THE SIN OF PRIDE, COMMUNITY, GOVERNMENT, AND LAW ENFORCEMENT — PART 3

branches of governmentWhat is wrong with our government? There are thousands upon millions of voices to tell us. Don’t almost all of us love to complain, but how many of us actually understand what we are complaining about?

When I saw the diagram below, I had to laugh.

Diagram of the Federal Government and American Union, 1862.  To see the details, click on the figure.
Diagram of the Federal Government and American Union, 1862. To see the details, click on the figure.

What the diagram begins to illustrate is the complexity of the U.S. government in 1862. Text on the diagram tells us:

The object is to make the subject of Government familiar to the masses. And as the people of the United States have taken the Government into their own hands, as all are concerned in it, and as it is the best and most liberal, when properly administered, it is very necessary that all should understand it.

Can you imagine what a similar diagram would look like today? Nevertheless, in spite of all that detail, that diagram does not tell us something fundamental. What is the government suppose to do? If we don’t even know what the government is supposed to do, what is the good of complaining about the government?

We usually don’t think of the American Revolution as being a more serious affair than the Civil War, and perhaps it was not. Yet for the Americans who led the rebellion, victory meant life or death. So they thought carefully over their decision to rebel. They put their thoughts on paper. That paper we call the Declaration of Independence. Here is how they defined the purpose of government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Faced with a similar crisis, how would the leaders of our day define the purpose of government? How do we define the purpose of government? Does our definition, as did the definition of those 18th century colonists, conflict with the definition of our leaders?

How should we define government? There is a form of genius that we describe with the acronym KISS, Keep IT Simple Stupid. There are basically two ways of approaching the KISS principle.

  • Keeping It Simple Doesn’t Mean You’re Stupid (www.forbes.com) takes the approach of reducing the complicated to the simple. Here the idea is to focus on the essential.
  • KISS (www.computerhope.com) states the more obvious approach. Instead of trying to make the complex simple, keep it simple from the start.

As the Declaration of Independence indicates, the Federal Government began as a relatively simple solution to a difficult problem. Yet over the last couple of centuries we have encumbered and complicated it with ever-increasing layers of bureaucracy. It sure ain’t simple anymore.

What are the problems? Here are some examples from today’s headlines.

Why did we allow the Federal Government to grow so complex? Some will say we did so because we care for the children, the poor, the old, the downtrodden, and so forth. That may excuse the ignorant. Most of us should have known better. Yet instead of caring about each other, we behaved like a meebot. So when a politician offered us the opportunity to boss somebody about, privileges we could not earn on our own, or somebody else’s money; instead of refusing and voting for someone more honest, we took the bribe.

If we want honest people to lead us, we have to be honest. We cannot use government just to get our own way. We cannot use government to make other people do what we as individuals would have no right to make them do. We cannot use government to promote our own advancement. We cannot use government to redistribute the wealth. We can only rightly use government to protect each others rights.

19 thoughts on “THE SIN OF PRIDE, COMMUNITY, GOVERNMENT, AND LAW ENFORCEMENT — PART 3

  1. That same diagram, drawn just weeks later, would have looked very different. It was created during the secession crisis that became the Civil War.

    The population of the US expanded into a huge territory since this time, and overall has grown by a factor of 10 since 1861. But California’s size has remained the same, while its population has grown by a factor of more than 100 during the same period.

    You feature “the sin of pride” prominently in the title, but it seems to have little to do with the post itself — and in fact, you never mention it again.

    The linked article on treaties and the Constitution is a reasonable one philosophically, but hardly dispositive of the issue. The writer cites no case law, precedent, nor even Constitutional articles and relies on a “common sense” understanding that may or may not apply in practice. (This is sort of admitted by statements that anyone who acts contrary to the principles the writer sets forth should be impeached. I would generally agree, but it is rather late for that party to start.) And some key elements are wrong: For example, it is not two-thirds of the states to ratify an amendment, it is three-fourths, a substantially higher burden.

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

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks for the feedback. OUCH!

      The increase in population and territory does pose a problem. The founders certainly worried about the country being too big, but I think they avoided that pitfall in their federal design. Therefore, I think the complexity of our government has little to do with the size of our nation or its population. Our government is complex because we have given it so much to do. Whereas government was mostly state and local and had little to do with education, healthcare, welfare, retirement, and so forth, it now dominates all those areas and more. The Federal Government is also complex because it is trying to assume functions that rightfully belong to the states.

      I addressed the subject of pride with the term “meebot.” I suppose I should have elaborated, but what is done is done. Anyway, the meebot is a proud creature. If you have not done so, click on meebot.

      When I linked to those posts, I linked to them because they pose real problems. I think the treaty issue is real. I can remember worrying about that one when I first read the Constitution in school (junior high, I think). I thought then that the President and the Senate could amend the Constitution with a treaty, and that did not sit well. Now? I am not certain whether the President and the Senate can rightfully modify the Constitution with a treaty. It sure doesn’t seem right, but the point in linking to that post is the subject itself.

      Is the guy who wrote that post (PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW: The Constitution Cannot Be Amended By Treaty Or Presidential Decree ) the best authority? Of course not (I doubt even he thinks so.), but we do have leaders who given the opportunity will amend the Constitution any which way the can. Most us (I include myself.) don’t know how to stop them. We look for honorable leadership, and it is scarce.

      In a republic, it does little good to count too much upon THE GREAT MEN. Because the government is of the People, by the People, and for the People, the solution depends upon the will of the People to do what is right and proper. To make our government manageable and answerable to us, the People, We the People have to stop asking the government to do so much. Will we? Only God can change people’s hearts that way (and yeah, I know that “solution” is not one you trust, but I don’t have a better one).

      Liked by 1 person

  2. We seem to have forgotten the lost art of solving simple problems with wise simple decisions made by wise simple and humble people, the writers of the US Constitution..

    Regards and good will blogging.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. I would have thought that, contrary to your statement in the post, the Declaration of Independence tells us virtually nothing, if not absolutely nothing, about the federal government. The latter came into being only after Independence was gained – first under the Articles and then, in the form we know it, it arose only under the Constitution of 1789 (or 1787, depending on whether you want to date from ratification or promulgation).

    Like

    1. You didn’t think that knowing the purpose of a device or system tells you something about it? At least you phrased this as “I would have thought…” suggesting that now that you have been exposed to the purpose of the federal government as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, you no longer think the silly thought you expressed.

      But I was under the impression that you knew someone with some exposure to Constitutional law. Evidently whatever conversations you had with them on the topic didn’t take. One of the earliest lessons in that discipline is that the Constitution is the “how” of government but the Declaration of Independence is the “why.”

      Keep that in mind; it will help you understand what might have seemed impenetrable discourses on our Constitutional republic and how (and why) to restore it to the prominence it will naturally obtain when freed from a century-plus of progressive excretions and accretions.

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

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I suppose virtually everyone knows “someone”, Keith, with some exposure to Constitutional Law, particularly this time of year when the Court is clearing out its docket. There’s a lot of coverage of these issues even in the popular press. You must know at least “someone” who also fits the bill. I’m not sure why you would single me out for commendation in that regard. Perhaps it’s because of references I’ve made in previous comments, other threads, to the fact that I make a non-trivial component of my living litigating and advising on constitutional issues, at least on the federalism side (I have not litigated individual liberties cases). And, yes, I confess that I know others, both academics and practicing lawyers in the same line of work, and that we do have numerous conversations about these issues. It’s true that some of those conversations “don’t take”, but that’s generally attributable to a metabolic low point that I seem to increasingly hit in the early to mid-afternoon if I fail to take my post-luncheon stroll.

        But, to return to the post. I very much doubt that the Signers of the Declaration had much of an idea at all about what form of government (if any, at the national level) would ensue if they managed to make the Declaration stick. I don’t think that any of them in 1776 had formed the notion that the outcome would be a federal republic with separation of powers, checks and balances and three branches. The experience of the Revolution certainly illuminated the difficulties of getting things done in a purely legislative committee (which is essentially what the Continental Congress was) model. Attitudes probably evolved over the next decade. Experience with the Articles was definitely sub-optimal. And, as we can see from the notes of the Convention and the Federalist Papers, there was a generous amount of debate even between the Annapolis convention and the final (to the extent the Constitution is ever “final”) product.

        But, to borrow your construct, I would describe the Declaration as an “enough” to being colonial outposts in a mercantilist imperium. The Constitution later answered the “now what” question that loomed large after the Cousins packed up. So, while the Declaration is entitled to reverence for its clear, coherent, and, at the time, novel statement of the purpose of government and its relationship of government to the paramount rights of individuals, I do not view it as Tom described – as a simple solution to a difficult problem or as the source of federalism, except, I guess, as in the sense that had the events spawned by the Declaration not occurred, the Constitution would not have been necessary or possible.

        Like

        1. You assert repeatedly that you are involved with Constitutional law. You manage to dishonor this assertion on a regular basis by writing in evident ignorance of it. You are either writing falsely about your life, or writing falsely about the Constitution here to accomplish some purpose. Most of the time, your writings here have the evident purpose of distracting attention from the point, and the apparent hope of wasting time on side issues. Hardly a noble goal, but you have exhibited more than a hundred examples of it here.

          Your original statement in this thread is still wrong:

          I would have thought that, contrary to your statement in the post, the Declaration of Independence tells us virtually nothing, if not absolutely nothing, about the federal government.

          Ignoring your obfuscating rhetorical construction, you are stating that Citizen Tom is wrong. But what did he say? That the Declaration of Independence includes a definition of the purpose of government. He wrote:

          Can you imagine what a similar diagram would look like today? Nevertheless, in spite of all that detail, that diagram does not tell us something fundamental. What is the government suppose to do? If we don’t even know what the government is supposed to do, what is the good of complaining about the government? … [The founders] put their thoughts on paper. That paper we call the Declaration of Independence. Here is how they defined the purpose of government.

          We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

          Citizen Tom is right when he said that the Declaration of Independence defines the purpose of government, specifically that “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

          You are wrong when you say that the Declaration “tells us virtually nothing, if not absolutely nothing, about the federal government.” You trivially point out that the US Constitution came afterward, and thus that the particular form created by it didn’t exist at the time of the Declaration.

          We knew that.

          But the Declaration is not describing any prior creation of a particular document, it is inter alia defining far more generally the purpose of government, as Citizen Tom said. Government certainly existed! And its purposes have been written about by many thinkers from Plato to Aquinas to Locke and so on, all of whose philosophies and writings were part of the founders’ broad reading. It is to that end, the basic purpose of government, that this part of the Declaration was addressed … partly to justify the need to abolishing the system that they were then living under.

          They didn’t know precisely what form the new system would take, but in the Declaration they laid out what its purpose must be in order to be “just.” That was Citizen Tom’s point, as a clear reading indicates.

          You don’t like such clear readings, perhaps because they threaten the progressive reinterpretation of the Constitution you have so often exhibited here. So, you jump in and natter about this issue, trying to make Citizen Tom seem wrong, rather than addressing the substance of the post.

          When you replied to my pointing this out, you added a cloud of words that were not part of your original wrong statement and that did not save it. This time, you said:

          I do not view it as Tom described – as a simple solution to a difficult problem or as the source of federalism

          At no point did Citizen Tom describe the Declaration as “a simple solution to a difficult problem” or as “the source of federalism.” When he uses the phrase “a relatively simple solution” he is describing the Constitution itself, built to accomplish the purpose stated in the Declaration. Of course he is correct; the Constitution’s small number of words and pages are concise and potent. Citizen Tom complains that the body of US law, consisting of the Constitituion and everything that is now attached to it, is no longer simple. He is, of course, correct.

          And Citizen Tom asserts that recognizing the purpose of government is important. He lists a series of things not within that purpose, though these are things that you and other progressives defend. And he closes with a restatement of the purpose as defined in the Declaration:

          If we want honest people to lead us, we have to be honest. We cannot use government just to get our own way. We cannot use government to make other people do what we as individuals would have no right to make them do. We cannot use government to promote our own advancement. We cannot use government to redistribute the wealth. We can only rightly use government to protect each others’ rights.

          You, of course, are welcome to disagree with him, and argue that the purpose of government is to do all those progressive things. You have made many such before.

          But what you did instead was dishonest, asserting that he said something he did not say, so that the argument is not about the transgressions of the purpose by progressive reinterpretations, but instead about Citizen Tom’s “errors.” He never talked about a “form” of government in the Declaration, only its “purpose,” and he was correct in doing so.

          You know this. Your ability to read is fine. Your ability to obfuscate and distract is highly developed, though its intent is obvious and pathetic. It is a great pity that you use what you evidently consider to be important skills to be part of the problem, rather than any part of the solution.

          Your most recent assertion about Citizen Tom’s writings is wrong. Your original assertion was wrong. You should apologize for acting as though you misunderstood him.

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

          Liked by 1 person

        2. @Keith
          Thank you very much!

          @scout

          As Keith is generally quite clear, concise, and thorough, I have little to add. I am just astonished at your seeming lack of imagination.

          I very much doubt that the Signers of the Declaration had much of an idea at all about what form of government (if any, at the national level) would ensue if they managed to make the Declaration stick. I don’t think that any of them in 1776 had formed the notion that the outcome would be a federal republic with separation of powers, checks and balances and three branches.

          Those are incredibly absurd statements. When the founders chose to rebel against King George III, they knew what they were fighting for. Without a shared vision, the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution could not have written them. Where did they acquire this shared vision? They lived together in the colonies. They had seen how their own state governments worked. They had also read many of the same writers, and they talked to each other. Even 200 hundred years ago, people loved to talk.

          As Keith said, many are the writers who have written about the purpose of government. Many of the same writers have also have written about how government should work. Since the founders were learned men, they had read many of those works. For example, they were familiar with The Spirit of laws by Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu. When they wrote the Constitution, the founders obviously applied many of the lessons Montesquieu taught in his book. That book was published in 1748, well ahead of the Declaration of Independence.

          Like

    2. By the way, every time you post a comment, your currently logged-in name appears at the bottom of the reply box, with “Log Out / Change” next to it. If it has the wrong name, simply click “Change” and fix it before clicking on “Post Comment.”

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

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Well, guys, through the profusion of words, I’ll stick to my guns. I don’t think the Founders in 1776 had a clear idea of what our third national government (after the ad hoc Continental Congress and the Articles) would look like. I am of the view that attitudes and approaches were very much in a state of flux in the ensuing decade. That doesn’t mean that the Signers were not aware of the higher thinking in Europe – it just means that I’m holding to my view that none of the Signers had a Constitutional federal Republic in mind in the form we finally received.

    Having said that, I’m not sure why you fellows go off like a balloon with the air let out of it when I offer my humble views. These are just opinions. The woods are full of them. If I were as quick as either of you to go bats every time someone uttered an opinion on a subject for which I had a different viewpoint, I’d have expired quite some time ago.

    Scout

    Like

    1. @Scout, who wrote:

      Having said that, I’m not sure why you fellows go off like a balloon with the air let out of it when I offer my humble views. These are just opinions.

      Because you are nowhere near as stupid as you pretend to be, and your misstatements all seem to have the purpose of distracting the conversation in some other direction rather than the point being made — a point which is typically rather uncomfortable for one of your progressive persuasion.

      Once again, you were not just offering “a different viewpoint” or “humble views,” you made utterly false accusations. Unsurprisingly, you will not admit this. And you continue to discharge a cloud of words rather than try to demonstrate that what you said was true — for the simple reason that you cannot.

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

      Like

  5. I think my clouds tend to be much smaller than yours, Keith, and I am positively laconic by comparison with Tom.

    I sometimes have a differing view from you, sometimes not. I read Tom’s comment to say that the Declaration shows that the federal government started as a simple solution to a difficult problem. I disagree and said so and offered a differing viewpoint. I could be wrong. You could be right. I think I explained my views on the point reasonably clearly, at least in the context of the blog world. I don’t think the Declaration tells us much about the Constitution and I don’t think the Signers had a clear vision of a federal republic in mind in 1776. The immense wisdom that is reflected in the Constitution accreted over the intervening decade and would not have been possible at the time of the Declaration, despite the acknowledged facts that many of the Signers were later involved in the formation of the Constitution and many of them were learned men.

    I’m not at all sure why this has to be an issue that excites mean-spirited personal attacks. I sometimes have a differing view from you, and sometimes not. It’s a matter of indifference to me and I don’t think I have ever felt an impulse to attack you or Tom personally. You seem to have a reflexively hostile reaction on a personal level. I don’t know you outside of this forum (and some of your posts on your site, several of which I think are quite good). I guess that tendency to attack personally in the discussion of ideas is deeply rooted in our individual personalities and is a reflection of our life experiences and upbringing.

    I do thank you for your lavish compliment that I am not as stupid as I pretend to be. High praise, that. It will put a spring in my step as I face my day. My personal stock will surely rise when I inform my colleagues of your assessment on that point.

    Like

    1. @Scout, who wrote:

      I read Tom’s comment to say that the Declaration shows that the federal government started as a simple solution to a difficult problem. I disagree and said so and offered a differing viewpoint. I could be wrong. You could be right.

      I pointed out what you actually said, demonstrated why it was incorrect, laying this out carefully with relevant quotes. You keep attempting to change what you said, but the original comments remain. You were simply wrong on a factual basis; opinions and viewpoints don’t come into this at all.

      I have seen you do this sort of thing so many times: Citizen Tom makes a point, you grab some inconsequential aspect of it and complain about that, generally pretending to misread or misunderstand what he said. Your mischaracterizations are done at length, and evidently provide you some amusement — but they also serve to keep your conversation away from the generally progressive-caused problem that Citizen Tom is discussing at the moment.

      When you do actually address the point being made, you make clear that you are on the side of the progressives, and maintain a disdain for people who are devout Christians. You do this while asserting, from time to time, that you yourself are a conservative Christian, though it has become evident through various conversations that you pull this off by having your own private definitions for those words.

      I have no problem discussing issues with anyone, far left or far right. Many readers on my own blog (the LiveJournal version is where the comments happen) are quite progressive, and keep me careful in my representation of facts. The issues that are the discussed here at Citizen Tom’s blog are often very significant ones. The problem that I have with you, which is not one that I have with my overtly leftist readers and debate opponents, is that you travel under this false flag of conservatism, attempting to damage the cause from inside. This deceit, which you have justified by deciding that only you are the real Constitutional conservative and we are not, frankly annoys me.

      I make no secret of the fact that I am not religious at all. Citizen Tom often asserts that only by accepting God, or sometimes Jesus as personal savior, can conservatives hope to save the country. To this, I disagree, obviously, but I don’t attack him for this, I simply remind him that there are others fighting the same fight with him that, despite their different religious mindset, are potent allies. We equally revere the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and the nation thus founded, and we are equally concerned about the damage done to this nation. That damage can be laid mostly at the feet of progressives who have been a force against the country’s growth (and progress) since the late 19th century, and particularly since the early 20th century.

      You are here under false colors. You support the progressive notions about “general welfare” and voting rights and education and many other topics, and you call them “conservative.” You sneer at Christians in politics despite their extraordinary records as public servants, merely because they are Christians. Your notion of a noble contemporary conservative is Colin Powell, the progressive who smugly watched as his opponent Scooter Libby was attacked and convicted over the Valerie Plame affair, when Powell knew perfectly well that his own assistant Armitage had been the person who released Plame’s name. I was all too familiar with these events, tracking them at the time, and knew of Powell’s nature back then.

      Colin Powell, too, operates under a false flag, pretending to being a Republican for his media friends, while not actually having supported one for president for more than a decade at least. You think Powell is top notch. That would have served to reduce your own stature, in my mind, by a few notches — except that your habits and purpose were already quite evident.

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

      Liked by 1 person

      1. @keith

        Why scout does what he does is a puzzle. Anyway, by comparison to what you said to him, scout sounds rather vacuous.

        I would like to address something you said.

        I make no secret of the fact that I am not religious at all. Citizen Tom often asserts that only by accepting God, or sometimes Jesus as personal savior, can conservatives hope to save the country. To this, I disagree, obviously, but I don’t attack him for this, I simply remind him that there are others fighting the same fight with him that, despite their different religious mindset, are potent allies. We equally revere the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and the nation thus founded, and we are equally concerned about the damage done to this nation.

        Christians don’t win anyone to the faith by either judging them or attacking them personally. We may object to certain forms of conduct, but God, not man, sorts out eternity. And God does not use the label we put upon ourselves.

        What often passes for conventional Christian wisdom says that if we have heard the Gospel and refuse to accept it, we are damned. That may be true in part, but I don’t think we understand exactly how Jesus will judge us. The Bible does say Jesus will separate the sheep from the goats (Matthew 25:31-46), and it seems He will keep those who love their fellow man.

        What seems to matter to God is what is written in our heart.

        Romans 2:12-16 New King James Version (NKJV)

        12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

        When we choose our friends and allies, what people say they believe does matter. However, when someone who refuses to call himself a Christian still behaves like a Christian, something of Christ must be written in their hearts. And when someone who calls himself a Christian, but behaves like a greedy thug, what is written in their hearts must be foul and dark. Yet only God is fit to judge for only He can see what is written in our hearts.

        So why do I say we need a Christian revival? No matter what we do, our nation will pass away. As far as I know, the Bible does not even mentioned the United States. However, the growing decadence of our nation provides ample evidence that too many do not know of Christ. These are souls in peril of damnation, souls who need to hear the Word.

        We have Bibles everywhere, but our schools and the corporate mass media have told children for generations that the Bible does not matter. What I want those who believe what they were taught — what I want those who take the corporate mass media seriously to understand — is that the people who told us the Bible does not matter are dead wrong.

        Anyway, it seems to me you represent yourself honorably. So I welcome you as a political ally. I wish you would openly accept Christ, but He left that choice to us. Yet if you have allowed the words of our savior to be written upon your heart (even if you have trouble believing in Jesus), I suspect that is what matters to Him, but it is God who knows the heart of man. We cannot understand God.

        Luke 16:15 New King James Version (NKJV)

        15 And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.

        Like

        1. Tom – which schools and which corporations told our children that the Bible “does not matter.” I would have thought that would have been a newsworthy event, but missed it altogether, despite my efforts to follow events fairly assiduously. Did this happen recently?

          Like

      2. I don’t hold your a-theism against you, Keith. Christianity is my chosen Way. I realize that it is not necessarily the choice of others and I am not concerned about that. I am of the view that people can come to correct secular decisions with or without spiritual guidance. As far as I’m concerned this is a matter of no consequence in the context of discussing political issues. However,I do think it a bit odd, frankly, to have non-theists call my faith into question. I know Christians of a wide range of political views, both here and abroad, and have never denigrated anyone whether Christian or some other religion, because of their religious beliefs. Your “sneer” comment is counterfactual.

        I don’t quite know how it works that you as a non-theist can set yourself up to be the calibrator of my religious sincerity. The most polite thing to do is to quietly disregard those sorts of attacks.

        My embrace of conservatism can do no harm to anyone else’s differing view of the same label unless my views are valid in comparison to theirs. If my opinions are simply silly or nonsensical, no one will accept them and they will do no harm to you or anyone else. My personal view is that I devote some time to this exercise to keep conservatism respectable

        And, yes, I do consider Colin Powell a great American. He is a bit of a neighbor here in Northern Virginia, but my views have nothing to do with geography. I consider him to have been a conscientious and valorous soldier, and an informed an rational leader. My only complaint about Powell is that he didn’t resign in advance of the 2003 Iraq invasion. But I think his sense of duty made him feel that he should be a team player once the decision had been made within the counsels of the Administration.

        Like

Comments are closed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

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

John Liming. Blog

JUST ANOTHER WORDPRESS.COM SITE

SGM

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

The Latin Community

"You will be my witnesses." Acts 1:8

All Along the Watchtower

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

The Sheriff of Nottingham in Prince William County

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

The Derecho

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

The Bull Elephant

Conservative and libertarian news, analysis, and entertainment

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

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

The Family Foundation Blog - The Family Foundation

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

Cry and Howl

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. I Kings 20:11

Twenty First Summer

Thoughtful. Positive. Relevant.

Dr. Luis C. Almeida

Christian College Professor

Settled In Heaven Blog

A text & video blog striving to honor Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ through Bible lessons, devotionals, Sunday School studies and small group studies.

praythroughhistory

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

Dr. Lloyd Stebbins

Deliberate Joy

I Refuse To Follow Your Blog

Stop being a follower!!!

Lillie-Put

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

partneringwitheagles

WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS (LIFE,LIBERTY,AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS) IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE A NEW GOVERNMENT...

Defining the Narrative

Discussing the Soul of America

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.

nebraskaenergyobserver

The view from the Anglosphere

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.

Necessary and Proper

Returning to common sense in America

bluebird of bitterness

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

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

The Isaiah 53:5 Project

Life: the time God gives you to determine how you spend eternity

altruistico

People Healing People

THE RIVER WALK

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

The Ancients

Awakening From Adam's Sleep

Silence of Mind

Where God Speaks and Creation Listens

My Daily Musing

With God we will gain the victory, and he will trample our enemies. Psalms 109:13

atimetoshare.me

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Nickel Boy Graphics

Comic Strips (Some Funny, Some Serious)

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

The Life Project

Finding Clear and Simple Faith

In My Father's House

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

cookiecrumbstoliveby

Life through the eyes of "cookie"

%d bloggers like this: