Reblog: Article V Of The Constitution. The Final Straw?

constitution1.pngTo turn back the encroaching tyranny of big government, do we need a Constitutional Convention? The men who wrote the Constitution certainly thought we might. Have we have reached the point where no other choice looks as promising?

From AvatarSirPublius at Political Realities

Article V Of The Constitution. The Final Straw?

James Madison, a Federalist, and therefore a proponent for passage of the Constitution and of a stronger central government, affectionately known as the “father of the Constitution”, in arguing for the Constitution’s passage and in trying to alleviate the fears of those citizens skeptical about giving more power to a central government, said in Federalist 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and infinite.” That was a mouthful of a sentence, huh? Again, that promise, of a limited federal government, was written by an advocate for a stronger central government, and by the man who was said to have written much of what came to be our Constitution. It really goes to show you how generally united both Federalist and Anti-Federalists were in their belief in limited government, despite the Constitution’s formation.

Does anyone really think we have anything close to resembling such a governmental model today, where the powers of the federal government are few and defined, and where most power rests exclusively with the states? Ya, me neither. I think it would be fair to say that we have strayed, more than a little, from the original intent of the Constitution. So how do we get back on track? Is all hope lost? Have we exhausted every mean available to us? What can we possibly do about our current state of affairs that hasn’t already been tried, and failed? Maybe we just need to elect a few more Republicans? That will solve everything! After all, it has in the past, right? I want to suggest another course, and it’s one the authors of the Constitution very specifically furnished for us, the advantage of which we have yet to exploit. (continued here)

30 thoughts on “Reblog: Article V Of The Constitution. The Final Straw?

  1. I am but a citizen of these United States and have little knowledge of politics other than what is in these blogs collectively… but may i say I like James Madison. 🙂


    1. Thank you for visiting.

      If you have an interest in history, I suspect you know more about politics than you let on. 🙂

      I like James Madison too.

      For the sake of those we love, we each need to thoughtfully participate in our political system.

      Consider an example you have written about. Your blog mentions the camps where America imprisoned Americans of Japanese descent. Without the restraints imposed by Constitution (even though the imprisonment of Americans without a trial was already unconstitutional), our government probably would have brutally abused Americans of Japanese descent with less restraint.

      To estimate our own potential for evil, we have only to look at what happened in other nations during WWII.


      1. …and we do a Constitutional Convention. As for my blog – its goals are to leave something about our family’s ancestry and its ties to WWII, to show it is us civilians that truly take the brunt of wars caused by failed leadership and that our government is controlling our lives.

        I thank Mustang for letting me know of your blog, good sir.


        1. Thank you for your family’s extraordinary service!

          Some folks are sensitive about calling the Article V process a “Constitutional Convention,” apparently concerned that it would allow our current system of government to be tossed out entirely. In reality, the people can always do this, by whatever rules they make up. How could it be otherwise? But the Article V convention process is specific to amendments to the current Constitution. Mark Levin has written about this at length, and calls it a Convention of the States. I don’t think it matters much, but I support the idea. So did Madison, of course, looking forward to a future of usurpation by one branch of powers nominally delegated to the other two. Madison for laws, and Hamilton for finance, were crucial in getting our country through its birth pains. But the pressure of bureaucracy is relentless, and the incentives are always against the people, so a further tweak is needed.

          As an aside, I have written a little bit about the Japanese internment, and the efforts (still active today) to whitewash how — and where — it got started. The post includes a timeline of 1942 events:

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle


          1. Thank you for your compliment and information, sir. My family’s involvement on our US side is limited to three uncles, all of whom were bestowed the Congressional Gold Medal (two in the Military Intelligence Service, one in the 100th/442nd. The uncle in the 442nd was given a bronze star. My dad only joined after the hostilities ended.

            But all did serve time in the relocation camps as did other cousins and aunts/uncles. My dad – although an American Citizen – was indeed classified 4(c) enemy alien. He has said much about those years but I can’t feel he particularly enjoyed being classified 4(c). I read your timeline; to clarify, are you Canadian? I’m just trying to get my bearings. If you are curious, my dad’s draft cards can be seen here showing him 4(c):


          2. I am an American exiled to California, with English, Scottish, American Indian, Irish and other ancestry. (Someone once remarked at this, “your mother really got around.”) I read and enjoyed several of your stories, including your tribute to your neighbor and his meeting your father — and that grim aftermath.

            One professional acquaintance and one friend (now passed) were internment camp inmates. The professional is now a California court judge (Ernest Hiroshige), and the friend was Nao Takasugi who it was my great privilege to come to know:

            Though my greatest enthusiasm is reserved for our American system and history, and my science interests are large, I have long had a keen appreciation of the Japanese culture. For decades, my on-line signature has included a katana. (Citizen Tom perhaps wondered at my odd tagline.)

            ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle


        2. Mustang.Koji

          While I don’t see the Article V process as the solution — the means of getting our government back to its Constitutional roots — I have decided not to oppose the idea. As Keith observed, the people can wreck our government (toss out the Constitution) by whatever rules they make up. In fact, that is already being done.

          So what good do I hope an Article V Convention might accomplish?

          Consider Orwell’s allegory. When he wrote Animal Farm, George Orwell observed that the farm animals had forgotten the rules that made up their Constitution, that the pigs who had taken charge had begun to pretend that the rules they made up were part of the original rule set. Thus, the pigs elevated themselves above the other animals.

          When Orwell wrote his book, he illustrated our situation. Yet even though most Americans remain literate, few take the time to read the Constitution and consider how it was suppose to work. Perhaps an Article V Convention will generate enough publicity to encourage sufficient numbers of people to think about what is being lost. We can only hope and pray it does.

          My thanks to both you and Keith for sharing your thoughts on my blog.


        3. Keith

          Katana. Now that you mention it it does look like a sword. That’s clever.

          I did wonder about your background, but I generally avoid getting personal. Sometimes it is appropriate, but I have not found myself to be a good judge of when it is appropriate. So I focus on the subjects of my posts. As some of the earlier comments indicate, the criticisms that follow can be incendiary. I doubt making the criticisms personal would improve matters.


  2. Great discussion! Let’s just not forget we are all on the same side. I don’t think any of us view a Constitutional Convention as anything other than a last ditch effort. Unfortunately, we have just about backed into that last ditch. That being so we had better remember who is pushing us into that ditch.

    I don’t believe Mark Levin’s amendments are dishonest. I suspect he intents them to be realistic. Many Conservatives, probably most, approach the problem of “fixing” the Federal Government conservatively (Should that be a surprise?). Because they worry about not breaking what is not broken, they see the problem as one of not letting the Federal Government get any bigger or more powerful. The problem with that approach is that the Socialists are not so modest. Hence, when Conservatives pass on an opportunity to keep shrinking he size of the Federal Government (back to where the Constitution says it belongs), the Socialists just regroup. And since the Federal Government remains huge, they still have a ready-made constituency for growing government.

    Levin modesty is most apparent in his balanced budget amendment(see Supposedly, that amendment would limit the Federal spending to 17.5% of GDP. That’s still a huge chunk of money. What would make more sense would be the gradual elimination of the agencies and programs the Feds have no business running. I have not read Levin’s book yet, but I doubt Levin’s amendments would do that.

    That said, some of the amendments in Levin’s list are much needed, but to get them passed we are going to have to win some elections first. That means educating people on what this fight is about. In fact, I think we can all agree is that our most immediate need is to educate our people about their Constitution.


    1. That “huge chunk of money” certainly is — but that limit would cut more than a third from the current mechanism of “budget implemented by resolution.” There was a redefinition just last year of what “GDP” means, so that it now includes increasing pension obligations into what should be considered “production.” Bizarre. And more redefinition could happen, certainly.

      Levin calls for individual proposals, every three years, on each of the federal agencies justifying their budget and their existence. It doesn’t do away with them, but does put some pressure on. However, changes to the commerce clause do have some impact here.

      The core aspect of the current system is that the bureaucracy is incentivized to expand, and failure is merely a form of success for a bureaucratic approach. Until this is changed, merely replacing elected officials will not fix this.

      I’m going to decline Ms. Publius Huldah’s rather unladylike approach; she has not addressed any of the inconsistency issues I’ve raised, and her description of Levin is … disappointing for one who is nominally a Constitutional conservative. Levin is probably the most potent force operating today driving the current rise of public interest in the Constitution and the preservation and restoration of our system of government. He also has led the fight against government encroachment against our liberties for decades, going after agencies in court from the EPA to the IRS … and succeeding. She derides him as just another ignorant lawyer.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle


  3. Keith,
    You are not listening. You are merely repeating the talking points one can get anywhere COS has been.

    I said Mark Levin’s amendments were dishonest – they do the opposite of what he claims they do. I don’t know Mark Levin. For all I know, he is merely stupid and doesn’t understand that his amendments institutionalize the very abuses he claims they correct. Or he may be profoundly ignorant: He may believe that the propaganda he absorbed in law school describes the actual Constitution. He may well be like most American lawyers who never read the Constitution, have no idea what it says, and just uncritically accepted what they were told in law school, They have minds like blank sheets of paper which got stamped in law school.

    If you challenge my assertion that Levin’s amendments institutionalize the very abuses he claims they correct, they show us how his amendments correct the abuses. Show us how his amendments return us to the original intent of our Constitution.

    Go on, show us! I metaphorically slap your face with my glove.


  4. Dear Keith,
    1. The Standard is never whether you & I “agree” – that would set ourselves and our “views” above the only real Standard, which is Objective Truth. So the issue is whether what we say is True.

    2. I think your confusion is over the original meaning of the word, “militia”. The “militia” is the armed citizens – e.g., the farmers who had rifles to hunt, and to defend themselves and their families and their livestock from varmints. “Militia” = armed citizens.
    These armed citizens also banded together in times of danger to defend their towns from attacks. So the “militia” is the armed citizens who were able & ready to defend themselves, their families, their livestock, and their communities.

    Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16, provides for the calling forth and organization of the militia – this pre-existing body of armed independent citizens.

    It is incorrect to think that the “militia” doesn’t come into existence until it is organized by a government! Organized or unorganized, an armed able-bodied male citizen is part of the “militia” – the armed citizens.

    Alexander Hamilton was right: The 2nd amendment did provide a pretext for regulating for those inclined to usurp. For today, gun control advocates insist that there is only one kind of “militia” – the ORGANIZED MILITIA; and they suppress the fact that behind the “organized militia” is the UNORGANIZED MILITIA whose ranks comprise EVERY armed citizen.

    3. Right. Everyone has ignored the original intent of the commerce clause for a very long time. What boggles my mind is why people believe that amending a Constitution which few have even bothered to read [much less look things up in The Federalist Papers] is the solution. It literally took me 5 minutes to learn the original intent of the commerce clause. Our federal judges can’t do that? If I send them my 4 line paragraph proving the original intent, will they read the para and the two cited Federalist Papers? No, b/c they don’t agree with the original intent. THEY want a powerful central government which regulates everything. So how does an amendment cure their willful disobedience to the very document they have taken an Oath to support?

    And I have seen the amendments proposed by Randy Barnett, Mark Levin, Michael Farris. They all have one thing in common: Their amendments institutionalize the very abuses they purport to correct, nullify the natural rights of the people, and fundamentally change the constitutional design.

    Even thou our Constitution is not being enforced, it still declares this fed gov’t lawless! The true rule of law is still on our side, but not for much longer if We foolishly allow Our Constitution to be re-written.

    4. You state that YOU don’t think it is likely that the delegates will impose a new Constitution at a convention. But I respectfully suggest that you are not infallible and that you might be wrong. After all, what is to stop them? Nothing. And if they propose, e.g., the Constitution for the Newstates of America – which is ratified by a Referendum called by the President – what will you do? Say, “I didn’t think they would do that!”.

    Sometimes, when people issue dire warnings, it is prudent to consider whether the person issuing the warning actually might have a point. Particularly when the dire warnings come from very wise old ladies.

    And it matters not whether Congress appoints the delegates or the States appoint the delegates. Our governments are totally corrupt at all levels, and no one seems to have even the slightest knowledge of the original intent of our Constitution.

    You must look at the words of the Continental Congress when it “called” the Convention of 1787:

    Pursuant to Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress resolved on February 21, 1787 (p 71-74) to call a convention to be held at Philadelphia “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. (Articles of Confederation)
    (where the Continental Congress called the convention of 1787)

    But the delegates ignored this limitation and wrote a new Constitution. Because of the inherent power of a people to alter, abolish, or throw off their form of government (Declaration of Independence, 2nd para); it is impossible to stop it from happening at another convention.

    And George Washington, James Madison, Ben Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton won’t be there to protect you. You don’t know who the delegates will be. But whether Congress or State governments appoint them – they will be political hacks who have no understanding of our Founding Principles and Documents.

    5. We need to repeal several of the existing amendments the American people got hoodwinked into supporting. Madison advised that when people want amendments, they ask their congressional delegates to propose them to Congress.

    But I expect you perceive (correctly) that our Congress is now too corrupt to propose such amendments.

    Yet you trust them to “call” a convention? Where our entire Constitution will be put on the executioner’s block?

    There is only one solution: We The People need to learn & enforce our Founding Documents & Principles. We enforce them by throwing out the bums who ignore them.

    In closing:
    “Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature…If the NEXT CENTENNIAL does not find us a great nation…it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.” –James Garfield, 100th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1876


    1. Lots of words. First, the standard really is whether people agree. You explicitly demonstrate this:

      It literally took me 5 minutes to learn the original intent of the commerce clause. Our federal judges can’t do that? If I send them my 4 line paragraph proving the original intent, will they read the para and the two cited Federalist Papers? No, b/c they don’t agree with the original intent.

      And the answer is that you are correct, our federal judges can’t do that.

      Regardless of your assertion of your idea being the Objective Truth, and even though I think you are largely correct (with regard to the intent of the Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment), the fact remains that others, including judges, have a different notion of Objective Truth. And that notion has caused legislation to be created and to withstand scrutiny, and it should never have happened.

      Yet this damage has been limited because the language of the Constitution has been argued about, and some constraints derived from it. I say it can be improved further. You will recall that there was no Second Amendment (or any of them) for the first couple of years of this country’s existence; all of them are add-ons. They have been useful; imagine what would have been done to our natural rights without without the Bill of Rights explicitly in place, considering how broadly other powers have been interpreted.

      And yet you argue against amendments. But not consistently.

      You seem to be asserting several things, directly or by implication:
      (1) that there is no point to amending the Constitution to clarify the language by adding or removing words,
      (2) the language is perfectly clear as it sits,
      (3) federal judges are nevertheless misinterpreting the language,
      (4) no clarification could possibly change this, and
      (5) you want to see the Constitution amended to remove certain language you don’t like.

      Also, you seem to believe that the Constitution limits the ability of people to form a new government. It does not. It limits the process by which its own form can be duly amended, but cannot possibly limit the circumstances under which it would be chucked out and replaced.

      You continue to refer to Mark Levin as “dishonest.” He may be honestly mistaken — I do not think he is in this instance, and you are making incorrect statements in this connection — but your assertion of Levin’s dishonesty is a rather annoying and false attack on the best and most powerful ally Constitutional conservatives have.

      You should publicly acknowledge that the original constitutional convention was full of delegates who were sent there by the states to form a new constitution. You continue to falsely imply that this was some sort of “runaway convention,” as if these delegates were not operating under the explicit instructions of their state governments to do what they did. The new Constitution was the plan, not a mistake of out-of-control delegates.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle


  5. Publius Huldah — Because of all the links, the spam catcher held up your March 10, 2014 at 2:12 pm comment. Sorry about that. Hopefully, that diversion does not make the flow of the thread too awkward.


  6. My last comment seems to still be under moderation, so I don’t know if Keith saw it before he posted at 4:46.

    1. The 2nd Amendment:
    You begin your analysis in the wrong place. “Arms control” is not one of the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government over the Country at Large: Most of the enumerated powers delegated to Congress over the Country at Large are itemized at Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 3-16. NOWHERE did we give the federal government power to restrict our arms.

    In Federalist Paper No. 84 (around the 10th para), Hamilton warns that in a Constitution founded on popular rights (“WE THE PEOPLE”), bills of rights are not only unnecessary – they are dangerous. For they provide a pretext for regulating to those inclined to usurp.

    And that, of course, is precisely what has happened. Many say the 2nd Amendment does not “give” an individual right to keep and bear arms – it only permits the organized militia to be armed.
    So, not only do they prove Hamilton was right; they also betray their total ignorance of The Source of all rights – our Declaration says that Rights come from the Creator God; and their ignorance of
    the identity of the “militia”: The militia was the volunteer armed citizens – the farmers, shopkeepers, clergy – who fought in the militia company commanded by Mel Gibson’s character in “Patriot”.

    So, the 2nd amendment has been turned into a weapon which is being used to restrict our God-given right to defend ourselves. Our people are deceived by this b/c their ignorance of the Constitution is so appalling that they are unaware of the concept of enumerated delegated powers. THEY DON’T KNOW that our Constitution never delegated to the fed gov’t power to restrict our arms.

    2. You think we need an amendment to clarify the meaning of the commerce clause? It took me 5 minutes to learn the original intent of that clause. I looked it up in The Federalist Papers:

    In Federalist No. 22 (4th para) and Federalist No. 42 (11th &12th paras), Hamilton & Madison explain the purpose of the “interstate commerce” clause: It is to prohibit the States from imposing tolls and tariffs on articles of merchandize as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling. Until the mid-1930’s, this was widely understood.

    I have a paper on this where I discussed additional Federalist Papers and quoted discussions of this clause at the Federal Convention of 1787.

    3. Our Problem is the appalling ignorance & immorality of the American People. Our entire system depended on THE PEOPLE learning & enforcing the Constitution. Hamilton said the People are “the natural guardians of the Constitution”; and he expected us to be “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority” (Federalist No. 16, next to last para.)

    If we had done our job, we would have vetted candidates for office. I can not think of a single person in Congress who is not a ignorant, oath-breaking phony. But they reflect the People who elect them.

    Our problem is not the Constitution. Our problem is the ignorant & corrupt American People who elect ignorant & corrupt politicians.

    The solution: We The People need to learn our Founding Documents and Principles; and elect only candidates who know them. If we are too corrupt and lazy and stupid to do that, then it’s all over and we lost. We deserve to be taken over by George Soros henchmen. That is what will happen if there is a convention.


    1. You and I agree on the intent of the framers with regard to the right to keep and bear arms. I have also written about this, and the background makes this natural right clear enough.

      But this assertion is not quite correct:

      “Arms control” is not one of the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government over the Country at Large: Most of the enumerated powers delegated to Congress over the Country at Large are itemized at Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 3-16. NOWHERE did we give the federal government power to restrict our arms.

      The Second Amendment is part of the Constitution. It explicitly mentions arms. Thus, there is a pretext for such limitation, even though you and I agree that the limitation is inappropriate. Clarifying the amendment would eliminate the pretext.

      You and I agree, as well, on the commerce clause’s meaning I’d bet. Nevertheless, it has more than a century of encroachment, from the riverboat business in New Jersey (Gibbons) to the famous Depression wheat case (Filburn) to the hundreds of incremental incursions since. Limiting at the Federal level the right to bear arms in or even near a school, and pretending that this power is enumerated and supported by the commerce clause, is a stretch — but that stretch has more than a century of precedent. Commerce is not “everything that happens that might somehow have an effect on something somewhere” — otherwise we have the “butterfly wings flapping” chaos theory of the commerce clause’s power. That’s close to where we are now, and could be fixed by language. It needs fixing, I think.

      You suggest amendments to the Constitution. So do I. You fear a complete replacement of our system of government unless Congress runs the process. I don’t think this is an issue (or at least, not related to the amendment process, since anyone could form a new government anyway). And I think you are unfairly characterizing what happened in the original convention, during which it was the plan from early on to replace the Articles of Confederation. This was not a “runaway convention,” it was the design and instruction of the states involved.

      And at the time, the broad consensus was that the Articles were very problematic at a core level; we don’t have that situation now. The Articles had existed only a short time, were somewhat flawed in conception, and were failing in practice. The Constitution has shown remarkable and amazing brilliance in its design, and the tweaks are only to restore its operation back closer to its original design.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle


    2. You wrote: “Hamilton said the People are ‘the natural guardians of the Constitution.’ ”

      Chief Justice John Marshall said something similar not long thereafter, implying that if the people didn’t like what Congress did regarding the Consitution, they could elect different representatives:

      The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments

      But in order for this to work, the people must have a good clear understanding of good, clear language. And since, in some places, that language has been interpreted poorly over the years, changing the language seems the only way to reset the interpretation process.

      I’m for it. And you are too, you just differ on what changes to make, and how to trigger the process.

      If you could make an amendment, would you really leave the “militia” prefatory language in 2A?

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle


  7. Thanks for the link and reblog. A convention of states is an intriguing idea, but we would have to be extremely careful. People like George Soros would like nothing better than to take over such a convention for their own purposes.


    1. I tend to agree. George Soros is dangerous because politicians can be bought, and we are electing politicians who can be bought. George Soros is dangerous because of a national heart problem. Otherwise, we would not be in this fix.

      Consider what made the English Enlightenment different from the French Enlightenment. Wasn’t the recognition that our rights come from God? That Christian belief and the preponderance of Christians in England and America has made our elections work. Unfortunately, too many Americans have adopted the attitudes of the French Enlightenment. Without self restraint, they seek to win what they want; they disregard any moral code. Thus, we have more than George Soros to fear from the failure of a Constitutional Convention. We have each other. If we cannot reform our nation’s moral character, we will not turn back the growing tyranny. That tyranny will eventually become a bloody reign of terror.

      Because a Constitutional Convention will not change people’s hearts, in and of itself it cannot be the solution. However, if our people begin to recover the moral uprightness of their forebears, we may still need a Constitutional Convention to help use wrest Federal power from people who insist upon abusing it.


      1. I could not agree more. The moral character of Americans has degenerated severely. Until that changes or is reversed, all the constitutional conventions in the world will not change our country for the better.

        I believe John Adams was entirely correct when he said the Constitution was made for a moral people.


    1. It always seems a bit presumptuous for a person to post links to one’s own work; but I have no surrogates to post it for me.

      I plead with all of you who are supporting an Art. V convention to re-think this. It is suicide, and if there is a convention, we will lose our Constitution and will get a new one which none of you will like.

      THIS is the most dangerous time in our history – we are being bombarded with lies by people whom you think are on our side but aren’t.

      I ask each of you to study the paper linked below, click on the hyperlinks to verify that what I say is true, and re-evaluate your position. And if you have any questions, please post them here, and I will answer.


Comments are closed.

Blog at

Up ↑

The Curmudgeon

Not afraid to offend



Faithful Steward Ministries and FSM Women's Outreach

Christian Outreach Ministry to those Incarcerated, with Addictions and our Military

On the Pilgrim Road

“If you don't behave as you believe, you will end by believing as you behave.” - Fulton Sheen

Jesus Quotes and God Thoughts

“God’s wisdom is something mysterious that goes deep into the interior of his purposes.” ~Apostle Paul

We gathered life only to find...

...'Twas just the willow-wisp of time

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture, while adding some gracious ferocity.”


Life through the eyes of "cookie"

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom. We are the masters of our own disasters.


Supplying the Light of Love

The Recovering Legalist

Living a Life of Grace

Write Side of the Road

writing my way through motherhood

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3


Finding Clear and Simple Faith


Author Alexander Hellene - Sci-Fi - Fantasy - Culture - Art - Entertainment - Music - Fun

John Branyan

something funny is occurring

Because The Bible Wasn't Written In English

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Victory Girls Blog

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Through Ink & Image

...Pursuing a God Inspired Life

D. Patrick Collins

liberating christian thought

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine


Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Dr. Luis C. Almeida

College Professor


Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.


The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

quotes and notes and opinions

from a Biblical perspective




The view from the Anglosphere

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This site is Pacific War era information


Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

%d bloggers like this: