- Liberty UniversityAssociate Dean and Assistant Professor of Government, 2011 - present
- Regular Folks UnitedPresident, 2009 - 2011
- Frederick Douglass Foundation of MarylandPresident, 2011 - 2011
- 5M Consulting Services, LLCPresident, 2007 - 2011
Ron Miller of Lynchburg, Virginia is an associate dean and assistant professor of government at Liberty University, conservative activist and commentator, and author of SELLOUT: Musings From Uncle Tom’s Porch. The nine-year plus veteran of the U.S. Air Force and married father of three has written columns for numerous online sites and print publications, to include Southern Maryland Online, Red County, Regular Folks United, American Thinker, Tea Party Nation, Tea Party Review and his own website, RonOnTheRight.com.
Ron has been featured on a variety of radio, television and print mediums, to include Fox and Friends, The 700 Club, MSNBC, the Washington Post, the Washington Examiner, and more, and is an accomplished speaker who gives presentations at events around the country.
Ron is an outspoken advocate for free enterprise, low taxes, regulation restricted to protecting the workplace, lives and property, limited constitutional government, traditional two-parent families and the sanctity of human life. He also writes extensively about identity politics and the repercussions of placing race above values, emphasizing the harmful effects of liberal policies on the black community.
Ron served in the federal government from 2001 to 2004 as a senior executive with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Small Business Administration. He was recognized by Federal Computer Week in 2002 and 2003 as one of the "Federal 100" leaders in government information technology, cited both years for his technology leadership in the homeland security arena. Since 2004, he has held senior management positions with the American Red Cross and in the private sector and ran his own consulting firm.
He has held leadership positions in several conservative organizations, to include president of Regular Folks United, president of the Frederick Douglass Foundation of Maryland, and communications director for the Calvert County Republican Party.
Prior to joining the federal government, Ron was a senior requirements analyst, project manager, and division manager in the private sector from 1992 to 2001, and served in the U.S. Air Force as an air intelligence officer from 1983 to 1992, attaining the rank of Captain. His military honors include the Meritorious Service Medal and the Air Force Commendation Medal.
Born in Lake Charles, Louisiana, Mr. Miller holds a B.A. in Political Science from Texas Tech University and a M.S. in International Relations from Troy State University. He was a Republican candidate for the Maryland Senate in 2006. Mr. Miller has been married for 29 years to the former Annik (ah-NEEK) Aeschbach of Hegenheim, France and they are the proud parents of two daughters and a son.
- Texas Tech UniversityPolitical Science, 1978 - 1982
- Troy UniversityInternational Relations, 1987 - 1989
"Far too many black Americans and liberal whites really do assume that racism is lurking in every conservative heart. It’s not merely a political tactic to put us on the defensive (although surely some demagogic politicians know they are spewing bilious rot when they make such accusations); instead, much of the Left really has convinced itself the accusations are true." ~ Quin Hillyer
A series of statements and articles centered around the author of this article led me to express an opinion - actually more of a probing statement to arrive at a diagnosis - on how non-black Americans react to the incessant accusations of racism directed at anyone who criticizes the president. Please review my post and the thoughtful comments which follow:
Subsequent to that conversation, Mr. Hillyer wrote this response to all the chatter surrounding him, and it is excellent. It is probably one of the more thoughtful commentaries on race in America that I've read, not to mention a spirited defense of conservatives who, for the most part, do not criticize the president out of racial animus but because they legitimately oppose his policies.
He also makes a disquieting point, reflected in the quote which opened this post -- that there are far too many people outside of the demagogues who actually believe there is an inexorable link between conservatism and racism. That does not bode well, either for the cohesion of our republic or the well-being of those communities that would really benefit from the enactment of conservative policies and the inoculation of conservative principles.
Before I proceed, let me state unequivocally that I am an advocate of the 2nd Amendment because the right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from harm, regardless of its source, is historically recognized as a condition of individual liberty. I've done a lot of study on how gun control in America was used to subjugate and terrorize blacks - http://www.ronontheright.com/reflections/2013/02/26/on-guns-err-on-the-side-of-liberty/ - and so I am a skeptic of the notion that we should surrender our right of self-defense to government officials who can't or won't protect us.
With that established, I've been reading a lot of posts in social media calling for gun rights advocates and gun owners to boycott Starbucks as a result of the CEO's request that its customers not bring guns into their stores or on their property. After reading the letter, I'm struck by a couple of things:
- He respects the laws of the states in which they operate. He states they previously allowed open and/or concealed carry in states that have those laws in place, and enforced gun bans in jurisdictions where the law calls for them.
- He says he isn't trying to take sides, but is responding to customers who are uncomfortable with guns being brought into his stores.
- He is making a request rather than instituting a ban because he doesn't want to put his employees in the position of demanding that someone leave their guns outside.
The way I read his letter, he needs to be neutral because he recognizes that his customer base falls on both sides of this issue, and he doesn't want to drive any of them away. Instead, he's appealing to his customers to respect the sensibilities of those who find the presence of guns in his stores "unsettling and upsetting."
Here is my question: what is a business owner supposed to do when caught in the middle of customer passions on a controversial issue?
For some business owners who hold a particular position on an issue, they may decide to demonstrate the courage of their convictions in how they conduct their business, and they accept the consequences of those decisions.
For others, however, they don't want to take sides - they just want to offer a product or service to consumers. Should they be punished for refusing to take sides?
I was unable to attend, but they requested that I write a statement in support of their efforts to be included in their press kit, and I agreed. Some have asked me if I was aware of the event, so I am sharing with you my statement as it was submitted to CURE. I was honored that they asked me to participate, and I look forward to working with them in the future.
After the Pope's statements in his recent interview were publicized this week, a lot of heat was generated online by people who didn't read the entire interview.
Those who want the church to change with the culture hailed his statement as a potential reordering of the Catholic Church's teachings. Those who believe the church is God's emissary on earth, and should therefore influence the culture, criticized the statement as a capitulation to popular opinion. Both sides were spinning the story to emphasize what they wanted to hear, and it was dismaying to watch.
Catholic theologian and writer George Weigel read the entire interview, and he reveals the central theme about Pope Francis that people on both sides of the cultural divide are struggling to grasp. The term "evangelical Catholic" might be new to most people, and even those who know the term probably have different definitions of what it means, but I believe at its core it's placing Jesus first above all else.
Contrary to some interpretations, the pope explicitly defended the church's teachings in the interview, but he said they are secondary to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, without which there is practically no possibility of the Word being considered or received by others.
His message is clear to me; the love of Jesus must come before valuation or condemnation, as the author so eloquently describes in discussing the pope's appreciation for Caravaggio's painting, “The Calling of St. Matthew”. The pope says that, like Matthew, he is "a sinner on whom the Lord has turned His gaze," and that is true of all whom the Lord calls.
Making Jesus your top priority reorders everything that comes after Him, including your personal demeanor and how you interact with others, even those with whom you disagree. God's Word doesn't change, but it has the power to change people - if we first open minds and hearts to relationship with Jesus.
Without Jesus leading the charge, the church becomes nothing more than an interest group with policy priorities, and I believe that is the point Pope Francis is trying to make.
Please read the entire article before responding (grin!), and please do so humbly and respectfully. A topic like this generates a lot of passion, so please express yourself with conviction, but also with courtesy.
Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) identified $18 billion in wasteful spending in his 2012 Wastebook.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2011 found 81 areas of waste and duplication in government which, if eliminated, could save taxpayers up to $100 billion.
A leader would challenge Congress to eliminate whatever waste and duplication exists outside of the executive branch, and would order his cabinet secretaries and agency heads to do the same within the executive branch. No sacrosanct programs need to be cut, or critical services reduced, and no taxes need to be raised to effect up to $118 billion in savings.
The president himself has come out and publicly said he wants to eliminate duplication in government programs and, since he runs practically all of them, he only needs to issue executive orders to make it happen. All of this drama would be unnecessary if he'd just do what he said he wants to do.
Congress has the constitutional power of the purse, and I want the members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to be reminded of how irresponsible they've been with our money, and how much debt they're going to leave to our descendants to handle.
What is political or ideological about the fact that we spend more than we take in, and that such a practice is not considered good stewardship of money they didn't earn, but that we entrusted to them?