Last week an article appeared in the Wall Street Journal that gave me pause even as it evoked outrage. It proved that India has more backbone than America does where it concerns portraying Islamic terror in films.

The article was penned by Arun Venugopal. The writer is a young Indian-born, American-raised reporter who has knocked about in both Bollywood and the American film communities, and his piece is an eye opener.

Venugopal’s piece should enrage anyone who comes to realize that India’s Bollywood film industry is able to portray Muslims as the evil villain of its films while America’s Hollywood shrinks from such common sense portrayals. And if you’ll forgive the somewhat mixed metaphor of my title, it’s all because the cowboys of the American west don’t have the spine to buck PCism while the Indians of the east don’t seem to have the slightest qualms about telling it like it is.

Venugopal notes that the Indian film industry does not shy away from a “full throttle” portrayal of Islamic terror in its films.

…terrorism narratives are pursued full throttle, and where Islamic radicalism and the suffering it causes come together in extravagant form. Whereas Hollywood focuses on bumptious American bureaucrats and politicians (”Syriana,” “Lions for Lambs”), troubled soldiers (”Stop-Loss”) and ruthlessly efficient superagents, India makes movies about actual terrorists, based on its long, painful history of domestic extremism.

And what of America? Have we not lost countless soldiers to Islamic terror and thousands of our civilians as well? Certainly we haven’t lost as many as India, nor have we suffered from Islamic terror for the many decades that they have, but have we not been bled?

Of course we have. But it isn’t for lack of harm that our film industry is so reticent to portray Muslims as terrorists. No, it is because we suffer from the west’s penchant to political correctness, a foolish, self-destructive tendency from which the Indian people do not suffer.

Sadly, India’s film traditions are so alien to America that few of their films will ever gain much notice in America and the lesson that they could teach us in the case of Islamic terror will go unseen by most Americans. It’s a shame, too, because it is a lesson we need to inculcate.

Certainly not all Muslims are terrorists, but in this day and age, most terrorists are Muslim. It really is just that simple and it is a simplicity that our PC attitudes prevent us from learning at our own peril.

The Indians understand this lesson well. Unfortunately, the America under Barack Obama is hiding her head in the sand and pretending not to see the truth that stares her in the face.

If it takes a few seemingly silly movies with weird dance numbers and kisses implied but always unseen on screen to bring that lesson home, then crank up the sitars, will you?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The liberal media’s newest meme is to claim that the tea party movement is made up exclusively of John Birchers, militia types, racists, and “birthers.” Politico, for instance, had an extensive story about how legitimate conservatives are coming to realize that they’ll have to conduct a Buckley styled purge of the extremists if they expect the tea party groups to be taken seriously. Of course, the left has had its extremists for decades, unlike the right, has never conducted any such purges, and has also benefited from a news media that has never highlighted the left’s worst nuts.

The whole idea that conservatives have to purge their wackier, more fringe members is something that at one level is obvious but at another is proof that the left and the Old Media are nothing but hypocrites. At still a third level there is part of the attitude exhibited by some of these far right elements that is a root motivation of the tea party movement, fringe or no.

As clownish left-wing commentators such as Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, John Stewart or Stephen Colbert point fingers and guffaw at the fringes of the right and as the New York Times and Politico stroke their chins and look down their noses at the unruly tea party movement, it must be noted that none of these folks ever uttered a cross word against the Code Pink wackos, the communist infiltrators, anti-war hippies, Stalinist apologists, pro-abortion extremists, Euro-trash half-wits, eco-terrorists, and outright anarchists that have filled the left’s ranks since the birth of the new left after WWII.

At every lefty protest representatives of these hatemongering groups abound. They can be found on the campus of every American college and university, as well. But are these dangerous extremists ever discussed in our Old Media outlets when they highlight lefty movements? Never. The left’s extremists are simply never mentioned. It is as if every left-wing group in America is filled with conscientious old grandmothers and idealistic young folks innocently avowing their rights as citizens of the world. Never are the violence prone, the hateful nutcases, or the drugged out losers that fills the American left ever highlighted.

But watch out. Should one guy with a misspelled sign, a few goofy guys dressed as founding fathers, or one guy with a gun show up at a tea party and even conservatives start quaking in fear that their movement can’t be taken seriously.

Still, there are some serious questions that must be asked about what the tea party movement means, who should be “allowed” into it, and how its affairs should be conducted. William F. Buckley, Jr. well understood this when he conducted in the early 1960s the purge from his new conservative movement of members of the John Birch Society.

Even as House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio tells the media that he thinks the tea partiers are “great patriots,” some media types like Michael Gerson are warning that the tea party movement is in danger of being defined by its “worst elements.” Consequently many conservatives are looking to Buckley’s example in order to distance the tea party movement from militia types and the so-called “birthers” that have set upon Obama’s birth certificate as its cause célèbre.

This is not to say that the tea party movement should simply stand by as weirdos take over their movement. Certainly conservatives are right to try and oust today’s John Birchers. But let’s be honest about one aspect of “extreme” sentiment that lies at the basis of the tea party movement: its essential anti-government sentiment.

The key difference between the left and right is that the left sees government as the answer to its dreams while the right sees government as the problem, not the solution. Leftists are fascists at heart and they want to use the iron boot heel of government to drive their policy goals. So, when the left protests, it protests that government isn’t big enough that it isn’t being used enough.

The tea party movement is different. It is at heart driven by a quintessentially American sentiment. That sentiment is a distrust, verging on hatred of government. We all know that the United States was born of revolution. Our founders violently deposed their rightful government and supplanted it with one of their own making. Government employees were murdered, attacked, beaten, tarred and feathered, threatened… in short British officials were violently deposed by our founders. There was a lot of internecine warfare that went on between patriots and loyalists during the 8 years of rebellion here. It was pretty vicious, indeed.

Now this violence didn’t occur everywhere, mind you. In some instances British rule simply melted away supplanted by a home-rule filling the vacuum. But there is no doubt that the 1/3 of the colonists that rose up against the British were the extremists of their day. Today they would surely be considered terrorists.

This is what the tea party movement is based on. There is no escaping the fact that at some basic level, every tea party participant is carefully weighing in his/her mind whether or when it will be appropriate to begin to take up arms against the current out-of-control U.S. government. This is an uncomfortable thing to discuss but it is true nonetheless.

It seems startling to consider this point, admittedly. In the heart of each tea party activist is the seminal question of whether or not our current government is a legitimately constituted authority or if it has gone so far astray that armed rebellion would be warranted. After all, our nation was founded on such a question. It is only natural that the movement most directly descended from that founding question would again entertain its consideration.

Further, one of our earliest Amendments is predicated on this central question. One of the reasons we even have a Second Amendment is so that our government will sufficiently fear its armed citizenry a fear that is supposed to force that government to stay on the straight and narrow. It is no mere bombast when conservatives cite the revolutionary sentiment of founder Thomas Jefferson who said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” (Letter to William Stephens Smith, Nov. 13, 1787)

That wasn’t the only time Jefferson said something like this, either. In a letter to James Madison, also in 1787, Jefferson reiterated this idea.

I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people, which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.

Jefferson wasn’t the only one. Madison also echoed the principle of revolution. In his answer to “Pacificus” from April 22, 1793, Madison wrote the following:

… If there be a principle that ought not to be questioned within the United States, it is that every nation has a right to abolish an old government and establish a new one. This principle is not only recorded in every public archive, written in every American heart, and sealed with the blood of a host of American martyrs, but is the only lawful tenure by which the United States hold their existence as a nation.

Most of the other founders had such quotes to their credit, as well. Like I said, this sentiment lies at the heart of our nation and the tea party movement alike.

But what does all this history mean to us today? It means no less than there is always the thought underneath all the discussions of today’s political climate that we have the right to forcibly throw off this government. Like I said, it is uncomfortable to think about but it is true nonetheless.

Naturally, the extremists on the left, your court jesters such as Stewart, Olbermann and Maddow, will point to my piece as “proof” that we are all crazy, anti-American, bomb-throwers. They will screech that we are gun nuts that simply want to start killing everyone that does not agree with us. Fact is, the Olbermanns and Maddows of the 1700s said the same thing about our founders.

It must be pointed out that a resort to revolution is not what conservatives would rather have happen. Far from it. A peaceful return to American principles and away from the socialist, European ideals is our druthers, certainly. But it would be dishonest to carry on as if it wasn’t implicit in our core philosophy.

And our government would be best served to remember it, too.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The Philadelphia Inquirer published a reader feedback opinion editorial from reader Stan Isaacs that is as outlandish as it is indicative of the disregard for the American process that liberals all too often exhibit. It is proof once again that tradition, law, and any effort at legitimacy is wholly outside a liberal’s field of interest. Winning is all they care about, voters opinions and the rule of law be damned.

What sparked Mr. Isaacs’ interest is when he somehow stumbled upon the fact that the number of U.S. Supreme Court Justices is not set in stone in the Constitution. We now have nine justices but in the past have had fewer. What intrigued him is that the number of justices fluctuated because of politics. “Political issues accounted for the changes,” Isaacs gleefully reported.

In keeping with these “political issues,” Mr. Isaacs lit upon the ideal way to help Obama finally push his left-wing agenda. He advised President Obama to add three new justices to the SCOTUS, justices that will mindlessly adhere to the grand vision of the age of Obama and will rule accordingly. This is necessary, Isaacs thinks, because the court has proven an impediment to Obama’s grand socialist design. Worse, Congress has balked at Obama’s wholesale destruction of America and has resisted his attempts to turn America into a weaker, less free version of Europe. Issacs, you see, demands a recount.

Sadly, Isaacs doesn’t seem to have the first clue why Obama’s re-design of the United States hasn’t already barreled ahead unhindered. Worse, he doesn’t seem to care.

Now this Isaacs fellow is not a consequential figure. He seems to be interested mostly in the prosaic world of sports and even at that he wrote less than 50 articles in all of 2009, most of them about sports. So we most certainly cannot point to this man as a Constitutional scholar, an expert on history, or a knowledgeable source on politics. But, his very pedestrian status easily qualifies him as a typical liberal — uninformed, yet oh, so self-assured. He is, therefore, worthy as a source on that level.

After a short history lesson on the history of the SCOTUS, Isaacs delivers his pronouncement that Obama should pack the court with compliant yes men. After rehashing FDR’s mistakes in trying to pack the Supreme Court in 1937, Isaacs says that Obama could easily avoid FDR’s mistakes.

Obama can give himself a fighting chance by changing the rules of the game, just as they were changed for other presidents in the 1800s. He should forget bipartisanship and work with congressional Democrats to name three new justices to the court to meet the challenges he faces.

It would be a tumultuous fight, but it would be for a change we could believe in.

If your jaw is not dropping to the floor in shock, it should be. Isaacs is no less than suggesting that Obama should ignore the voters, ignore Congress, ignore our very system by simply “changing the rules” in order to get his destructive agenda forced down our throats.

And proving his political ignorance, Isaacs misses the elephant in his own rhetorical room. Congress isn’t helping ram Obamaism upon the nation because Congress itself is feeling the heat from the voters who don’t want Obama’s complete makeover of the United States to succeed.

If Congressional Democrats were in such a position to allow Obama to pack the court, Obama wouldn’t need to pack the court because he’d have the political support to push his agenda through to fruition! The reason many of Obama’s most cherished socialist plans are stalled in Congress is not because Republicans are saying no, it’s not because of that mean ol’ Supreme court, it’s because not enough Democrats are standing behind the president’s plans.

Apparently Isaacs is unaware that the Democrat Party has majorities in both houses of Congress and, if they were completely consolidated, could do anything they wanted to do. But that is just it; they aren’t completely consolidated. And why is that? Because a large number of them come from conservative leaning districts where voters are unappreciative of Obama’s Euroesque plans. These politicians are, therefore, obligated to vote against Obama’s agenda because their voters back home insist they do so. That’s the “representative” part of our representative democracy.

Now, let’s take a moment to realize exactly what this Isaacs fellow is advocating. Like most fascist leftists, Isaacs is demanding that moderate Democrats from conservative districts ignore their voters and side with people that those voters dislike. Isaacs is saying the voter’s will doesn’t matter.

Then he is suggesting that we turn the courts into a political arm instead of a judicial arm. He is saying that the law should be nothing but an extension of presidential power, wholly owned and directed by the executive. So, why have a court at all in this case, Mr. Isaacs? In fact, why have a legislature? If Isaacs’ idea prevails we will have the United States of Obama where all “57 states” will be under the thumb of Barack the Red, supreme ruler of all he surveys.

Now, Mr. Isaacs may like this idea. He may have no problem with a supreme ruler sitting benevolently in Washington D.C. As for the rest of us, I think we like our democratic republic. I think we like having a judiciary that isn’t told what to think by an all-powerful leader. I think we like having a body that legislates, one that acts the executive, and one for jurisprudence. We like our Constitution and our rule of law.

Sadly, Mr. Isaacs’ hatred of our very American system makes him a typical liberal. But it also makes him very shortsighted. One wonders, after all, what this misinformed man would be say if a Republican had advised one of his presidents to act in such a haughty, self-indulgent, and dictatorial manner? One guesses that such as Mr. Isaacs would be none too happy, eh? Apoplectic might be the word. I guess the Biblical of “do unto others” doesn’t resonate with this one.

Finally, I have a bit of advice for Mr. Isaacs. If Isaacs still persists in this delusional thinking, perhaps he might see his way clear to move to Venezuela, or Cuba where the system he dreams of currently exists. Of course, we certainly wouldn’t miss his kind should he avail himself of his rights to find a country more in keeping with his tyrannical ideas but he might at last feel at home.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Back in January of 2007 math teacher Brad Johnson of Westview High in San Diego County, California was told by his school administrators he had to take down the patriotic banner he had put up in his classroom because the word “God” appeared on it.

Johnson, of course, was quite upset about being told to take down his banner and took the school to court. In 2008 Judge Roger T. Benitez sided with the patriotic-minded teacher saying that the school was “brash” in its effort to force the teacher to take down the banner.

Well, after so long we have some news to report on this story and it is good news, indeed. The very same judge that sided with Mr. Johnson two years ago has officially ruled in favor of the teacher’s right to free speech.

Judge Benitez’s 32-page opinion was strongly worded and critical of the Poway school districts aversion to mentioning God: “[The school district officials] apparently fear their students are incapable of dealing with diverse viewpoints that include God’s place in American history and culture. . . . That God places prominently in our Nation’s history does not create an Establishment Clause violation requiring curettage and disinfectant for Johnson’s public high school classroom walls. It is a matter of historical fact that our institutions and government actors have in past and present times given place to a supreme God.”

The Thomas Moore Law Center represented the repressed teacher to good effect. Likely this isn’t over as left-wingers are not apt to being told “no” very often, especially by a judge.

We will have to await to see what further comes of this. but as of right now, we have a victory for free speech to celebrate.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

When it debuted the left instantly hailed it as an anti-war masterpiece. The book “The Last Train from Hiroshima,” a popular history of the WWII A-Bomb drops on Japan, quickly accumulated much acclaim. This was “gleaming” wartime history according to The New York Times. It was so poignant and solemn that moviemaker James Camereon was said to be considering making a movie based on the book. It wasn’t long, though, before major questions about the veracity of the tale were raised.

The author of the book, Charles Pellegrino, used the experiences of at least three participants in the bombings at important junctures in the book. He reported the experiences of one of the U.S. airmen that was aboard the Enola Gay as well as two European Jesuit priests that were living in Hiroshima during the bombing.

But now comes the admission from the author that two of these three people don’t even exist, and a third lied about his service on the Enola Gay casting doubt on Pellegrino’s whole endeavor.

Pellegrino, it appears, is an expert at making things up. Besides that he is a long established science fiction author — which attests to his well-developed imagination — he also seems to have invented his own university degree from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.

The AP reports that no one can find any proof of this degree the author has repeatedly referenced.

Pellegrino’s own background was also questioned. He sometimes refers to himself as Dr. Pellegrino, and his Web site lists him as receiving a Ph.D. in 1982 from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. But in response to a query from the AP, the school said it had no proof that Pellegrino had such a degree.

so much for The New York Times’ Dwight Garner’s calling this a “sober authoritative book” on the evils of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings!

So, once again the left is fooled into hailing a fiction. One wonders if they ever get tired of being taken because they never seem to do any background checking on their too-good-to-check tales travels so well on their ideological track.

One would think that the left would at least try to vet their sources. Ah, but then one remembers Walter Duranty and one realizes that the left never has much cared about truth but have preferred their carefully wrought fictions in order to excuse their ideological musings.

Let it never be said that the left will let the truth get in the way of a good story!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

On February 27 the Times Online from Britain published what it hailed as amazing proof that 4th century Britain was “multicultural” and “diverse” during the Roman occupation of the island nation. This “new” revelation came from a recent scientific investigation into the burial in York of an African woman. The problem with this whole report is that it does not at all show that Britain was “multicultural” in the 4th century. The truth is the newspaper misapplied the word “multicultural” to this burial in an effort to celebrate the politically correct ideal of multiculturalism as it exists today.

There is nothing as ahistorcal as applying today’s standards and ideas to the past, but The Times falls headlong into this trap in an effort to show that the Romans were somehow just like us today in their acceptance of “multiculturalism.” The problem, of course, is that Rome did not accept other cultures in the same way that Britain’s modern, self-destructive dalliance in “multiculturalism” does.

The story of the 4th century burial is very informative and interesting, to be sure. Originally found in 1901 in Bootham, York, the grave was located in what was a Roman fortress and settlement named Eboracum, founded in AD71. The researchers found that an African woman (or one of mixed-race, they couldn’t be sure) was buried in a stone sarcophagus and laid to rest with several of her possessions proving that she was a person of wealth and station in life. The medical examination of the skeleton also seemed to show that the woman did not live a life of strenuous labor. A Latin inscription on one of her possessions indicates that she may have been a Christian, too.

It is well known that throughout the Roman Empire many African soldiers filled the ranks of the Roman legions and that some of them became officers of high rank. It is likely that this woman was the wife of one of these Roman officers of African descent.

So what does the Times and its quoted researcher make of this wealthy black woman from Britain’s 4th century society?

Archaeologists have discovered that wealthy black Africans lived in Roman Britain in one of the country’s earliest examples of multiculturalism.

….

Hella Eckardt, who carried out the study, said: “Multicultural Britain is not just a phenomenon of more modern times. Analysis of the ‘Ivory Bangle Lady’ and others like her, contradicts assumptions about the make-up of Roman-British populations as well as the view that African immigrants were of low status, male and likely to have been slaves.”

….

Dr Eckardt continued: “We’re looking at a population mix which is much closer to contemporary Britain than previous historians had suspected. In the case of York, the Roman population may have had more diverse origins than the city has now.

These are non sequitur assumptions and prove that neither the Times nor this foolish Dr. Hella Eckardt should be taken as informed, worthy sources of information.

Romans did not consider their conquered peoples as having cultures worth celebrating and nurturing. To be ROMAN was the goal and they did not just willy nilly accept into their own culture all the customs and practices of the lowly peoples that were taken over. Only today is there an abdication of local, western customs and practices so that immigrant’s cultural influences can prevail, this is now the case with Britain’s (and the west’s) self-hating practice of “multiculturalism.”

This rich black woman was not wealthy because she was “multicultural,” she was wealthy because she observed the Roman’s rules. She did not move to Britain to bring all her African practices with her, she did not become a woman of station in 4th century Roman Britain because she retained her multicultural identity, thumbing her nose at Roman practices.

Did the Roman Empire consist of people of many cultures? Of course. Did some of those cultures influence Roman practice and custom? Over the long term they did, most certainly. In fact, that is the history of mankind. Man’s history is a repetition of the actions of conquering a people, then living with them, followed by a taking of the best ideas and practices (as well as languages) from that conquered people and incorporating them into a new, stronger society. But this is not “multiculturalism” as now so sadly celebrated by the PC set.

Further, the history of the Roman Empire spanned many hundreds of years. Tolerance for local customs, religions, languages, and the like waxed and waned with the times and the whims of the Emperors back in Rome. So, to present 4th century Britain as multicultural in today’s terms is absurd as the climate for the other-than-Roman was not a fixed quantity.

So, for this report to announce that 4th century Britain was “multicultural” is a slap in the face to truth because the concept of multiculturalism as we now understand it simply did not exist in the 4th century. The Roman Empire was not multicultural. It was Roman. 4th century Britain was not multicultural but was ruled by Romans that were Roman despite their diverse racial makeup. They were Romans acting like Romans ruling a subjugated Celtic people. That Rome often turned a blind eye to the continued practices of their conquered peoples does not mean that Rome was “multicultural” in the same way we’d think of it today.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The White House’s new health-care proposal promises the “largest middle class tax cut for health care in history,” which is a creative way of describing a vast taxpayer-subsidized insurance entitlement. Naturally, the fine print goes on to describe one of the largest tax increases for health care in history, too.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Tax hikes are tax cuts.

This new ObamaCare bargain would for the first time apply the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax to “interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents,” so-called passive income that we are told includes capital gains, though the latter wasn’t explicitly mentioned in the proposal. This antigrowth investment tax would apply to singles earning more than $200,000 and joint filers over $250,000 and comes on top of the Senate’s 0.9-percentage-point increase in the payroll tax, which would bring the combined employee-employer share to 3.8%.

The rate hike on investment income would presumably take effect at the same time the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts are due to expire next year, bringing the top rate to 22.9% as the current top capital gains rate would also rise to 20% from 15%. That’s a 52% jump…

This will be sold in the name of “fairness,” if anyone else in the press corps notices, but the worst implications are economic. The 0.9% increase is another tax on job creation, though Democrats claim they want more jobs. The devious 2.9% hike on investment income will raise the cost of capital, though Democrats claim to want more capital investment. Sometimes we wonder if Democrats even listen to their own rhetoric, or if they assume voters are too dumb to notice their contradictions.

We don’t need to wonder what jacking up taxes during hard times will do the economy. FDR tripled federal taxes during the Great Depression (from $1.6 billion in 1933 to $5.3 billion in 1940) — one of the main reasons the crisis he made a career of milking went on for so long. Reagan cut taxes, and turned a severe recession into the “Decade of Greed,” as liberals call the economic boom Ronaldus Maximus created.

There’s no serious dispute whether Democrats’ policies will inflict severe economic harm. The only question is whether we can stop them.

On a tip from Mandible Claw. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Hands up again: Who has heard of Richard Ichord? All hands stay down. Yet both men did much the same thing: Endeavour to expose crypto-Communists in America’s public life. And Ichord’s House on Un-American Activities Committee ran for much, much longer than Senator McCarthy’s inquiry.

So how come we hear so much of one man but hear virtually nothing of the other? Easy: McCarthy was a Republican. Ichord was a Democrat.

Posted by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

A group made up of some of the biggest names in contemporary conservatism got together a few days ago and crafted what they are calling the “Mount Vernon Statement,” a manifesto of sorts meant to give direction to today’s conservative movement. Put succinctly, it fails to fill the bill.

Taken as a whole this statement is fine as a short history lesson. It explains pretty clearly what the founders had wrought when their basic work was done with the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. But as a statement of principles that might guide today’s discussion I do not think the letter works.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that this effort is harmful. In fact, I think every young person should read it for its explication of our historically conservative American principles. The problem is that this thing doesn’t seem to speak directly to what we are facing today like a statement that perhaps aims to become boilerplate should.

Some of those involved with the statement said that the 1960 “Sharon Statement” served as their inspiration. The Sharon Statement, intended to give some ideological umph to Goldwater conservatives, is an effort that works much better as a rallying cry to action. Sadly, the Mount Vernon Statement falls a little flat in this respect.

Historically I have two minor qualms about the newest effort. First of all its name doesn’t resonate. Yes, George Washington was the indispensable man of our early republic. Without him the warring factions facing off in political battle during our early republic just might have strangled this baby in its crib. But, as steadying a force as he was, Washington was not really the ideological or intellectual father of our nation. He was the father that kept the kids from beating each other up, the father we looked up to as a model of comportment, the man we looked to as the solid rock of the family, certainly, but he wasn’t the idea man. For that we looked to men like Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams among many others.

So, naming this letter after George Washington’s estate seems a bit odd. Better that these folks should have met in Independence Hall, Philadelphia and called this the Philadelphia Statement, the Independence Statement, or some such thing. The words “Mount Vernon” are obviously meant to lend historical heft to the document but they just don’t succeed as a meaningful ideological association. In fact, it’s sort of hollow. Are we naming our bedrock ideological principles for the man that didn’t craft them? That seems a bit odd to me.

Secondly, I find fault with this paragraph (my bold):

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

The word “recognizes” is not the correct word to use for what the founders thought about the word “virtue.” They didn’t merely “recognize” virtue existed. They built their entire political edifice on the insistence that our political leaders practice virtue and that they base their every move on the need to be seen as civically virtuous. This is an idea about which few of our political leaders today have the slightest clue, not to mention that the public is generally ignorant of what the founders meant when they discussed public virtue. Sadly, this letter doesn’t help us regain a proper perspective on the founder’s idea of public virtue.

The Mount Vernon Statement missed an opportunity to better explain what virtue in government could mean as a rallying cry for today’s conservative movement.

The Mount Vernon Statement is a fine little history lesson but compared to the Sharon Statement, it just doesn’t seem to as immediately take on the issues that we face. Where is the discussion of the destruction of our educational system, where is the warning against our worst foreign threat, where is the assertion that our system of jurisprudence has been undermined? All these things are broadly implied by the Mount Vernon Statement, granted, but one wishes that today’s problems were more directly addressed.

While we don’t want a statement that names names or attacks specific policies directly — that would detract from the essential universality of such a statement of principles — still to my mind the Mount Vernon Statement is a bit too broad. I feel that we need something a tad more direct. The Sharon Statement was perfect for its mixture of what were then current issues and timeless conservatives principles.

Should you have signed onto the Mount Vernon Statement, or should you feel that you’d like to do so, I can find no harsh words for you. As I said, there is no great harm done by this effort. Unfortunately, there is also correspondingly little succor that this effort can lend to our cause. It seems like a nice history lesson but as a manifesto to rally around it is more like a staid assertion than a battle cry. It is eminently forgettable.

Part Two

Yes, it’s easy to criticize. Surely it will occur to the minds of many readers of my criticism here that I should offer solutions along with my criticisms. So I offer the following basic idea of what I’d consider a better “statement” than what resulted from the efforts at Mount Vernon, Virginia. I’ll call it the “Huston Statement” for lack of a better title and since, well, I’m the one writing the thing.

Remembering that I am one man, not a committee of 80 some high-powered conservative operatives, here are the ideas I thought of while reading the Mount Vernon Statement, humbly offered as a basis upon which to further the discussion:

The Huston Statement

Since our political climate has long since drifted from the first principles of our founding and since we now face a crisis threatening to tear down our American moral center we commit ourselves to re-establishing our American character.

We believe that our Constitution and the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence form the best guide by which to nurture our American character and provides a firm bedrock upon which to build a government.

We as Americans believe:

That as individuals we have the right of self-determination, to be free of overweening involvement in our lives by government at all levels from local, to state, to federal.

That as free men we must strongly assert that we are responsible for ourselves, our family, and our property and that others owe us nothing but to observe our rights as we observe theirs.

That our liberties depend on our civic virtue and that it is up to each of us to become informed citizens.

With these God-given liberties in mind, that our representatives must strive to keep government out of the lives of the people to the greatest extent practicable and that they should honor the principles of limited government as handed down to us from our founders.

And we assert that adherence to these principles will act as a beacon of freedom to the world, that we should actively promote them abroad giving succor to all those that would follow in our footsteps, and that we should not lend legitimacy to foreign bodies or nations that retreat from them.

We affirm that:

Private property is sacrosanct

The market-based economy free of government meddling must be preserved

Employees must be free of compulsory associations

Governments must be accountable to the voters not to judges and unions

Communities have the right to draft standards without federal approval

Education is a local responsibility solely under local and state control

It is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion

And that our Second Amendment rights are God-given and cannot be infringed

Additionally, we as Americans also reaffirm that legislation is the rightful duty of our constituted bodies of representatives and not the venue of capricious judges. Ruling from the bench is no better than the ill-considered tyrannies from the throne from which we so long ago rebelled.

Finally, let us understand these principles to be an affirmation of our American character, one that has made our nation the richest and strongest nation in human history. Any force, whether domestic or foreign, that wishes to materially alter this character is an enemy to our nation and one that should not be treated lightly but faced squarely and with resolution.

Well, this is how I see a statement of principles that are geared to today’s issues but are still the sort that attest to our timeless conservative ideals.

I hope this can serve to continue the discussion that the Mount Vernon Statement started.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post