The Mount Vernon Statement

[Jolie Rouge]

The Mount Vernon Statement
Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century

We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding.
Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.

These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people.
They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.

Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.

Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?

The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.

The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.

A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.

A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.

It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.

It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.

It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.

It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world
and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.

It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.

If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.

We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.

February 17, 2010



Edwin Meese, former U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America

Edwin Feulner, Jr., president of the Heritage Foundation

Lee Edwards, Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought at the Heritage Foundation, was present at the Sharon Statement signing.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council

Becky Norton Dunlop, president of the Council for National Policy

Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center

Alfred Regnery, publisher of the American Spectator

David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union

David McIntosh, co-founder of the Federalist Society

T. Kenneth Cribb, former domestic policy adviser to President Reagan

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform

William Wilson, President, Americans for Limited Government

Elaine Donnelly, Center for Military Readiness

Richard Viguerie, Chairman, ConservativeHQ.com

Kenneth Blackwell, Coalition for a Conservative Majority

Colin Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring

Kathryn J. Lopez, National Review



We the undersigned join in our support of the guiding principles
of The Mount Vernon Statement.

Current count: more than 18,500 signers.

http://www.themountvernonstatement.com/

[Jolie Rouge]

An inconvenient question about the Mount Vernon Statement
By Michelle Malkin • February 18, 2010 09:14 AM
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/02/18/an-inconvenient-question-about-the-mount-vernon-statement/

Scroll for updates…GOP Senate candidate Marco Rubio of Florida condemns civilian trials for terrorists…

Today is the opening of the Conservative Political Action conference (CPAC) — the storied annual gathering of the Right. As I noted the other day, it’s also the season for a bumper crop of conservative manifestos, action plans, and ideological contracts. http://michellemalkin.com/2010/02/16/the-only-statement-of-conservative-principles-we-need/

The Mount Vernon Statement, which lays out broad principles for “constitutional conservatism,” has garnered the most buzz. An elegant tribute to limited government and the Founding Fathers, the document carries the signatures of movement leaders, Beltway heavyweights, and veteran activists. Two of the most prominent backers: the American Conservative Union’s David Keene and Americans for Tax Reform’s Grover Norquist. Keene and Norquist are also CPAC chairman and CPAC board member, respectively, and partners in the Constitution Project. http://www.constitutionproject.org/

I have an inconvenient, but necessary, question for those who sign their names:

Do you agree with Keene and Norquist’s views on national security and immigration enforcement?

Because in the name of “constitutional conservatism,” Keene and Norquist support the Obama/Democrat majority approach of civilian trials for terrorists. And in the name of “constitutional conservatism,” Norquist supports de facto open borders and dangerous pandering to Muslim grievance-mongers.

Here’s a bracing reminder of Keene and Norquist’s statement chastising Republicans for opposing the KSM/Gitmo civilian trials in NYC, Illinois, and elsewhere on American soil:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/16/conservative-trio-support_n_358928.html


The scaremongering about these issues should stop.

Using a state of the art but little used prison facility like the one at Thomson, Illinois – with any appropriate security upgrades our law enforcement professionals deem necessary – makes good sense for the tax payers who invested $145 million in the facility and who are seeing millions wasted every month at the costly, inefficient Guantanamo facility. It makes sense for the community which will benefit from the related employment and has absolutely no reason to fear that prisoners will escape or be released into their communities.

But most of all it makes sense for America because it is a critical link in the process of closing Guantanamo and getting this country back to using its tried and true, constitutionally sound institutions. (emphasis added)

GOP MA Sen. Scott Brown opposes civilian trials for jihadists and made it a key campaign item. http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2010/01/scott-brown-what-does-scott-browns-senate-election-mean-is-it-a-miraculous-sign-or-just-more-politics.html The Republican leadership on Capitol Hill opposes civilian trials for jihadists. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703762504575037550051072986.html A majority of Americans oppose civilian trials for jihadists. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/80565-poll-most-favor-military-trials-for-terror-suspects And it’s a sure bet that the vast majority of grass-roots activists at CPAC oppose civilian trials for jihadists.

Which makes them all “scaremongers” who oppose “constitutional conservatism,” I guess.

It’s no surprise that Norquist remains obstinately and radically out of touch with the movement conservatives he purports to represent. I outlined the GOP’s Grover Norquist problem last January when he moderated a debate among RNC chairmanship candidates and it bears repeating at length since so many activists are still unaware of the record: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/05/the-gops-grover-norquist-problem/


Party power player Norquist and the ATR propose to help fix the GOP’s problems.

Norquist is part of the problem.

Some of us have not forgotten how Norquist made common cause with the left-wing zealots at People for the American Way in a forum bashing the Patriot Act — and how he forged even more dangerous alliances in the name of Muslim GOP outreach. Flashback from my column in October 2003: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin102203.asp


Alec “the Bloviator” Baldwin has a new bosom buddy: Beltway Republican strategist Grover Norquist.

The Bush-bashing actor-turned-activist and the Muslim vote-courting political organizer joined together at a Washington, D.C.-area conference last weekend to perpetuate bald lies about the Patriot Act and to oppose the “repressive” War on Terror (repressing terrorist suspects apparently being a bad thing).

Baldwin and Norquist’s panel, titled “Strange Bedfellows,” was sponsored by the ultraliberal group, People for the American Way (PFAW). When PFAW head and panel participant Ralph Neas ranted about the lack of judicial and Congressional oversight of the Justice Department’s terror investigations, the audience applauded passionately. According to National Review Online reporter Byron York, Baldwin (the “moderator”) then turned to Norquist for comment.

“Ditto,” Norquist replied. Never mind the flat-out falsity of Neas’ claim. The smarmy Baldwin looked at his panelists and proudly remarked: “Can’t you feel the love?”

…Norquist’s kissy-kissy partnership with a washed-up Hollywood Clintonite is the least of his unseemly alliances.

Consider: The conference they attended last weekend was hosted by the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom (NCPPF), which was co-founded in 1997 by Sami Al-Arian — the former University of South Florida professor charged earlier this year as a fund raiser and organizer for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist group. The money Al-Arian allegedly raised went to terrorist operations overseas that killed at least two Americans. In 2001, Al-Arian’s NCPPF gave Norquist an award for his work to abolish the use of secret intelligence evidence in terrorism cases. Al-Arian was the keynote speaker. Insight investigative reporter Ken Timmerman says Norquist told the magazine he remains “proud” of the award.

Among other major participants and sponsors of the NCPPF conference was the American Muslim Council (AMC). In January, the group accused President Bush of “calling on God to kill innocent Iraqi children.” The next day, the group instructed mosque directors to block FBI counterterrorism efforts. Late last month, AMC founder Abdurahman Alamoudi was charged with illegally accepting money from Libya for his efforts to persuade the United States to lift sanctions against that nation. He also allegedly attempted to smuggle hundreds of thousands of dollars to Syria, which federal officials say was intended for delivery to Damascus-based terrorist groups.

Alamoudi’s arrest is part of a larger Justice Department investigation of terrorism funding focused on Saudi-backed Islamic foundations and businesses based in Herndon, Va. (Alamoudi is also responsible for founding the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council to “certify Muslim chaplains hired by the military,” including Capt. James “Youssef” Yee — charged last week with taking classified information home from Guantanamo Bay.) A so-called “moderate,” Alamoudi is on record praising the terrorist group Hezbollah and proclaiming: “We are all followers of Hamas.”

Norquist’s lobbying firm is registered as a lobbyist for Alamoudi. Alamoudi provided seed money for Norquist’s Islamic Institute, which shares space with Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform group. The institute is run by Alamoudi deputy and former AMC government relations director Khaled Saffuri. Saffuri and Norquist have worked closely with Bush senior adviser Karl Rove to give radical Muslim activists access to the White House. No doubt because of their efforts, Alamoudi was invited to a White House prayer service after the Sept. 11 attacks.

If any Democrat activist had such shady connections, conservatives would be on him like white on rice. Instead, Norquist has gotten away with smearing his critics — most notably, former Reagan official Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, one of the most decent and patriotic Republicans I’ve had the honor of meeting — as hatemongers.

Alamoudi pleaded guilty in 2004 to accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars from Libya in violation of U.S. law and attempting to hide it from the government. http://michellemalkin.com/2004/07/30/what-say-you-now-grover-norquist/

[Jolie Rouge]

Another reminder from Insight magazine of how Norquist tried to silence those who questioned his reckless strategic decisions by branding them as racists and bigots:
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=525860


Norquist was Alamoudi’s most influential Washington facilitator, authorities believe, noting that Norquist reminds friend and foe alike that he is close to the president’s powerful political strategist, Karl Rove.

Norquist, who previously has denied any suggestion that his work facilitated any wrongdoing, not only introduced Alamoudi to Washington GOP power circles but also Sammy Al Arian, whom prosecutors arrested earlier this year for alleged terrorist activities. Federal law-enforcement sources say they are focusing on some of Norquist’s associates and financial ties to terrorist groups.

Alamoudi ran, directed, founded or funded at least 15 Muslim political-action and charitable groups that have taken over the public voice of Islamic Americans. Through a mix of civil-rights complaints, Old Left-style political coalitions and sheer persistence, Alamoudi helped inch the image of U.S.-based Islamists toward the political mainstream and induced politicians to embrace his organizations. He sought to secure the support first of the Clinton administration in seeking to repeal certain antiterrorist laws, but when Bill Clinton failed to deliver, Alamoudi defected to Bush, then governor of Texas. Alamoudi and other Muslim leaders met with Bush in Austin in July [2000], offering to support his bid for the White House in exchange for Bush’s commitment to repeal certain antiterrorist laws.

That meeting, sources say, began a somewhat strained relationship between the self-appointed Muslim leaders and the Bush team. Some senior Bush advisers voiced caution to Rove, who is said to have disregarded such concerns, seeing instead an opportunity to bring another ethnic and religious group into the GOP big tent. A photo of the Austin event shows Bush with Alamoudi standing over his left shoulder, flanked by the former head of the Pakistani Communist Party, several open supporters of the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist groups and other individuals Insight is trying to identify.

Canceled checks obtained by Insight show Alamoudi provided seed money to start a GOP-oriented Muslim group called the Islamic Institute, which Norquist originally chaired and now is led by former Alamoudi aide and former AMC staffer Khaled Saffuri. A White House memo obtained by Insight prepared for coordinating Muslim and Arab-American “public-liaison” events with the White House shows that the Islamic Institute was instrumental in establishing the connection. The memo, from early 2001, provides lists of invitees and the name, date of birth and Social Security number of each. Norquist, as the first chairman of the Islamic Institute, tops the list.

Alamoudi and others, including Norquist, tried to keep critics at bay by branding them as “racists” and “bigots.”

Refresher from Frank Gaffney: “A Troubling Influence.” See also Mona Charen, Kenneth Timmerman, Insight, The American Spectator, and Cal Thomas.

Will the next RNC chairman remain silent about Norquist’s security-undermining strategic alliances? Will the next RNC chairman openly reject the same race-card-playing strategies that have corrupted a money-grubbing party establishment? Or will the field of candidates kiss the ring and hold their tongues?

The guaranteed silence on these issues today will speak volumes.[/quote]


To borrow a signature phrase of the Tea Party movement, it’s time to be silent no more. Open-borders Norquist is backing shamnesty ringleader John McCain in Arizona and pushing a new “comprehensive immigration reform”/illegal alien amnesty II initiative.

We need real alternatives to Obama politics and policy, not echoes wrapped in constitutional packaging. Which is why, as much as I respect GOP Sen. Jim Demint, I disagree with his call to vote out any politician who refuses to sign the Mount Vernon Statement.

Caveat emptor.

Update: Marco Rubio’s opening statement included a line condemning civilian trials for terrorists. He received a standing ovation from the audience.

We know who wasn’t standing.


Refresher from Frank Gaffney: “A Troubling Influence.” http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=11209&p=1

See also Mona Charen, http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/mc20030218.shtml

Kenneth Timmerman, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12309

Insight, http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:wJAWTrJeap4J:www.insightmag.com/news/2003/04/01/Politics/Conservative.Leaders.Rebuke.Norquist-395263.shtml+norquist+timmerman&hl=en

The American Spectator, http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=5916

and Cal Thomas http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20030225.shtml

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/02/18/an-inconvenient-question-about-the-mount-vernon-statement/







Can we please stop pretending that what separates true conservatives from RINO’s and liberals is their respect for the Constitution? … it just happens that liberals have a different interpretation of what those words mean.

Correct. We have a different interpretation of what those words mean.

Obama doesn’t like our Constitution because it is, in his words, “A charter of negative liberties. Says what the government can’t do… not what the government must do on your behalf.”

Liberals/”progressives”/socialists have a vastly different interpretation of our Bill of Rights.

For example, conservatives look at the first amendment and see a limitation on Congress. Liberals look at the first amendment and see words that are not there (”separation”, “church”, “state”) and see limitations on individuals and churches.

Conservatives look at the second amendment and see a limitation on Congress. Liberals look at the second amendment and see a limitation on individuals.

Etc.

Speaking of “respect for the Constitution”, how do you explain this:


CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Amended July 8, 2001 at the 27th National Convention, Milwaukee, WI

…

With Marxism-Leninism guiding our actions, the Communist Party strives to build the broadest unity against global capitalist imperialism now headed by U.S. imperialism, for immediate gains and reforms that benefit working people, and for a progressive democratization of the government, the economy, and society of our country on the road to and after winning socialism.

With pride in our past and confidence in our future, we hereby establish this Constitution of the Communist Party of the United States America.

[Jolie Rouge]

Analysis: Untruths have consequences in politics
Ron Fournier, Associated Press Writer – Sat Feb 20, 7:41 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Conservatives leapt to their feet when Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney declared Democrats the party of "No!" — no to balanced budgets, limits on lawsuits, tax cuts and tough interrogations of terror suspects.

But their applause this week at the Conservative Political Action Conference was for an illusion. Romney's assertions lacked context at best and at worst were flat-out wrong.

While Romney and fellow Republicans were filling the air with red-meat distortions, liberal Democratic activists were torturing facts online as they wrote commentary about the conservative gathering.

Americans are almost numb to it by now, expecting politicians and their allies to fudge facts. President Barack Obama embellishes the number of jobs created by last year's stimulus bill while Republicans claim, incorrectly, that not a single job resulted from the measure.

So what? All politicians play fast and loose with the truth, right?

Such distortion and dishonesty cause Americans to be increasingly skeptical of — even cynical about — their political institutions and leaders. Once people lose faith in the political system, they're less likely to vote, less willing to pay taxes to support government-run programs, less motivated to run for office themselves and — sociologists say — they're even less likely to get involved in their own communities.

These are consequences of cutting corners in the public square.

And so it's worth noting when Romney, the former Massachusetts governor positioning himself for the 2012 presidential race, tells the CPAC crowd that Democrats are opposed to tax cuts.

He conveniently left out the fact that the stimulus bill backed by President Barack Obama and approved by the Democratic-led Congress included $288 billion in tax benefits, including refundable credits of $400 for individuals and $800 for families in 2009 and 2010 covering about 95 percent of taxpayers.

Democrats are against balanced budgets? You might chalk that up to harmless hyperbole except for important facts that Romney overlooked: A Democratic president, Bill Clinton, oversaw surpluses and the nation's debt skyrocketed under President Bush, a conservative Republican.

Romney could have pointed to projections of deepening deficits on Obama's watch — more than $9 trillion from 2010 through 2019. But it's easier to say Democrats are against balanced budgets, even if that's bogus.

Romney said Democrats are against "tort reform," or the limiting of lawsuits. Actually, Obama has put this idea on the table in an effort to get Republicans to address the troubled health care system.

Finally, Romney followed GOP talking points by suggesting that the Obama administration went easy on the 23-year-old Nigerian accused of trying to blow up a plane over Detroit in December. If a Republican were president, Romney said, "a conversation with a would-be suicide bomber would not begin with 'You have a right to remain silent.'"

The fact is the conversation with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab did not begin with a Miranda warning, and he cooperated with FBI agents to the point of turning against the cleric who claims to be his teacher. Abdulmutallab also has helped the U.S. hunt for the radical preacher.

Several Republicans at CPAC denounced Obama for putting suspected terrorists in the criminal system rather than trying them in war tribunals. While that's a legitimate point of debate in this era of terrorism, Obama's critics seem to have forgotten — or they chose to ignore — simple facts: The Bush administration sent many terrorists to prison, including a 9/11 co-conspirator and a man who tried to bring down an airplane with a bomb in his shoe.

All were read their rights. All got lawyers. All appeared in court.

In these hyper-partisan times, it's rarely good enough to respond to an unfair attack with a factual argument. Fire is fought with more high heat. And so it was this week, when liberal bloggers reacted to the CPAC distortions with false attacks of their own. On the Daily Kos Web site, one blogger noted the standing ovation given to "the self-confessed war criminal Dick Cheney."

Whatever one might think of Cheney's interrogation policies, the former vice president has never been charged with a war crime, much less confessed to one.

No matter. The same blogger criticized anti-liberal protests at CPAC, adding with a rare burst of evenhandedness: "Some of what went on was the same kind of silliness partisans of all stripes engage in."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100221/ap_on_an/us_consequences_of_untruths_analysis;_ylt=AofuWHpq Ac5_BmxG6B_FQmas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFpNG5mdjhjBHBvcwMz OQRzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX21vc3RfcG9wdWxhcgRzbGsDYW5hbH lzaXN1bnRy