The American Spectator

Deborah D| 2.18.10 @ 6:32AM

We do have a country to save, and it truly is good that those in conservative circles have finally seen what really is at stake here. We are at war -- right now it's a political war. This is the war we must win if we want to avoid the other kind. Americans can see what's at stake, and we will not roll over for a radical leftist/statist in the White House or for his Congressional lackeys.

Gerald Stephens| 2.18.10 @ 3:22PM

CONSTITUTIONALIST GOOD…BIRTHER BAD

Conservatism does have crosses to bear in the persona and terminology of Thomas Sowell, the anointed ones. Inexplicitly several who swear fidelity to the constitution have commenced a verbal assault on the first of its amendments. Birthers are bad, so say some conservative elite. Their right to speak in search of answers to an elementary inquiry into the secreted records of one claiming to be in compliance with another constitutional dictate, is ridiculed and portrayed as being an embarrassment to real conservative before imagined sources of embarrassment.

Logic, if not pragmatism, demands the exercise inherent in the First Amendment, Mr. Obama, your records, please.

SHAME on you who practice selective constitutionality!

Gerald Stephens
Hartford, CT

Bud Parker| 2.18.10 @ 5:16PM

Gerald,

You, sir, are correct. Much of Mr. Obama's past life seems to be a closely guarded "State Secret." The only way to justify this action is to denigrate anyone with the unmitigated gall to ask simple, direct questions. Of course, there is the mandatory name-calling by branding us, "Birthers!" So be it. My question is simple: Why can the American public not see the original document?

Why can we not see the college transcripts of OUR President of the United States? Why all the Smoke & Mirrors? These tactics employed by those in power make it obvious that there is much to hide.

James A. "Bud" Parker
Bentonia, MS

Gerald Stephens| 2.21.10 @ 8:05AM

Bud,

We the People have never failed our nation. History, contemporary or future, will reveal the truth. As repugnant and incredulous the veil of secrecy, our nation’s existence is maintained by providence. Providence has again placed it’s hand on our shoulder in providing an issue summoning We the People to the ramparts.

Alan Brooks| 2.18.10 @ 5:20PM

I will NOT sign it unless a clause is included:

"the social contract must be adhered to by not only the letter but also the spirit; to this end the upper classes must no longer 'trickle-down' corruption to the lower classes."

Alan Brooks| 2.18.10 @ 6:04PM

... if you insert the clause, I will sign the document immediately.
And tell Newt to LAY OFF THE TOFFLER CRAP...

No one will fall for that.. stuff.. anymore.

JR| 2.18.10 @ 9:41PM

I think before anyone signs this somewhat nebulous document, perhaps a perusal of Michelle Makin's comments regarding a couple of the more prominent supporters be reviewed first. Take a peek over on her website and her comments about the Mount Vernon statement.

Alan Brooks| 2.18.10 @ 10:16PM

"the social contract must be adhered to by not only the letter but also the spirit; to this end the upper classes must no longer 'trickle-down' corruption to the lower classes."

I hasten to add: do not infer optimism from the above; a man only pursues virtue, he does not attain it for very long.

Dana Pflaum| 3.4.10 @ 3:11PM

You socialist, hypocrite - upper classes don't 'trickle-down' corruption to the lower classes, the lower classes are too STUPID to realize that BIG GOVERNMENT CORRUPTS ITSELF. If it weren't for the UPPER CLASSES in this country, there wouldn't be a workforce. Who is going to create that workforce - certainly not the LOWER CLASSES! How can you be so stupid?

Brian Mc| 2.18.10 @ 6:58AM

It is already too late for the "Political War". The populace has what it wants and it will NOT give it back. Personally, I will not rest until every Federal cabinet and so-called 'department' not mentioned in the founding documents is moth balled...then, bull-dozed.

Tom| 2.18.10 @ 7:45AM

And exactly which departments would you keep? I am curious since the Constitution does not mention any specifically.

Copyleft| 2.18.10 @ 8:45AM

Also, how do you hope to achieve this by voting Republican?

You know you're going to vote for whoever has an R after their name, just like always. And you know the GOP leaders are all talk when it comes to "fiscal restraint" and "small government" and all that jazz... they've proven it time and again.

So what do you hope to achieve? And how will you achieve it, if the GOP knows they own you and your vote, no matter what they do?

cl| 2.18.10 @ 11:14AM

with an R we have a chance, with a D there is no chance.

Erich Riesenberg| 2.18.10 @ 12:31PM

Profound. I never thought of this! I weep with joy.

Alan Brooks| 2.18.10 @ 10:12PM

Erich Riesenberg"
"Profound. I never thought of this! I weep with joy.

Erich is a good German-- he has a sense of humor.

Franklin| 2.18.10 @ 12:43PM

We start with Republicans, then if nothing changes, we get our own conservative candidates for the next election and take down any polititian that does not live by the conservative values.

One step at a time, people.

JR| 2.18.10 @ 9:48PM

Your on the right track. The Tea Party group has determined that the only real way to get our country back is to start at the bottom (city govt) and organize upwards rather than taking any bimbo either party puts up through the "dues-paying" process. They also are focusing on increasing their participation in local and county precincts where real impacts can be effected.

NeilBJ| 2.18.10 @ 1:10PM

I have come to learn that our government has grown in spite of who is in power, not because of who is in power.

I have yet to find an answer to this conundrum that makes sense to me.

If I vote for the minor party candidate who is the best hope for our returning to a constitutional government, am I thereby increasing the chance that the candidate who will continue the status quo will win.

If I vote for the Rebpublican candidate, if he indeed is the "more constitutional" candidate, will I, in the final analysis, see the results I am hoping for?

Yet, I feel that we will not see the change we desire until the message of a return to constitutional government starts coming through louldy and clearly.

I am getting tired of "holding my nose" and voting for the lesser of two evils.

Beaglescout| 2.18.10 @ 4:21PM

The Republican Party is people. Conservatives are people. They can join the grassroots positions in the Republican Party in great numbers and take it over, just like progressives and socialists joined the grassroots positions in the Democrat Party and took it over in time for McGovern's run in 1972. The Democrat Party has never recovered its brain since those days, but it has taken nearly 40 years for Americans to realize how corrupt the Dems now are. It will not take nearly as long for the progressives and opportunistic thieves in the Republican Party to be rooted out as it took the progressives to seize the reins of the Dems and start driving.

Alan Brooks| 2.18.10 @ 6:11PM

"Also, how do you hope to achieve this by voting Republican?"

You are right, we need a 3rd, a CONSERVATIVE, party, one that isn't ultra ego-oriented, as, oh, say, like, Elton John, Ellen Degeneres-- and all your gay celebrity friends-- are.
Now that celebrity culture and politics have merged it is a one-stop shopping deal. Buy a celebrity, get a politician free. What more could you ask for?

Alan Brooks| 2.18.10 @ 10:09PM

oh no, here we go again;
but Copyleft is even more pollyannish than Liberal Reader.

Alan Brooks| 2.18.10 @ 10:09PM

oh no, here we go again;
but Copyleft is even more pollyannish than Liberal Reader.

Copyleft| 2.19.10 @ 8:12AM

Pointing out that this MV statement is meaningless, and your goals are unachievable in the current situation, is remniscent of "Pollyanna"?

That's a fun dictionary you're using!

Dana| 3.4.10 @ 3:20PM

Spoken like a true DEM (synamous with 'dem bulb"). Why can't you people get over Republican & Democratic & understand that BOTH Parties are inept - but @ least conservatives still believe in FREEDOM for the American people & adherence to the Constitution, unlike the Liberal left that only want to TAKE those freedoms because the believe you & I aren't intelligent enough to govern ourselves. Wake up.

Franklin| 2.18.10 @ 12:49PM

Start with the EPA, Board of Education, and the FED.

We can add more as needed.

Oh, and defund any program, like ACORN and Planned Parenthood, that lives off of the Government. That also includes any program; left or right - if it's worthy, the participants will fund it now that they have more of their own money instead of it going to the government.

Jordan| 2.18.10 @ 4:12PM

It's OK to just admit you have no idea how Acorn and Planned Parenthood operate. There's no shame in admitting ignorance.

Beaglescout| 2.18.10 @ 4:24PM

Nobody knows how ACORN and PP operate. They deliberately obscure their operations to hide how much money they get from uncle Sugar. This doesn't void the argument. The US taxpayer should not have to pay a dime for these destructive organizations. They can survive on donations and fees or they can fail. They do not offer a public good large enough to justify stealing money out of your pocket and mine to fund them.

Russ| 2.18.10 @ 9:02PM

Exactly!

Gene| 2.18.10 @ 10:27PM

Acorn=aid and abetting houses of ill repute,,, planned parenthood = dead babies, would you like me to go on..

TroybleFL| 2.18.10 @ 11:50PM

Actually, implicit in the document: Defense (War), State, Treasury.

Tom| 2.19.10 @ 8:01AM

The problem with going that argument is reasonable people can disagree on which departments are implicitly referenced. A better and more sound approach is to determine which departments actually serve a valid federal function. I would agree with War, State, and the Treasury. I would also see a reasonable argument for, a much shrunken, Commerce Department and a Department of Justice. I would very happily through out the rest.

Alan Brooks| 2.18.10 @ 10:06PM

"The populace has what it wants and it will NOT give it back."

If the social contract (I don't put it caps) were complied to, then the populace would give 'it' back, because a truly virtuous state would have so much more to offer than a welfare state. But that is hypothetical; certain Asian states have a high work ethic-- but they are authoritarian states with little freedom as we know it in the West.

Dana Pflaum| 3.4.10 @ 3:15PM

BRAVO, Brian Mc - keep fighting for our fundamental, democratic, constitutional rights. Congress (both Parties) has so grossly mispresented the American people, we need to vote EVERYONE out & start with a NEW Congress, but a considerably SMALLER one.

Tenn Slim| 2.18.10 @ 7:32AM

I will not rest until every Federal cabinet and so-called 'department' not mentioned in the founding documents is moth balled.
AGREE 100 %
Therein lies the MEANS to implement the Mount Vernon document.
The Entrenched Guvmnt agencies across this land, hold the real power. Budgets come and go, Admins come and go, Laws come and go, but the eternal 4 th arm of Guvmnt lingers on, contaminating the USA internals. Until, and unless, these Civil Servants are deposed, nothing will ever really change. We are enduring the explosion of agencies, czars and outright domination by these folks. The 787 Billion dollar stimulus bill had some 60% allocated for thier labor budgets.
We will prevail
Semper Fi
end

R Givens| 2.18.10 @ 8:03AM

"I will not rest until every Federal cabinet and so-called 'department' not mentioned in the founding documents is moth balled...then, bull-dozed."

Then you must be in favor of ending drug prohibition. The DEA et al wastes hundreds of billions every year on a policy that has demolished the Constitutional protections of the Bill of Rights. Show me where the Constitution allows a drug crusade.

The drug warriors have made the United States the world leader in incarceration. We have 213% as many prisoners as Russia and and 137% as many as China.

We have a national incarceration rate of 686 per 100,000 (the highest in the world), but blacks are incarcerated nationally at a rate of 1,547 per 100,000 black residents. In some states, the black rate of incarceration reaches extraordinary levels (Table 3). In Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia, blacks are incarcerated at rates that exceed 2,000 per 100,000. The lowest incarceration rate for blacks, 570 in North Dakota, exceeds the highest rate for whites, 440 in Arizona.

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/repo.....g00-01.htm

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/repo.....igure2.pdf

S.L. Toddard| 2.18.10 @ 8:19AM

I agree with R. Givens that the tendency toward criminality in the black community is most distressing.

R Givens| 2.18.10 @ 8:32AM

I suppose that you believe that the Jews in Nazi Germany had a distressing tendency toward criminality. Your hypocritically smug approval of tyranny is typical of conservatives— until they get caught in a bind themselves.

Instead of going to prison whites often have property forfeited because of a "drug crime" where no arrest is ever made and no trial ever held. Eighty percent of forfeitures are never connected to a criminal offense.

Is this the kind of justice you approve of?

chuck| 2.18.10 @ 8:58AM

Typical liberal -- avoid the facts and then confuse the issue by spouting off with some other tangential injustice.

No, the Jews did not have a tendency toward criminality -- and if they did it would have no bearing on whether blacks do. Nor does property forfeiture have anything to do with it. Oh, well, at least we are amused...

Copyleft| 2.18.10 @ 9:34AM

"No, the Jews did not have a tendency toward criminality "... and neither do blacks.

The point R Givens is making (correct me if I'm wrong, R) is that the only crimes that are punished in America are those committed by the poor.

Or have the Wall Street bankers and CEOs been carted off to prison recently, and we somehow missed it? White-collar crime is rewarded; only the poor actually pay a penalty.

S.L. Toddard| 2.18.10 @ 9:50AM

No, I think the point he was making is that the only reason so many blacks are in jail is because of EVIL RACISM, which is (obviously) an absurd claim. You, however, are correct about the law not applying to corporate/financial/political elites - if there is one thing that the Sensible Center of both parties agrees on, it's that our elites should be subject to no laws whatsoever. That is why Obama refuses to prosecute those in the Bush admin who allegedly sanctioned torture - it is not a question of Left vs Right, it is a question of rootless, cosmopolitan elites vs the American people.

R Givens| 2.18.10 @ 10:09AM

"No, I think the point he was making is that the only reason so many blacks are in jail is because of EVIL RACISM, which is (obviously) an absurd claim."

I never said "only." Blacks commit crimes like all other races. But I reject the lunacy that blacks, even poor blacks, commit 12 to 30+ times as many crimes as whites.

Take drugs as an example. Whites use many times as much drugs as blacks (there are more whites for one reason), but whites do not get arrested and imprisoned for their use at a rate anywhere near the truth.

Blacks are the scapegoats for a wicked hypocritical system that still has Jim Crow embedded in their wicked hearts.

S.L. Toddard| 2.18.10 @ 10:21AM

"Blacks are the scapegoats for a wicked hypocritical system that still has Jim Crow embedded in their wicked hearts."

Ah, so you're objection is not that there are too many blacks unjustly imprisoned, it's that there are too many whites unjustly free. That's an odd complaint from someone bemoaning the high incarceration rate in the United States, but okay.

R Givens| 2.21.10 @ 5:52PM

S L Toddard wrote:
"Ah, so you're objection is not that there are too many blacks unjustly imprisoned, it's that there are too many whites unjustly free."

The same hypocrisy used to be one of Rush Limbaugh's notions. Limbaugh scoffed at the idea that African Americans are disproportionately arrested on drug charges, and suggested that the solution should be to arrest more white people. But when he was busted for drugs, he changed his tune in a heartbeat.

S.L. Toddard| 2.18.10 @ 9:46AM

"Is this the kind of justice you approve of?"

I am not sure what you are asking. Do I approve of people having their property stripped from them absent due process? Of course not. I also oppose "three strikes" legislation, and believe the DEA should be dismantled and that drug prohibition should be left to the states. I don't know that any of that has anything to do with American blacks being more prone to criminality than American whites though - that's simply a fact of life in contemporary America, and of course incarceration rates reflect that fact, as they should.

R Givens| 2.18.10 @ 10:42AM

"American blacks being more prone to criminality than American whites though - that's simply a fact of life in contemporary America, and of course incarceration rates reflect that fact, as they should."

Please explain why, nationwide, blacks comprise 62 percent of drug offenders admitted to state prison. In seven states, blacks constitute between 80 and 90 percent of all people sent to prison on drug charges.

Whites use more than 5 times as much drugs as blacks. Please explain why there aren't more whites in prison for drugs than blacks.

Nationwide, black men are sent to state prison on drug charges at 13 times the rate of white men. Are you saying that blacks use 13 times as much drugs as whites?

Conservatives have to take credit for the drug war. In case, you forgot it was Richard M Nixon who declared war on drugs and started the country on the course of becoming a world leader in incarceration.

When it comes to minding someone else's business the Republicans are first in line, unless, of course, the thing being regulated is a health insurance provider, a bank or a predatory corporation.

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/64

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/repo.....Table3.pdf

Tom| 2.18.10 @ 10:57AM

When did Nixon become a conservative? It must have happened posthumously because he certainly was not one while he was breathing.

Dana P| 3.4.10 @ 3:31PM

Tom - were you alive & old enough to understand what Nixon did & didn't believe in? Or, are you simply repeating what you have comprehended from Democrat propaganda? I WAS alive & well into my late 20's - the man, despite his misguided & ill fated, attempted "cover-up" was a true patriot & loved his country. I don't condone his actions, they were wrong, but he most DEFINITELY was a conservative - all his life.

S.L. Toddard| 2.18.10 @ 11:08AM

"Please explain why, nationwide, blacks comprise 62 percent of drug offenders admitted to state prison."

Because American blacks are more prone to criminality than American whites.

"Whites use more than 5 times as much drugs as blacks. Please explain why there aren't more whites in prison for drugs than blacks."

I don't know that this claim is true.

"Nationwide, black men are sent to state prison on drug charges at 13 times the rate of white men. Are you saying that blacks use 13 times as much drugs as whites?"

No.

"Conservatives have to take credit for the drug war. In case, you forgot it was Richard M Nixon who declared war on drugs and started the country on the course of becoming a world leader in incarceration"

Absolutely. Although it's a stretch to call Nixon a 'conservative'.

R Givens| 2.18.10 @ 2:26PM

Whites use more than 5 times as much drugs as blacks. Please explain why there aren't more whites in prison for drugs than blacks.

"I don't know that this claim is true."

Do a couple of internet searches about blacks and the drug war and then deny the truth if you can.

The best statistics indicate that blacks actually use illegal drugs at a slightly lower rate than whites (about 1% less). There are five times as many whites as blacks so the 500% estimate is on the money.

The racism in this country is a national disgrace that reveals itself with differences in how blacks and whites are treated by courts, banks and other institutions.

If your memory is up to it remember how the Reagan administration started the Crack Wars that put blacks in prison at a rate dozens of times higher than for whites. It might surprise you to learn that whites use a lot more Crack than blacks. However, in many jurisdictions there have been no whites at all convicted under Federal mandatory sentencing rules.

Show me some studies that support your ideas.

Doorgunner| 2.18.10 @ 2:54PM

Ms. R. Givens,

I thought Mike Tyson told you to shut up.

troyblefla| 2.19.10 @ 12:03AM

Neither one of us need studies. I've lived my 'study' And it's obvious, black males win the Gold in crimes against persons, even without factoring in percentage of population, factor that in and you should be ashamed to spout that nonsense. Although, there's hope, the hispanics are catching up.

Aunt Zeituni| 2.18.10 @ 11:14AM

Oh, boy... here we go again. Blacks are much more likely to be incarcerated because they commit crimes at overwhelmingly high rates. For example, black men rape 37,000 white women per year on average. Despicable... but what may well be worse is the epidemic of incarcerated blacks raping white males - It is likely that this number is even higher than 37,000. Human rights watch (a left wing advocacy group) has documented this fact and has even shown that in refugee camps in Africa, blacks routine rape little boys: "[O]ne respondent reported an incident in which nine male juveniles were so badly sodomised by adult prisoners that their rectums protruded. . . . Similarly it was reported that first offenders in Machakos prison are preyed upon by older inmates who will even resort to rape if the younger inmates refuse to submit. Other young inmates engage in homosexual relations with older inmates in exchange for protection from the attentions of other prisoners."
And this is only rape, mind you. Blacks commit armed robberies, murders and other violent crimes at unbelievably high levels as well. I'm not about to shed a tear for gang-bangers and other career criminals who get prosecuted for drug offenses.
http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2001/prison/
http://www.colorofcrime.com/

R GIVENS| 2.20.10 @ 5:59AM

Aunt Zeituni|wrote:

"For example, black men rape 37,000 white women per year on average. Despicable..."

Where's the proof for this?

A few other questions need to be answered to make sense of this.

How many rapes are there in the US every year?

How many black women are raped by blacks?

How many rapes are committed by white men?

Taking numbers out of context can be misleading. Is that what you are trying to do?

M.K.| 2.18.10 @ 2:03PM

Your statistics help make the point that there are too many laws, however you skewed the focus to race relations in the process. While Federal agencies are involved in law enforcement (e.g., DEA), people are generally incarcerated after jury trials, or bench trials. Many variables determine who/how people are incarcerated. Conservatism is not a cause of either law-making, or incarceration.

Aunt Zeituni| 2.18.10 @ 3:08PM

Yes, it is a shame that we have laws against rape, murder, and armed robbery. The fact that they are illegal is most likely a sick remnant of Jim Crow. What a horrible, racist nation America is.

S.L. Toddard| 2.18.10 @ 8:08AM

"What is there to say about this statement, which is being called a new conservative “manifesto”? Someone might object that Russell Kirk said that conservatives do not have manifestoes, but that would be entirely too quaint and old-fashioned. What is one to make of the organizers’ selection of the site of George Washington’s home for a statement that refers to a foreign policy of “advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world”? I would say that it is in extremely poor taste, but then this statement is not directed at people like me.

My admiration for Washington comes partly from his rejection of the sort of militaristic Caesarism that fuels the modern cult of the Presidency in which so many conservatives indulge. I agree with his advice that we should “observe good faith and justice towards all nations” and that we should “cultivate peace and harmony with all.” Most modern conservatives today embrace antagonistic, confrontational policies either informed by a hubristic nationalism or inspired by a misguided fear of vastly exaggerated threats. I also agree with Washington that “[t]he great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.” It would amaze me if most of the signatories of the Mount Vernon Statement would endorse this view. After all, how can we exhaust our resources “advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world” if we do not enmesh ourselves deeply in the politics of every other continent?

I cannot object to the statement that the “federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.” This is true. However, I have no idea why the organizers of this gathering think that anyone will believe their professions of constitutionalism after enabling or acquiescing in some of the most grotesque violations of constitutional republican government in the last forty years. If constitutional conservatism means anything, it has to mean that the executive branch does not have wide, sweeping, inherent powers derived from the President’s (temporary) military role. It has to mean that all these conservatives will start arguing that the President cannot wage wars on his own authority, and they will have to argue this no matter who occupies the Oval Office. It has to mean unwavering conservative hostility to the mistreatment of detainees, and it has to mean that conservatives cannot accept the detention of suspects without charge, access to counsel or recourse to some form of judicial oversight. Obviously, constitutional conservatives could in no way tolerate or overlook policies of indefinite detention or the abuse of detainees. They would have to drive out the authoritarians among them, and rediscover a long-lost, healthy suspicion of concentrated power, especially power concentrated in the hands of the executive.

Until we see these basic demonstrations of fidelity to constitutional principle from the would-be constitutional conservatives of this Mount Vernon meeting, we should assume that this is little more than a new ruse designed to rile up activists and donors during a Democratic administration in order to breathe new life into a moribund and bankrupt movement."

http://www.amconmag.com/lariso.....statement/

GW| 2.18.10 @ 2:22PM

You're amazing. You have more concern for foreign nations than American citizens. Instead of focusing on the unconstitutionality of current laws, programs, and departments infesting our gov't today, you worry about "foreign detainees" as if they are entitled to Miranda rights or Geneva. They're not, they don't fight in uniforms and thus aren't entitled to what normal POW's are. On top of this, why the hell should Americans waste resources on those who would kill any of us if given the chance?

Once again, your choice of who you defend makes me wonder how much you actually care about innocent American citizens.

S.L. Toddard| 2.18.10 @ 2:42PM

"Instead of focusing on the unconstitutionality of current laws, programs, and departments infesting our gov't today, you worry about "foreign detainees" as if they are entitled to Miranda rights or Geneva. They're not..."

Actually, according to the Supreme Court they are:

http://gulcfac.typepad.com/geo....._the_.html

Sorry.

GW| 2.18.10 @ 4:21PM

Then how is the war unconstitutional? Has the Supreme Court ruled it is not? If the Supreme Court is all we're going by, then your point is hardly proven.

Because 5 liberals ruled one way doesn't mean the executive has to follow. What the hell is the court going to do?

But I'm glad your sticking up for the terrorists you sick SOB...

S.L. Toddard| 2.18.10 @ 6:58PM

You do understand that my post is a quote, yes? I cite it approvingly, but it's not my writing.

"Then how is the war unconstitutional? Has the Supreme Court ruled it is not? If the Supreme Court is all we're going by, then your point is hardly proven."

This is a mess. "If the Supreme Court is all we're going by"? You claimed a certain group was not protected by certain laws. I have cited the highest legal authority on the subject - they *are* protected. That is an inarguable fact. You may feel free to bemoan this fact, or protest it, you may argue that they *should not* be entitled to Geneva protections, but they are currently entitled to them.

"Because 5 liberals ruled one way doesn't mean the executive has to follow. What the hell is the court going to do?"

Yes it does, you DUNCE. It's called the Rule of Law. What is the court going to do? Are you insane? You're advocating that the president *should not* be bound by the law? He should ignore them? Because he has an army and the SC doesn't? You're in effect advocating a military dictatorship. You're arguing that Barack Obama should exercise power unrestricted by law - do you have *that* much faith in the man?!

"But I'm glad your sticking up for the terrorists you sick SOB..."

*Alleged* terrorists, many of whom have been released because they were guilty of nothing - not terrorism, not jaywalking. Do innocent people our government accuses of terrorism have any rights? As a Republican you may find this shocking, but not every single thing Big Government claims is true. There are reasons its illegal to jail people for life without a trial. And if anything, I'm sticking up for the rule of law and for *civilization*. That is one of the things that separates Americans from barbarians and banana republicans - before we allow government to put a man in a cage for life we let the accused defend himself in a free trial. Otherwise you are advocating that Big Government should have the power to kidnap any person from anywhere on earth, doing the most mundane tasks, nowhere near any battlefield and put him in a cage forever without ever giving him a chance to defend himself, or without access to a trail or his family. We don't deny government that power because we owe the detainees anything - we do it because we are Americans, and we don't trust Big Government with powers like that. Torture chambers, secret prisons, jailing without trial? We do not allow this sort of thing, and it shouldn't have to be explained why to another American.

Our president - Barack Obama - claims the authority to kill American citizens (with them given no chance to defend themselves from the charges) as long as he claims the victim was a "terrorist". Keep that in mind - that's a pretty flexible term, and the left fans the flames of fear over right wing "extremists" perpetually.

Simple question: do you think the President *should* have the power to murder Americans, as long as he is willing to claim the American was a terrorist? The accused American citizens, in this scenario, would have no chance to defend themselves against government accusations before being killed. Yes or no would be fine.

Copyleft| 2.19.10 @ 8:17AM

Excellent points, Toddard, and well stated.

It's funny how the "rule of law" was the right's motto all during Bill Clinton's administration, but they seemed to forget all about it when Bush took over.

I believe it was the profound Hebrew philosopher Jon Stewart who noted: "If you don't stick to your principles when the chips are down, they're not principles--they're 'hobbies'."

GW| 2.19.10 @ 1:26PM

You still can't answer my question because there isn't one. You have claimed the war is unconstitutional, yet I haven't heard the Supreme Court say it to be so. So by your own "rule of law" standards, you are a hypocrite.

I stand by the fact you would defend some 7th century throwback jihadists because there isn't "proof" of terrorism, and prosecute those risking their lives to keep you safe.

When you have an intelligent response to either, try and keep it to under 10,000 words this time.

R GIVENS| 2.20.10 @ 5:50AM

S.L. Toddard| wrote:

""Because 5 liberals ruled one way doesn't mean the executive has to follow. What the hell is the court going to do?""

"Yes it does, you DUNCE. It's called the Rule of Law. What is the court going to do? Are you insane? You're advocating that the president *should not* be bound by the law? He should ignore them? Because he has an army and the SC doesn't? "

That was the argument President Andrew Jackson used when he defied the Supreme Court.
"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it! ." — Andrew Jackson, 1832

Dana P.| 3.4.10 @ 3:37PM

S.L. Toddard - Actually, according to the Supreme Court - they AREN'T - all legislation handed down by the Supreme Court is STRICTLY relative to & for the protection of AMERICAN CITIZENS - period!

S.L. Toddard| 2.18.10 @ 8:17AM

Note the conflict between these two principles cited in the statement:

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

and

"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"

"The principle of limited government based on the rule of law" is antithetical to the proposition that our government is literally limitless and not bound by the rule of law outside our own borders. Constitutional conservatism is alleged to apply "the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to *every* proposal", yet it will certainly not be applied (by these folks) to the proposal that America should act as a global police force and nation builder, neither of which is a role sanctioned by the constitution that limits our government.

Again: one can either favor small constitutional government or the sort of massive leviathan state necessary to lead, rule over and police the world. If you favor the former, you are a conservative. If you favor the latter, you aren't.

Copyleft| 2.18.10 @ 8:48AM

A fair point, Toddard. It'll be interesting to see how self-professed conservatives respond to it.

(You'd think the "police the world" faction would've died of embarrassment after their Bush-era fiascos, but it seems from the statement that some of them still harbor the same neoconservative PNAC-style ambitions. Sad, how some never seem to learn from their mistakes.)

Derek Leaberry| 2.18.10 @ 11:59AM

Yes, it would appear that the Mount Vernon statement would continue to support the neoconservative crusades to save the world at the cost of fiscal probity and George Washington's warnings about foreign entanglements and the like. No thanks. We can have a Constitutional Republic or a Neoconservative Republic but not both.

John II| 2.18.10 @ 2:11PM

"Again: one can either favor small constitutional government or the sort of massive leviathan state necessary to lead, rule over and police the world. If you favor the former, you are a conservative. If you favor the latter, you aren't. "

Hi Tod. Just passing through. As you may recall from your childhood study of Aristotle's treatise on Sophistical Refutations, the rationalist mind is prone to reduce complex issues to false dilemmas, partly as an honest effort to get a handle on the otherwise bewildering complexities but partly too as a way of dodging the complexities.

The rational mind, however (as against the rationalist mindset), is at least alert to the possibility that an "either-or" framing of an issue may entail a distortion correctable by reframing the issue as "both-and." But in order to apply such correction, one must have very carefully formulated propositions consonant with measured empirical judgment.

Allow me, then, in all modesty to reframe your dilemma in a manner I believe Aristotle and George Washington alike would be more likely to approve of, to wit:

One can favor both limited constitutional government in which the bulk of legislative and judicial activity falls to the several states AND a strong national capability of projecting military power fortified by a collective interest in securing this grand experiment of limited government. If you favor both, you are conservative--with one helluva lot to conserve, including a healthy caution about foreign entanglements AND about a dangerously shrunken world chock-full of thugacracies and murderous ideologues who would like to see our cozy experiment obliterated.

And now back to my collection of Hopalong Cassidy flicks of the 1930s and 1940s, when good guys were good and bad guys were bad and there were only the faintest shuffling evasions about natural law, the true foundation of our experiment.

R Givens| 2.18.10 @ 2:45PM

"The rational mind, however (as against the rationalist mindset), is.............."

In JACQUES ELLUL's masterpiece about propaganda — "THE FORMATION OF MEN’S ATTITUDES,"
© 1973 he writes—

INTELLECTUALS MOST VULNERABLE TO PROPAGANDA:

1. They absorb the largest amount of secondhand unverifiable information.
2. They feel a compelling need f/an opinion on EVERY important question, hence they readily succumb to opinions offered about undigestible info.
3. They consider themselves capable of “judging for themselves.”

In other words, wannabe intellectuals are suckers for people like Carl Rove and Rush Limbaugh. Until I read Ellul I couldn't understand how supposedly intelligent people were such fools for ridiculous party lines.

John II| 2.18.10 @ 3:59PM

His masterpiece wasn't about propaganda but about his view of the technological society, which came out a decade or so earlier. His comments on propaganda were an extension of that project.

The problem, of course, is that Ellul's description of intellectuals is itself an intellectual exercise redolent of the very description he outlines. It's years now since I've read him, but in many ways he seems to me in retrospect to have been a child of the very times he was so critical of. His youthful rejection of the Catholic Church that he was perfunctorily baptized in, for example, seems to have been culturally conditioned, as he promptly embraced Marxism, the new orthodoxy du jour among French intellectuals in the 1930s.

He later developed a private brand of Christianity which was nothing if not a startling exhibition of "judging for oneself," rejecting both trendy theology and traditional authority.

For all that he was perhaps a bit of a crank, I think Ellul would have been taken aback by your selective application of his description, which better fits the lefty philosophes with whom he was so intimately familiar.

JimE| 2.18.10 @ 7:56PM

Givens
You are a perfect example of an intellectual then, a moronic liberal buffoon who sits in judgement of others.

Dan Phillips| 2.18.10 @ 8:51AM

WJAIII, why were there 80 + attendees, but only 18 public signatures (as far as I can tell). I assume some of the attendees were never intended to sign the statement. Only some of the "big names."

If you are at liberty to say, was there any serious discussion about the wording of the foreign policy statement?

W. James Antle III| 2.18.10 @ 11:34AM

On foreign policy, I was only at the portion of the event that was open to the media, and that was not where that discussion was had. As for the signatures, my understanding is that there were the initial signatures and then the document was left open for anyone to sign.

Dan Phillips| 2.18.10 @ 5:46PM

Thanks.

I'm trying to figure out if these guys are aware of the significant rebellion within the conservative ranks on foreign policy and are just hoping if they ignore it it will go away and/or if they are actually intending to give it short shrift. Or are they just that clueless? I know they live inside a movement con bubble, but these aren't dump people.

Copyleft| 2.19.10 @ 8:07AM

They're probably aware of it, but not particularly concerned. They've kept the social-conservative, small-government, religious-right agitators under control before, and there's no reason to think they can't maintain control now.

As long as the "base" reliably votes Republican every year, it really doesn't matter how many rallies or tea-party protests they stage. The GOP leadership can continue to count on their votes and ignore their demands.

Ian Callum| 2.18.10 @ 8:52AM

Two issues pose the greatest threat. The first is the ability of the federal government to issue unlimited amounts of debt. This could be addressed by an amendment imposing a hard debt ceiling. The second is the use of central banking powers to debase the currency so much that it destroys the private economy. Finding a way to address this issue is more difficult.

Melvin| 2.18.10 @ 9:05AM

If a person really thought about how big, deep, and complex the government military/industrial complex really is and how it effects our lives, there would be instant revolt.
The above is at the national level, what about the lesser known state and local governments. There are regulations, and strangulations on a local level that would take a corps of scholars years to wade through.
A citizen cannot even let their pet outside to break wind without violating some city or country ordinance.
Local governments issue so many ordinances that they have developed an ordnance machine that spews out ordnances in how we should live our lives like a snow blower.
The days of Bob down the street in being the city manager are over. Nowadays cities spends thousands upon thousands of dollars hiring headhunters to glean the globe looking for the most expansive bureaucrat that they can find.
Jacksonville NC had one such city bureaucrat. Brought the old boy all the way from Montana, in which he was fired there. That should have been a red flag in it self, but the city fathers hired him for over a hundred grand, gave him a vehicle and an expenses account they did. They also gave him many more perks that would make even Nancy Pelosi blush, a super duper triple gold and titanium plated health and dental plan second to none the city bestowed on him and a short time after being hired the city fathers voted to fire him.
But of course with Jacksonville City Council's more open an accessibility government was done all behind closed doors and the members mouths were locked tighter than a virgin's legs.
Jacksonville residents still don't know why this person was fired but one thing they do know is that they have to pay this guy severance pay, health & dental coverage, all the while as he worked for another city down the road. Talk about double dipping will ya.
I know the above might be construed as wordy but I wanted to point out that it is not necessarily the feds that are bleeding us dry but the states and local governments as well.

Charles Hastings| 2.18.10 @ 10:05AM

Read Michelle Malkin's critique of the Mount Vernon Statement here... http://bit.ly/aRhU8N You need to know who supports MVS.

Al Adab| 2.18.10 @ 10:46AM

The Conservative Movement does in fact need a new definition.

However, Fiscal Cons, Neo-Cons, Movement Cons, Social Cons, Paleo Cons, and not a few Libertarians and Objectivists plus perhaps Tea Party folks will find it difficult to agree on Principles and Priorities.

While Constitutional government is in the balance if the entire Movement cannot coalesce around a brief statement of principle, we will remain fragmented and the RINO accomodationist wing will continue to be the majority of the GOP leaving Conservatives without a clear coherent message.

The MVS may represent a step in that direction, but the Sharon Statement founding YAF is worthwhile. So too might be a reread of Conscience of a Conservative. After all that is where the statement "I do not intennd to make it (govt) more efficient, I intend to reduce its size" may be found.

Our priorities need clarity and our principles as well. Only then may we be able to recapture the leadership role the Movement had, with not a little success, from about 1980 to 2004. We were punished when we lost cohesiveness. It is time to rebuild that unity.

mikeg| 2.18.10 @ 11:05AM

Does it occur to anyone else, the futility of our constant bickering over the intracacies of the injustice inflicted upon the masses by a force that escapes any mention anywhere but on the blogsites of the lunatic truthers.Is it possible Alex Jones has it right and the left right paradigm is simply meant to be a means of confusion and distraction.Wake up SHEEPLE.

Aunt Zeituni| 2.18.10 @ 11:12AM

Oh, boy... here we go again. Blacks are much more likely to be incarcerated because they commit crimes at overwhelmingly high rates. For example, black men rape 37,000 white women per year on average. Despicable... but what may well be worse is the epidemic of incarcerated blacks raping white males - It is likely that this number is even higher than 37,000. Human rights watch (a left wing advocacy group) has documented this fact and has even shown that in refugee camps in Africa, blacks routine rape little boys: "[O]ne respondent reported an incident in which nine male juveniles were so badly sodomised by adult prisoners that their rectums protruded. . . . Similarly it was reported that first offenders in Machakos prison are preyed upon by older inmates who will even resort to rape if the younger inmates refuse to submit. Other young inmates engage in homosexual relations with older inmates in exchange for protection from the attentions of other prisoners."
And this is only rape, mind you. Blacks commit armed robberies, murders and other violent crimes at unbelievably high levels as well. I'm not about to shed a tear for gang-bangers and other career criminals who get prosecuted for drug offenses.
http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2001/prison/
http://www.colorofcrime.com/

Derek Leaberry| 2.18.10 @ 11:55AM

I wonder how popular conservatism's support for the Constitution would be if Medicare and Social Security would be declared unconstitutional. As long as I got my money back with interest, I could do without the promises of Medicare and Social Security. But I doubt many Americans would go for it.

NeilBJ| 2.18.10 @ 12:46PM

I am on Medicare and the Medicare Drug Plan. I also receive more than half of my income from Social Security. As far as I understand the constitution and the enumerated powers listed therein, these programs are unconstitutional.

If they are found to be unconstitutional, they would need to be disbanded in a prudent manner. I would hope that we would not resort to draconian measures to get rid of them. And get rid of them we must if they are truly unconstitutional.

The "good" news is that the sovereign states are free to institute the very same programs if they so choose.

Even more good news: each state can institute those programs that appeal to the electorate of each state according to the constitution of each state. Isn't this the way it was meant to be?

Of course, if we really want the "federal" government to continue with these programs, the honest thing to do is to amend the constitution to grant the government the power to do so.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.18.10 @ 11:57AM

Well, evidently many of you have not even read the Mt. Vernon Statement.
I did.
I sugest each of you do so....heh...then bitch because your particular axe wasn't ground.

Blacks in Jail: One comment. A line in a movie struck me and ...stuck. A mafioso was talking about "stupid crime". (I took it to mean stupid street crime). Those guys are caught and successfully prosecuted in droves...because they are ignorant and stupid.
We gotta' get a handle on that cycle.

The "military industrial complex" spends about 4 or 5 percent of our government revenue. Go peek at any pie chart and see the % spent on welfare in what ever guise, where the recipients paid nothing into the system....ever.

S.L. Toddard| 2.18.10 @ 12:13PM

Heh.

mikeg | 2.18.10 @ 12:35PM

People this is an INFOWAR you are presently wasteing time and effort on purposelees objectives.In battle the primary goal of leaders should be to confuse and distract the enemy forces from signigant success,this will serve many purposes the greatest being the waste of time resourses on meaningless objectives,while allowing ones own forces to mass and deploy to maximum effect.The two greatest objectives presently should probably be to stop internet censorship and to put an end to fractional reserve banking practices worldwide.The american people need to support only those who have a clear vision of the real enemy and those most stategic objectives as the field of battle evolves minute by minute. The internet is our greatest asset and the enemies greatest liability you should recognise its importance and concentrate your efforts on objectives of maximum importance starting now.

tatosian| 2.18.10 @ 12:36PM

Clearly the "advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world" statement renders this document useless as any sort of conservative manifesto.
What's it doing there?
And what's Grover Norquist's signature doing there?
The guy's an enthusiastic open borders- amnesty advocate and a staunch supporter of unindicted coconspirators like CAIR, ISNA and others.
The only interest these groups (with clear ties to terrorist entities like HAMAS) have in our constitution is how it can be manipulated or ignored to silence their legitimate critics. And they have had enormous success in their endeavors.
And why are the efforts of these groups of such little concern to conservatives?
Finally, on the same day the Mount Vernon Statement was issued, the Tea Party Patriots issued this statement via email-
"Tea Party Patriots is issuing this statement in order to make it clear that we are not associated with any attempts to form a third party. Additionally, we believe that such efforts are unproductive and unwise at this time. The history of third party movements in this country is one of division and defeat. We believe that it is instead time for all Americans to rise up and demand appropriate reform within their own parties. The mechanisms exist for citizens to participate in their parties, and to drive their parties in the right direction. "
The Tea Party, whose participants effectively shook the members of both parties on capitol hill, has stumbled into the Republican tent?
Yeah, that'll change things for the better...

Jimmy Z| 2.18.10 @ 12:36PM

We have the documents we need - they are the Decl. of Independence and The Constitution of the United States. It is vital that you all read this: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/ho.....ember.html

Animator Girl| 2.18.10 @ 12:38PM

NO. This "manifesto" may sound nice, but it's not specific enough, and a lot of it is just rephrasing the Constitution. Strikes me as a pointless and posturing exercise.

I'd rather sign (and see my representatives sign) the Tea Party Patriots "Contract From America," which is far more specific and wasn't created by people who get their paycheck from the American taxpayer.

Look for the final draft to be released on April 15. Meantime, thanks but not thanks to the Mt. Vernon folks.

Derek Douglas| 2.18.10 @ 12:40PM

I think it is all well and good, but I really doubt a lot of these 'signers' bona fides.

They claim to support the Constitution and want smaller government action in America. But where were these guys during the Bush administration's obvious growth of the Federal government? Bush was the biggest spender since LBJ and created horrible and wasteful Federal entities such as No Child Left Behind and Homeland Security. Why didn't they sign something then? Why did they support an un-Constitutional war? Iraq and Afghanistan were never declared and in the Founders eyes would be deemed illegal. I think they are opportunists whose reaction to every grassroots movement on the right is to try to coopt it on behalf of the party that brought you the K Street Project, Medicare Part D, and the Patriot Act. These guys aren't libertarians who believe in the Founders' limited government, they are only embracing the ideals since Obama and the Dems are in power. They did NOTHING during the Bush years to complain about its abuses.

Ed Meese?? Who as attorney general during the Reagan administration happily prosecuted national wars on dirty pictures and people who took illegal drugs. Where in the Constitution, pray tell, do we find the authority for such crusades? Or for the national restrictions on abortion supported by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council? Or for the national regulation of broadcast speech pushed by Brent Bozell of the Parents Television Council?

So obviously I think this is a bunch of BS. These guys are as much to blame for the erosion of the Constitution as Obama. I appreciate the ideals in it, but the singers actions speak a lot louder than their words. And if they truly believed in this 'statement', every word of it wouldn't made sense when Bush and the GOP was in power too.

ONTIME| 2.18.10 @ 12:57PM

This is just another indicator of the times and the need for law and order to be properly enforced, we have a rogue administration in the White House and Americans know of their harmful ways. They know that if we as a nationof fredom lovers in this Republic do not pull ourselves out of this mess and rid ourselves of this plague of incompetents we call leadership, this country is going to cease to exist, it is going to become a footnote in the pages of whomever gets to write history in the future.

Since there is no money left for the government to spend, this makes the IRS useless and any other tax accumulation agency, this leaves only hardassets for the government to sieze, I am thouroughly convinced they will unless we have those with the cajones to enforce Constitutional law step up to the plate and institute the proceedings to remove this uncredentialed administration and their supporters from power. If we do not act in a civil way now, then civility will no longer exist because these people, the present power, know that chaos is their only friend. They have stated this since day one.

Jeremiah| 2.18.10 @ 12:58PM

The truth is that I - and most of the reasonable posters here - are liberals. This nation was founded by liberals. What liberals believed in was individual freedom and autononomy and a vigorous defense against the coercive embrace of state power. What a tragedy that the modern left - statists all, and the sort of people who would have been fighting desperately against the creation of such a free nation as ours - have hijacked that lovely word, liberal and made it into something ugly that describes exactly the opposite of what it actually means. It is why I rarely call them liberals. They are statists or the left - and do not deserve the dignity of this honorable old word.

My consolation is that, in the end, what will kill modern liberalism is its illiberalism.

Jimmy Z| 2.18.10 @ 1:27PM

Well said - liberalism has little to do with the leftists in power today.

NeilBJ| 2.18.10 @ 1:32PM

It is interesting how the meaning of words gets twisted throughout history. I read that in the 19th century, the words "conservative" and "liberal" were used in a manner completely opposite of how we use them today. That is, the "conservative" was the statist (advocate of state power over the individual) and the "liberal" was the advocate of individual freedom.

So, I aree. I, along with you, consider myself a liberal. The ultimate oxymoron is the fact that the Democrats (and any like-minded Republicans) are called liberals, when I believe the best appellation for them is to call them statists.

So, how about a truth-in-labeling effort? Let's call the two prevailing political philosophies "statism" and "liberalism"?

Enoch Powell's Revenge| 2.18.10 @ 12:59PM

Mr. Antle, I read your recent Vdare column regarding the prospects of an immigration moratorium with great interest:
http://www.vdare.com/antle/100215_hostettler.htm
However, I have yet to see you write anything about a moratorium on legal immigration in the American Spectator. Is there a gag rule in force? For many conservatives, immigration restriction is issue #1. There is no issue more important than ending the insane mass immigration that has been destroying the American nation since LBJ imposed this destructive policy as part of his "great society" scheme. There will soon be no America left if this madness is not stopped.
Besides, among republican voters, an immigration cutoff would be an extremely popular vote getter. What gives?

Tater Salad| 2.18.10 @ 1:11PM

I hope everyone in the United States really understands the "hidden agenda" that Barack Obama has and here is the proof:

Some really powerful stuff:

http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=20785#comment-25608

Wally| 2.18.10 @ 1:11PM

We the conservatives of America hereby affirm that the nation should abide by the customs of the 18th century and refute that any of these newfangled things, like the comupters, oil, pollution, assault weapons, highrises, cars, investment banking, exist. If they do, we hereby affirm that we will ignore them as our Founding Fathers would have done and let them do their own thing. We affirm that the Founding Fathers, like us, would unilaterally eliminate treaties and rule of law and forge a path like that of Somalia, Haiti and Burma, with low taxes, no enforcement of laws against large businesses and rigorous invasion, pursuit and extradition of ethnic groups that do not pray to our God.

We affirm that slaveholder Thomas Jefferson who used his slaves for sexual pursuits, is our favorite founding father and are glad that Alexander Hamilton was shot for advocating having a modern, technical, industrial society.

tatosian| 2.18.10 @ 1:28PM

Did you know that Jefferson submitted an anti-slavery statement for inclusion in the declaration of independence? A statement that was rejected?
Did you know that the hemmings affair (I assume that's what you're referring to here)was started by one, just one, of Jefferson's political enemies? Did you know that there is, and never has been any proof of that alleged liaison? Other than the blustering of this and that black nationalist?
Did you know Hamilton died as a result of a duel with Arron burr, a man who bore Hamilton an enormous amount of hatred and resentment?
Did you know that you could discover these facts for yourself by actually reading a book?

Dana P| 3.4.10 @ 3:51PM

I'm not certain just WHAT is being taught in our schools today regarding U.S. history, but of this I AM certain - whether Jefferson did or didn't own slaves & use them for his sexual pleasure has absolutely NOTHING to do with the attempted measures to desecrate our Constitution, as being practiced by the current Administration sitting in the White House today. Despite our Founding Fathers PERSONAL beliefs or practices relative to SLAVERY (which, incidentally was COMMON to that era, much as playing video games is today -not that it was justified, nor is allowing a child to play video games 24/7 - but it HAPPENS) they DID compose & bring into law a Constitutional document that provided freedom & the right to pursue happiness without intervention by the Federal government - up until recently, that is.

Chris Bieber| 2.18.10 @ 1:27PM

as a former YAF State Director(CA) in the 80's and 90's I can say I was there.....on the streets, campus', conventions et al...but...I realized that it(not only politics itself but the "conservative" movement) is a rigged Skinner Box....all the protests and dropping out of college! and all the dinners and Party thanks was for naught...
Our freedom has been sinking...and with the "conservative" movement AND ESPECIALLY ITS "LEADERS" blind/deaf/mute during the W Empire and its fascism they have no credible/honest ground to stand.

this fundraising tool will of course raise funds...warning about the "liberals" and THEIR socialism.....meanwhile....
the BIPARTISAN surveillance EMPIRE marches on...with MOST of these conservatives fighting for freedom..behind a desk...and calling for OTHERS to sacrifice and fight and die in the sands of the MEast..for OUR "freedom"

Today on NONConservative Lew Rockwell's site http://www.lewrockwell.com there is an article by one of those who was AT Sharon and helped in its creation...

He says what I have said for years...more eloquently....

please visit this link...and see what really happened to the "conservative" movement

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/franke10.1.html

Dai Alanye| 2.18.10 @ 5:18PM

I'm pretty sure, Chris (and Lew Rockwell, too) that you could make your statements more believable by a greater use of ellipses… Something like… … …

Yanno whut I mean…?

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.18.10 @ 1:47PM

Hi Chris,
When I was in high-school...we learned to write a declarative sentence.
Heh!
Evidently you did not learn that simple skill.
I have no interest in visiting your fringe lunatic links further.
Get another job. You failed in this one, blogging here.

S.L. Toddard| 2.18.10 @ 3:51PM

Heh.

garyconditswellhungrelative| 2.18.10 @ 2:05PM

I'll be persuaded that you right-wing extremists are true to your principles when you show up at CPAC---you are credentialed, right?---and you take the microphone at the appropriate time, proceeding to excoriate House minority whip Cantor and the rest of the Republican hypocrites, decrying the 8 years of Reagan II--The GWBush Horror---in which Bush doubled what Reagan had tripled....the National Debt! Oh, by the way, I am not calling American Spectator or its readership hypocrites in the mean time: perhaps you would like to link me to an issue/article of the American Spectator which condemned Bush, Cheney, et al. for their outrageous fiscal management. How can the right wing hope to convince at the very least the gullible out there of their firmly held beliefs when they don't cleave to those beliefs themselves?

FawnridgeFarm| 2.18.10 @ 2:30PM

"Conservatism's Constitution"? Please forgive me while I take a moment to assuage this bout of nausea.....

The flies have not yet fully settled on the carcass of the Contract With America, conservatism's last attempt at political grandstanding and already, the signatories at Mount Vernon bring us still another. Do they honestly believe that the issuance of this document constitutes actual leadership?

American's conservatives, in my estimation, do not need yet another pompous summation of conservative principles from the chattering classes. We have the U.S. Constitution, thank you, a document which beautifully and succinctly conveys beyond all others the very essense of American conservative thought.

As opposed to just more words, what America's conservatives need instead is action. Specifically, we need actual, dedicated adherence to the U. S. Constitution. We need elected officials who will repeal unconstitutional laws; end the unconstitutional transfer of wealth through the apparatus of government entitlement programs; and terminate an illegal regulatory bureaucracy that restricts individual libery, usurps wealth and thwarts economic expansion. We need the budget balanced; the national debt paid off, and the profligate expenditure of American's tax dollars ended forthwith. To accomplish these goals and others, we need leadership - leaders with the courage to educate and deny those Americans now socialized into believing they're rightfully entitled to the fruits of a fellow citizen's labors . That will prove an especially difficult task with a populace so blinded by self-indulgent thinking that mortaging the lives of unborn generations, to ensure the payment of benefits today, is actually politically supported.

Such changes take time, but they must be made to ensure America's long-term economic and political survival. Some, like the dismantling of the regulatory bureaucracy, can happen quickly, with the stroke of the legislative pen. Others, such as ending the entitlement programs of Social Security and others, must occur over a longer period to preclude unfairness to those who've long paid in.

The lesson of Barak Obama's election is this: knowlege can be gained by obtaining an education, but the common sense and wisdom necessary to lead self-governed people cannot. Flowery words followed by inaction speak only to false promises which, once broken, serve only to inflame the betrayed. Newt Gingrich failed to heed that lesson and, thus far, Mr. Obama has too. Time alone will tell whether the signatories of the Mount Vernon Statement follow their statement with actual political action, or whether they, too, will be relegated to the dust-bin of history by an inflamed American electorate next November.

Bud Parker| 2.18.10 @ 5:53PM

Well now, FawnridgeFarm,

Your words are right on the mark. We have spoken the good fight for years and years. Now it is time to act. Until we cast off these entrenched politicians that spend 40 years in Congress America has no chance to thrive.

FawnridgeFarm| 2.19.10 @ 8:01AM

Mr. Parker:

Thank you, sir. I sincerely appreciate your expression of agreement with my statements.

Your indication that "now is the time to act" could simply not be truer. Much that we all hold dear hangs in the balance of the forthcoming election this November. If it transpires as I suspect, there be far fewer "entrenched politicians" in office thereafter, and that is something that many of us will be thankful for.

Chuck Moody| 2.18.10 @ 2:45PM

I would definitely like to see some clearly defined objectives and how we are to reach them. General principles may be behind a person's ideas, but if there are no concrete proposals, that person is merely adding to the CO2 and methane of the world.
A bipartisan committee with teeth to look at each "gubmint" agency to decide if it's doing what it was created to do--or if it's doing anything except providing fat salaries and retirements for hacks--would be a good start. We pay billions for the DOE--which was created to lessen our dependence upon foreign oil. We are now more dependent since the DOE arrived. The Department of Education has presided over an alarming decline in the observable utility, or should I say futility, of a "public education". Do we need these bureaucracies if they not only haven't helped the situations they were created to fix, but have actually caused their respective situations to worsen?
Ave atque Vale

Jordan| 2.18.10 @ 4:16PM

Where were you when W. put a horse show judge in charge of FEMA? Strange we didn't hear any complaints from the right back then...

Don Adams| 2.18.10 @ 3:08PM

Never mind Ronald Reagan, or the Founding Fathers, or William F. Buckley; it is time we pay homage to William Seward Burroughs, inventor of the calculator. Next time the geniuses at Mount Vernon get together, lets all chip in and send them a box of Mr. Burroughs clever inventions. As long as they are good to 14 digits, they will be of more use than solemn pronouncments of principles.

With apologies to Forest Gump, "Conservative is as conservative does".

Until someone actually votes for reductions in government spending, which mostly and inevitably means entitlements, there is no such thing as a conservative left in America. The Mount Vernon Statement means nothing; a plan with specific measures to bring spending in line with revenues, and a commitment by all parties to follow that plan, is all I am interested in seeing.

David| 2.18.10 @ 3:30PM

Hello RGiven, you know what they say about statistics: you can make them mean anything you want. Try reading Thomas Sowell (a black man) and you will see that he thoroughly debunks all the crap about racism being the reason so many blacks are in jail, unemployed, or don't earn as much as other races.

This problems in this country won't be fixed until we get rid of public education. For 50 years students have been dumbed-down, and the most glaring result of what that dumbing-down has produced currently sits in the White House.

Jordan| 2.18.10 @ 4:14PM

Yeah, because who wants a professor of Constitutional Law running the country!? Really!

razor| 2.18.10 @ 3:54PM

some conservative quotes from Barry Goldwater,

“The income tax created more criminals than any other single act of government.”

“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.”

“Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism”

clay barham| 2.18.10 @ 3:58PM

All they have to agree on is one of two sides of the political landscape. Obama said the interests of the community are more important than are the interests of the individual. The left agrees with Obama, the conservatives, libertarians, objectivists and all supporters of the founding ideals of America agree that individual interests are more important, and that is it. All other nuances are aside and unimportant. claysamerica.com

Jordan| 2.18.10 @ 4:13PM

"...talking about the ideas that animate their movement."

Animate? that's a really strange way to spell "alienate".

Oldefarte| 2.18.10 @ 4:33PM

All of these statements and declarations are fine and dandy, but the single most important thing that this country needs now is politicians with the manageral/administrative knowhow [and the simple POLITICAL GUTS/COURAGE] to begin the process of cutting the EXPENSES [size] of government. There are humongous programs/things within the government's budget that need to be eliminated/reduced; including [but not limited to] foreign aid, welfare, farm aid, manned space program, and unnecessary military hardware!!!!!!

Bud Parker| 2.18.10 @ 5:35PM

From my perspective from the last 60 years or so, it seems that Congress and the Administration(s) have a public facade and a private agreement. The Democrats and Republicans seem to oppose each other. Yet nothing, in the long term, really changes. We continue to build a mammoth Federal Government. A Government that has more “Hidden Taxes” than a dog has fleas! If you know what percentage of earned income goes to our out of control Fed’s, I’d like to hear it.

I earn money. It goes into my bank account and I pay bills, make purchases, etc. But, I spend what I have. If I borrowed money year after year, decade after decade, far exceeding reason and common sense… At some point we must stand and say, “STOP!” Stop spending Communist China’s money on this Kingdom Building lunacy. Stop buying votes. Stop picking my pocket. Stop Pork-Barrel Spending. Stop misappropriating Billions of Dollars for “Special” Legislation that does nothing but spend money in your District!

This problem we face transcends Party Policy. Both Parties’ are to blame. If you believe it is just the Dem’s can you explain why no Republicans scream at the top of their lungs identifying the perpetrator’s of this horrific problem? Why do they not stand in Congress and indict the Legislators that are breaking the Law of the Land and abusing their positions?

We must vote out each and every Federal Politician. Flush the Congressional Toilet. Congress is the problem. Get an entirely new Congress. If they continue this madness, vote them out, too. Simply replacing professional politicians with more professional politicians will do nothing. It did nothing last decade, or the one before that.

Vote Them ALL Out! That will send a message that will rock their world.

Dana P| 3.4.10 @ 4:13PM

Well said - but further, we need to elect HONEST politicians that will adhere to the Constitution, and the CONSTITUTION states that NO power shall be given the Federal Government that is not FIRST approved at the State level (paraphrased). Therefore, EVERY law that has been passed by the FEDERAL government that was not FIRST voted on at the State level should be repealed. Fat chance of that happening, but a policy of that type would, truly be DEMOCRACY - what Congress is practicing now - ISN'T!

Jason| 2.18.10 @ 9:50PM

Well I suppose this is a start... but I already have already an issue or two with the MVS.

The Preamble to the Declaration of Independance doesn't use the term 'God' or IE: Alohiem for us christians, but 'their Creator' and that Creator is who gave your your rights. The use of proper noun 'God' in the MSV, to me, appears as a sublte, (but still subjective) attempt to paint us as a 'christian nation.

My next thought is, how sincere are my fellow conservatives on this endeavor? They let money and power sway them from principle, whats there to convince me that every sincere effort will be done to not only avoid letting such temptations overcome them collective as a whole but also to condem those within that allow such things to take place? In other words, I don't need hypocrit Republicans who bash people for being 'immoral' yet theyselves go around cheating on their wives, lie to people, and judge other's as if they know best!

Here's another, at what point do we draw the line on abortion? I mean lets think about this and forgive me for the interjection of the issue but if we're going to talk about preserving liberty and respecting Natural Law at what point in a person's life are they afford that respect? To me it comes down to this:

Whats more impoartant-
1. Unborn human being
2. The human being that has to bear the child

Lets not kid ourselves, if the life of an unborn child is of less priority then the mother's will to not want to bear it, then we'll never see our country back on constitutional principle.
For starters, it needs to be not just be the so called 'christians' that advocate this change, it has to be fist recognized by law then taught as an american virtue without injecting a central religious point of view- IE: reference my paragraph about the 'God" and "Creator" to understand where I am coming from.

William Briggs| 2.19.10 @ 8:05AM

Who else but a publication relations person would write, “A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles.” Conservatism unites conservatives? Natural fusion!? That had to have been penned by somebody—and whoever you are, I love you, brother—made ill by excessive contact with press releases.

How about this (from wmbriggs.com) as a rival?

The Manhattan Statement

A truth once known does not become false due to the passage of time. An agreement is not made null because it has been neglected. A promise once made cannot be broken by arrogance.

We have not forgotten the self-evident truths and unalienable rights upon which this country was founded. No one is above the law. All have the right to life, liberty, and the unfettered pursuit of happiness.

We remember that Government derives its consent from the governed, that when Government turns inward and self-serving, we have the right to alter or abolish it.

We retain the agreement that Congress has the power of legislation, not the Judiciary, whose mandate is to uphold the law; and that the President is sworn to protect the Constitution.

We believe that Government should be limited and that its unchecked growth is a cancer and a path to tyranny.

We know that the rule of law is an unshakable foundation, but that rule by regulation is groundless and breeds corruption.

We know that life is not fair. Yet we trust each person to know his own business within the law.

We believe that no right is more important than freedom.

Most of all, We Remember.

Gerald Stephens| 2.21.10 @ 4:32PM

All revolutions embody conflicting opinions of the precise nature of the beast to be slain and the most appropriate means to that end. Even the Founders were given to similar struggle in formulating an appropriate written means.

It matters not how one identifies their stripe or course action other than holding to the task of slaying the beast. How will we know the beast?

The beast is not difficult to identify. It is anything contrary to the clarity inscribed by William Briggs: The Manhattan Statement.

Gerald Stephens
Hartford, Ct

TaterSalad| 2.19.10 @ 2:20PM

Black conservatives are the best to know about this movement since they have struggled in so many ways over the years. They understand that big government and entitlements not only hurt them but hurt everyone by making themselves slaves to big government. It won’t happen with these people. They are true Americans and true conservatives. They don’t need anyone to tell them how to lead their own lives. As a Tea Party member myself I am glad to join ranks with black conservatives to fight this socialist, big government and to keep our Constitution safe from these Progressive morons!

http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=20887#comment-2568

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20192

TaterSalad| 2.19.10 @ 2:21PM

www.TeaPartyExpress.org

R GIVENS| 2.21.10 @ 6:13PM

"Please explain why, nationwide, blacks comprise 62 percent of drug offenders admitted to state prison."

There are two major reasons the drug crusaders do not arrest as many whites for drugs as blacks despite 500% as much drugs.

A. Blacks market drugs on street corners where it is easy to arrest them. Whites have drugs delivered to their homes where it is much harder to make arrests.

B. If the white incarceration rate went up five times, the outrage would put the drug warriors out of business. It would soon be impossible to get a conviction for a "drug crime" because everyone would have a relative doing hard time.

Blacks are on the menu because they lack the political power to stop the persecution.

Why are conservatives so interested in meddling in people's personal business.

White Collar Crimes Arizona| 3.31.10 @ 7:07PM

Thanks for the interesting and informative post. I look forward to more in the future.

ghdmanufactoryoutlet| 4.4.10 @ 3:21AM

sfdgt

sunglass| 4.4.10 @ 3:24AM

saf

paulsmithoutlet| 4.4.10 @ 3:33AM

asd

burberryoutlet| 4.4.10 @ 3:35AM

dgf

watches| 4.28.10 @ 11:47PM

hublot

zxcv| 5.6.10 @ 11:05PM

Flip Converter is a professional Flip Video Converter to help you convert Flip video, you can use it as Flip HD video converter and Flip MP4 converter. Supporting all Flip camcorder models, it can also function as Flip Ultra converter and Flip Mino converter.
sada

سوريا| 6.25.11 @ 12:55AM

http://www.soryh.com

出会い| 7.21.11 @ 3:45AM

itumomiteimasu

IBCBET| 8.1.11 @ 12:31AM

We're saving or creating a nation, here ibcbet 888 IBCBET ibcbet ทางเข้า he cracked to media row.

Puma x Alexander McQueen| 8.12.11 @ 11:41PM

is good

Travel Thailand| 8.29.11 @ 6:18AM

The above is at the national level, what about the lesser known state and local governments. There are regulations, and strangulations on a local level that would take a corps of scholars years to wade through.