More on the Mount Vernon Statement

I suggested earlier that I had some problems with the Mount Vernon Statement. I noted then Glenn Reynolds argued that the manifesto was heavy on limited government principles. I responded by suggesting that Mount Vernon's pledge to protect "family, neighborhood, community, and faith" essentially creates a mandate for governmental activism in the furtherance of protecting life. (Perhaps that means returning to federalist principles allowing states to regulate reproductive health and preserve the lives of the not yet born.) There have been a number of responses to the Mount Vernon Statement, and perhaps none more perverted than Daniel Larison's. It's quite odd for people to situate themselves as genuine conservatives while at the same time rejecting a forward foreign policy outlook (and the rejection of American national security leadership in the world). I'll be coming back to some of those themes later. For now, though, Michelle Malkin weighs in on another problematic area. See, "An Inconvenient Question About the Mount Vernon Statement":

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.

More later ...

RELATED: From Politico, "Marco Rubio: Belle of the CPAC Ball" (via Memeorandum).