Armed rebellion is not a conservative idea

With the recent revelations that some members of the militia defending Cliven Bundy’s Nevada ranch may have plotted to raid a U.S. Air Force installation, it seems necessary to hold a logical discussion of the risks of armed revolt against the federal government. An astonishing number of Americans are coming to believe that armed conflict between Americans and their government may be likely or even inevitable. Last year, a Fairleigh Dickinson poll found that 29 percent of Americans believed that armed revolution might be necessary within a few years to protect civil liberties. Almost half of Republicans held this view.

The fact that this option is even being considered by otherwise rational people is an indictment of the state of the country and the ongoing degradation of the rule of law under Barack Obama and the Democrats. The push to implement Obamacare against the opposition of the majority of Americans is only the tip of the iceberg of grievances against the present administration. On many occasions, the Obama Administration has chosen to ignore written law or implemented its own will over that of Congress by executive fiat. The revelations of domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency have convinced Americans that they are monitored constantly by the federal intelligence apparatus. The harassment of ordinary Americans by the Internal Revenue Service acts to intimidate citizens who care enough to get involved in the political process in opposition to the president. The trickle of information about the Benghazi killings argues that the Obama Administration would let Americans die and cover up the cause for political gain.

Into this mix of ever more intrusive government power and well-earned mistrust of those in charge comes those who, fueled by conspiracy theories of federal gun grabs, UN troops on American soil, “false flag” terror attacks, and FEMA concentration camps, feel that the only way to preserve American freedom is to violently rise up and destroy the current federal government which has expanded far beyond it limited constitutional role.

The potent mix of paranoia, misguided patriotism, and paramilitary training has produced a number of domestic terror plots in the past. Although Timothy McVeigh’s bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City is the best known militia-based terror plot, McVeigh was far from being the only such plotter. One of the most recent plots to be broken was the Hutaree group in Michigan, which planned to murder local police officers. A lesser known case was the Tyler, Texas cyanide bomb plot from 2003 in which several people were arrested with a cyanide gas bomb that could have killed thousands.

Those who argue for an armed rebellion to preserve the Constitution miss the obvious fact that armed rebellion is itself unconstitutional. The Second Amendment preserves the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but there is no right to take up those arms against the constitutionally established and democratically elected government of the United States.

The First Amendment protects the “right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.” There is no mention of a right to violently fight to overthrow the government.

In contrast, the Constitution makes clear that an armed rebellion would be a justification for an even greater abridgment of rights. Article I Section 9 provides that the “writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it[emphasis mine].”

The fledgling United States of America suffered its first rebellion long before the Civil War. In 1791, during the presidency of George Washington, a group of Pennsylvania farmers, angered by a federal tax on whiskey rebelled against the federal government. President Washington and founding father Alexander Hamilton, at the time Secretary of the Treasury, did not celebrate the Whiskey Rebellion as citizens exercising their constitutionally protected right to revolt against a law that they disagreed with. Rather, they sent a force of 13,000 militia troops, led by Hamilton himself and Virginia governor Henry “Light-Horse Harry” Lee (the father of Robert E. Lee) to crush the rebellion. Most of the rebels fled, but two of the leaders were captured and convicted of treason.

That is essentially what armed rebellion is. Treason.

Article III Section 3 of the Constitution eliminates any doubt that armed revolt is treason. The Framers wrote, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort” [emphasis mine].

If the prospect of committing treason is not enough to discourage would-be rebels from taking up arms against the federal government, there are many other practical reasons as well. The most obvious is that such a rebellion would be doomed to failure from the outset.

In both the American Revolution and the Civil War, rebels had popular support for their positions. Prior to the Revolution, patriot activists had gained control of colonial legislatures and militias. Modern militia activists are fond of claiming that only three percent of the colonial population took up arms against the British government, but the percentage of the colonists supported the struggle for independence was much higher, approximately 40 percent by the end of the war according to some recent estimates. In the Civil War, secession had overwhelming support in both the Confederate state governments and among the white Southern population.

Today, opinion polls may point to unhappiness with the current federal government, but it is beyond debate that the current government was elected by a majority of American voters. Rebels would be fighting against the democratic will of the American people. If mainstream conservatives, to say nothing of advocates of revolution, cannot win at the ballot box, it is extremely unlikely that they would be able to win a war of rebellion. Even among the people who voted against President Obama, roughly half the country, many would not support an armed revolt.

Historically speaking, insurgencies almost never defeat conventional armies. The only real hopes for most insurgencies are to outlast their foe or hope for aid from outside. In the American Revolution, the Minutemen did not defeat the Redcoats on their own. The war did not end until after the French entered the war on the American side with a massive contribution of regulars and naval ships. In Vietnam, the South did not fall to the Viet Cong as commonly believed, but to a conventional North Vietnamese invasion. In Iraq and Afghanistan, insurgents, after being defeated on the battlefield, have merely waited for American troops to withdraw.

If there is little hope of a militia insurgency defeating the federal government on its own or benefitting from a foreign intervention, the big question is how the U.S. military would react. Members of the armed forces take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. In a situation with rebels illegally taking up arms against the constitutionally established and democratically elected government of the United States, the course of action that America’s soldiers would take should be clear.

The irony of an armed revolt by militia members is two-fold. On one hand, recent polling in the run-up to this year’s elections indicates that voters will hand the Democrats a historic defeat. Such a rejection of progressive policies after six years of Barack Obama and eight years of Harry Reid could indicate the electoral course correction back to constitutional principles that many militia members claim to desire. Violence against federal law enforcement or military personnel could endanger that correction by pushing moderate voters away from conservative candidates and back toward the Democratic liberals.

On the second hand, an armed revolt would give the current administration even more of an excuse to crack down on political opponents. The Obama Administration has shown the willingness to use any excuse available as a pretext for advancing anti-gun legislation and subverting individual freedoms of speech, religion and press. With a violent rebellion or insurgent campaign underway, President Obama would have the constitutional power to arrest and detain American citizens without presenting evidence against them (habeas corpus), ushering the indefinite detention of American citizens that many fear.

Conservative candidates who were perceived to agree with the insurgents who prey on their fellow Americans would likely face defeat at the polls. This would mean an increase in the liberal voting bloc that is only too willing to vote away constitutional freedoms and to confirm judges with an activist interpretation of the Constitution.

Thus, the erosion of rights feared by the militia could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Read the full article on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Bundy militia may have planned to attack military base

When the standoff between federal agents and militia groups supporting rancher Cliven Bundy ended peacefully a few weeks ago, much of the nation breathed a sigh of relief. It had seemed to many that the situation was likely to end in a modern version of an Old West shootout or worse, a battle on par with the 1993 botched ATF raid on David Koresh’s Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. Now Examiner has learned just how close violence came to erupting in Nevada as an exclusive new report indicates that some of Bundy’s defenders may have planned to raid a U.S. Air Force base to resupply their ammunition.

The information, which comes from a person with contacts inside the militia movement, states that a small number of militia members who refer to themselves as “Three (III) Percenters” had plotted via Facebook chats to raid what one of the militia members identifies as an “ammo dump” on the grounds of the Nellis Air Force Range northwest of Las Vegas. The location that was pinpointed by the plotters has been confirmed by Examiner to be on the outskirts of the Nellis range.

The information provided indicates that the plot was allegedly spearheaded by Richard X. Nelson III, who is connected to several militia groups. The “III” does not signify that Nelson is the third man in his family with the same name, but rather is an appellation to identify him as a Three Percenter. On his Facebook page, Nelson claims to be the “Nevada administrator for the Three Percent Club.”

According to several militia related websites and blogs, “Three Percent” (III%) refers to the percentage of the American colonists who actually fought against the British in the American Revolution. The connotation is that Three Percenters are ready, willing, and in some cases eager to take up arms to fight “for the freedoms the nation we love and honor was founded on.” Many view the federal government as the enemy threatening those freedoms.

A similar group in which Nelson also claims membership is the Oath Keepers (OK), a group for military and police founded by Stewart Rhodes, a former Ron Paul aide. The Oath Keepers, according to its website, is a “nonpartisan association of current and formerly serving military, police and first responders who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to ‘defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.’” The group’s website lists ten orders that members will refuse to obey. Several of these orders relate to conspiracy theories such as imposing martial law, blockading cities to “turn them into giant concentration camps,” forcing Americans into detention camps, and aiding the use of “foreign troops on US soil against the American people.” More realistic scenarios include detaining US citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” and conducting warrantless searches. The Oath Keeper website further notes that while the OK and the III% are each “unique” and “autonomous,” due to common interests and values “it follows naturally that some Oath Keepers are also III%ers, and vice versa.”

In online conversations that occurred more than a week after the standoff ended on April 12, Nelson can allegedly be seen attempting to convince other members to join in an attack on what he believes is “a secret base that I discovered being built out there in the middle of nowhere that contains a hardened dirt landing strip, 2 [sic] f-117 stealthy [sic] bombers parked in the dirt (really bad for the engines by the way) as well as thre [sic] facilities of very odd design... one of which is a personnel training facility that is clearly shown as such by the track and shooting ranges located near it.”

In one conversation on April 22, a week after the federal retreat from the Bundy ranch, Nelson calls the federal actions equivalent to the first shot of a war being fired and asks, “Since government is firing upon us why is it so [expletive deleted] HARD for me to get a strike force together to go raid ammo dumps?”

Frustrated that other Three Percenters and Oath Keepers are not responding to his calls for action, Nelson threatens to get help from a different militia group, the OMA, in order to carry out the attack. The source identified the OMA as “Operation Mutual Aid” and referred to them as “radicals.” The OMA has been confirmed to be the “support operation” for the Cliven Bundy defense effort.

Another of the militia members in the conversation notes, “OMA is the enemy of all who stand for patriot[ism] and truth. They are the ones wanting a revolution to get bloody and were willing to [t]rick the Bundy's [sic] to get it. They do not care who is sacrificed in order to start a bloody revolution.”

Nelson later responds, “I don’t wish for blood but its [sic] evident[ly] inevitable.”

This exchange was preceded by a discussion that included theorizing about several conspiracy theories including the possibility that solar flares would trigger earthquakes, that foreign troops from the United Nations were supplementing the federal agents around the Bundy ranch, and that the government was about to detonate nuclear bombs in an electromagnetic pulse “false flag” attack that would be used to implement martial law and keep President Obama in power.

The group was concerned about infiltration by federal agents and monitoring by federal law enforcement and intelligence services. One says, “My phone turned on last summer and took my picture while setting [sic] on a dresser. Not cool. I had just spoke [sic] a couple days earlier with people of their [federal authorities] interest.” Another says, “I have come in the house and found my computer on and someone trying to type in passwords remotely. And I know I had turned it off before I left.”

According to Examiner’s source, the member’s concerns were valid. One or more members of the circle publicized Nelson’s alleged intentions among the other, more mainstream, militia members. When the plot was exposed, Nelson lost his command status with the Nevada III% and the other members of the circle, in the words of the source, “had their moral compass corrected to true North. By true North, I mean constitutionally correct in defense rather than rules of engagement for offensive posture (domestic terrorism….”

Because the source believes that the other members of the circle were duped and caught up in the group think of the moment, he asked that plotters other than Nelson not be identified. The others “were and are only guilty of being stupid and talking stupid stuff,” he says. “The person planning, however, needs to be made an example of what not to do.”

Dawn Appelberg, a self-described intelligence analyst with the Glass Antler Facebook page who was also involved in the Bundy protection effort, denied that there ever was a plot to raid a military installation. “We were in a conversation about finding out who is coming in and where to send them when someone posted a picture of what he considered to be a secret military installation,” she told Examiner. “No one responded to the picture.” Appelberg and other members of the circle also said that Richard Nelson has been excluded from the Facebook group where the discussion took place.

Attempts were also made to contact Richard Nelson. Mr. Nelson was not reachable by phone and did not return emails.

The conversations do indicate that many of the people involved with the Bundy effort were not eager to respond to Nelson’s calls for a raid. His comments indicate that it was difficult to find volunteers to take part. Conversely, it also seems that few were willing to take a principled stand against an attack on a military base. There is no evidence that anyone took Nelson to task for suggesting a first strike against the federal government or that he has been separated from the Bundy defense effort.

There is also no evidence at all that any member of the Bundy family was aware of the plot. Several comments were made by members of the circle that some of the Bundys were uncomfortable with having large numbers of armed men surrounding their home.

Neither the OMA, the Three Percenters nor the Oath Keepers are listed as a hate or terrorist group by the FBI or the Southern Poverty Law Center although a 2009 report by the SPLC, “The Second Wave: Return of the Militias,” does call the Oath Keepers “particularly worrisome” due to the involvement of many active duty law enforcement and military personnel. In contrast to the opinions in the SPLC report, there was no evidence of racism among the circle of plotters. Majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was criticized just as sharply as America’s first black president, if not more so.

The existence of individuals within the militia movement who are willing to foment a revolution that they see as inevitable may not surprise many in law enforcement. According to a Fairleigh Dickinson poll from May 2013 nearly a third of Americans believed that armed revolution to protect civil liberties would be necessary within the next few years. Since that time, the revelations of IRS targeting of conservative groups and NSA surveillance programs have made the situation seem all the more dire and urgent for many. As one law enforcement officer told the SPLC, “All it’s lacking is a spark. I think it’s only a matter of time before you see threats and violence.”

Read the full article on
http://www.examiner.com/article/bundy-ranch-militia-may-have-considered-attack-on-air-force-base

A third of Americans believe armed revolution may be necessary

A new poll released May 1 shows that nearly one third of Americans (29 percent) believe that armed revolution to protect civil liberties might be necessary within the next few years. The poll, by Fairleigh Dickinson University, found that almost half of Republicans (44 percent) believe that armed revolution may be necessary, only marginally higher than independents (27 percent). Only 18 percent of Democrats believe that armed revolution may be necessary.

The poll contrasts views on armed revolution with views on gun control. Fifty percent of the 863 registered voters polled believe that new gun control laws are needed while 39 percent disagree. Democrats favor new gun controls by 73 percent while 65 percent of Republicans are opposed.

Dan Cassino, a political science professor at Fairleigh Dickinson said, “The differences in views of gun legislation are really a function of differences in what people believe guns are for. If you truly believe an armed revolution is possible in the near future, you need weapons and you’re going to be wary about government efforts to take them away.”

An alternate explanation is that Americans view the right to keep and bear arms as an important civil liberty that is being threatened and that assaults on civil liberties make revolution more likely. The possibility of armed revolution may be a reaction to perceived attempts by the government to take away the guns owned by Americans. There are perceived threats to other rights as well. These include religious freedom , freedom of speech and government control of health care. The dramatic growth of government and increase in the federal debt have also led many to fear another financial crisis or the collapse of the federal government. President Obama’s disregard for the Constitution and rule of law in many instances from flouting bankruptcy law in the auto bailout to making unconstitutional recess appointments while Congress was not recessed have not eased conservative fears.

The results of the poll are even more surprising because of the lack of violence from conservative activists. In spite of fears from the administration and media, Tea Party meetings have produced few, if any, violent confrontations. Fears that prominent shootings, such as the one in which Gabrielle Giffords was wounded, were committed by right-wing extremists have proven unfounded.

It may be the first time that a poll has addressed the question of whether another armed American Revolution is likely, but with the surprising results in the Fairleigh Dickinson poll, the question will likely be revisited. It cannot be said with certainty, but it is extremely likely that the poll results would have been far different just a few short years ago.

Originally published on Examiner.com
http://www.examiner.com/article/twenty-nine-percent-believe-armed-revolution-likely-america

Is the Egyptian revolution good or bad?

http://www.flickr.com/people/81043308@N00

As the people of Georgia watched the Egyptian crowds rallying in opposition to Hosni Mubarak, many probably wondered what will come next and what it means for the rest of the world.  While Georgians from Egypt Community in Effingham County to Cairo in Grady County likely are happy for the newfound freedom of the Egyptians, it is equally likely that they profoundly hope that it does not lead to further violence that will require American involvement.

As the protests in Egypt turned increasingly violent today, many in this country and around the world are asking what comes next.  The answer to that question largely depends on who comes next.  At this point there is no credible leader to replace current Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.  Mubarak recently bowed to public pressure and announced that he will not seek re-election in national elections this September.

Elbaradei (iaea.org)

The most visible candidate for the job is Mohamed Elbaradei.  Elbaradei, who recently announced his openness to running, is the most visible opposition leader.  Elbaradei served three terms as Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  During his tenure at the UN, Elbaradei faced US opposition because of his belief that Iran was not working to build a nuclear weapon.  The big question today is whether Elbaradei backs the democracy movement or the Muslim Brotherhood.  Many observers, including Middle East expert Joel Rosenberg, believe that Elbaradei is sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran. 

The Muslim Brotherhood is a radical Islamic organization founded in 1928.  The group was founded by Hassan al-Banna, an admirer of Adolf Hitler.  The Brotherhood espoused Wahabism, the same form of Islam touted by Saudi financier and terrorist Osama bin Laden.  Wahabbi Muslims believe that jihad should be used to spread Islam throughout the world.  The Muslim Brotherhood has long been banned in Egypt because of its insistence on enacting sharia law (although some Brotherhood members were elected to Egypt’s parliament as independents).  Members of the Brotherhood assassinated Hosni Mubarak’s predecessor, Anwar Sadat, in 1981 in retaliation for Sadat’s decision to sign a peace treaty with Israel.  It was also a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who helped form Egyptian Islamic Jihad and became a leading al-Qaeda cleric. 

Emblem of the Muslim Brotherhood

If the Muslim Brotherhood were to take over Egypt, the country might well become another Islamic theocracy like Iran or a terrorist state like Gaza, where terrorist group Hamas won democratic elections.  On the other hand, some in the West believe that the Muslim Brotherhood is capable of becoming a peaceful political organization.  Disturbingly, the Obama Administration has hinted that there might be a place for groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in the new Egyptian government.  Today there is no charismatic leader of the Brotherhood akin to Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini which might help to prevent the group from seizing control of the country.  Likewise, the Egyptian uprisings seem to be spontaneous, secular, and democratic rather than inspired by religious fundamentalism.  The Brotherhood has admitted that they are not responsible for the uprising, although they are a dominant part of the opposition to Mubarak’s regime.

But if the Muslim Brotherhood lacks a national leader, so does the democracy movement.  Like the American Tea Party, the Egyptian protests seem to be a grass roots movement made possible by the internet and modern telecommunications.  It can be a drawback, as well as a strength, of such movements that they have no national leader.  The Tea Party had an established national opposition party to work with, but Egypt’s democracy movement will be starting from scratch.  A popular uprising can throw a dictator from power, but a country cannot be run by a mob.

The final major player in the coming Egyptian history is the army.  The army could have cracked down on protesters as the Chinese did at Tiananmen Square in 1989 when the People’s Liberation Army killed thousands of protesters.  The Egyptian army has been involved in politics for decades since overthrowing the monarchy in 1952.  After being involved in several disastrous wars against Israel, it is likely that the army would want to preserve Egypt’s secular government and act to prevent the country from becoming a radical Islamist state.  The army might also eventually move to restore order if the violence between opposition and pro-Mubarak protesters becomes too prevalent.

At this point, no one knows where the future of Egypt will lead.  What is indisputable is that the country is at a crossroads.  In one direction lies the prosperity and freedom of a democracy.  In the other lies the possibility that an Egyptian equivalent of the Taliban or another strongman will spin the country into more auth

Freedom or stability in the Middle East?

Kormin

In the past few weeks, Georgians have watched as two Arab nations were rocked by spontaneous uprisings.  First, the Tunisian people rose up against Ben Ali and threw the dictator out of the country.  The spontaneous revolution occurred without the support or aid of Western democracies.  In contrast, US presidents have long been friendly with the Tunisian regime.

The Tunisian revolution started after a street peddler set himself on fire to protest unemployment.  The protests spread throughout the country and four weeks later Ben Ali, who had ruled the country for twenty-three years, fled.

Now, the people of Egypt are taking to the streets against the one-party rule of President Hosni Mubarak.  Three protesters have already given their lives to push for an end to the regime as police and security forces crack down.  The ultimate outcome of the Egyptian protests is still in doubt.

What has fueled these unprecedented revolts?  For years, most of the Arab (and Muslim) world has lived under authoritarian regimes.  For the past half century, these leaders have marshaled their people against Israel.  The Arab people were convinced that they had to sacrifice in order to throw the Zionists out of the Middle East.  Every problem of the Arab nations, including shark attacks, was and is blamed on Israel.  Fifty years later, all the Arabs have to show for it are thousands of dead and impoverished economies. 

The first two true Arab democracies are less than ten years old.  Afghanistan had its first free election in 2004.  Iraq followed in 2005.  These elections are the result of the heroic efforts of American soldiers and the tenacity of President Bush.  Although many Muslim leaders condemned the United States and other countries participating in the War on Terror as waging war on Islam, it was American soldiers and other members of the Coalition who sacrificed their lives to free Muslims from the despotic rule of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. 

Perhaps, the people of Egypt and Tunisia were tired of listening to the empty promises of their leaders.  Perhaps they were inspired by the images of Afghan and Iraqi voters standing in opposition to the terrorists as they chose their own leaders.  Perhaps they grew to believe that the central control of a nation and its economy was not a viable path to prosperity.

The Middle East is at a crossroads.  For decades, American policy has been one of pursuing stability.  Stability means that the present authoritarian governments will stay in power.  Stability means no change.  Tunisia was unstable, but it is now free. 

Do we want to promote stability or freedom in the Middle East?  Freedom is messy.  Freedom is not stable.  Nevertheless, free Middle Eastern nations may be the best road to peace in the Middle East.  If the people of the Middle East throw off the shackles of their tyrants, it is more likely that their nations will grow into vibrant economies.  With strong economies and lower unemployment, governments will have fewer reasons to use propaganda to demonize Israel.  Peace might actually be possible.

The absence of stability means the possibility of short term violence and war, but there are worse things than war.  Freedom is never given freely by tyrants.  It is won with the blood of patriots who are willing to give of themselves so that their children can be free.  Our own country would not exist without our war of independence and the willingness of our forefathers to fight to be free.  As we Georgians celebrate the birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, let us applaud and support the people of the Arab world who are fighting for their freedom.

Che’ Guevara: Hero or Mass Murderer?

In recent years, Che’ Guevara has regained popularity. His image adorns t-shirts and posters on college campuses. Barack Obama was even embarrassed by a Che’ flag that a supporter had placed in one of his campaign offices. Who is Che’ Guevara? Is he really someone that people in a modern, progressive and free society should place on a pedestal?

Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara Lynch de la Serna was born in Rosario, Argentina on June 14, 1928. He was the eldest child in a liberal, middle class family. His nickname, ‘Che,’ translates as “buddy,” “pal,” or “the kid.”

Che’ studied medicine at the University of Buenos Aires. While in school there, he spent breaks traveling around South America on a motorcycle with a friend. On such trips in 1951 and 1952, Che’ spends time at a leper colony in Peru. His experiences there convince him that equality can only be realized through socialism. He later writes about his travels in his book, the Motorcycle Diaries. In 2004, the Motorcycle Diaries was made into a movie produced by Robert Redford.

After participating in riots against Argentine President Juan Peron in 1952, Che’ travels to Bolivia and then Guatemala. In Guatemala, he aids in resistance against a coup backed by the CIA (and authorized by Presidents Truman and Eisenhower). After the coup, Che’ flees to Mexico.

While in Mexico, Che’ meets Fidel Castro. Castro is in exile after a failed coup attempt against Cuban dictator, Fulgencio Batista. Che’ quickly joins Castro’s band of revolutionaries as a medic and trains in guerilla warfare. In December 1956, Castro launches an attack on the Batista regime, which fails dramatically. Only twelve guerillas, including Che,’ Fidel, and Raul Castro, survive and escape.

The defeat is a defining moment for Che.’ He later writes, “I was confronted with the dilemma of dedicating myself to medicine or my duty as a revolutionary soldier. I had in front of me a rucksack full of medicine and an ammunition case, the two weighed too much to carry together. I took the ammunition and left the rucksack behind." The healer had become the killer.

Che’ becomes Castro’s chief lieutenant and then the comandante of one of the largest guerilla bands. He is ruthless, frequently executing suspected traitors quickly and dispassionately. In a 1957 letter to his first wife (he remarried to a fellow guerilla in 1959), Che’ writes, “I'm here in Cuba's hills, alive and thirsting for blood." In a letter to his father, he writes, “I really like killing.” Che’s instructions to a subordinate are simple: “If in doubt, kill him.”

By 1959, with US aid cut off, the Batista regime is finished. Batista flees the country on New Years Day and the US recognizes the interim government six days later. After a vacation through Africa, Asia, and Yugoslavia, Che’ returns to Cuba where he is placed in charge of Comision Depuradora, which includes the military courts and killing squads for former Batista supporters and government officials. All defendants are considered murderers and the appellate court automatically confirms all sentences. Habeas corpus rights are abolished. Che’ says that rules of evidence are an “archaic bourgeois detail.”

He is placed in charge of La Cabana prison, where the majority of the executions take place. According to the Black Book of Communism, by the mid-1960s, 14,000 Cubans have been executed without fair trials. 500,000 Cubans were incarcerated in labor camps. At one point, in 1961, one of every 19 Cubans was a political prisoner. Che’ plays a major role in developing Castro’s penal system and defends the executions publicly in 1964 after he had ceased to command the prison. He even dismisses his victims as “all CIA agents” before his death in 1967.

During the 1960s, Che’ is instrumental in aligning Cuba with the Soviet Union. Che’ begins meeting with GRU (Soviet military intelligence) operatives, mostly Spanish communists who had fled to the Soviet Union after the Spanish Civil War, soon after the fall of Havana. Soviet agents help to establish Cuba’s G-2 secret police force. As Cuba draws closer to the Soviet Union, the US imposes trade restrictions and, finally, an embargo and travel ban.

Che’ holds several posts in the new Cuban government. He begins as head of the National Bank of Cuba and of the Department of Industry of the National Institute of Agrarian Reform in 1959. In 1961, he becomes Cuba’s Minister of Industry. His economic policies include price controls, heavy taxes on the wealthy, and restrictions on private capital. Land is seized from the rich and given to the government. Virtually everything is nationalized in a war on capitalism and personal property.

Che’s authoritarian economic policies, together with the US trade embargo, cause the once powerful Cuban economy to decline. Che’s plans at industrialization fail, sugar production collapses, and rationing is introduced. Che’s economic deputy, Ernesto Betancourt, later says that Che was “was ignorant of the most elementary economic principles.” Eventually, Cuba relies on sugar exports and Soviet subsidies (the equivalent of eight Marshall Plans, $72 billion) to survive. As the Cuban economy falters, Che’s popularity begans to wane.

Che’ also writes Guerra de Guerilla (Guerilla War). This book serves as a guide for revolutionaries throughout Latin America and the Third World. In Latin America, only one of these movements, in Nicaragua, is ultimately successful. Che’s goal is to spread his brand of Marxism to other countries. After touring the world, he resigns from his duties in Cuba in 1965.

Che’s next move is to lead a group of Cuban fighters to aid in a communist revolt in the Congo. One of his rebel allies there, Pierre Mulele, occupied Stanleyville and was known for murdering everyone who could read or who wore a tie. The people of the Congo do not support the rebellion and Che’ eventually leaves.

Che’ briefly returned to Cuba, but quickly left for Bolivia where he joins another guerilla movement against the government. His goal is to create another Vietnam in South America. In Bolivia, Che’ found virtually no support from the peasants. The Bolivian army, with US support, was soon on his trail.

A series of tactical, strategic, and logistical errors by Che’ and his forces cause problems for the revolt. Even the Bolivian members of his guerilla band do not speak the dialect of the peasants, making recruiting difficult. Che’ wrote that “The ... masses don't help us in anything and instead they betray us." An English journalist and a French writer, Regis Debray, leave the group and are soon captured by army troops. Che’ divides his tiny army and one group is destroyed by the Bolivian army. Che’s health deteriorates in the jungle and he loses his asthma medicine to the pursuers. He is reduced to riding on a pack mule as the remainder of his army tries to escape.

Bolivian Rangers are deployed to the area and, on October 8, 1967, Capt. Gary Prado and his men surround the remainder of Che’s force in the Quebrada de Yuro, a steep ravine near La Higuera. The guerillas try to escape. In the ensuing firefight six guerillas and two soldiers are killed. Three guerillas, including Che,’ are captured. Three guerillas eventually escape to Chile and three elude capture and hide out in Bolivia.

The prisoners are held in a nearby school, and Che,’ wounded in the leg, receives medical treatment. At the time, Bolivia has no secure prison facilities and it is thought that a trial would be media circus and attract other leftists to Bolivia. Bolivian President Rene Barrientos orders the execution of the prisoners in hopes of avoiding further problems.

Che’ and the other two prisoners are executed on October 9, 1967 and buried at an airfield in Vallegrande. His remains were exhumed by the Cubans in 1997 and reburied in Santa Clara, Cuba, the site of one of his most famous battles against the forces of Batista. His summary execution is a fitting end, given his role in Cuba’s executions.

A footnote to Che’s story is that he planned terrorist attacks against New York City long before 9/11 or the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. In 1962, while Che’ headed Cuba’s Foreign Liberation Department, the FBI stopped a plot Cuban UN officials and members of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (made famous by Lee Harvey Oswald) to detonate 500 kilos of TNT (five times the amount used in the Madrid bombings) and incendiary devices in Macy’s, Gimble’s, Bloomingdale’s, and Grand Central Station. These bombings, set for the week after Thanksgiving, would have killed thousands of New Yorkers, mainly women and children.

Che’ and Castro’s goal in the New York bombing plot was probably to start a war between the US and the Soviet Union. If Cuba were implicated in the attacks, the US would retaliate. In a war, the USSR would probably intervene to protect its ally. If the conflict had gone nuclear, a distinct possibility, deaths would have numbered in the millions.

The Cuban leaders had tried to start a war the year before during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Che’ and Castro had argued for a first-strike against the US before Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, agreed to withdraw the Soviet missiles from Cuba. They dreamed of telling the Americans, “Say hello to my little friends!” as missiles rained down. In 1962, Che’ told the London Daily Worker, “If the missiles had remained, we would have used them against the very heart of the U.S., including New York City."

Che’ Guevara was a sadistic killer. He enjoyed killing and torturing. His writings preach hatred against capitalism in general and the United States in particular. He was also incompetent. He almost single-handedly destroyed the Cuban economy and his only military successes came against the Batista regime, whose army was weak and ineffective, only after the US withdrew support in 1958. According to some reports, Che’ was betrayed in Bolivia by Castro, who instructed the Bolivian Communist Party to pass information on his movements to the army.

Che’s latter day disciples fall into two categories. The first are committed socialists and anti-Americans who eagerly consumed Castro’s propaganda after Che’s death. Many of these people are Lenin’s “useful idiots,” who live in free and prosperous societies, but dream of socialist utopias and look the other way at communist atrocities. This is the same “Blame America First” crowd who cry for appeasement to dictators and Islamic radicals.

The second group is the people who don’t really know or understand who Che’ was. They see the long haired, “Guerilla Hero” image as a symbol of youthful rebellion and social change. Few, if any, fathom Che’s depravity or have any clue as to the number of lives that he destroyed.

On a per capita basis, the number of people killed and imprisoned by Che’ and Castro rivals that of Hitler and Stalin. Che’s legacy is one of mass murder, assaults on human rights, and the enslavement of entire nations. The world is a better place without Che’ Guevara in it.

Sources:
http://www.moreorless.au.com/heroes/guevara.html
http://www.time.com/time/time100/heroes/profile/guevara01.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2107100
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/index.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200707/NAT20070730a.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200707/NAT20070731b.html
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1535
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1985/SDR.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/09/MNVASLK4R.DTL&feed=rss.news
http://www.autentico.org/oa09924.php