The American Eden as Paradise Lost

By Ronald Glenn
America’s Right

Because of yesterday’s presidential inauguration, a lot of discussion and introspection has been dedicated to and spent on a nagging question — What is the appropriate behavior for conservative Americans at this time?

Consider the historical context in which such a question should be answered. America always had two fundamental attitudes toward the American citizen’s relationship with his or her government, attitudes which formed long before the country was created. The first attitude is based on the Greek and Roman model of citizenship, a model which revolves around the idea of the citizen-soldier, most notably represented by Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus. In fact, our very first president, Gen. George Washington, liked to present himself as Cincinnatus, the Roman who left his farm, saved the city, and then returned to his former life after he had accomplished his duty. The most important aspect of this attitude, the Greek and Roman model to the relationship between a citizen and his government, is the belief that no person is capable of defining himself separately from the society to which he is duty-bound. Under such a model, any given republic survives based on the efforts of those pledged to defend it, each member charged with a sacred duty to the society from which he receives his life and livelihood.

The second attitude is quite different, however, if not in total opposition to the first. Many early settlers came to America to live lives utterly separated from government, including many that attempted to set up isolated religious communities. This attitude is based on the idea that America was the new Eden, where humanity could go back to living a life in the innocence and equality that existed before corruption had infested Europe with its wars and imperial families. We must not disregard this attitude as silly or dismiss it as naive, as it has had a powerful hold on America and many of its most conservative elements, and still does to this day. With this attitude, the idealized America is the traditional family living on a farm — self-sufficient in all things. This point of view, however, appears less attractive to every generation, since America is becoming increasingly urbanized.

A few weeks ago, I was given a pamphlet from a very conservative religious sect describing the tenets of their faith. It stated, among other things, that they did not believe a follower of Christ should vote in a civil election. This underscores the central point, that America has a deep tradition which associates involvement with a government, no matter how good that government is supposed to be, with corruption of the individual or the group to which that person belongs.

I believe this attitude has begun to invade the thinking of many conservatives who, over the last eight years, feel betrayed by the two elections of George W. Bush. For example, take the presidential candidacy of Rep. Ron Paul in the months before this most recent election. While Dr. Paul represents the more secular aspects of the separatist conservative attitude that citizens should be left alone to live as they see best–he is against international meddling, the Federal Reserve, the IRS, and interventionist courts–his detractors instead see him as an unrealistic idealogue out of touch with reality. Indeed, however, I believe he serves as a fantastic example of the current state of the conservative movement, as many people feel that both the Republican and Democratic parties under George W. Bush’s tenure were members of the same criminal cartel. How many dissenting voices beside Ron Paul’s, after all, have we heard during the recent and ongoing bailout debate in the United States Congress?

The most telling facet of Ron Paul’s candidacy was that, unfortunately, he had no chance for victory. Once this was accepted as fact by his campaign workers, many of his devout simply had nowhere to turn. Several times, I attended meetings held by local factions of Dr. Paul’s national campaign here in Pennsylvania, and found those in attendance to be devoted, educated on the issues, and sincere. After Dr. Paul’s fate was decided, however, much of these sentiments did not carry over to the larger campaign for the Republican party — so what did his people do? Many had a natural reaction, falling back into their own personal morality. If they live good, free lives, then whatever evil is later manifested by government action was certainly not their doing. The federal government, therefore, was given carte blanche to be as misguided as it wished, as there was no desire on the part of most Ron Paul supporters to join the current “criminal gangs.”

In my college days, there a phrase was used to describe the destruction of Eden in America. It was “the machine in the garden,” a phrase which harkened back to onslaught of the industrial revolution in the pristine American wilderness. Today, many conservatives think the government itself is the machine in the garden, wrecking Eden one more time. If government indeed does fill that role, it does no good for anybody to simply go about our daily lives and pretend it is not there. It becomes the 400-pound gorilla in the living room, just daring people to ignore it.

That being said, the best way to start removing the proverbial gorilla is to demand a political dialogue from our leaders that has more purpose than simply getting re-elected and maintaining power. Many years ago, for example, I remember watching a political debate between two Democratic and Republican senators. The topic of the debate was the federal budget, then hovering around $1.5 trillion. The Republican actually boasted, pridefully, that he was ready, willing and able to trim $10 billion from the budget — apparently, the first $1.49 trillion was just fine!

It was insulting. And nothing has changed.

Conservatives, as we steam ahead toward 2010 and beyond, need to end this kind of insulting banter through the use of the Internet, by attending public political meetings at the local level, and by taking an active interest in the bills before Congress before it is too late to speak out against them. If instead we choose to stay home and lock our doors, if instead we choose to chase ghosts and shadowbox, we will go broke trying to keep that 400-pound gorilla fed. Vigilance and curiosity must be perceived as a duty and, for even a chance at another glimpse of an American Eden, we must find the Cincinnatus in all of us.

Ronald Glenn has worked in real estate and law for more than twenty years. He now works in Philadelphia, and lives outside the city with his wife. Ron has been writing for America’s Right since January 2009.

Excellent Ron Paul artwork by Leah Tiscione.



  1. Lisa says:

    This sounds like the classic “don’t blame me, I didn’t vote” line. In a representative government it is not only our right but our duty to vote and to hold our representatives accountable. Even if people are forced to vote for the lessor of two evils, they need to vote otherwise they are doing exactly as you describe… ignoring the 400 pound gorilla in the living room while he takes over your life.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Ding, ding, ding, ding! Yes! Betrayed! That’s it. I posted in response to the last thread… the source of BDS is hatred but conservative blog banter is a totally different animal — it is frustration from being betrayed.

    I’m with you. We must educate ourselves and act. Local politics (even state level) is accessible and small enough where you can make a difference. Also, PLEASE PEOPLE, pay attention to the Judicial branch of government! We focus on Executive and Legislative so much while Judicial is ignored. It starts at the local level where they are elected, not appointed. These do not have party affiliation but they are people with opinions. Conservative people and liberal people. Take it upon yourself to get to know these people and cast an informed vote. Encourage others to do the same. Many people don’t even vote for these people or do so randomly according to the number of neighborhood signs or some such stupid algorithm. This is a HUGE untapped area that we can influence and we must so that we can seed the pool with good candidates for higher court appointments.

  3. Marie says:

    But, Ronald, WHICH public political meetings? The Republican Party seems adrift and aimless right now so where are conservatives to go to fight the good fight? I can’t bring myself to spend hours discussing whether or not the Republican Party should return to its conservative roots or “adapt” (read “become more liberal”). It just seems as if there are no viable options for true conservatives to become active–at least none I’m aware of.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Get ready folks. There’s already a Hollywood “I Pledge” commercial. And this will roll out in the coming days. We all got skin in the game, right.

    I already know what I’m putting on my pledge card.

    “I pledge to pay my oppressive taxes so bureaucrats can spread my wealth around.”

  5. Tigress says:

    Excellent points! Although, if you look at Ron Paul’s site, you will see that they have by no means given up and are trying to establish a grassroots movement.

    We do need a viable 3rd party. Republicans are not always conservative. In his amazing book, The Road to Serfdom, F.A.Hayek dedicated it thusly: “To the socialists of all parties”.


  6. JeffM says:

    If you like conservative views and believe in the Constitution, then you should consider the Constitution Party. It is also the 3rd largest party.

    Let us all hope and pray we still have a country left to vote in come 2010. At the rate things are going with the economy, immigration, and the blatant theft of the White House, we’re in for some extremely hard times that may very well tear the country apart.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Really? Really???

    We wrote to our Representatives and Senators. We wrote to the Supreme Court. We called their offices. We emailed. We left comments on blogs and news articles. We told them not to pass the bailout – not once, but twice. We told them not to confirm the Usurper. We told them to secure our borders. We told them this, that and the other thing again and again and again, and they blew us off again and again and again. But I’ve learned my lessons.

    In this election, I’ve learned that I’m not a good enough Conservative for the Republicans. Fair enough. I’ve learned that Republicans aren’t good enough Americans for me. I expected McCain to be double-teamed by the Democrats and the media. I never expected him to be triangulated by the Democrats, the media, and the Republicans. I never expected them to be part of the media blackout on Obama’s dirty dealings. Nor did I expect them to roll over and play dead when the Democrats began taking over our treasury. Neither did I expect them to ignore Obama’s ineligibility for office. And I sure as heck didn’t expect then to wage a full frontal assault on a war hero. But they did.

    So be it. They obviously don’t need any more cash donations from me. They obviously don’t need me to work their local phone banks at election time. And they obviously don’t need me to vote Republican.

    Again, fair enough. They don’t need me, and I sure as heck don’t need them.

  8. bigal says:

    What is needed is a simple, one paragraph statement of fundamental beliefs that define what is “conservative” and what is “liberal”.

    Catholics have such a ststament, called the Apostle’s Creed. It is a one paragraph statement of the fundamentals of the belief, from which all other dogma and ritual associated with the faith derive. I might add that the Catholic Religion is the only faith where a central authority, the Pope, defines fundamentals, as opposed to other Religions where the local prelate can define the faith for his/her followers.

    We need such a “Conservative Creed” and a “Liberal Creed”, and perhaps a “Moderate’s Creed”, so everyone can understand what the labels really mean. Positions on specific issues should derive from, and be consistent, with the fundamentals of the “creed”.

    Barry Goldwater attempted such a document with his Conscience of a Conservative in 1964, but I believe it was more of an issue paper than a fundamental philosophy.

    It can’t be a book or an essay. It must be short, concise, and crisp, like the Apostles Creed.

    Perhaps America’s Right could sponsor an effort to define such a document, and then we could challenge our adversaries on the left to do the same. Although I sort of doubt the left is capable of condensing their “thoughts” into a coherent one paragraph philosophical statement of fundamentals.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Marie, I, like you, am looking for ways to become more active and it is frustrating that there is no strong Republican leadership….if those who call themselves conservatives in Congress and the Senate believe that they must ‘compromise’ our beliefs and merge with the present administration, I will not support that thinking…there are distinct differences in what I believe and the liberal view point and I want a party who will stand up for those beliefs. As Ron has said, we must involve ourselves in local politics and begin to “seed” the political arena with those who support the principles which conservatives embrace. There are conservative activist groups everywhere so we have a network thru which we can exchange ideas. One that I would suggest you check out is
    and watch the is “Rekindling the Spirit of America” and watch the other videos about The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, etc. If you agree with their goals and purpose, you can sign the pledge to unite with others who believe that we must return to the America that was founded on the
    priciples set forth in our documents. We all have something we can do for our country and this is our opportunity to act. May God help us restore our great nation.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Ronald Glenn Said…

    “Conservatives, as we steam ahead toward 2010 and beyond, need to end this kind of insulting banter through the Internet, by attending public political meetings at the local level,…”

    No, sir, it is the traditional political activists that need to understand that “we the people” ARE on the internet. That our protests here are every bit as legitimate, and valid, and meaningful, as if we were standing on the steps of the capitol itself. Our blogs are cardboard posters and signs, our posts are voices of descent from the “new sidewalks” of America. It is the physicality of the “sidewalks” that have changed. Obama understands this. Get your head out of the ’60′s, and get with the program, or perish.

  11. RatTrader says:

    Good video that all Americans should watch!!!

  12. Anonymous says:

    Obama Hussein is NOT a natural born citizen!!
    How do you expect people to behave knowing this fact?

    The problem now is that, no matter that he trampled on the constitution, this deceiver Obama will never ever be able to be removed from office, no matter if he is proven not to be a natural born citizen without the shadow of a doubt!!

    And the first one to block justice from being done will be … the Supreme Court judges!!! They will do anything it takes to avoid having to ask Obama Hussein to prove his natural born citizenship!!

    You are a shame for the USA, you the Supreme Court judges!!!!

    Keep fighting Americans until the truth is for all to see and to know even if it probably will not dislodge the impostor Obama Hussein.

  13. Kathy says:

    "Conservatives, as we steam ahead toward 2010 and beyond, need to end this kind of insulting banter through the Internet…"

    You had my interest, Ron, until the statement above and it stopped me dead in my tracks. Can you explain what you mean by "insulting banter"? If you refer to the A&A (angst and anger) of those of us who are actually grieving over this bogus POTUS, then you are attempting to diminish and invalidate the feelings and beliefs of people all across this land. We really don't need or want any more patronizing and supercilious admonishment from americasright. So, please don't tell us how to feel just because your A&A does not rise to the level of ours.

    Ron Paul has his good points and his bad. He was contacted and asked to question the credentials of BO, as was his right and duty as a U.S. Rep. He declined, just like all the other Congressmen. If he truly does believe in the Constitution as being the supreme law of this land, he lost one heck of an opportunity to "support and defend" it, didn't he?

    Citizens can't make much of an impact on the SCOTUS. We've already seen that. They are selected, not elected, officials. We need to vote OUT of office every single Senator and Rep. who ignored the thousands and thousands of letters, e-mails, and phone calls of their constituents. What we need to do now is to find those individuals we can get behind, work for, and help attain office next time around.

    As far as our ?two?-party system goes, we need a 3rd or 4th to rise up out of the ashes swirling around us at the present time.

    I had a thought this morning regarding SCOTUS. I would not be surprised if they DO take one of the many BO eligibility cases and make a ruling on the merits. You see, they know Congress abrogated their collective responsibilities to their constituents, so they can make a ruling and Congress may very well have to mop up the mess that results.

    So, the Court would be putting back on Congress the duty and responsibility they shirked. IF that is the case, then SCOTUS regains respect it lost, and slaps Congress in the face for their dereliction of duty and leaves it in their lap where the issue belonged in the first place. After all, they only had to verify a candidate's credentials!

    Back to my original question: please explain your term, "insulting banter".

    And Jeff, the bloggers here are intelligent and passionate purveyors of their deepest beliefs and feelings, so please knock off the insulting patronization from yourself and your writers, or you all will be preaching to your own choir.

  14. Kris says:

    I don’t think that presenting to the world some abstract definition of what “Conservative” means is what is called for now in such dangerous times. That sounds like fiddling while Rome burns. Conservatives are known for, well, being just that – as far as actions go. When they were needed to stand at the Supreme Court and make their objections known so that they’d be seen making noise and wake up at least local media – and it was bragged that hundreds would get mobiized – how many showed up??? Whoopie!

    No, we have to face and digest the present reality of just what actions this “president” is capable of and be willing to sacrifice comfort and possibly arrests, etc., when the real threats to our freedoms become reality. We have to study the enemy’s use of the Alinsky approach to alert others in what to look for.

    Check out “The Movement”:

    These “training camps” are already in motion. Perhaps the Odinga methods, when things don’t go their way, are even in such a mindset and the already organized poor young naive dupes will be a part of their effort to hold onto power. I think it’s that serious. And remember, the frog boiling begins slowly with the unnoticed drip, drip over those precious freedoms. They must be strongly pointed out by any means (lots of noise) still left open, and those aren’t many. We have to remember that it’s remote use of Chicago thuggery ways that have formed this fellow and to oppose them “Conservatives” have to take off their layers of protection and possibly get down to street fighting! The former bastion of protection in the law under the Constitution may not be anything to depend on these days. We have to scream at liberal judge appointments and get noticed – other than writing nice conservative opinion columns. We have to be willing to halt services if forced to go against our morals. And we have to support those who do … and their families. We have to remove the kids from public educational institutions if their very souls are being placed in jeopardy. IOW, it will take more than writing letters, making calls, and only hoping to be recognized. It’s beyond serious. And please, formerly “conservative” media, don’t you too join in with the re-education through naively parroting a few mindless words from some speeches that sound like conservative “openings”. Rather, the background mocking of our American heritage is blatant and loud – and you’re busy clothing the nake “emperor”.

  15. EMPIRICUM says:

    The Omen is fulfilled. Damien is enthroned !

  16. Jean WTPUSA says:

    Jeff, How can we have a dialouge with our Representatives when they couldn’t even answer basic questions about BO’s eligiblity or answered those questions with half-truths or lies. You need to review Citizen Wells Hall of Shame to get a better understanding of what kind of individuals we’re dealing with. Additionally, our Founders knew there there may come a day where all citizens have to STAND UP against their government. In fact, New Hampshire’s Constitution even provides “REVOLUTION” as a fundamental right to it’s citizens.

    America needs to Wake Up and plan a course of action to take back our freedoms and liberties.

    Our Country is NO LONGER a Constitutional Republic. It is a Democracy where the mob rules and the power elite make the decisions for the masses.

  17. gailbullock says:

    We are disappointed by the (so-called conservative) Republican Party. We fear what lies ahead for our Republic during the next four years…and beyond.

    In January 2008, I was a staunch Democrat–since 1961, but I voted Republican during the primary, runoff, and general elections of 2008. Today I am a disillusioned conservative, seeking a party with which I can identify. We have only four years, y’all, to get it together. We are fighting a well-oiled machine in power right now, and the head honcho believes in socialism.

    I am contacting the National Republican Party first and go from there. We cannot lie down and let the Reaper put us through the shredder. We still have to establish and maintain communication with our reps in Congress, for our protection.

    Leah Tiscione, good illustration. Ronald Glenn, good job! Jeff Schreiber, you are our leader, like it or not!

  18. Anonymous says:

    Excellent article on American Thinker today on same premise:

  19. Kathy says:

    Okay, Jeff, here is my challenge to you–bring in a female writer whose agenda is to enlighten and inform, not to browbeat and teach “proper” beliefs and feelings. Give us a female touch, because you three guys are coming off like male chauvinist oinks.

    You talk down to the bloggers and patronize us and tell us how to feel and think. What’s up with that? I thought this was a place for intelligent exchange of ideas, but with each guest writer you bring on Jeff, it’s more of the same chastisement of the bloggers. You’ll insult us right out the door.

    You need to work on cultivating the distaff side of the house to give us a breath of fresh air!

  20. Jeff Schreiber says:

    Folks, I’ll have to check with him — but I’m fairly certain that Ron meant that we should end the insulting banter through USE of the Internet, and by going to meetings, etc.

    Methinks you’re being a little toooo sensitive, at this point.

    And Kathy, we’ll see if anyone I know and trust presents themselves to fill the female void here. I’ll speak with some of my conservative friends…

  21. suek says:

    The problem as I see it is that the Leftists have succeeded in damaging our culture. The US was basically a Judeo-Christian religious country, and was self-governed by those who knew right from wrong – which was fairly consistent across the nation – and for the most part adhered to it. Starting with the Feminist movement, the Left started by destroying the family as the center of society. Next they moved to destroy the authority of religion by pushing free love and unbridled sexuality.
    The problem is that religion pushes people to ideal behavior – unattainable, but ideal. Laws can only define the minimal standards a society has before people get thrown out of society by confining them to jail.

    If you remove the ideals of religion, you’re left with only laws to define man’s behavior.

    You cannot possibly make enough laws to have an orderly society and still live in a free country.

    If we want the country we had – a country with minimal laws because people have a common standard of morality and behavior – it’s going to take a _long_ time. We have to return to a religion and the family as the dominant socially civilizing factors – and that is unlikely as long as the secularists – who are the leftists – are nearly half the population.

    Another name for “freedom” – when there is no control at all – is anarchy. It usually precedes a repressive government.

  22. gailbullock says:

    Jeff, spare us the venom of a female like Ann Cooulter, please. If she would put some clothes on, it would help me see her as more on spot.

    Most women have their time taken up with family and raising children, school, or with the tasks of being a working mother. In my opinion, as there are more males in Congress than females, we need insight on the workings of the male mind.

    We women will not lose sight of the issues that concern women, who also at the moment should be concerned with the issues as taxpaying CITIZENS. Perhaps women can write our Congressmen while supper is cooking or the clothes are drying.

    Women will suffer just as much as men under socialism.

  23. Gordon says:

    This is Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution:

    “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of
    Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the
    Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against
    domestic Violence.”

    Is there an attorney or someone out there that can tell me if this Article is guaranteeing to the states that the federal government will be maintained as a republican form of government,…. or is it guaranteeing that the States shall maintain a republican form of government.

    It seems to me that the States are being guaranteed by the federal entity that the federal entity shall maintain a republican form of government…..If that is so, why do virtually ALL of our publice officials constantly prattle ignorantly or treasonously about our “democracy”?

    Is this just another social engineering ploy by the anti-constitutionalists in government, both elected and unelected, to reduce us to mob rule (read democracy)?


  24. bee in your bonnet says:

    Jeff, please don’t listen to gailbullock. With all due respect, some of that logic was very twisted.

    I’m with Kathy. It will only improve your already great product.

  25. Anonymous says:

    gailbullock said…

    Jeff, spare us the venom of a female like Ann Cooulter, please. If she would put some clothes on, it would help me see her as more on spot.


    LOL! Her “Olive Oyl” look is a little distracting. She needs a more professional wardrobe.

  26. Lisa says:

    To Quote:
    “Most women have their time taken up with family and raising children, school, or with the tasks of being a working mother. In my opinion, as there are more males in Congress than females, we need insight on the workings of the male mind.

    We women will not lose sight of the issues that concern women, who also at the moment should be concerned with the issues as taxpaying CITIZENS. Perhaps women can write our Congressmen while supper is cooking or the clothes are drying.”

    You’re kidding right? That is one of the most sexist statements I’ve read in a very long time. If Jeff can keep up a job, school, family and this site don’t you think that a woman could do the same? I work two jobs and can still find time to work on my writing (such as it is) all while being a single mother. It seems to me we all seem to find the time to do whatever we feel is important to us. A woman’s perspective would be a welcome addition to the site.

  27. Jeff Schreiber says:

    Talked to Ron today, and fixed the sentence in question. It seems as though y’all were misinterpreting a bit.

  28. Anonymous says:

    Thanks, Jeff S., that you talked to Ron today, because I was just going to request that he expand on the sentence about the Internet that has alarmed some of us. I liked what you wrote, Ron, except for that sentence. And the comments thus far have included some good ideas and links.

    Brainstorming together is very productive and positive. Let’s keep it up to keep our spirits up. Let’s make an attempt to not just talk but become activists at the grassroots level and make appearances at political events and speak up and speak out and try to be influential with our local leaders. We have to start somewhere asap. We have a huge task ahead of us for 2010 and 2012. We have to regain seats in state houses as well as the federal houses.

  29. Jean WTPUSA says:

    So, now that Obama is in, should we all just play nice, huh? Does that mean that we should stop focusing our time, effort and energy on getting at the TRUTH? I agree that we have to plan a course of action that will help us achieve our long range goals, but come on….blindly follow a usurper? Obama will not be my President! He is a fraud, liar, egotist, socialist and according to Larry Sinclair, a crack head, a sexual deviant and a murderer. Do you really want us to route for the rogue quaterback with the nuclear football? I encourage everyone to Challenge Obama’s eligiblity, on every law that is signed, every executive decision that is made, every military command that is given, until the TRUTH fineally comes out. Only then, should we, as “good citizens” stand behind our President.

  30. Anonymous says:

    I think the Republican/Conservatives can actually find their way back to power quite easily, because I think this really is a “center-right” country. I think most of the country already agrees with the fundamental fiscal policies of low taxes and investment friendly ideals of Republicans, and I think a majority of people agree with socially conservative policies of republicans, but I think most people have been really turned off by the “messengers” of the party and because the party has been in power for so long they have failed to keep their message “fresh” and have failed to recognize and respond to a more diverse electorate that doesn’t necessarily remember or care about the culture wars and grudges of the 70s and 80s.

    My Top 5 Tips:

    1. Can I introduce to you something called the Internet? Republicans need to get to know it, use it, love it. McCain’s assertion that he had just discovered Google immediately turned me off. After watching China’s technologically magnificent Olympics is there anyone in our country who seriously believes it is acceptable for a U.S. presidential candidate to brag about not knowing how to use a computer. I don’t and a majority of Americans agreed.

    2. Roe v. Wade – Obsessive focus on overturning Roe v. Wade is a loser. It is settled law, and like the knocked up neighborhood teenager – people really don’t want to deal with it anymore.

    3. Think Younger – Baby boomers have had their chance to screw things up, you need to be grooming and recruiting younger, appealing candidates who can articulate your message in a real, not preachy way.

    4. We’re not all “white guys” – One of the most puzzling trends in the last election cycle was the almost hyper focus by the Republicans on “Joe the Plumber” white guys. Why? If nothing else Pres. Bush did a lot early on to expand the electorate, smartly recognizing that most minorities (African-Americans, Latinos, and Asians) are actually more conservative than the general public. But instead of capitalizing on his gains, the Republican party seemed hell bent on alienating (both literally and figuratively) all of these groups. Again, why? In the close elections of the 21st Century neither party can afford to throw away millions of votes. Republicans need to drop the “we’re a party of southern blue collar ‘real americans’” right away. For one thing it’s not true, Republicans yelled the loudest most recently about the auto bailout, seemingly spitting in the eye of exactly this under-educated group that voted for you in the highest numbers.

    5. Drop Creationism v. science – Again, this mostly Christian issue turns off large swaths of the electorate, even though it seems to help republicans in primaries. Republicans need to find a way to appeal to Christian conservatives in a way that does not alienate 98% of the rest of the country that don’t plan to homeschool, and do want their kids to learn science and compete in a global economy.

  31. Nick says:

    We had best get Ron Paul or someone like him in 2012, and thank God that Dr. Paul may run again:

    We need classical conservatism; no more neocons.

  32. gailbullock says:

    I’m sorry you misunderstood what I meant. I just can’t stand Ann Coulter! The first thing I ever read of hers was full of her own brand of Derangement Syndrome, much like the hateful banter that Ron Glenn also objects to on the Internet. On the contrary, I have absolutely no objection to a female writer, as long as she wears more than a black slip on these frigid days! I didn’t mean to offend you; I wouldn’t have been offended by my remark, and I’m a female. (“I have references!” — that’s a joke.)

  33. suek says:


    Temper your dislike and read a couple of her books…start with “Treason”, skip her last one (not the newest one “Guilty” but the one before that) which was simply a collection of gotcha lines made during various interviews.

    I find some of her humor hilarious, some is just excess, and some takes a page before it penetrates, and then you have to go back and read it again to really enjoy it.
    I understand why you may not like her if your only exposure to her is from her appearances on TV – they have her on because she’s sharp and antagonistic and makes for good entertainment, but her books are well researched and well thought out. Even if you don’t like her, her books are worth reading.

  34. suek says:

    Anonymous @4:36…

    You sure sound like a Democrat.

    Basically what your post said is “Hey Republicans…you can get in power again. Just change all your positions to be like the Dems and you’ll win hands down!”

    Don’t think so.

  35. gailbullock says:

    Thank you. I was hoping she wasn’t dripping with fire and brimstone. I prefer a calm, thought-out presentation, not something kin to a “loud-mouthed, nagging shrew.” I understand that she’s smart. So was my mother, but my mother could frequently sound a lot like her. Guess that’s where my “problem” stems from.

    Now that I understand her better, I’ll open my mind to her messages but will still wish she would dress with a bit more dignity.

    Thank you again.

  36. Lisa says:

    “5. Drop Creationism v. science – Again, this mostly Christian issue turns off large swaths of the electorate, even though it seems to help republicans in primaries. Republicans need to find a way to appeal to Christian conservatives in a way that does not alienate 98% of the rest of the country that don’t plan to homeschool, and do want their kids to learn science and compete in a global economy.”

    This is an issue that is near and dear to my heart. While I think that you are correct that when we bring this up during an election it does make us look like a bunch of crazies. However, creation is the very foundation of our core beliefs and values. The belief in evolution (evolution being a belief system rather than true science) errodes our sense of right and wrong. After all, if there is no g-d and we all evolved from the primordial soup…then we have nobody to answer to but ourselves. There is no morality and whatever MAN deems is ok is just that… OK. I’ve done a lot of study on this issue, and yes, I even got an A in college biology a few years ago. (And when I asked the professor how it is that genetic material can be added by way of mutation/evolution, he was dumbfounded and had NO ANSWER!) Way too much to tell on this subject. But if any of you are interested in this subject check out There is so much info there…and you can even read complete books right on line without having to buy them. There was a great grapic that puts it all into place nicely… but I forgot that I can’t do pictures on the comments section.

  37. suek says:


    Evolution is not necessarily in opposition to belief in God, although I agree that those who “preach” evolution attempt to make it so. The truth of the matter is that those who wish to eliminate God from our society will use whatever they can to do so.

    Personally, I think that if God chose to create us in a moment, He could have done so. If He chose to create us through evolution over millions of years, He could have done that as well. I’m not even sure it matters. As someone said, I look to the Bible for spiritual truth, not scientific truth. But Evolution or not neither proves nor disproves the existence of God – and _that_ is the goal of the Evolutionists today – not the science of the matter.

    And that’s why it comes up in politics and elections – to ridicule religion.

  38. Lisa says:


    Hate to disagree with you… but evolution is in direct conflict with believing in g-d. And yes, if g-d wanted to create us through evolution he could have. But, he didn’t… at least if you believe in the word of g-d which is the Bible. Bible tells us that g-d created the world and us in 6 days about 5,000 – 6,000 years ago. And creation scientists are able to use real science and the same exact data that evolutionists use to support the bible’s version of creation and a young earth.

    Chirstians who are endoctrinated in evolution in our public schools somehow feel the need to squeeze what MAN tells them about evolution into the Bible. And that, my friend, subverts the authority of the Bible as the word of g-d.

    To say that this really doesn’t matter is just not true. This issue is the very foundation for everything.

    OK… I’m down off of my soap box.

    Lisa ;-)

  39. Anonymous says:

    4:36 here.

    No, not a democrat, but rather a fiscally conservative Christian independent who is married to the son of an Evangelical preacher.

    I’m not disagreeing with creationism and I am not “for” abortion. I just believe that these have no business being part of the political agenda…period. I’m saying that for some people these are deal-breakers when it comes to voting. The GOP needs to spruce up their party and tone down the wacko righties (Rush, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck) so that the wacko lefties (Nancy Pelosi comes to mind) don’t dominate the election.

  40. Kathy says:

    Kris, you rock! You’re right on.

    Here’s my suggestion: We need to organize a HUGE march on WASH DC for perhaps, Memorial Day.

    What do you think, Jeff? Is that something you’d be willing to get behind? I could contact Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs and the WeThePeople org., and the independent constitution politcal parties, and any other folks I can think of, and other people could contact other conservative organizations (hey, Republican Party, do ya’ll want to squeak up with us?). We need a massive, multi-interest conservative groundswell of people who are ready to get out of their comfort zone and start making some serious noise! Let’s do it!

    We’ve grieved (or tried to!) and now is the time to take action! C’mon conservatives everywhere, let’s organize and get ‘er done!

  41. suek says:

    >>..and tone down the wacko righties (Rush, Ann Coulter,>>

    What's so wacko about Rush and Ann? (I'm unfamiliar with Glenn Beck)

    Do you disagree with what they say, or how they say it?

    >>I'm not disagreeing with creationism and I am not "for" abortion. I just believe that these have no business being part of the political agenda>>

    Creationism – as I have said to Lisa – is part of the political agenda because Atheists want to remove God from US culture, and have chosen to use the Fundamental's belief in Creationism as a means of doing so. As for abortion…that's always a toughie, because if it's made _illegal_ you have to start sentencing women and Doctors, and that probably won't fly. The problem is that if that little embryo is a human, then killing it is murder. Plain and simple. And how do you consider the embryo as anything _but_ human? What makes a 3 yr old more human than a 3 day old embryo? Neither can mature into anything _other_ than human…

    So given those two positions, how can they _not_ be part of the political agenda?

  42. Anonymous says:

    suek wrote:
    What’s so wacko about Rush and Ann? (I’m unfamiliar with Glenn Beck)

    Wow, I did not really think that I would have to explain this. I will say that as someone with a Central view point, that it is both what they say, AND how they say it. I believe that they (talk radio..Rush, Coulter) perpetuate hate and bigotry, and “suggest” things that really are not true. I think they do way more damage to the GOP than good. Seriously. If the GOP wants to lure voters like myself, who want to find a candidate that is fiscally conservative, but does not have their hand in trying to legislate morality, then, they need to find a way to tone down these voices. Because like it or not, the talk radio/media is more the voice for the GOP, than anyone who is in the GOP is. At least from my central perspective.

    One other thing that bothers me is that I really resent the suggestion that I could not possibly be a Christian unless I voted Republican. My faith is between me and GOD, not any governing body.

    As to the other, I don’t really believe that Athiests are trying to take God away from us. I don’t. I think that is just another way that the rightwing extremists use innocent Christians by trying to instill the fear. My Mother in Law received a pamphlet in the mail stating if she voted for John Kerry (last election) that he would take her Bible away. C’mon…for real? And you khow what, she believed that. This is what I think is so wrong and so sad.

  43. Ladalang says:

    I’m so glad you’re here Ronald!

Speak Your Mind