we are the great satan, remember? . after they take over
the L in ISIL, from Turkey to Egypt, they will be here
for us.
in the meantime, they just capture and behead our people
when we get in range. -- j
.

but how might the govt protect my individual rights? . primarily,
by getting out of my way! . and I agree about the Navy. -- j
.

I don't ask you to censor your words, only to understand that words have meanings and connotations and are the basis of communication.

Where do you arrive that ISIS is waging this "war" against us? Looks to me like they're fighting Syria, Iraq, and Turkey and I guess from recent events, they're not too happy with France. Hell, we supported their formation, trained many of them, and are still arming them. Why should they want to fight us.

Indeed.

john; I think the first and primary responsibility of the gov't is to protect the Individual Rights of American residents and citizens. And for protection against an enemy threatening the entire population, the Constitution permits a standing Navy and citizen Militias. No Standing Army which they considered anathema to a free people.

according to the definition Dale is describing, with the help of
a fine knowledge of history, we have fewer conservatives
around us than we think. . mis-labeling could be rampant. -- j
.

well, if that's true, we're gonna be mighty un-prepared
when some external force wants our land. . right now, of course,
we have this "war" being waged against us by ISIS, a new
state of sorts, which warrants some concern. -- j
.

we seem to have an intelligent, thoughtful and largely courteous
cadre of folks in here, and I really appreciate the variety. . students
of Rand may be the best term for many of us, and we make
mistakes, discoveries, new analogies every day -- it's great! -- j
.

This makes me think...Almost any of my friends who identify themselves as conservatives will not hesitate to tell you that they are 100% driven by reason.

The founders were clear that they thought, correctly, that a standing army was one of the greatest threats to liberty. History also proves them out as armies are used much more often to put down internal threats to the current ruling elite than to ever repel outside invaders.

While the Constitution does not directly address a standing army, the government can only do those things specifically allowed and it does not state that federal government can have a standing army and having an army when it is not needed is also inconsistent with the Constitution

Yes. My view on this is most people are not rigid adherents of liberal/conservative philosophy. Maybe a third of people identify as liberal, a third as conservative, and a third as moderates or not into it. I don't see how we could have a Gulch without at least "non-ideologue" liberals and conservatives. People can generally agree with liberals or conservatives on things and still follow the oath. The alternative is to say once we all agree to use reason and observation to live life for ourselves, we'll all come to the exact same conclusions.

I guess that I am a part of the sitting army, now, in retirement. -- j
.

yes, as do I. . my philosophy is objectivism, as best I can practice it,
with acceptance for values from others who bring value from many
corners of the world. . this includes conservatives, Christians,
Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, pilots, artists, even short-order cooks.
there is no contradiction in the allegation that conservatives may
operate exclusively by rational means. . I know several. -- j

p.s. it seems that you are checking my premises, not your own.
and nothing much disturbs me, anymore;;; the government already
disturbed me for 37 of my 67 years.
.

wellsir, I have met conservatives who are not Christian.
I would dare to bet that there are several who still persist
here in the gulch. . and reverence is just a word which
does not necessarily carry theological connotations,
as you seem to infer. . I use it for secular purposes like
reverence for rights and nature, as I mentioned. . it's sad that
I should censor my language here -- just for you? -- j
.

excuse me -- a standing army not allowed by the constitution?
this seems strange to me, since the first requirement of
the government is national defense. -- j
.

You began this post with a highly contradictory hypothesis, concerning a Conservative that operates solely based on reason. You must realize that Objectivists take 'reason' to be in the context of rational, logical, reason. And then in the comment section:

You begin with a reply to dbhailing:
"If it has anything to do with appreciating the constitution
and its creators, then reverence for work done in the past
might be appropriate, don't you think? -- j"

then when he disagrees with you:
"But that is the rub, it is not. The founders were not conservatives. How can you honor the founders, by ignoring what they stood for?"

You respond with:
"understood. . I agree totally. -- j"

Then you respond to a comment by me in the same thread at a later time:
" I thought that we should be talking about
current conservatives who want smaller government,
less -- or NO -- corruption, a military designed for defense
rather than nation-building, the elimination of punitive taxes,
and the like. . That is Pertinent to Today, IMHO. -- j"

My interest in these and other comments to you is not to persecute you, but to try to understand and discover your real philosophy, particularly resulting from the numbers of headline posts from WND and the contradictions I find in your various involvements on the site. What I'm doing is checking my premises against the statements you make, their connotations, and contexts.

I trust that none of that disturbs you. I think that I make my philosophy totally apparent in my posts and comments on the site as do most of us.

No most definitely, the 'whole thing' is not about Christianity except that I've never met a Conservative that doesn't profess a belief in the values, faith, and desire to force the rest of the country to recognize and live by such.

As to 'reverence is just a word', words have meanings and connotations and in this case expresses something that causes me to have antipathy to it.
reverence:
noun
1. a feeling or attitude of deep respect tinged with awe; veneration.
2. the outward manifestation of this feeling:
to pay reverence.
3. a gesture indicative of deep respect; an obeisance, bow, or curtsy.
4. the state of being revered, or treated with respect tinged with awe.
5. (initial capital letter) a title used in addressing or mentioning a member of the clergy (usually preceded by your or his).

I try to capitalize the word when I'm referring to the group of adherents of the movement vs. the general word. Sometimes I forget. I'm not much of a purist when it comes to proper rules of English writing. I'm afraid I don't do well with penmanship or etiquette either, but....

In order to discuss your current conservatives, I would have to accept a gov't that still insists on being involved with and intruding into my everyday life, allbeit more efficiently, and a standing army which is not allowed per the Constitution nor Objectivist thought and principles.

truth, honesty, dedication to reality and to avoidance of
faking anything are not exclusively the property of objectivists.
a person who calls him/herself a conservative may use
that term to describe the same views as an objectivist
and may need only a little nudge to see that the old arcane
meaning of conservative doesn't fit. . they might then choose
to call themselves something else. . okay? . the sledgehammer
approach might be less persuasive than a friendlier way.

you might want to consider that welcoming people to the
gulch who are exploring ideas from a conservative or a
Christian or an agnostic background could yield more
objectivists downstream than if you rail at anything which
even remotely smells of an impure thought. . let them
explore and learn rather than driving them away, OK? -- j
.

very interesting. . when I took the oath as a military officer,
voluntarily, I swore allegiance to the constitution and did not
swear allegiance to subsequent political perversion of it. -- j
.