Conservative Resurgence Must Focus on Virtue, Not Fault

By Ronald Glenn
America’s Right

alienation : a withdrawing or separation of a person or a person’s affections from an object or position of former attachment

Alienation. This term was much used in the 1960s to describe the unique relationship which had developed in America between the government and many of its citizens. Today, it seems just as well suited as an appropriate description for those who are struggling with the Republican Party and the conservative movement as a whole.

Gay people claim the conservative movement has alienated them over gay marriage. Christians say that fiscal conservatives have alienated them because they’re obsessed with Wall Street and don’t much care about religious moral issues. Fiscal conservatives similarly lament the perceived obsession with religious and moral issues at a time when the economy is teetering on the edge of collapse.

It would appear everyone is talking about their isolation and separation from the Republican Party. Everybody is frustrated, feeling as though they’re being pushed out. Soon, there will be no one left.

Once again, when dealing with contemporary matters, it pays to look to history. In fact, a possible solution to this perceptional problem on the right may lie in an old answer. When I was a young man, we were taught the basis of American democracy was the concept of “common moral virtue.” Instead of emphasizing the differences people may hold that are particular to their religion, cuture, nation of origin or more, we need to emphasize the virtues that people have in common. This is a positive way of addressing politics, because is does not emphasize our weaknesses. This is reaching for that Shining City on the Hill without having to deal with the rocky pitfalls along the path to get there.

For example, instead of bemoaning our differences in the nitty-gritty details of individual issues, we should embrace the broad strokes which bring us together and render us so different than our counterparts on the left. Instead of thinking in terms of one sticking point, address the heart of it all — we are conservatives because we can take care of ourselves, because we don’t need government assistance in our daily lives, because we believe that less intrusion by government is better for everyone involved.

This approach emphasizes two points. First, we need to stop being single trait and/or issue obsessive. If a person, for example, is gay, he or she cannot be discounted solely on that basis. As conservatives, we must look at a much larger set of beliefs that have to do with the fundamental principles of governance. And that applies to Christians as well — the left loves to make conservatives fight amongst themselves in such a way that they not only seem stupid, but that they also appear to be bigots. Let’s stick to the fundamentals and not give the left any such ammunition. Secondly, we do need to need to continue the ongoing debate about the specifics of the virtues we hold. There are certain basics we adhere to, of course, but the idea of what is good and acceptable changes over time. America does not believe in slave or child labor anymore — at a time, both were accepted as part of life. Since then, we’ve changed our minds about it. And that’s good, not bad.

The lessons we can learn from history are simple, and easily adapted to the times we face now. Start with what you are NOT politically, as in “I am not as liberal.” Then, think about what you are in terms of what you feel best represents your beliefs as a conservative, and you shall see there are many more than originally thought who believe the way you do.

A minister told me once that the majority of congregations that fall apart do so because the members fail to overlook the faults of the other members. If the members saw the virtues of each other instead, they could go forward in strength.

Thomas Huxley once wrote: “It is not who is right, but what is right, that is of importance.” There are far too many battles ahead to waste our energy turning on one another.

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.



  1. Anonymous says:


    The problem that I see with this administration is the fact that they are taking away our rights, both Democrats and Republicans. One Bill that may be voted on as soon as Wednesday is HR 1913. If passed, this could prevent ministers from preaching God’s Word about homosexuality. Even Sunday School teachers fall into that category. Explain to me how God’s Word could be a hate crime. God is love.


    Oath Keepers Rally for Constitution on Lexington Green | Print |
    Written by Thomas R. Eddlem
    Monday, 20 April 2009 13:30

    Oath Keepers A new patriotic organization called “Oath Keepers” rallied on Massachusetts’ historic Lexington Green to renew their oaths to support and defend the U.S. Constitution April 19, the 234th anniversary of the revolutionary war battles of Lexington and Concord. The event was sponsored by the Committees of Safety, named for the groups of the same name that organized in colonial America during the beginning of the War for Independence.

    The new organization of mostly current and former military, police, and emergency-service personnel pledged themselves to 10 resolutions to disobey any order to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens, assist in warrantless searches, or help to detain American citizens without a trial by jury. The organization drew 400 attendees to the event despite little advance publicity (only a YouTube video and an appearance on the Alex Jones radio show). The rally headlined Oath Keepers’ founder Stewart Rhodes, Walter Reddy of the Committees of Safety, and 29 Palms Survey author Lt. Commander Guy Cunningham.

    “The only way a tyrannical government from the left or right can succeed is for active duty personnel to obey unlawful orders,” former Army paratrooper and Oath Keepers’ founder Rhodes told the crowd. “If you took an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution, you have a duty to disobey unlawful orders. When you took the oath, you lost the option to duck out.” Rhodes is also an attorney, Yale University graduate, SWAT magazine columnist, and former staffer for Congressman Ron Paul.

    Rhodes stressed that although Oath Keepers’ supporters were about to renew their oaths to the Constitution, the American people did not get their rights from the Constitution. “Where do our rights come from? There was no Second Amendment in 1775,” he told the crowd. “The Bill of Rights protects our rights, it doesn’t grant them.”

    Oath KeepersThe event began and ended with words from the six-foot-six “Patriot Pastor” Garrett Lear, who closed his opening remarks with a rousing call for “No king but Jesus!”

    Dave Freeman, a retired policeman from Nevada, read and administered the 10 Oath Keepers’ resolutions to it new members, which included Richard Mack, the former sheriff who fought the Brady Bill all the way to the Supreme Court. Nearly all those in attendance renewed their oaths to limit government to the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

    Tom Moor of the Committees of Safety read a speech by constitutional scholar Edwin Viera (Viera was unable to attend as scheduled).

    Organizations like Oath Keepers seem destined for dramatic growth as the Obama administration has targeted political conservatives and military veterans as potential violent terrorists under a new Department of Homeland Security report entitled Rightwing Extremism (pdf). And with the way the Obama administration is targeting the Constitution, the growth of organizations like Oath Keepers will be needed to preserve liberty.

    The author wishes to thank Hal Shurtleff for his firsthand reporting on this event.

    Photo of Pastor Garrett Lear (left) with Walter Reddy

    [x] close

  3. Anonymous says:

    An excellent post. Defining yourself as being ‘anti-something’ only serves legitimize the ‘something’.

    As for the Gay issue. A reasonable ‘convservative’ approach would be for government to butt out of the ‘marriage’ business all together – for all us. ‘Marriage’ was defined and practiced long before any state or federal government of the US existed. At the same time families or 2 individuals who pair-bond together in any stable, caring, long term relationship need a way the gives them recognized rights that are the same as government recognized ‘married’ people. This applies whether they are a gay couple, elderly siblings who care for each other or elderly widows who are each others only ‘family’.

    As conservatives we need recognize that humans have exercised gay pair-bonding since the beginning of time. It is common or at least more common that many realize and needs to be recognized. It will always be that way till the human race no longer exist.

  4. KUMBAYAH says:

    “A minister told me once that the majority of congregations that fall apart do so because the members fail to overlook the faults of the other members. If the members saw the virtues of each other instead, they could go forward in strength.”

    Dang those colonists. They should have found the good in that King George…… I can’t take this blog anymore.

  5. Rix says:

    The American right-wing infights strongly remind me of the similar situation I witnessed in Israel in the nineties. Numerous national parties were involved in a bitter squabble over who has more principles, who is more moral, and who should be in charge – whereas all left-wing parties united their efforts under the slogan of so-called “peace process” (which of course turned nothing but caving in to the demands of a few terrorist groups supported by “the progressive people” such as American and European liberal turds, Middle Eastern tyrants, and post-Soviet propaganda kingpins).

    Unfortunately, I foresee American rigth-wing following the same slippery road of self-righteousness and moral superiority. While many ideas of Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and some other minor movements are close to my heart, we just cannot afford letting them “pull a Nader” come next election cycle. We have already been alarmingly close to the complete destruction of the republican body in the Congress when Sen. Chambliss was forced into the second round.

    It is my strongest desire to see all conservative movements to unite under the single roof – Libertarian or Constitutional if possible but I can settle for Republican – and form a powerful message that the Chicago War Machine will not be able to choke. I do hope that the leaders of minor conservative parties will overcome their personal political ambitions – possibly, in exchange for key governmental appointments, that’s how it works in Israel – and throw their support behind a true conservative leader.

  6. Gust, D. A. says:

    Good post, Ronald.

    As a veteran that spent too much time suffering, and all the while loving it, in the infantry, I view just about everything a little different than others. I have, what seems to be a strange sort of process when it comes to solving problems.

    I believe you must fix the problem first, then fix the cause so it doesn’t happen again, and then fix the blame, if you really must.

    Unfortunately a “mob mentality”(pol-party) has taken us to a place far from the tiller handle, instead of steering and setting the course we seem to be just along for the ride. For us to get back to the helm, we will have to do more than just complain about it. I don’t think I have the solution, but I’m not about to be part of the problem either.

    Yes, like you have said in the post We will have to have more unity as a group to get anything accomplished. Without unity, we are nothing more than voices in the back ground. If we allow anyone to divide us, and they seem to be doing just that, dividing us over petty differences of opinion, we will surely fail to steer around danger, or even have a chance to correct our course.

    The last line of your post: “There are far too many battles ahead to waste our energy turning on one another.” That statement is a winning way to move forward.

    I’m either “Vintage Wind” just or an “Old Fart”…you decide.

  7. ITS NOT US ITS THEM says:

    The report said Treasury had committed $590.4 billion of the $700 billion through March 31, but when additional Fed financing commitments and asset guarantees are added in, taxpayers could be responsible for up to $2.977 trillion in total TARP costs.

  8. Uncle Rick says:

    This is a well-reasoned article. I would like to add my take on the subject.

    For many years I rejected the conservative-liberal model as inadequate. It didn’t account for other important views, and I am really a juris naturalist. I very nearly voted for Chuck Baldwin last November. The reason I didn’t is that McCain was smart enough to pick Sarah Palin (she may have some liabilities — who doesn’t? — but the fact that the media so passionately hated her told me she was a very good choice), and that I knew that Obama would be an unmitigated disaster as President.

    I still think the model is limited, but that can change. What can make it change is to define conservatism. I don’t mean change it in any important way, though. I mean take control of the language away from the Left.

    Decades ago liberals began redefining words to suite their purposes. We have ‘progressive’, ‘moderate Republican’, ‘government investment’, just to name three. It’s time to pay attention to this and never miss an opportunity to point out the flaws in the liberal-controlled lexicon.

    For starters, we can stop calling Obama a socialist, although he enjoys cozying up with them. His intitiatives so far more closely fit the fascist model, since he has not proposed that the state actually take ownership of private enterprise (OK, the US now has an equity stake in AIG, but not complete ownership). His moves have all been simply to control companies while still allowing them to be privately held. That’s fascism, or national socialism.

    Always look for the implied assumptions in anything liberals say, then openly identify the assumption and show where it is flawed.

    Anyway, that’s just a start. There’s a lot more, but most of it has to do with defining what makes sense and not allowing the Left to control the terms of the debate.

  9. Uncle Rick says:


    Thanks for telling us about that. I will see if I can get any interest in an Oath Keepers movement here in Austin.

    As a post-My Lai Vietnam veteran, I remember clearly being drilled on Article 92, with emphasis on ‘lawful orders’. I have a feeling that it would be very difficult to get soldiers or Marines to move against Americans. What officer would give such an order? What NCO would carry it out?

  10. Blad_Rnr says:

    Show me a society that EVER made homosexual marriage legal. Not homosexuality, homosexual marriage. Because when this happens in our society it will be the downfall of the family. Period.

  11. bigal says:

    When a man with the political beliefs of Arlen Spector can be considered a Republican, the “tent” is too broad.

    Spector , who voted to give $6 Billion to ACORN, awho voted to allow the White House to direct an Inspector General in a Department to cease and desist in an internal investigation, who considers the most important qualification for a Supreme Court Justice to be to uphold Roe V. Wadem, and who used his position of Chairman of the Judiciary Committee to investigate Professional Football belongs to the party of Henry Waxman, not the Republican Party.

    If Republicans stand for everything, we stand for nothing. If we fail to draw a philosophical line on policy, we will continue to be a minority party.

  12. sharon says:

    Great article, good reading, very true.

  13. Anonymous says:

    All of us in the conservative fold (Republican, Libertarian, Constitutionalist or any combination threof) do need to be more united in our cause to battle the united front of the left. That being said, at any point in history there is a vast difference between presently acceptable societal mores and what is “right”. People have done many things throughout history that were morally wrong. No matter how long people do something immoral it NEVER becomes moral to do it. We must avoid the illogical premise that anything and everything must change over time to suit our current views. Morality is based on the standards of God (not man) and calls each individual to reach upward and, in that reaching, better himself and society around him. Civil Law sets the lowest standard that is acceptable and dares the individual to not fall below that line! The founding fathers knew this and feared that “man’s” government, based on “man’s” principles and perspective, would try to overwhelm the rights of men as given by God. They welcomed morality and morally guided principles into their government.
    Why are we constantly being told that in orrder for us “to all get along” the first thing that has to go is morality. Our founders stated that our Consitiution was for a “moral and upright people” and that for “any other it will not do”. You can’t truly stand up for the Constitution if you don’t believe in the principles upon which it was founded! The Constitution promises freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Our rights come from the same source as our morality. We’re losing both. Who should compromise, those looking upward or those looking down?

  14. Gail B says:

    I feel like the shattered window of the house located across the street from the ballpark when someone like Chipper Jones has stepped up to the plate and slammed the ball into orbit! “Wow! Where did that solid hit come from?! I’m busted!”

    And, of course, Ronald, you are right on spot with your point, another type of home run.

    Personal prejudices and religious beliefs become emotional, but emotional is not the same as constitutional. Somewhere in our now ragged Constitution is protection from federal overreach, which the current regime cannot recognize in those tattered pages.

    What I find uncomfortable is the president’s issuance of an Executive Order. Where is the justification for Executive Orders? I hope that once Jeff is through with his studies (NOT BEFORE!), that he will write an opinion on this topic.

    And, where does the federal government “get off” in legislating unions, private businesses, the Internet (which it does not own), infringement of rights provided by Constitutional Amendments, and so on? The noose around our necks is getting tighter.

    Promise: I will read and reread your column until any tendency to find fault with issues/traits within conservatism is erased from my mind. (And that will probably keep me busy for a WHILE!)

  15. Gail B says:

    KUMBAYAH said…
    “A minister told me once that the majority of congregations that fall apart do so because the members fail to overlook the faults of the other members. If the members saw the virtues of each other instead, they could go forward in strength.”

    Dang those colonists. They should have found the good in that King George…… I can’t take this blog anymore.

    KUMBAYAH, we conservatives have had our fill of socialism. If you don’t like this blog, you are perfectly free to go back to your pro-Pelosi posts. We won’t miss you.

  16. Anonymous says:



    I know this is a bit off topic, but I wanted to post it to bring as much attention to it as possible.

    This bill is on the FAST TRACK and is getting NO public debate or disclosure.

    More info found at Ron Paul’s website

    PLEASE contact your representatives and those listed in the article.

    They will stop at nothing!!!!! AAARRRGGGHHH!!!

  17. Anonymous says:

    People still do not understand what is going on.

    George Bush was not hated by the media because he was for the war. The Obama people are for the war and notice the media has become silent.

    Bush was not hated for his policies on the war. He was hated because he is not a sexual pervert. He is not for child prostitution or lowering the age of consent to 3.

    Just as feminazis took over the feminist movement, and leftists have taken over the democrats, pervonazis have taken over the media and they have the leftists and the feminazis in their camp.

    What sane person would offer himself up for a Republican party that doesn’t want the bother of protecting innocent life?

    Morality matters most and success will come from a completely moral party, which has yet to define itself in America’s young history.

  18. Anonymous says:

    I understand where you’re “coming from”, Ronald, and there are good, rational, arguments for your point of view, but it’s difficult to put aside un-compromising moral convictions on any given subject once it has been put into play in the political areana.

    As one of the commentors wisely said, the real answer is for the federal government to just butt out of legislating moral issues. I, as a person who refuses to compromise on clear Scriptural directions for how we should live, and explains why as well, I find myself compelled to make such issues a “litmus test” – even at the expense of not “winning”. If those issues were left at the state level, at least those of us who feel that strongly about them would not be compelled to compromise our convictions when we went to the voting booth in presidential elections.

    I read yesterday about a comment by Megan McCain at the Republican Log Cabin convention in which she is quoted as saying “the old Republicans are scared s***less of the coming civil war within the Republican Party”. She went on to say that the Republican Party needed to become more “gay-friendly” and that that is the issue that she feels most passionately about. I guess that tells me where I stand in that “coming civil war”.

    Is this what the Republican Party has come to? Is this the winning strategy that we’re moving to so that we can “win”? If so, there is no hope for ever winning again as a party of Constitutional conservatives. There are just too many of us Constitutinal conservatives who have higher values which we are not willing to compromise.

    Old Bob

  19. Gail B says:

    Old Bob, how did you get so smart?

    I love to read your comments, and you seem to me to be a laid-back sort of guy who just exudes wisdom and common sense (which appears to become rare these days).

  20. suek says:

    “It would appear everyone is talking about their isolation and separation from the Republican Party.”

    Just shows that the Democrat tactic of “divide and conquer” has been successful.

    As soon as people start describing themselves as “this” or “that” and start declaring that as “this” or “that” they need legislation “fixed”, you know they are lobbying for special benefits.

    We are first and foremost _Americans_. If anybody can’t go with that without demanding that we consider their “feelings” or their “identity”, let them step aside.

    “DIVERSITY” is a means to divide and conquer.

  21. JEFF SCHREIBER says:

    If I may — the way I interpreted Ron’s piece is not that we should forego our beliefs and values, but that we should come together in our commonalities (Jeffersonianism, if that’s a word) in order to regain power and get the country moving in the right direction again.

    After all, the unique values each of us have are doomed if the Dems continue to foster infighting, and if we refuse to come together.

    People like Arlen Specter, though, to cite the earlier comment, would not be included. Specter has no respect for federalism.

    That’s why I chose the Jefferson Memorial for the AR banner. Belief in a limited federal government, I think, transcends the factions of the political right.

  22. Anonymous says:

    To my new Most Admired Friend, Gail;

    Thanks for your kind words, but I am what I am only by the grace of God. (And having lived over 75 years, being married to a very smart (and tolerant) woman for over 52 years, having made a lot of mistakes, and being an insatiable reader, doesn’t hurt, either).

    But you made my day.

    Old Bob

  23. Robowang says:

    I am sorry, I don’t totally agree with this.
    IF a Conservative President is elected next (and I have a hunch there will), the President absolutely should order a Justice Department investigation into Obama’s eligibility.
    Not let it go because it’s “past business”!
    We ALL know he’s hiding something.
    We ALL know the Democratic Congress will do nothing about it. In fact, IMHO, the Democratic Congress members KNOW what is going on and is part of it.
    We ALL know Obama will never have himself investigated by the Justice Dept.
    But, the next Pres CAN investigate. Even if it’s proven to be a wild goose chase (I don’t think so, but that’s me), it would at least make sure NO ONE can get that far without legal documentation, again.
    I know it would be a scary situation is Obama is found to be a fraud after the fact, but we NEED to make sure. AND, as a fraud, he needs to be prosecuted for the biggest scam ever perpetrated, IF that’s the case.
    We don’t know that it is. However, because of the fight to keep things secret, we don’t know that it’s NOT!
    And we have the right to know. Every last one of us.
    Let’s hope the truth wins out before the next Pres election.
    But if not, then we CAN’T forgive and forget!

  24. Jan says:

    Old Bob,
    All I can say is that I ditto everything in your post. Your words depict my thougths as though you reached into my mind and extracted them. You have a way with putting those thoughts to pen that I just do not have, yet. Thank you for your wisdom. As a child of God I have a lot to learn and to practice. Thank you for being a beacon of encouragement in that journey

  25. GATOR-1 says:

    Even I must say Mr Old Bob, I have also found many words of wisdom in your posts, I have looked forward to them and learned from them….Not just todays but all of them…Bless you Patriot.

    What I still do not understand is just what it is that we are to do?

    Spector is one thing but there are many others. And as a group they all stood by knowing everything we know about the eligibilty issue.

    I use to say that all the Dems did was complain with no real plans….I know now why their plans were kept from us, but what do we get now from most of the right?…..Complaints and arguments and no real plan of action. The Dems plans may have been kept in the dark but at least they had one.

    More Gay friendly?…Is that for real?…

    Do we compromise everything just a bit to make the GOP competitive again…

    Or do we start from scratch or rather return to the Conservative Christian values that we refuse to compromise and create an entire new party?

    I for one sure do not know the answer but I do know giving in our Christian values isnt a very good option.

    I think that both our main political parties have let us down and it is because they have been so dominate for so long.

    I like Old Bob am not likely to compromise anything that is written in either the Bible or the Constitution and if that is what it is going to take to support the GOP….it isnt going to happen, not for me nor for many others.

    I am not saying I certainly wont, all I’m saying is what everyone else is saying….

    “We gotta get our act together…Quick”

    I also think our TEA parties should be changed to mean Teaching Every American rather than Taxed Enough Already. I feel it draws to a wider audience IE. Retired people or those on a tax-free disability. It would also be much harder for the left to attack such movement and also give us more opportunity to spread a wider message.

    I know this site has a good following of like minded folks. If some of you happen to be organizers or know any….Think about it….

    “Teaching Every American”…

    It is after all what needs to be done.

    Thanks Jeff, wishing you all the best as always….


  26. Anonymous says:

    Ron the problem with your assessment is that it ignores a fundamental issue for one the groups you are seeking to rally. The social/religious conservatives have their ideas deeply rooted in a traditional christian worldview. This worldview is one that believes the Bible is a timeless document that defines how God intends humans to relate to God as well as one another. In the Biblical record homosexuality is referenced not necessarily as the cause of degradation of a society but rather the symptom that reflects the late stages of that degradation. The core problem is human self idolatry and disregard for the poor. It isn’t that there is a clear line of connection from these issues to homosexuality but rather homosexuality is one of a constellation of problems that emerge in a society when God removes his blessings. Of course not all those claiming to be Christians agree with this perspective but it does largely define the viewpoint of the social/religious conservatives. Therefore your tacit argument that social/religious conservatives need to get over this issue and accept a new Republican party that actively includes homosexuality as a socially acceptable lifestyle reveals a profound ignorance of the audience you are addressing. To be blunt and overly simplistic you are asking these conservatives to make a deal with the devil in order to personally benefit in regard to there myopic circumstances. The Christian story is one rich with acts of martyrdom in the face of social disdain. The social/religious conservatives would rather risk the lose of freedoms in the midst of demonstrating solidarity with God’s ordained order before they would accept a political pact with a group they see as evidence of the rejection of God’s order. Having stated this quite strongly it is important to note that how such a Christian would engage a group is very different from how they would engage an individual. This is evidenced many times over on many issues. Christian declare prostitution an evil act and yet they provide a tremendous array of services to assist women who want to escape this lifestyle. When interviewing such women you will universally learn of the loving support they have been shown. The same is true in the matter of abortion. Christians often boldly proclaim abortion as an evil act no different than calculated murder of a born child. However Christians are at the forefront of post abortion counseling. The dynamic at play here is that Christians recognize that individuals who have participated in the evil of a group are as much victims of evil as they are perpetrators. Furthermore all persons have at some point partnered with evil and so when dealing with individuals I must lay down the stone and extend the hand, however the group represents a demonic power oppressing humans and that must always be rejected in order to maintain fidelity with God.

  27. Anonymous says:

    To those who find a common spirit with me, I am both thankful and encouraged.

    As to “what to do”, my suggestion is to keep it simple. I believe that God guides us by circumstances, so as long as we respond faithfully to the obvious in the circumstance in front of us, we’ll be O.K.

    As an example, and as I have said before on Jeff’s blog, the responsibility for the Obama presidency lies with those who professed to be followers of Jesus Christ and yet chose to ignore the primacy of the clearly Scriptural position on the most fundemental issue in play – that of “the right to life”. For instance, I can’t believe that 94% of typically-evangelical Blacks became pro-choice overnight, but that’s how they voted. They made a choice that race was more important than rightiousness. The same (although not necessarily race) goes for the 30-40% of self-described white evangelicals who voted for Obama.

    I’m convinced that we always have enough information in front of us to make the right decision. We can get bogged down in nuanced arguments (such as the concept of “choice”) over most of the moral issues, but the simple truth is easily discernable – in Scripture, in nature, and millenia of experience.

    Some of those truths are:

    Life is sacred – at any stage.

    The traditional family unit is also sacred and is the only proven means of establishing and maintaining a stable society.

    Homosexualtiy, in all of it’s manifestations, is a perversion of not only moral law but also the natural law. Those who, for whatever reason or cause, are subject to these impulses, have the same moral choice that I make when I choose to be faithful to my wife of 52 years or a Catholic priest makes when he chooses to be celibate. It’s a choice, not an irresistable force.

    Free-market capitalism is the most productive and moral (i.e.benefits the most people) economic system ever devised.

    Debt is bad.

    The Constitution is not a “living document”, it’s sacred and inviolable if we are going to exist as a nation. If those so disposed want to depart from it, let them create a new constitution and get it ratified by the states. In the meantime, this nation belongs to those of us who ascribe to the Constitution as originally written.

    Lastly, if you want to understand what is going on, you first need to understand what happened in the Garden of Eden.

    Old Bob

  28. Anonymous says:

    Anonymous @ 7:13PM,
    and Old Bob,

    Well stated.

    In God’s economy we don’t have to win in order to win. Our God is Sovereign and he has never needed numbers to win. He is able to thwart the plans of whomever “wins.” But I do believe that professing Christians, as a unit, must walk their talk. Think 2 Chronicles 7:14.

    I feel like I compromised my values during the last election out of fear. That will not happen again. Like Miss California, I seek the approval of God, not man.

  29. Brian H says:

    “Conserve” means to retain and protect what’s valuable. So the question is always “conserve what?” Opinions will differ on this, and not all answers will be compatible.

    By contrast, the “progressive” disdains retention, and feels enlightened and empowered and entitled to start with a “tabula rasa”, and create an ideal from scratch. Any “retention” or “conservation” is just obstructionism in this view.

    One of the fundamental problems with such a view, of course, is that the egocentric assumption of infallibility is NEVER correct, and furthermore automatically justifies any kind of suppression of dissidence and resistance.

    So accepting that persistent values EXIST and that no one has a mandate to suppress opposition is the core, for me. The particulars are far less important.

  30. Anonymous says:

    I’m just wondering, Ron…did you go to a TEA Party? If so, then you should have gotten wind of the change in the air. Resolve, common ground, inspiration, different opinions, people standing side-by-side with a common goal…the “common moral virtue” to which you refer…If you did not make it to one, then perhaps these issues seem very pertinent to you; however, the theme of the day is one eminating from a state of emergency. That emergency is to save our country. Petty differences can be solved later. We don’t have to check our values at the door, but we do have to step up to the plate and save this nation, or we aren’t going to have anywhere to go after it’s all said and done. I could care less if a liberal calls me a bigot. That’s not even an issue to me at this point when I see my own Federal Govt. labeling our vets, and labeling Americans who are conservative, or whatever…that’s what scares me and some simple-minded windbag calling names seems so absolutely asinine to me that it isn’t even worth discussing.
    Personally, it isn’t even about conservatives and all our many factions within…at this point…it’s about America. Period.
    You and Jeff are calling for common ground. Well, that happened on April 15th.

Speak Your Mind