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.
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.
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:
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. The Republican leadership on Capitol Hill opposes civilian trials for jihadists. A majority of Americans oppose civilian trials for jihadists. 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:
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
More CPAC speeches in 20 words
February 11, 2012 06:53 PM by Michelle Malkin
75 CommentsCPAC vs. the Occupiers: Keep calm and carry silly string
February 9, 2012 10:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
109 Comments
Romney gets Rick-rolled: Santorum sweeps Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado in 2/7 trifecta
February 7, 2012 07:24 PM by Michelle Malkin
332 CommentsMiddle Class Payroll Tax Cut Extension Comes Courtesy of Mortgage Fees on Home Buyers
February 6, 2012 01:36 PM by Doug Powers
35 CommentsSantorum’s got game
February 6, 2012 10:05 AM by Michelle Malkin
184 CommentsNevada Caucuses Open Thread; Update: Romney Wins
February 4, 2012 04:30 PM by Doug Powers
139 Comments
BlunderMitt: Let Them Eat Food Stamps; Plus: PPP results point to Santorum
February 1, 2012 09:44 AM by Michelle Malkin
122 Comments
Florida Primary Open Thread; Update: Romney Wins
January 31, 2012 07:24 PM by Doug Powers
163 Comments
Weekly Standard
» White House Economic Adviser: 'We Need a Global Minimum Tax'Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"Sister Toldjah
» Obama’s new budget is a bad jokeJustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False Choices
Thanks for spreading the word about this, MM, as I’m sure not many potential signers to this pact are aware of it!
Mt Vernon, RINOs counter tea party?
This is where one goes when people start writing manifestos and lists of commandments in politics, instead of just sticking to the basics.
No one declaration is going to satisfy everyone, so a multitude of them crop up. And instead of “unifying” people, the more likely result is to sharpen existing divisions.
Which is OK — I’d rather have conservatives shouting at each other in a free exchange of ideas than the goose-step mentality of the left, so long as we don’t lose track of who the real Domestic Enemy is.
Oh and actually, Michelle, you had me groaning in sad agreement as soon as you wrote the words, “Grover Norquist.”
Michelle,
Posts like this are what continue to make you relevant. It is refreshing to see you call people out when it is necessary. You’re not blind to ideology, and I appreciate it. I am better informed because of it.
Excellent and timely report Michelle. Excellent.
The GOP would be wise to distance themselves from Grover Norquist.
One of my favorite Constitutional Scholars is Andrew Napolitano. He contends [as do many others I follow]that the terrorists should be tried in Civilian Courts because we had no Declaration of War in the current War on a Tactic. This view is consistent with others I trust such as Kevin R,C. Gutzman, Thomas E. Woods,etc. Gutzman, wrote the Politically Incorrect guide to the Constitution, and Woods wrote the Politically Incorrect guide to American History, both for Regnery Publishing. Both have written other excellent books as well.
I’d advise to also ignore the twisted N/R John Yoo stuff they put out. Yoo is quite the inventor of Constitutional Interpretation… And N/R peddles his views regularly.
Here’s a better question. What in God’s name is a mainstream conservative gathering like CPAC doing being sponsored by the freaking John Birch Society?? You hear all this noise about the Tea Parties being co-opted by the Republican Party, but how about the Republican Party being co-opted by unhinged lunatic fringe groups?
haven’t they heard it’s open season on rinos?
Does trying or imprisoning enemy combatants in civilian facilities violate the rules of war? In England one had boiling oil thrown in his face. What if one is brutalized here? Is America guilty of War Crimes? There are no Red Cross visits, and they are not segregated together.
What the heck do we have to do to get rid of these CINO’s??? They sneak in under the guise of Conservative and people are taken in by them. Constant vigilance is imperative! Just because a document says “conservative” on it, doesn’t make it so. Thank God for people like MM who read through everything and shine a light on the frauds.
If you agree with everything in the actual Mt Vernon Statement, why should you refuse to sign because you disagree with two of the promoters on other issues?
Your argument is an ad hominem attack on the Mt. Vernon Statement. That is, you are attacking supporters rather than the statement itself.
The real question is, do you have a quarrel with anything in the Mt Vernon Statement? If not, what is wrong with collecting agreement on those things on which you agree, even if you disagree on other things? It is not productive to insist on such ideological purity in all things.
You can’t build a coalition if you insist that all members agree with you on everything. If you feel you have to disassociate your self with individuals, I suggest in make more sense to disassociate from whack-jobs (like truthers, birthers, Klan folk) and the like, rather than with folks who hold opinions on which reasonable persons may disagree.
I have not seen where the constitution guarantees due process to foreign enemies engaged in warfare with the US. In particular those captured on foreign land while engaged in combat with our forces.
Nowhere does the constitution imply our borders should be open or porous. That they are is the result of years of neglect of our border agency, and the apathy and laziness on the part of our executive branch; and the desire by some in our society for slave labor.
Let us not pretend otherwise.
Here’s the thing. It doesn’t so much matter what positions you take as much as how you defend your positions.
People like illegal immigration until you argue that it will bankrupt the country by making 12 million more people eligible for government programs that are currently going broke for the LEGAL citizens. . .
That is a CONSERVATIVE argument.
If you don’t support war, but argue you don’t support it because we aren’t really going to ‘win’ anything if we do win and it COSTS US TOO MUCH MONEY to blow up dirt piles. . .
That is a CONSERVATIVE argument.
However, those same positions would be bad if you said I don’t want immigration because I don’t like brown people – not good.
Also not good if you say ‘I don’t want to fight in wars because it turns America into a bad country’. Not conservative.
My point here is that it isn’t the positions you take but WHY you take the positions that you have.
I think the military is spending too much money and lives in foreign wars. That doesn’t mean I think we were wrong to be there or go there.
Conservatism is about individual freedom and choice. The more decisions made and money that is spent at the federal level, the less choice you get.
Errah, Norquist is a whore and political hack wannabe on the order of Huffington and Kos. We would all be best served if he stepped in front of Metro Bus on K Street. Hell I’d buy the ticket and watch it on pay per view if we could get it sponsored. He doesn’t speak for any conservatives I know!!!
Noooooh!!! What an embarrassment! It’s not bad enough that we have to be alert to every shady trick utilized by Obama and the Dems in Congress to get their “progressive” agenda set in place, we have to watch out for opportunists like Grover Norquist, and other members of the close GITMO faction, who are totally out of touch with the American people in general, and conservatives and Tea Partiers specifically.
Now the second batch of comments has – poof! – vanished…?
Always, always read the fine print.
Oh, and don’t tell me I have to ‘stop’ anything.
RINOs? They’re just floppy turds, all of them.
Had a weird overwrite problem. It’s fixed now!
Preach it Michelle. I am sure many do not know this. It is time to get this information out in the open.
I would rather the standard be Continental Congress 2009‘s Articles of Freedom, which I think more Constitutional conservatives would agree with. It does have an element of “birtherism”, which of course I support and many of you don’t, but taken on the whole, it’s a great statement in support of Constitutional America, and the one I think should prevail even if some elements such as that mentioned wind up being left to individual interpretation.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Here’s the thing. It doesn’t so much matter what positions you take as much as how you defend your positions.
People like illegal immigration until you argue that it will bankrupt the country by making 12 million more people eligible for government programs that are currently going broke for the LEGAL citizens. . .
That is a CONSERVATIVE argument.
If you don’t support war, but argue you don’t support it because we aren’t really going to ‘win’ anything if we do win and it COSTS US TOO MUCH MONEY to blow up dirt piles. . .
That is a CONSERVATIVE argument.
However, those same positions would be bad if you said I don’t want immigration because I don’t like brown people – not good.
Also not good if you say ‘I don’t want to fight in wars because it turns America into a bad country’. Not conservative.
My point here is that it isn’t the positions you take but WHY you take the positions that you have.
I think the military is spending too much money and lives in foreign wars. That doesn’t mean I think we were wrong to be there or go there.
Conservatism is about individual freedom and choice. The more decisions made and money that is spent at the federal level, the less choice you get.
I didn’t see anything in the MV statement that addressed illegal immigration or muslim relations. Did I miss something?
The reason I ask is because the text of the statement looked pretty good to me. I can’t see why any conservative would disagree with it.
Wait a minute. There’s nothing in the Mount Vernon Statement that has anything to do with Grover Norquist’s views on trying enemy combattants or immigration policy.
So the document is flawed not because of what it says, but because the drafters themselves do not fit in with the neoconservative groupthink of Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Bill Kristol and Laura Ingraham, the document is inherently flawed?
Ohhhhkayyyy?
Errah my comment was there and now its gone!
sorry for the length. These posts were spaced farther apart before the tech glitch. . .
I actually agree with Ron Paul that America should close its international bases to save money and bring troops home from Germany and Japan. That puts me at odds with most ‘conservatives’.
But why are we spending money to defend Japan when it would be better to let Japan defend itself and be a counterweight to China’s growing military dominance. I know it was a WWII treaty thing, but we don’t need to defend Japan. Let them be nuclear and watch China be nicer to America.
We closed bases across America in the 90′s. It’s time we close bases outside of America in the 2010′s.
. . . from a conservative perspective.
However, I will note that the current entanglements have battle hardened our current military personnel and will come in handy if we ever do get attacked and need to defend America.
Our anti-terrorism global war on terror is like whack a mole and we aren’t ever going to stop them from popping up no matter how long or hard we fight or how much money and lives we spend. . . but if the state department does its job, we can stop them at the visa level from coming to America.
The one-world-without-borders-post-partisan-globalists who won’t release the reins of the GOP are now going all out to co-opt the Tea Party movement with their DOA “pick a party” campaign (thanks Sarah, what a moron you turned out to be). For these same polymorphic Republican life forms who orchestrated the 2006 and 2008 catastrophes with this nonsense to be again lecturing us that conservatism is really liberalism is insulting beyond belief.
At the same time they are staging a lame push back on Obama’s healthcare summit on the argument that Obama’s offer is a “take it or leave it” proposition, the GOP is doing the same thing AGAIN to not only conservatives but this time to the Tea Party too.
We DO have a choice beyond voting for Democrats or Assistant Democrats. We can use 2010 to throw out as many of these weasels as we can and then campaign hard for OUR candidates the next two years. If we can’t stay focused on 2010, we will blow it with all of this “3rd party” talk. It is up to the GOP to change, not us.
Vote the Gangs of McCain our of office this year and next year will open up for us just as the Scott Brown win changed everything for all incumbents. No one is safe is we stay focused on 2010. We simply cannot find ourselves having to choose between a Democrat or an Assistant Democrat yet again in
According to most people here, that means you’re not a conservative.
Well put.
Mainstream conservatism (and not a moment too soon) is moving in the direction of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers/Documents. That’s the reason. After all, the JBS’s mission statement couldn’t be more clear:
This is what “Constitutional conservatism”, which is a HUGE factor in the Tea Party movement, is all about.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Rubio on C-Span just advocated trial for terrorists in Guantanimo in military tribunals. At least one speaker at CPAC is on target.
BTW, Obama is giving us his latest installment of “it’s not my fault” campaign. In the middle of this spiraling failure of an administration, it is at least comforting to know that the president is a smashing success. Bad wiring in that brain.
Amen.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
The twinkletoed commie cancer is everywhere. This will require laser precision strategeric surgery. The conservative movement is awakening but must be careful in navigating the faux conservative tide pools. Lot’s of slimy creatures thereabouts.
Meet the new boss same as the old boss.
They really DON’T GET Tea Party Folks At All.
This view is consistent with the constitution being a suicide pact. It’s not. This nation has and will continue to fight wars without formal declarations. As long as the terrorists are a “clear and present danger” — and just wait until their get their hands on nuclear weapons! — the civilian authorities acting in concert with the military are free to take whatever steps are necessary to protect the populace and ensure victory. For those who want to turn the security of the nation over to lawyers and “I am a Doctor” academics and all the other apparatchiks of the culture of treason, please grow up.
More broadly, the Mount Vernon Statement is amorphous and fluffy. Nice words that appeal to many but short on the ‘how’.
Yep, tyranny is bad. How do you propose dealing with it?
Yep, family is good. Define family.
Yep, limited Government. What are you going to cut?
Lots of feel good rhetoric, but that point has passed. Time for the rubber to hit the road with some firm absolute statements.
A Trojan Hourse RINO in sheep’s clothing…There those who will attempt to co-opt the conservative movement this year to suit their own agenda. People like this will lose their credibility quickly and won’t be a factor. The American people have awaken.
Maybe the Republicans could embrace this.
That’s about as firm as I’ve seen in anything that could possibly represent a “big tent” party.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Tech note
All comments from the mysterious phantom version of this article have been restored (minus the ones that were just asking what the heck happened). Sorry about all that!
Can we please stop pretending that what separates true conservatives from RINO’s and liberals is their respect for the Constitution? The founding fathers gave us a document that is vague at best (tell me what “due process” is. what is “unreasonable search and seizure”?) and it just happens that liberals have a different interpretation of what those words mean. That doesn’t mean we value the document any less.
Beyond the boiler plate lip service that the group gives that no one would disagree with, the group has always been a haven of whackjob conspiracy theorists. Its founder accused Dwight Eisenhower himself of being a communist. I thought they were effectively removed from the mainstream right, but it seems that with the overlap in ideology between the Tea Partiers, Glenn Beck and the Republican Party, I guess it’s all one big tent now. Only the big tent excludes anyone who thinks the stimulus works, but includes New World Order conspiracy theorists.
This is an outrage! It’s as if Michael Moore appeared at the Democratic convention!
Oh, wait…
There’s no pretending.
The RINOS and liberals have none. Not only do they openly violate the Constitution, but they similarly ignore petitions for redress.
The Constitution is what separates us from the libs and the RINOs.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
I read the so-called “Mount Vernon Statement” expecting to see some serious thinking on display. instead I was reminded of the cliche about a mountain straining and bringing forth a mouse.
These meaningless cliches and platitudes were the best they could come up with? Now I am worried about the state of conservatism.
Signing statements like “no tax” pledges and this Mount Vernon statement is getting a bit old. If a person is honest and of sound character, their words should be enough. Either they espouse the principles in question or they don’t.
If on the other hand they lean toward which ever way the wind is blowing, their signatures are worthless. If they have to sign some statement proving their word is good, then we have a problem.
These exercises are just another means at insuring conformity to one’s cause.
This is a good reason the Tea Party concept doesn’t need “national” leadership. It needs to be a loosely knit coalition of groups that share the same principles, concentrating on electing people of like-minded values to their local governments, school boards, county boards, and state governments. Also concentrating on getting US Representatives and Senators elected from their respective states.
Once someone or some group is recognized as the “national” leader, the same problems the Republicans and Democrats are having will surface.
It’s hard to disagree with it, as it doesn’t actually say anything.
Correct.
Good post.
As far as signing a “pledge”:
Political/power/money whores will likely sign anything that they feel will help them at that particular time; then, when they go against their “signed pledge”, they’ll likely come up with convoluted, torturous, attorney-conceived and -approved justifications and explanations.
If an individual signing a pledge is meretricious to begin with, a signed pledge – to use an ooooollld expression – is not worth the paper it is printed on.
(And, damn right, I ended a sentence with a preposition!)
I’m not.
I’m worried about the blind faith that’s being placed in the Republican Party. Conservatives are in for huge disappointments if this continues. Look at Scott Brown – already stumping for McCain.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Key problem with the statement for me?
First 3? OK…
#4? NEOCON
#5 Social Con at a Federal Level…
Its the exact same thing as the current crop of GOPrs SAY they believe.
Until they come out and say we must through Law, or Amendment, redefine the Commerce Clause, General Welfare Clause, and Emminent Domain BACK to what the founders intended?
This is an excercise in futility.
Ignorance speaks with a loud voice and you repeatedly show yourself to be very ignorant.
Keep shining that light on these cockroaches Michelle. If not for your blogs, we mere mortals would be totally unaware of the shams so many of our back east rinos are. If any of these (_*_)s are for amnesty, card check, global warming reparations, 2nd amendment rights stifling, or fiscal irresponsibility, call them out, and we will vote them out. The voter tsunami is here, just point out the beach we need to wash over. Hows that hope and change working mr crist?
We need more American Revolutionaries like yourself. May I call you Swamp Fox?
You’re right. It makes him a libertarian, at least on this one viewpoint. This conservative believes, as Rush puts it, that the world is governed “by the aggressive use of force”. That doesn’t mean that you attack anybody who doesn’t agree with you, and it definitely doesn’t refer only to the US – in fact, it refers to us less than the larger part of the world’s governments. It does mean that you maintain a strong and agile military and a willingness to extend its reach when necessary to defend our national interests. Did that include Iraq? Not in my opinion, but opinions, even among conservatives, can differ.
CPAC is also featuring Andrew Sullivan on a panel about gay conservatives? Are they aware that this “gay conservative” endorsed John Kerry and Barack Obama, and promulgates conspiracy theories that Sarah Palin is not Trig Palin’s mother?
I sort of agree with that, but I’d like to hear the arguments in favor of keeping American troops in countries that are wealthy enough to defend themselves before I render a final opinion.
The Democrats continue to recreate themselves as something new, but crawl out of the same cemetery every election cycle. Keene and Norquist are RINO’s are attempting the same scam. They are the draculas of the Republican party. Only a wooden stake, made from a tightly rolled Constitution, will put an end to these Tea sucking parasites. There is a specific reason they created their own documents and have not promoted the Constitution as the only document we need (or Federalist Papers and Forefather writings for critical thinking and understanding). Did anyone besides Michelle know about these guys past??? She said it before about TX’s Medina, representation needs vetting. I’ll link this article in other news post commenter’s section. Thank you for publishing and republishing this information. History must be documented and written accurately so we don’t repeat the same mistakes or make new ones. Michelle’s brilliance, hard work and great memory are why this is the greatest political blog in the world.
Let me make it very clear so that there will be no misunderstandings later. If the GOP and it’s mush-brained enablers somehow orchestrate another “lesser of two evils” choices in 2012, I WILL VOTE 3rd PARTY AGAIN! It worked in 1992,1996 2006 and 2008. It’s that’s what it takes to destroy this corrupt GOP, so be it. It’s their choice.
I looked at the Mojunt Vernon statement and I confess the earth didn’t move for me. They stood four-square on good roads and good weather (h/t to RAH) and that was it.
Norquist is bad news. David Horowitz started asking serious questions about the man and his many islamic connections over two years ago. Those questions have not been answered. My own belief is that Norquist is deep into treason and the burden of proof is on him to dispel those concerns. Horowitz is still waiting for him to do so. My sense is that it is going to be a long wait.
I’m glad Sarah boycotted this charade.
Thank you for this post, Michelle. Open borders = no U.S. sovereignty, and that is part of the globalists agenda.
There are people in both parties who seek to undermine U.S. sovereignty.
For those who care about U.S. sovereignty, I recommend that you go back to the CPAC speeches made in 2008, and see for yourself how many times each speaker mentioned “sovereign” or “sovereignty”. It’s very eye-opening.
Last thing… Michelle, when you said:
Were you channelling your inner Phyllis Schlafly?
And my mother and my cousin each taught English for 30 years!
You may call me just about anything, except late for dinner, to use another oooollld expression – that was already oooollld even when I was a kid.
The U.S. Army’s 5th Corps is headquartered in Germany, I still believe Hiedelberg.
When and how the 5th Corps came to Europe is the reason why it remains there. It has little to do with the EU being able to afford to defend itself.
I’m having a hard time remembering why this knucklehead is even credentialed as a Conservative. How did he work his way into a position of prominence anyway?
Thank you for the reminder, Michelle. Why is Norquist trying to fracture the Conservative movement?
I am writing Sen. Jim Demint to ask why they are again surrendering principles to “getting along” with this administration, especially on very important issues where the latter is obviously WRONG.
Sarah Palin must know about the issues you pointed out. She is not attending the CPAC.
As a blogger noted: CPAC more and more seems to stand for “Consciously Providing Ammo to Critics“!
He was a Conservative… 15 years ago. The fact he is an invitee tells you more about the out-of-touch cluelessness of Republican “leadership” than it does Andrew Sullivan himself.
Exactly. Let’s see…so far the “manifestos” calimingto unify us all into one “We are the World” conservative fellowship…
1 – GOP policy list
2 – “Contract from America”
3 – Mount Vernon manifesto
4 – Boehner’s “Contract with America” redux
5 – Michael Steele/RNC “Cookbook”
6 – 2008 GOP litmus test for Republican candidates
7 – Glenn Beck’s 9-12 Project
8 – Cooking instructions for 12″ Gino’s frozen pizza.
9 – [Place your personal manifesto here]
Perhaps we need to put numbers on ping pong balls and have a manifesto lottery.
If I did’nt know better I’d say these guys are double agents. What tools.
The American Federalist Party.
That’s mine.
The cooking instructions for Gino’s pizza were instrumental in putting it together haha.
Seriously, though. It’s hard to argue against Beck’s 9-12 project. It’s a pretty amazing thing!
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
You forgot the “Complete Lena and Ole Joke Collection.”
Norquist has good ideas on most issues, in my humble opinion.
The one horsefly in the ointment, IIRC, he is married to a “Palestinian” (there is no Palestine, it was a Roman attempt to deny the existence of the ancient nation of Judah, and the Brits just kept calling it that) Muslimah.
He may be Muslim himself, It isn’t settled, but while Muslim law allows Muslim men to take Christian or even Jewish wives, infidels can not marry Muslimahs.
That’s what you choose to think that conservatives believe. In fact, that is what people who call themselves conservatives believe, when it violates the dictionary definition of the word. Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul are true conservatives. Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin are neoconservatives. Not that there’s anything wrong with veering from the dictionary definition, but don’t pretend that you believe something just because it’s CONSERVATIVE.
Addendum:
Daniel Pipes asks if Norquist is in fact a Muslim.
Once again, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t know the difference between a conservative and libertarian, and you DEFINITELY don’t know what a “neo-con” is.
I’ve read about the radical, apparently 180-degree change of Little Green Footballs and its ?founder?, a Charles Johnson, over at Atlas Shrugs – and, I believe, here also; and for (an) answer(s) can up with only:
He(They) or his(their) family(ies) has(have) been threatened – by fascists/socialists/muslims/etc, unless he(they) change(s) his(their) tune.
He(they) has(have) been promised power, fame, and influence if he(they) change(s)(s) his(their) tune.
He(they) has(have) been promised lots of money if he(they) change(s) his(their) tune.
Or, some combination of the above possibilities, which are not at all mutually exclusive.
Nice to see a liberal like you lecturing us on what conservatives believe.
Which dictionary would that be?
That’s amusing.
Basic concepts of the neo-Federalist movement, FYI (from the Platform – also “subversive” should be “subservient”):
This platform would suit any Constitution-loving party well, and if the Republicans would adopt it (or something similar) and take it seriously, I’d rejoin their ranks in a flash.
It really doesn’t look like the Republicans take much seriously beyond kowtowing to the Democrats, and the progressive ones at that.
So, I follow the Founders and those who revere them. If the Republicans put someone up who fits that description, they get my vote. If not, someone else does. The Tea Party movement is all about just that, and both parties must take heed, lest they lose the opportunity to earn the votes of those who wish to bring forth the America we were supposed to have.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
I did not know that he married a muslimah.
From all that I have read, either he has become muslim; or, she walks around with a target on her back.
There is no middle ground.
Neoconservative:
From Merriam-Webster-
From Wikipedia-
What definition are you using to describe the figures you’re trying to paint with a negative light?
I certainly don’t see Rush, Ann Coulter, or our lovely MM as neocons.
OT:
Heartache: Fred Thompson endorses John McCain.
Will there be a post condemning Fred for this?
Fred who? Seriously, he has fallen so far beneath the radar it would be a waste of ink [pixels].
This kind of thing is what causes me to embrace the evils of scotch.
Neocons also tend to be liberals on social policy.
When Pat Buchanan uses the term “neocon”, it is a code word for Jew.
“Qui Bono” is Bat Puchanan’s code word for claiming Israel dictates US foreign policy.
Afghanistan, Iraq, all of it: “Qui Bono”, says Bat.
MSNBC uses him as their token conservative because he is an embarrasment to the cause.
On February 18th, 2010 at 9:39 am, Red State Skeptic said:
Translation: Red State Skeptic is terrified of the John Birch Society,
and must try any Alinsky method necessary to try to discredit them.
No, I’m not a member of the John Birch Society. But from what I can see about them, their biggest “crime” is that they have been consistently anti-Communist for several decades. And of course, the Marxist-Leninsts in this country don’t like that.
Some Marxist-Leninsts wear Che T-shirts, some wear “red star on black background” T-Shirts (like Obama-enabler Bill Ayers), and some wear suits and pretend to be conservatives.
On February 18th, 2010 at 11:44 am, RedDog said:
Bingo! That’s exactly what they are.
Yup, Norquist may well be a Muslim, granted a closet Muslim, which would explain a lot.
I thought the M statement was one of the lamest things I’ce ever seen. I expected something more like Laura Ingrahams 10 things but no we get a vague fluff piece supported by many people like Gingrich who need to move along and get out of the way. I supported Scott Brown and worked for his campaign, he and Palin are really dissapointing me on this McCain support. I get the loyalty bit but the one they owe the most support to is the Country! McCain is a disaster and needs to retire . Sick of the same old,same old. I have yet to see Palins views stated on amnesty,illegal immigration and that remains what I feel is the deal breaker for me. I still think amnesty would mean the end of this country.
On February 18th, 2010 at 12:09 pm, Flyoverman said:
Fred Thompson was McCain’s stalking horse in 2008.
Thompson entered the Republican primary race late, left early, and had “no fire in the belly”. He wasn’t in it to win it, he was in it to help his “good friend John McCain” win it.
Remember that McCain lost the SC primary in 2000 to the evangelical George W. Bush, and it was a momentum-changer. McCain was determined to ensure that history didn’t repeat itself in 2008. If Thompson had not been in the race, evangelical Mike Huckabee would have won the SC primary. Thompson went to SC about a week early and “camped out” there. And he pulled just enough support away from Huckabee to enable McCain to win.
Mission accomplished, Fred Thompson quit the race three days later.
Now you are leading me down the path to alcoholism….
Please help me forget the GOP in 2008. The stupidity was beyond painful.
Whatever Grover Norquist was, or was believed to be…. he is now an enemy of this country, with an agenda to destroy it from within. I don’t believe for a second that he is a patriotic conservative. He’s a usurper with intent to do harm.
This is where the real war is happening. It’s a quiet war that the enemy is waging right under our noses, and they’re winning at the moment.
That’s the most logical explanation, from what I can see.
You’ve had that theory before, and Thompson endorsing McCain supports that.
But Huckabee was a pro-illegal alien, soft on crime governor of Arkansas, and while he is good on social issues, he isn’t exactly an economic conservative.
Plus, on a personal basis, I get a smarmy Clintonian feel off the Huckster. Almost everyone accepts he was behind the anti-Mormon dirty tricks in South Carolina, and I think he stayed in the race to throw it to McCain because, as a Southern Baptist, he has such a deep animus for Mormons.
OK, the LDS believes in some weird, or at least not at all Chrsitian, things, but I knew LDS people in the Navy, good Americans, good family values, and Romney, while I had some major issues with his Massachusetts positions, thought he was more conservative than McCain, and would have run a better campaign.
I voted for McCain, because I took my time to research Obama, and his hatred of America and his beliefs in communism were clear, but I sure didn’t feel good about it.
Because of multiculturalism BS and political correctness AKA opinion/news/reporting censorship.
We have to “concentrate our fire” on those two abominations.
He did in the last election, even running interference for McCain for a time in order to hinder Huckabee. He’s an actor, and a pretty good one.
Who but a damn troll would have a problem with that? No Family is NOT a 1960 commune nor a couple of faggots adopting “love children”.
alligators are hungry
I still say the Huckster rain interference to help McCain.
We’ll never know for certain, I suppose.
Stinky crop of candiates, except Duncan Hunter, and he was purposely ignored.
I prefer the “Contract From America” thus far. Less mamby pamby…
I also find it interesting that Norquist’s wife, Samaah Alrayyes, is of Palestinian heritage. They married in 2005.
She went to work at the Islamic Institute which was founded by Khaled Saffuri.
How did they meet and does she or someone she’s associated with, have, or had, some influence over him? Or did Grover Norquist always travel in these circles? That would be circles made up of terrorist financiers.
I condemn thee Fred Thompson, as a senile old fart. Right over here is an ice floe with your name on it, safe travels.
On February 18th, 2010 at 10:36 am, Red State Skeptic said:
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:
On February 18th, 2010 at 12:42 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:
If your hypothesis were correct, Huckabee would have quit the race at CPAC 2008. Instead, Huckabee was the only candidate who kept fighting all the way until McCain clinched the 1191 pledged delegates.
If you want to talk about a candidate running interference for McCain, ask yourself why Romney quit the race on February 7th, less than 48 hours after pledging to fight all the way to the convention. And why, a week later, did Romney “release” his delegates to McCain? There is only one answer… Romney was trying to help McCain and give McCain an advantage over Huckabee.
Who was the only Presidential Candidate who committed to Senator Jeff Sessions’ 15 point action plan to restore law and order to America’s broken immigration system?
The answer: the candidate you disrespectfully call “the Huckster”.