEr - Looking for funding for a particular project? Try Kickstarter. While mainly for creative projects, it may have application in the political realm in the future. It’s a novel idea because of its all-or-nothing fundraising approach. A project must meet its fundraising goal before money ever exchanges hands. If the project fails to raise the necessary money, no money is exchanged. If the project succeeds, the owner keeps total control of the project.

9. worDPrESS.orG - For the activist looking to create both a free and aesthetically pleasing site, WordPress is definitely the way to go. It’s also probably the most popular blogging platform with a wide variety of plug-ins to customize your site.

10. rEDDIT/STuMblEuPoN - Once you have a website and a presence on Facebook and Twitter, you’ll need to be able to drive traffic to your website. That’s where social sharing services like Reddit, Digg, and StumbleUpon come in. StumbleUpon is currently responsible for 43 percent of all major social media site traffic, while Reddit has seen a 232 percent growth in traffic since the decline of Digg. However, don’t count Digg out entirely. It still possesses a larger user base. If activists are looking to promote their sites, they’d be wise to use these services.

11. E-MAIl SErvICE - As much as everyone talks about social media, e-mail is still king for the foreseeable future. Trends towards Facebook and text messaging may change that eventually, but e-mail is still the most reliable way to fundraise online and get your message out. Services like MailChimp (for the more tech savvy) and Constant Contact (for the layman) offer a range of plans that should adequately meet any activist’s needs.

Adam Radman is grassroots campaigns manager at Americans for Tax Reform where he handles online communications and conservative outreach. Adam also co-hosts the New Media Exchange—a meeting that provides an opportunity for center-right new media professionals in Washington, DC to network, collaborate and share best practices. You can follow him on Twitter: @adamradman.

Discover God in DC

www.G O D I N T H E T EM P L E S O FG OV E R NM EN T. c o m

A project of

Carrie DevorahAs featured in Newt Gingrich’s“Rediscovering God in America”*

*Carrie Devorah is the Author of the Copyrighted Photographs that appeared in the English version and Spanish version of “Rediscovering God in America” authored by Newt Gingrich.


To write an article on a cocktail for such a legendary man as President Ronald Reagan, on his 100th birthday, seems like a futile project. He was a man who was known as a light drinker, but whose occasional drink of choice would be a

very weak Orange Blossom. To honor this American icon, I have decided to step back and just become a bartender who was willing to make a cocktail for someone who didn’t necessarily enjoy drinking. I wanted to carry the banner of the service industry and do my job to make a customer so happy that even Ronald Reagan might order another one. For this great American president, I have recreated his Prohibition-era cocktail of choice- the Orange Blossom.

Aviation Gin is an amazing gin from a fantastic American distiller. Its light juniper and pine flavors pair perfectly with the bitter but floral tartness of the Myer lemon juice. The fresh Valencia orange juice elevates the gin’s citrus notes while the orange blossom water adds an extra floral dimension to the gin’s nose. The result is sweet, tart and complex. Maybe the president only ordered one each sitting because the drink was actually missing something: Aviation Gin has a very light back note of licorice and cardamom. To bring out these flavors, I borrowed

one of Reagan’s favorite jelly bean flavors and decided some savory saltiness would elevate the drink while the sweet bitterness of licorice brought balance to it. The Myer lemon skin, with its complex, flowery, bitter nose, adds the perfect amount of balance- much like cracked pepper lends the same value to a complex dish. If I had the great honor of being President Reagan’s bartender, the only higher achievement would be to make him a second. Enjoy!

The New Guard CocktailThe Orange Gipper / / by Dane Nakamura

Ingredients: 2 oz Aviation Gin1.5 oz. Fresh squeezed Valencia orange juice1/2 oz. Fresh squeezed Myer lemon juice1 oz. Orange blossom water1/2 tsp. Powdered sugarSalted licorice candySilver dollar-sized skin of Myer lemon

To start, place the salted licorice candy into a food processor and process until it reaches the consistency of fine sugar. Pour the processed salted licorice onto a plate and set aside.

Fill a martini glass with cracked ice and pour the orange blossom water into it, allowing the glass to chill. Combine the Aviation Gin, Valencia orange juice, Myer lemon juice and powdered sugar in a shaker full of cracked ice. Shake hard for 15-20 seconds.

Empty your cocktail glass, making sure it is nicely coated with orange blossom water. Lightly rim the glass with the salted licorice candy and double strain the cocktail into the glass. Garnish with a twisted skin of Myer lemon.

The

Orange Gipper

Dane Nakamura is a professional bartender in Washington, DC.

APPLICATION FOR YAF MEMBERSHIP - REPLY FORM FOR SUPPORTERSYoung Americans for Freedom, 2300 M Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20037I am in agreement with the Sharon Statement and wish to apply for membership.NAME____________________________________________________________ADDRESS__________________________________________________________CITY___________________________ STATE _______ZIP__________________PHONE_____________________ EMAIL_________________________________PERMANENT ADDRESS_____________________________________________CITY___________________________ STATE _______ZIP__________________AGE_________ OCCUPATION OR SCHOOL____________________________YAF is a non-profit organization and depends entirely on your generosity to operate. Please donate now to help spread freedom to another generation. Thank you!

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

For more information, visit

www.YAF.com

THIS MAGAZINE OPERATES SOLELY ON YOUR GENEROSITY PLEASE MAKE YOUR TAX-DEDUCTIBLE CONTRIBUTION AT:

www.YAFFOUNDATION.com

YAF's New Guard Magazine Spring 2011

Documents

Transcript of YAF's New Guard Magazine Spring 2011