May 4, 2017

Phil Beaver works to establish opinion when the-objective-truth has not been discovered. He seeks to refine his opinion by listening to other people’s experiences and observations. The comment box below invites readers to express facts, opinion, or concern, perhaps to share with people who may follow the blog.

Note:  I often connect words in a phrase with dashes in order to represent an idea. For example, frank-objectivity represents the idea of candidly expressing the-objective-truth despite possible error. In other words, the writer expresses his “belief,” knowing he could be in error. People may collaboratively approach the-objective-truth.

The Advocate:  See online at theadvocate.com/baton_rouge

Our Views (Sterling). The Advocate’s mindset seems surreal; bizarre; phantasmagorical. Why does this summary view dismiss the two victims?

The civil rights of Blane Salamoni and Howie Lake were challenged by a system that gives them the training and authority to respond to a report that someone is waving a gun in public. The felon had a loaded gun and resisted orders at five levels of severity. Salamoni and Lake were found innocent of intent. The public’s first responders are omitted from minds and hearts as “two Baton Rouge police officers” and “the police officers”.

For ten months The Advocate has failed to promote public appreciation for Salamoni and Lake and their families. Regardless of the DOJ's failure to follow AMO demands, yesterday was a great day for affirming that people are well advised to respond to police authority even though local vigilantism may be popular. No one should be gullible to the AMO idea: "I'll hold your coat while you taunt the police."

We live in a strange time yet have an opportunity. Once again, the people are neglecting the promise of the civic contract that is stated in the preamble to the constitution for the USA. This time, the people may choose to talk collaboratively. But there is no leadership for candid talk. There's only violent demand.

I think The Advocate helps suppress candid talk. I would not want my child to mimic The Advocate, the mayor, or the governor in their disregard for people’s lives. See thedreyfussinitiative.org for a possible hope : Richard Dreyfuss appeals to the people.

I write not to criticize but to effect change. Baton Rougans may choose voluntary public-integrity.

Our Views (May 2, consensus). To Bob White: You kindly address the issue The Advocate, the mayor, the governor, and others obfuscate.

"Black power" has developed five decades of AMO, and that produces the "we demand" language we heard today. See D. L. Adams, "Saul Alinsky and the Rise of Amorality in American Politics," 2010, at newenglishreview.org/DL_Adams/Saul_Alinsky_and_the_Rise_of_Amorality_in_American_Politics/ .

Even the visceral Gov. Edwards phrase, "the right thing to do" dates from 1967 Saul Alinsky. See and hear (perhaps sarcasm by Buckley) at 23 minutes of youtube.com/watch?v=OsfxnaFaHWI .  "Conflict" is a dominant word at aroung 32 minutes.

AMO orchestrates trouble then presents the AMO leaders as the defenders of the United States Constitution should bow to. In Baton Rouge, the continuing "authority" seems to be Together Baton Rouge.

  

Today’s thought, Hebrews 11:6 (The Advocate, Page 7B).

Paul may have been plagiarizing or paraphrasing Habakkuh.

First, I learned a few years ago not to state my “faith,” because many people equivocate to “religion.” I trust and am committed to the-objective-truth of which most is undiscovered and some is understood. I do not want real-no-harm persons to follow my motivation and inspiration because I prefer to appreciate their hopes for their lives. Yet I will always talk to someone who wants to talk.

As usual, Dean addresses only a part of a passage. This one starts by defining ‘faith‘. Here’s the NIV statement (Verse 1): “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.”

Here’s the Complete Jewish Bible’s V1: “Trusting^[a] is being confident of what we hope for, convinced about things we do not see.” Note “a” refers to Habakkuh 2:4, “Look at the proud: he is inwardly not upright; but the righteous will attain life through trusting faithfulness.”

NIV has for H 2:4, “See, the enemy is puffed up; his desires are not upright—but the righteous person will live by his faithfulness^[a]. Note “a” allows “faith” as an alternate.

We may ask, what is all this for: life or death? Consider V39-40. CJV: “All of these had their merit attested because of their trusting. Nevertheless, they did not receive what had been promised, ⁴⁰ because God had planned something better that would involve us, so that only with us would they be brought to the goal.” NIV: “These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, ⁴⁰ since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.”

The Christian Bible seems to represent “made perfect” as an end-time event involving the saved. The Jewish Bible, in “the goal,” may represent “God would use the Jewish people to bring blessings to the world.” See chosenpeople.com/main/index.php/a-brief-overview-of-god-s-plan-and-god-s-purpose-for-the-jewish-people for an authoritative opinion.

Dean says trust God to please him, on whom you can depend.

In summary, we have the options to believe Dean, Paul, Moses, or for me only the-objective-truth. Moses’ definition of trust seems circular: confident and convinced of hopes and mystery. Later in the passage, the focus is God according to the ancients. Paul changes “trust” to “faith,” but maintains the hopes and mystery. Dean drops faith, hope, and mystery to say “trust God.” I came to “trust and commitment” through fidelity, and think Moses expressed fidelity in “trusting faithfulness” in Habakkuk.

BTW, V5 has “By trusting, Hanokh was taken away from this life without seeing death.” Apparently this was not resurrection.

Letters

FACT Act (Landry). I wrote to both Senators requesting their support.

I wonder why Cedric Richmond did not support FACT. Awards can be very high, making it very lucrative for lawyers and judges.

Information at lexislegalnews.com/articles/8734/asbestos-verdicts-settlements-january-2015-december-2015 is interesting. I don't understand how America survives the judicial system.

“For the years between 2010 and 2014, plaintiffs took home an average of $393,845,989 in damages each year compared to $191,467,895.70 in 2015.”

“Over the last six years, median asbestos verdicts for plaintiffs mostly hovered around $5 million, with the high coming in 2014 at $8,983,000 and the low in 2010 at $3.5 million. When the median award includes both plaintiff and defense verdicts from 2015, it drops to $1.6 million.”

  

Remove history (McIlwraith). If this was 1774, perhaps you’d be a Loyalist---one of the people cheering for Parliament instead of the Continental Congress. By all means, you do not understand America---land of freedom-from and liberty-to.

There were 40% statesmen (formerly loyal colonists), 40% pacifists, and 20% loyalists. The statesmen had recognized that Brits, still oppressed and understanding neither freedom-from nor liberty-to, fully intended to make slaves of the colonists, saddling them with responsibility for the African slaves colonizers had bought and placed in the colonies for European-agricultural labor. Statesmen knew that they eventually would grant to the slaves the liberty-to the statesmen declared war to preserve, but knew not, perhaps considered not, how to accomplish both tasks: First, they had to win the war for independence.

When the French helped the statesmen, by then Americans, win at Yorktown, VA, people who expressed loyalism, perhaps like you, needed to get out quick. Masters either sold their slaves or took them to their homeland.

After four years as thirteen free and independent states (see Treaty of Paris, 1783), statesmen realized 8 slave states and 5 more must form a nation, and twelve states met in Philadelphia. They negotiated the end of the slave trade in 20 years from ratification, providing republican representatives for slaves at 0.6 persons per slave, and left to future feasibility emancipation of the slaves. Two thirds of delegates signed the draft constitution. The required nine states ratified on June 21, 1788, under the greatest civic contract ever written: the preamble to the constitution for the USA. Again, 2/3 of states delegates voted to ratify. It’s an agreement entered by willing citizens, so others are dissidents. The other four states had to choose either independence or the USA.

The civic contract, the preamble, has been oppressed ever since primarily with the false label “secular” whereas it is neutral to religion, and the agreement remains an option every citizen may choose. The first oppression occurred when the Frist Congress established Protestantism as the legislative religion. That mistake contributed to the divisions in Bible interpretation (that slavery is an institution of God) that led the CSA to unconstitutionally secede. Their list of complaints ended, “public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.” White church went to war with white church over slavery. Christianity won and may be recognized for the victory. Let me repeat that: Christianity won the Civil War.

But the Civil War was insufficient for those with “more erroneous religious belief.” One-hundred years later, black Americans had to march for civil rights and voting rights. The civil rights were granted. At the time, black-church was credited with bringing “justice at last.” I personally celebrated the justice even though my understanding was woefully inadequate.

But the war over erroneous religious belief is still raging and has turned from justice to violence. Since the late 1960’s the combination black power (Nation of Islam?), liberation theology (Brazil in the 1950s?), Alinsky-Marxist organization (AMO, 1940s), vigilantism, and beyond my reading and experience has produced a faction that wants segregation by demand and funding by fiat. It seems to me black church makes the public statement: The-Christianity-we-have-experienced is raw, cruel power and we replaced it for us.* I don’t know what the replacement is called, but whatever the name, it’s religion rather than statutory law and OK for the believers.

You claim, “We have never really apologized,” is misguided. Robert E. Lee, for example, defended his home and family in a war he neither invited nor wanted. The institution that would do itself a favor by apologizing is the Catholic Church. While they were at it, they could apologize for the doctrine of discovery for God. But apology is not the point: We need voluntary public-integrity.

My response to you is: Every citizen of this country is a victim of the canonization of the Bible in 300-400 AD. The physics of slavery---chains, whips, brutality and rape to slaves with psychological and physical burdens to masters was plain to the Catholic Church, but they did not heed the-objective-truth. The awful consequence is ours today, but we could not care less about apologies: we have the preamble to the constitution for the USA and may choose to make its goals happen whenever they become attractive to us. Our victimization began 1600 years ago, but our relief came 229 years ago, and I am ready to effect a super-majority of 2/3 who want to achieve the goals. What the dissidents to the preamble choose is on them.

Put plaques about this on each of New Orleans’ monuments and beyond. Let the world know of the American triumph: neutrality to religion with separation from state. We the people need not change the articles of the constitution to establish the preamble.

* The thought came from my experiences and Page 27 of James Baldwin’s book The Fire Next Time, 1962, ed. 1993.

  

Cal Thomas column, “Presidential integrity”. You disappointed me.

Bad practices call for reform rather than cheap reactions. You disappointed me.

 

Robert Samuelson column. I don’t think the USA has ever had an administration made up of mostly non-politicians.

Also, I don’t think a president has ever assembled a team of financial experts as President Trump has. Thus, I do not think your experience applies to this administration.

We’ll see.

James Gill column. Cheap bait and switch to make fun of Rudy Giuliani. Shame on you, Gill.

Roberts’ column. You may be right about the wall.

However, protecting the border is happening and very important in so many ways. Constraining the Mexican coyote business alone saves lives. If you are going to write, you ought to be less ignorant to the facts.

Other forums.

Question for lecture by Reverend Thandeka at Unitarian Church:

1) Do some black Americans believe that the civic* contract stated in the preamble to the constitution for the USA, which was ratified on June 21, 1788, was intended for slaves and free blacks then and for black inhabitants now, as I do? 

  

2) If so, how can our belief be shared with most blacks in 2017? 

  

3) If not, how may we collaborate to discover the facts and make them part of public-integrity?


*Civic refers to citizens of humankind who collaborate to achieve the goals stated in the preamble, especially the persons who reside in the USA.

Phil Beaver does not “know” the-indisputable-facts. Phil trusts and is committed to the-objective-truth of which most is undiscovered and some is understood.

Phil Beaver is agent for A Civic People of the United States, a Louisiana, education non-profit. See online at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com.