The Mount Vernon Statement Won’t Fix What’s Broken

There’s something not to like for everyone in the Mount Vernon Statement of conservative principles that wasn’t signed at Mount Vernon but sure looks good on a masthead.

Read more: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-mount-vernon-statement-wont-fix-whats-broken/

The whole Mt Vernon thing is so 60s like retro RINO. The founders are open borders types — Do you agree with Keene and Norquist’s views on national security and immigration enforcement? ... Demint is window dressing, sigh. McCain is a backer as well.

Much easier to just say they would support their Constitutional oath of office, wouldn't it.

IMHO it's all meaningless drivel, a charade. How many more 10 point plans do we need before we realize it's not 10 point plans we need, it's Constitutional fidelity, truth, integrity and honor that is sadly lacking in our potentates.

Why not just sign on to to Beck's 9/12 statement of values and principles?

Won't Get Fooled Again

I view the Mount Vernon Statement as another element in the uprising against the Leftist assault on America.

The fist whiff of resistance was over the 2007 McCain/Bush/Kennedy Shamnesty Bill giving citizenship to millions of illegals. The people spoke. No, they roared. They people were also surprised at how effective they were. We had power to prevent awful legislation. Most politicians viewed it as a single event and not the beginning of nationwide resistance to a government seemingly adrift, unanchored by Constitutional principles, limitations.

The second element of resistance was the palpable disgust at the nomination of John McCain. We had put up with eight years of so-called compassionate conservatism and aside from McCain’s support of strong national defense, many Americans could not get excited over the prospect of a Bush Part Two presidency.

In the third element, we directed our sights at Cap & Tax. It passed the House but it was a Pyrrhic victory. Rat Senators saw blood running out the noses and ears of House members and never brought it up for a vote. I think this was the moment conservative leaning legislators sat up and noticed that despite Hussein’s Most Glorious Coronation, the nation was not going quietly down the Marxist Highway.

The fourth was the rapid and continuing rise of the Tea Party Resistance Movement. Grassroots uprisings have frightened tyrants for millennia.

The fifth confirmed what we Freepers saw coming. The elections of McDonnell and Christie. As a rat duchy of the Greater Marxist Kingdom, the NJ election was a political two by four across the foreheads of Pelosi/Reid/Hussein.

Sixth was the election of Scott Brown. Oh, and Hussein himself campaigned for his opponent as he did for incumbent rats in VA and NJ.

Seventh is the National Socialized Healthcare Express. The new junior Senator from Massachusetts slashed its tires. Hehe.

Eighth. Conservative candidates around the country are jostling, elbowing each other to get on the ballot this November. Marco Rubio in FL, an unknown six months ago is going to kick the snot out of Governor “Suntan” Crist. Established rat politicians view the approach of a perfect electoral storm and seek deep shelter in the form of “spending more time with family,” or “I never did like Washington DC,” etc.

Ninth. Now we have a few dozen non-office holding conservatives take the time to re-express the timeless values of our founding and Constitution. I think of it as similar to senior citizen couples taking their wedding vows after 50 years of marriage. Perhaps neither are necessary, but reaffirmation of what we believe can only help our resistance movement. It adds to the pressure on the good guys to keep the momentum going and for the rats to think about retirement. The Mount Vernon Statement is but an element of a grassroots uprising against the soft tyranny our country has become, and as such we should embrace it.

Which of the signers of this document do you consider “RINO’s”?

The great thing about calling somebody a "RINO" is that the term has no fixed meaning -- it generally just means that person using the term "RINO" disagrees with the insultee on some matter of policy.

One would think that those who blithely toss about the term "RINO" would be able to tell us exactly what defines a "True Republican." But somehow they're never able to do so.

That ought to be a clue as to the real problem here ... but it's easier to just shout "RINO" than to actually come up with a workable definition for "True Republicans."

...it’s easier to just shout “RINO” than to actually come up with a workable definition for “True Republicans.”
____________________

Oh, I think it’s quite easy to define or at least describe the things that constitute a “RINO.”

1. Amnesty for Illegal Aliens
2. Willingness to agree to some form of tax increases or “revenue enhancements.”
3. Willingness to expand government programs, like Medicare Part D
4. Willingness to accept some form of abortion on demand
5. Acceptance of “gay marriage” as a normal lifestyle equal to traditional marriage.
6. Support of extensive extra-Constitutional Federal government powers
7. An apologetic attitude toward prosecuting a war against our enemies, or the treatment of enemy prisoners Re: where they are held, or their interogation.
8. A general willingness to “cross the aisle,” to practice “bipartisanship,” and to generally compromise or acquiesce to Liberals on any given issue.

Now, not ALL of these are required to be dubbed a “RINO,” but if one holds to 3, 4, or MORE of these, you MIGHT be a RINO. And if none of these criteria ring true, just think JOHN MCCAIN. THAT is the perfect picture of a RINO.

Just to deal with your first point: "Amnesty" has no fixed definition, either. What's needed is a workable plan to deal with illegal aliens; unfortunately, too many people think that if a politician doesn't support building a stupid wall or some other similarly simplistic "solution," they must be a "RINO" who is "for Amnesty."

Your comments about "willingness" are disingenuous -- they have no meaning, either, without a specific context. Awareness of context in politics, is what separates the responsible from the mindless. That's not to dismiss the importance of having principles and sticking to them; but politics has a way of punishing those who expect to achieve total victory -- which is something that Republicans, and conservatives in particular, never seem to figure out.

So, NOW we have a criteria for the RINO.

Except you said yourself that they're not definitive.

But we'll let that slide. Do the real thing now, and define a "True Republican." And for extra credit, you can define it in a way that has practical political use.

Hmmm...Now, lemme see — in your post just above, you’ve told me I’m “simplistic,” “disingenuous,” and “mindless,” yet you ask me now to define “true Republican.”

You’ll pardon me if I consider your invitation to do so to be “disingenuous?” It appears to me that NO “definition” or “description” of a RINO will be sufficient for you to accept.

You totally ignored my identification of a RINO-in-chief, John McCain. So, I am skeptical that you would ever admit there is any problem with the McCain’s, Grahamnesty’s and others who are, indeed, RINO’s.

The issue is not “total victory,” the issue is standing on principles. RINO’s regularly DO NOT. Consservatives generally DO. That is a distinction that one has to willfully IGNORE to miss.

you’ve told me I’m “simplistic,” “disingenuous,” and “mindless,” yet you ask me now to define “true Republican.”

I'm not calling you those things ... but the terms you used, yes, I am labeling them as such. They don't have any actionable meaning.

As commonly used, they're simplistic, disingenuous, and mindless terms -- epithets that are generally just thrown out there as a substitute for something that can actually be acted upon.

You're still talking in generalities right now ... you say, essentially, that John McCain is not a true Republican.

Fine, let's stipulate that. But to say that, implies that you know what a True Republican should be. So I'm going to challenge you on that.

What would a true Republican look like? Do you have a real answer? Or is "John McCain" just another of those mindless, disingenuous, and simplistic terms like "RINO," that people toss out as a substitute for thought?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.