This was the brilliance of that era’s conservative thinkers. Yes, many conservatives do disagree on specifics. But as a group, we need to understand that we must try to adhere to our central principles…and the Mt. Vernon statement is a perfect example of elegance and simplicity.

We call ourselves conservatives because we want our land to adhere to the founding principles of the United States of America. But these principles were Revolutionary in their time. These principles were the first new way of structuring a government since Kypselos ruled Corinth in ancient Greece.

Some would say that communism, socialism, or progressivism is also a new governmental structure. I would argue it is no more than a form of religiously based despotism. It certainly depends on faith in a perfectly administered government for its survival. And it looks forward to a historically inevitable, peaceful, ideal, perfectly communist future sometime after the end of history.

Given the structure of the United Nations, with the general assembly and most of the subcommittees ruled by the whims of secular tyrants and religiously based despots, it is clear that the founding principles of American governance are still new, still Revolutionary. So we conservatives, united for freedom and liberty, are also the only true Revolutionaries in the world. And we are facing a counter-Revolution, descended from the Jacobins, that began in France in 1789 and continues today.

These neo-Jacobins aren’t just a loyal opposition. They are deadly enemies who would banish our freedoms and sink us into a new form of well-meaning slavery to the all powerful nanny state. We cannot be polite when disagreeing with them, but muse oppose them as firmly as if we were at war. For make no mistake, they are at war with us. They are at war against the Revolution that founded America.

“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” –Alexander Hamilton

Study at Redstate University

There have been many declarations like this, but this is the first to firmly assert that war we fight transcends politics. Conservatives have always fought through the prism of partisan politics. The best statements is this:

“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.”

Conservatives may be about a hundred years late to the party, but better late than never. Real revolution will not occur by running strident ideologues and trying to impose a top down revolution via political institutions. That always fails just like it is failing right now. People dont like to be lectured.

The worst part of the statement is its desire to draw a seamless web from the founding fathers and “founding principles” to issues of concern to the modern GOP. Tthe statement may have more integrity if the authors did not try to link it to the fathers, but let it stand on its own as a statement of principles articulated for a new era. But I think linking the founding principles to a foreign policy that…

“It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom
and opposing tyranny in the world”

will not stand the scrutiny of serious scholarship. This is the type of fodder that gives Ron Paul legitimacy. Whatever one may think of this foreign policy platform, it is born of technology and the Twentieth Century. Linking it to the founders is a long stretch if not a fallacy. Similar arguments may be made about the last bullet.

I am also glad it stayed away from policy specifics.

The last thing Conservatives need is yet another litmus test. Sometimes I think this blog is really just a front for the Daily Kos and should really be titled how not to get elected.

Everyone has a pledge and a self righteous soap box. This week it’s this thing, next week it will be something else. Everyone wants to do the easy thing and demand this and demand that, but who wants to get out there and knock on doors and make the effort?

That got you quiet. Get out from behind my computer? Knock on doors? Talk to people who don’t agree with me? It’s hard work . BTW there is nothing wrong with the Mt Vernon thing.

just used their own signatures, with no claim to represent anyone but themselves. They pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honors. They put themselves at great personal risk of being executed for treason against the crown. They did not circulate it to get thousands of additional signatures. The text —as well as any political document ever written,— managed to mix general principles with concrete grievances.

They were giants, our founding fathers. We owe them more than a pompous collection of platitudes, most of which even the left wing blogosphere could embrace.

Newsflash! Everybody supports the Constitution; they just disagree over what it means. Four Scotus justices think the words “no law” in the first amendment means “any law as they see fit” . Seven justices thought that the Constitution offers no protection to babies trapped in the wombs of mothers who hate them. If I really believed that, I could not take an oath to support the Constitution, without including an exception.

Let’s take an informal poll, Redstaters. Are you prepared to offer your life, fortunes and sacred honor to defend Dr, Tiller’s right to cruelly dismember live babies who may not live up to his idea of being worthy to live?

The problem is that no concrete inferences on policy can be drawn from the Mt. Vernon statement. It serves only to burnish the leadership credentials of its signers.

Please, Sarah. just say no!

On the Mt. Vernon Statement I’m fine with this:

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

And this:

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

Also this:

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

But uh oh. In the next point, supporting “America’s national interest in advancing freedom” is good but the “opposing tyranny” part is troublesome to me. Does it mean that we should start doing everything we can to bring down the present tyrannical regime in China? How about the Saudis, one of our important allies in the Middle east? As a matter of practical fact it is my belief that the US must sometimes necessarily form alliances with some unsavory regimes.

Myself, I really don’t much care about the relative freedom of the people living under various regimes on the world stage. I think folks generally get the amount of freedom they deserve and that they desire.

As long as a nation’s economic interests coincide with ours, as long as their leaders are not hostile toward America and American allies and they are not overly belligerent toward their neighbors as far as I’m concerned we should leave them alone, maybe even actively support them under some circumstances. Carter turned Iran over to the Mullahs under the same rationale contained in the statement below. Look where THAT got us.

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

There’s a lot that bothers me in the final point. My “family, neighborhood, community, and faith” is no one’s business except my own and I don’t want government types, however well-meaning, to muck around with these things. There’s a role for government and it’s definitely not messing around with my “faith” or my “family.” While I’m at it, the government should also steer clear of my neighborhood and community, too. We who live there are quite capable of tending to things without the government’s heavy hand.

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

All in all, It’s not a document I would sign. It seems too meddlesome to me.

On the other hand, the Sharon Statement outlines what I consider the very model of conservatism.

http://tinyurl.com/ya56yjr

Substitute “Islamic Jihad” for “international Communism” as “the greatest single threat” in the Sharon Statement and you would have an imminently relevant document for the present times. Why, if the Sharon Statement has “stood the test of time,” do the authors and signers of the Mt. Vernon Statement feel the need for a new declaration?

As long as more people then not want a “free lunch” conservatives do not stand much of a chance.

Just imagine if the US Constitution were to be re-written today!

I cringe at the thought of “so called” Conservatives of today, let alone the RINOs running the GOP or heaven forbid the compromizing with Progressives, Marxists, and other “so called” Democrats.

Our founders Words cannot, and should not, be messed with; never before, and never again, will such intelligent freedom seeking men ever be positioned to form a more perfect Union as those brave souls willingly putting their, and their family’s lives on the line for convictions and principles of real freedom for all men. The Constitution was written with ink but formulated with blood.

There are many words in this Mt. Vernon Statement and some in the Sharon Statement that can now, and easily in the future, be interpreted in a way disasterous for free men.

I sign on to nothing written post Constitution!

As a liberal, I also strongly support the basic concepts since they are basic concepts and core principles of liberalism. Except ‘interest in advancing freedom’ If this means ‘nation building’ I strongly oppose such a foreign policy. (pun intended).

“Think about this: the U.S. military was able to turn a LOT of Viet Cong and NVA regulars into supporters of the South Viet Nam government.”

I only saw friends enlist and then attend their military funerals during that war as our community was staunchly pro-American. This idea that the VietCong/NVA converted in droves to defend the US supported South VietNam losing government seems contrary to the Military records that substantiated the infiltration of our enemy permeating the South VietNam military and government that subsequently fell no thanks to our Congress dictating strategy/tactics from Washington.

BTW, this same sabotage from non-loyal Afghan army members with tribal allegiance is one which our military must deal with in Afghanistan’s strict tribal culture of loyalty today as our enemies use the Karzai 12 rules of engagement and Obama’s announced withdrawal against our troops there.

As far as converting communists goes, study yesterday’s newsmaking Marxist Occidental alumnus (referencing Obama the student) who converted to neoconservatism through rational evolution. Note well, he’s not a Constitutional conservative, and would as easily sell out one as he has Obama. Neoconservatives are progressives and “compassionate conservatives”. According to Jonah Goldberg, “progressives” and “compassionate conservatives” are a variety of socialists or fascists themselves. My point remains that a devout Marxist combatant or Islamofascist Jihadist that “converts” in order to become part of the Western milieu remains a potential wolf though in sheep’s wool.

“Trust but verify.”

Once again, factions on the Right are squabbling over the “proper” way to arrange the deck chairs—according to their interpretation of the intentions of the Founding Fathers; meanwhile the “progressive” coalition in power keeps steering the USA Titanic towards the NWO iceberg. Those that stand on every single “principle” of their respective narrow ideology—and refuse to find common ground on which to make a stand with fellow conservatives—will eventually find themselves kneeling to the NWO.