Phil Beaver works to establish opinion when
the-objective-truth has not been discovered. He seeks to refine his opinion by
listening when people share experiences and observations. The comment box below
invites readers to write.
Note 1: I often dash
words in phrases in order to express and preserve an idea. For example, frank-objectivity
represents the idea of candidly expressing the-objective-truth despite possible
error. In other words, a person expresses his “belief,” knowing he or she could
be in error. People may collaboratively approach the-objective-truth.
Note 2: It is
important to note "civic" refers to citizens who collaborate for the
people more than for the city.
A
personal paraphrase of the preamble by & for Phil Beaver: Willing people
in our state routinely, voluntarily collaborate for comprehensive safety and
security: continuity (for self, children, grandchildren & beyond), integrity
(both fidelity and wholeness), justice
(freedom-from oppression), defense (prevent or constrain harm), prosperity
(acquire the liberty-to pursue choices), privacy (responsibly discover
& pursue personal goals), lawfulness (obey the law and reform
injustices); and to preserve and cultivate the rule of law for the USA’s service to the people in their
states.
Composing their own
paraphrase, citizens may consider the actual preamble and perceive whether they
are willing or dissident toward the preamble.
Our Views (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_5388d9d4-6653-11e7-9023-53cbe8130ee6.html)
I get the impression The Advocate does not approve of
John White’s accomplishment. Should I feel there was something not quite
wholesome involved?
Our Views is an opinion column. The Advocate has
freedom of the press. Why not state disapproval of blanket application for aid
and why?
I guess I’m
whining that I perceive there’s more to the story.
·
·
Joe Diogenes OMGosh. Given the years in Chicago, there are dots a dreamer like me may connect back to Al Capone. Of course, I know nothing, but reference to Chicago gives me the Alinsky-Marxist organization creeps, or the AMO creeps, much as Together Baton Rouge and Industrial Areas Foundation invokes AMO.
Quoting your reference, “White included no supporting documentation to prove that he was employed by Chicago Public Schools, period. He did include a letter from Teach for America stating that he held the position of executive director, Chicago region, from 2002-2007.” That gives him 2 years’ Chicago overlap with Barack Obama.
“Two years after graduating from Columbia, Obama was hired in Chicago as director of the Developing Communities Project, a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Roseland, West Pullman, and Riverdale on Chicago's South Side. He worked there as a community organizer from June 1985 to May 1988.” “He became a civil rights attorney and professor, teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
As a community organizer, Obama used technology from Saul Alinsky (d. 1972). Alinsky learned from Al Capone’s headquarter operations. See, from 2010, ://newenglishreview.org/.../Saul_Alinsky_and_the_Rise_of.../.
The Advocate has the means to document that these dots as pure figments of my imagination, or not. I know nothing, but get the creeps respecting some Chicago "public services." The AMO connections came to my attention when I attended Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr.’s talk at Southern University on February 19, 2015. He seems a nice guy with bad ideas, in my opinion.
Today’s thought,
G.E. Dean (Micah 5:2, CJB). “But you, Beit-Lechem near Efrat, so small
among the clans of Y'hudah, out of you will come forth to me the future ruler
of Isra'el, whose origins are far in the past, back in ancient times.”
Dean says “This was prophesied 700 years before the birth of
Jesus. God keeps his word.”
Of course, Dean expresses his opinion, without admitting
that what-is may not conform to Dean. I took this pivotal idea from Judaism to
Christianity to explore the CJB. It is the work of one person, Dr. David
H. Stern, theologian. See biblegateway.com/versions/Complete-Jewish-Bible-CJB/
and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Stern.
Letters.
Philanthropy taxes (Singleton, July 9).
(theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_a33c1036-61cb-11e7-b104-ef6367069eab.html)
Mr. Singleton, I like what you said and the kind way you said it.
"I’d like to see reduced federal funding of charities reflected in income tax cuts for mainstream American taxpayers."
·
Do you actually know how much federal support is channeled through 501(c)(3)s and for what purposes? Do you know what percentage of total 501(c)(3) spending involves tax dollars? Or are you just offering up another vacuous opinion? Did you know that the middle class pays no more than 20% of total individual income taxes? Since 80% is paid for by wealthier individuals, why should any reduced tax spending on 501(c)(3)s go exclusively to people who pay a small fraction of the total?
I kind of like the way that as usual you don't think about anything at all before you post your babble.
·
GM King You don't seem to realize you present yourself as a programmed, dehumanized being.
See Alinsky-Marxist Rule No. 5, “’Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.’ There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.”
( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals ).
The programmer just didn’t admit to the psychosocial power of human beings.
·
Phil Beaver Rev. Beaver: My question about your vacuousness wasn't ridicule. It was derived entirely from your comment, which was devoid of any obvious thought whatsoever. What a little conceited snowflake you are to consider that as ridicule.
This is more like ridicule:
You don't seem to realize that you present yourself as a fly buzzing around from one little pile of poop to another, leaving your thoughtless droppings on each one after taking a satisfying bite of the mess.
Alinksky-schmensky. You think because you can throw around uncreatively and thoughtlessly some name and rule over and over again that you have captured something important. You have not. Words and names drip out of your mouth like diarrhea... there's no substance to them, and the repetition doesn't make it any better.
Now, why don't you drag yourself back to the questions I asked? I'll repeat them for you:
Do you actually know how much federal support is channeled through 501(c)(3)s and for what purposes?
Do you know what percentage of total 501(c)(3) spending involves tax dollars?
Did you know that the middle class pays no more than 20% of total individual income taxes?
Since 80% is paid for by wealthier individuals, why should any reduced tax spending on 501(c)(3)s go exclusively to people who pay a small fraction of the total?
·
Nice job Rev. Beaver. Well done. You went back and changed your original comment from "middle class" taxpayers to "mainstream" taxpayers. You couldn't really justify the first term, so you figured you'd try something else. Wrong. You lose again. Mainstream? What does that mean? Are you referring now to the small number who pay 80% of individual income taxes? So you want a tax cut to benefit the wealthy? Is that it? Or do you have something else in mind, like say, mainstream meaning the "good guys" like you regardless of income? Lame Beaver, really lame. Instead of just echoing a letter with a thoughtless comment, why don't you do some actual homework and find out about all those non-profits you want to see cut. Start with that. Use what's left of that brain as a thinking machine instead of a hat rack.
·
To GM King: I sincerely think America can be great if a super-majority of citizens collaborate for life using the preamble to the constitution for the USA, leaving hopes for afterdeath a personal pursuit.
The preamble proposed to replace union of the states (under the 13-member confederation of states and the Continental Congress formed in 1774) with public integrity by willing people in their states. Only 2/3 of delegates of the states signed the draft constitution, and 2/3 of the states ratified the draft with intentions to add a bill of rights, establishing the USA on June 21, 1788. The USA began operation on March 4, 1789, and by the time the Bill of Rights was ratified, December 15, 1791, the people were represented by 14 states.
Thus, while July 4, 1776 is an appropriate date for celebrating the 13-states’ declaration of independence from England and is adequate commemoration of national independence, it is inadequate for commemorating perhaps the world’s greatest political sentence. The preamble is the only sentence in the constitution for the USA that is not amendable without revolution to something other than Abraham Lincoln’s 1863 vision, governance of by and for the people.
Yet the people have so neglected the preamble that the split seems 45% for and against a willing people and 10% none of the above. We work to persuade people to consider returning to a super-majority of willing people according to the preamble. By considering the agreement that is offered by the preamble a citizen may categorize themselves as willing or dissident.
Our EBRP library discussions over the last three years produced the thought that the preamble’s statement of purpose and goals may be summarized as: comprehensive safety and security. The super-majority collaborates for statutory justice so as to assure freedom-from oppression so that willing people may acquire the liberty-to pursue personal interests rather than conform to an ideology, a society, or tyranny.
In other words, the preamble represents establishment of the USA on June 21, 1788, and we feel that commemorating that day as Personal Intendance Day would help effect the restoration to 2/3 willing people in the USA, with better motivations against dissidence. We seek assistance rather than resistance.
We double checked, and our quotation of Singleton was verbatim: “I’d like to see reduced federal funding of charities reflected in income tax cuts for mainstream American taxpayers. “
·
Phil Beaver More pure BS Rev. Beaver. Whether the original quote was mainstream or middle class really is immaterial, since in neither case have you or Singleton defined what that actually means as I noted above. You agreed with the quote, so what does it mean?
Wealthy people pay most of the individual income taxes. By what definition is this small percentage "mainstream?" As I asked, are you for giving them another tax break?
Do you mean (forgetting Singleton) mainstream as in middle class, or a majority of the population? Because if you do, then you need to answer why they should get the tax break when they are paying just a small part of the taxes.
Rather than addressing any of the questions I posed, you resorted to your standard "preamble" nonsense. You hsve a monomania and are incapable of a real discourse. As I indicated above you simply throw out bits of ideas and phrases thoughtlessly with the only connection being the obsession about one part of the Constitution, the "pre" part, which does not by itself define who and what we are. Your other obsession, of course, is the Alinsky thing, which again you throw out thoughtlessly, basically using it as a shield behind which you try to hide (unsuccessfully) your inability to articulate a meaningful argument.
Sad, Beaver, so sad.
·
GM King I don't think you can "define who and what we are."
·
Phil Beaver Notice Beaver: I offered no definition and if you are presenting a challenge to do so, I'll consider that for later. Meanwhile, you continue to duck the questions I asked. Why is that Beaver? You came out in support of Singleton's shallow argument. Are you unable to defend it?
As for your repetitive preaching about the preamble, I suggest you look up the definition of the word. The preamble to the Constitution is merely an introductory statement. It cannot be given meaning separate from the Constitution that it introduces. You babble on and on about the preamble, yet it does nothing that you claim beyond stating the purpose for creating the Constituiton.
It is the Constitution that matters, since it stands alone without the preamble. The preamble cannot stand alone because it depends on what follows it. All of that preaching about "public integrity" and neglecting the preamble is just a fiction you have invented.
The preamble says nothing about how to implement the lofty goals it sets out. That's what the Constitution does. If there are mechanisms involving public integrity, they lie in the text of the Constitution, not the preamble
By focusing on the preamble, you conveniently ignore the fact that both it and the Constitution were the product of upper-class white males, many of whom were slave owners that neglected rights for women, let alone consider blacks and native Americans as having any value at all other than the former for census purposes. Fortunately the framers gave us an imperfect document and system that were amenable to change and in so doing have made it possible for us "to form a more perfect Union."
My sense is that it's the road to perfection that you don't like. It's the notion that all are created equal- and should be treated as such under the law- that you find objectionable. This is why you use liberal as a 4-letter word; it's why you cast out names like Alinsky and Marx. It's why you hide behind the illogic of your made up phrases and appeals to the preamble.
·
GM King
I appreciatively disagree: Your statement, “[The preamble] which does not by itself define who and what we are,” is a definition. It claims dissidence to the civic agreement that is stated in the preamble. One paraphrase is: willing citizens in our state, because we want the living conditions stated herein, specify and establish amendable, statutory law for a limited republic to serve we the people and our states.
Born or naturalized, we are citizens, but each citizen is either 1) willing to trust and commit to the civic agreement stated in the preamble of 2) be dissident to that agreement and the willing people.
Merriam-Webster’s language does not apply your restriction, calling it a part of the constitution. “Definition of preamble 1: an introductory statement; especially : the introductory part of a constitution or statute that usually states the reasons for and intent of the law.” See merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preamble.
As the introductory part with a law that provides for amendment of the articles, the preamble alone states a willing people’s “reasons for and intent of the law” (M-W). The articles that follow may conform to the reasons and intent or be amended if not. If deemed necessary, the people who trust and commit to the preamble could call a convention and completely redo the articles without violence. Thus, I agree with your statement, “The preamble says nothing about how to implement the lofty goals it sets out.” However, public integrity is a tacit goal of the preamble, and when injustice is discovered, the pertinent law may be amended.
I neither ignore that the Virginia aristocrats arrived in Philadelphia with a seventeen-point plan and negotiated it during the summer of 1787 nor that “the framers gave us [a] system that [is] amenable . . . for us "to form a more perfect Union." Since the Union has proved unbreakable, I prefer, in 2017, to collaborate for public integrity. That’s because I am a fiscal conservative and responsible liberal.
I discuss Alinsky, Marx and AMO to expose their harmful ideas and to encourage people who are influenced by them to consider using the preamble to collaborate for comprehensive safety and security; in other words, willing morality; in other words, freedom-from oppression so that each person may acquire the liberty-to responsibly pursue personal preferences rather than someone else’s doctrine or cause.
We want to establish June 21 as a national holiday to commemorate Personal Independence Day. In 1788, nine states ratified the draft constitution establishing the USA. This was four years after the thirteen former colonies ratified the Treaty of Paris naming each of them an independent state and 14 years after they, as loyal colonies asked England for relief from oppressive rule and change their style from colonists to statesmen. It is fitting to celebrate Personal Independence Day before National Independence Day. Please help create Personal Independence Day, June 21.
·
Phil Beaver You have flown off on yet another of your numerous fallacies.
1. My statement about preamble does not define in any way "who we are or are not." It stated that the preamble by itself does not provide a definition. And it cannot. It is a statement of purpose into which anyone can read almost anything, as you obviously do.
2. There is no civic agreement stated in the preamble. Repeat: it is nothing more or less than an introduction to the purpose of the Constitution. If offers the perspective of a specific group (a very important group) believed was the justification for their effort. It is not something with which one can meaningfully agree or disagree.
3. MW applies perfectly as a description of exactly what a preamble in general and "the" preamble are. I don't need a link. Remember? I suggested that you look up the word. Indeed, the definition you provided makes my point precisetly: the preamble states reasons for the Constitution. It is not by itself otherwise meaningful. You can interpret it however you wish and invent whatever you want, but that doesn't establish reality.
4. The preamble asserts nothing about "public integrity" specifically," although a common meaning of that term, ethics, is implicit in notions of justice, liberty and common defence. But however noble the intent of the framers, and however valuable their labors, one can call into question exactly what ethical principles they embodied given their willingness to continue the institution of slavery.
5. By focusing on the reasons we have a Constitution rather than what the Constituition requires of us, you take shelter from and avoid the real issues. The preamble mentions justice, but by itself there was no specific meaning. The Constitution gave us and gives us meaning, and what we know is that originally there was no justice or blacks, no justice for native Americans, and little justice or women.
6. Responsible liberal? I don't think you have any idea what that really means. It's another example of loose jargon you toss around that you define as suitable for your specific needs irrespective of standard usage. Liberal? You're not liberal except in the proliferation of redundant nonsense.
7. You don't discuss Alinsky and Marx. You toss the names around with a few rules as your way of dismissing criticism, pointed though it might be. You're not a student of Alinsky or Marx who can speak to their idea- and you don't. And once again you duck into your safe place of the preamble, even though once again it provides no safe harbor at all. The text of the preamble could work just as well for a socialist constitution as for our own.
8. Personal independence is more bs. I noticed you referring to yourself recently as a sovereign citizen and wonder if this is another term you are embracing thoughtlessly. Both concepts are bogus. You are neither independent nor sovereign and neither concept is consistent with "responsible citizen."
·
GM King
I write my opinion, often not the-objective-truth, often citing literature on which I base my opinion. This is because I do not know the-objective-truth and often write that I do not know. It is false to claim someone’s opinions are fallacies; errors, maybe, but fallacies, no. And in competition, I prefer my opinion to other people’s opinions, including the “supreme opinion” of nine opinions about opinion. Even in that case, they represent the law I will observe, but my opinion about the law prevails for me.
1. The preamble is a statement, and it divides citizens between the willing and the dissidents. You refute that and thereby, create a negative/dissident definition. My paraphrase is a statement of my opinion. The preamble’s purposes are undeniable, and citizens may trust and commit to them or not. Also, they may study the essence and modify the usage for their time rather than try to return to obsolete usage. People may create a paraphrase they might trust and commit to.
2. Dissidence to the agreement stated in the preamble is the reason twelve past generations led our generation to dysfunction. We have the opportunity to use the preamble’s agreement.
3. Your suggestion does not establish that I don’t use the dictionary. But your avoidance of “reasons for and intent of the law” is evidence that you deny the reality of M-W.
4. A “more perfect Union,” long after the Union has grown to 50 states may give way to public integrity, especially if a super-majority is willing. Forget the founders. Given 8 slave states and 5 non-slave states their accomplishments were worthy: scheduling the end of the slave trade, accounting for slaves as 0.6 person for states representation, and waiting for a better economic time was all that could be accomplished in the summer of 1787. The dreadful consequence of the Civil War is not over, and the opportunity to use the preamble in 2017 is ours.
5. Without question what “we know is that originally there was no justice for blacks, no justice for native Americans, and little justice for women.” Then, only 5% of free citizens could vote and 99% were factional Protestants. Now, 100% of non-criminals may vote and 14.7% are traditional factional Protestants. We have the opportunity to forget the past and use the preamble in 2017 for our better lives and for our children, grandchildren and beyond.
6. A responsible-liberal practices fidelity to the-objective-truth rather than defends a doctrine.
7. I don’t write too much about Alinsky and Marx. I refer readers to scholars like D. L. Adams or Alinsky himself on youtube. The predicate and the goals of the preamble would not work for a socialist constitution. Free enterprise, unfree as it may now be, is the economic system that serves the powerful human psychology. Thus, a willing people do not choose socialism.
8. Personal independence is offered by the preamble. Willing people collaborate to discover and benefit from the-objective-truth rather than dominant opinion or arbitrary force. Thus, they enjoy freedom-from oppression so that each person may acquire the liberty-to responsibly practice personal preferences rather than someone else’s ideal. A citizen, from adolescence through infirmity of old age constantly collaborates and votes for justice and is thereby sovereign.
·
Phil Beaver Thank you for yet again making my points for me in another of your rambling and illogical missives. You refuted nothing and instead engaged in a lengthy round of mental masturbation. You must be quite accomplished by now in satisfying yourself.
This is an example of your standard approach:
3. "Your suggestion does not establish that I don’t use the dictionary. But your avoidance of “reasons for and intent of the law” is evidence that you deny the reality of M-W."
Notice that I never suggested or implied that you don't use a dictionary. That is an invention on your part, and a logical fallacy. You compounded that with the second sentence, which is also a fallacy. My text shows that I understand exactly what the preamble is and that I use the dictionary definition. You have invented something else and call that "reality." You can live in a world where the moon is made of cheese too, and claim that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't pursue your hyphenated path.
No problem. I accept that you have created a fantasy world and that you hope some others will join you in it. Good luck.
But you won't find any responsible liberals coming to join you, because that new hypenated word of yours is also devoid of meaning except to you. And the same can be said about your flight of fancy regarding citizens, collaboration, willing people, etc.
Goodbye Rev. Beaver.
·
GM King Thank you for your help and a few clarifications, not only in this thread but in the past.
However, never give up on the power of the preamble. It offers willing people comprehensive safety and security and may make it easier for them to recognize each other from the dissidents, whatever the dissidents' reasons for opposing the preamble's civic agreement may be.
Also, never forget: my opinion means nothing. The people collaborating to discover the-objective-truth is what matters.
Against
personal citizenship by professionals (Levy). (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_8b83043a-6717-11e7-ac6d-5351047b0e81.html)
I am grateful for Professor Levy’s letter but do not wish to
oppose Bush’s nomination.
If We the People of the United States do not view the
constitution in originalist meaning and intent, we cannot discover extant
injustice and collaborate for statutory amendment based on the-objective-truth.
See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism. In other words, 1) if courts have no
appreciation for meaning and intent of the law, there is no law, and 2) if
courts erroneously perceive injustice by not understanding the meaning and
intent of the law, valid law may be amended to error.
I commend college professors to write letters to the editor.
Just as nominee John Bush, professors have the duty, obligation, and privilege,
as citizens, to collaborate for civic justice, where “civic” refers to justice
for current living more than for the municipality or a tradition such as party,
religion, or other private association.
Anonymous
sources (Barrow). (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_ab7bba96-6719-11e7-9c3d-0b7c3886b4b4.html)
The Advocate
argues against Barrow’s point by attaching a photo of Donald Trump Jr.
discussing an activity he may have hoped would not surface. I consider running
that photo another arrogant application of freedom of the press. The arrogance
exacerbates the press-constructs or fake-opinion problem.
Also, I’m not
certain the press did anything but report what US cyber-intelligence sources
discovered: The discoverer could have tweeted the information if he or she were
“modern presidential” in thought and deed. But that would not have empowered
the press's spin that the meeting was more than continuing business contact
with false promise started with a pageant in Moscow in 2013. I do not know
the-objective-truth.
I appreciate
Barrow’s concern. An unreliable press ruins America’s promise for a better
future. I often write that I voted for Donald Trump twice not on belief but on
hope, and that I thought it would take him three years to begin to deliver.
I want to see
his slogan change to “Make America Great.” America started with a 2/3
super-majority, but then drifted into 45% for and against with 10% could not
care less for what is offered. The USA started well but never has been great
about realizing its potential.
One reason for
a good start was communication. Americans knew American language, and no matter
where a citizen traveled, they could communicate. We the People of the United
States operated 2/3 in agreement and 1/3 in dissident not by reading John Locke
but by mutual living. With common language, there was a prevailing public
integrity that could detect honest dissent vs evil.
The willing
people delighted in a free press and trusted their ability to discern
the-objective-truth. They exchanged hearty laughter when the press honestly
expressed error and resolution when evil was on parade. However, two features
of public life have changed: citizens no longer speak one language and the
press no longer uses discretion.
I hope
President Trump has the psychological power to overcome these two difficulties.
A free and
responsible press could help. If they don’t, I hope We the People of the United
States, the willing portion of the people, will effect constraints on the
press. One idea is to create stiff fines when anonymous reports prove obviously
false or dreamed up.
Columns. (The
fiction/non-fiction comments gallery for readers)
Warsaw talk (Rich Lowry).
nationalreview.com/article/449316/donald-trump-warsaw-speech-was-triumph
You inspired me
to read the speech. Thank you. I'll share ideas I like.
I like First
Lady Melania Trump’s remarks: “As many of you know, a main focus of my
husband's presidency is safety and security of the American people” and
all people.
Then President Trump:
“America loves Poland, and America loves the Polish people.”
“We welcome stronger ties of trade and commerce as you grow
your economies. And we are committed to securing your access to alternate
sources of energy, so Poland and its neighbors are never again held hostage to
a single supplier of energy.”
“The triumph of the Polish spirit over centuries of hardship
gives us all hope for a future in which good conquers evil, and peace achieves
victory over war.”
“This is a nation more than one thousand years old.
Your borders were erased for more than a century and only restored just
one century ago.”
“The Polish martyr, Bishop Michael Kozal, said it well:
“More horrifying than a defeat of arms is a collapse of the human
spirit.”
“Through four decades of communist rule, Poland and the
other captive nations of Europe endured a brutal campaign to demolish freedom,
your faith, your laws, your history, your identity -- indeed the very essence
of your culture and your humanity. Yet, through it all, you never lost
that spirit. Your oppressors tried to break you, but Poland could not be
broken.”
“A million Polish people did not ask for wealth. They
did not ask for privilege. Instead, one million Poles sang three simple
words: ‘We Want God.’”
“In those words, the Polish people recalled the promise of a
better future. They found new courage to face down their oppressors, and
they found the words to declare that Poland would be Poland once again.”
“One hundred years after the entry of American forces into
World War I, the transatlantic bond between the United States and Europe is as
strong as ever and maybe, in many ways, even stronger.”
“We must stand united against these shared enemies to strip
them of their territory and their funding, and their networks, and any form of
ideological support that they may have. While we will always welcome new
citizens who share our values and love our people, our borders will always be
closed to terrorism and extremism of any kind.”
“We cannot accept those who reject our values and who use
hatred to justify violence against the innocent.”
“We urge Russia to cease its destabilizing activities in
Ukraine and elsewhere, and its support for hostile regimes -- including Syria
and Iran -- and to instead join the community of responsible nations in our
fight against common enemies and in defense of civilization itself.”
“: the steady creep of government bureaucracy that
drains the vitality and wealth of the people. The West became great not
because of paperwork and regulations but because people were allowed to chase
their dreams and pursue their destinies.”
“Americans, Poles, and the nations of Europe value individual
freedom and sovereignty.”
“We must work together to confront forces, whether they come
from inside or out, from the South or the East, that threaten over time to
undermine these values and to erase the bonds of culture, faith and tradition
that make us who we are. If left unchecked, these forces will undermine our
courage, sap our spirit, and weaken our will to defend ourselves and our
societies.”
“And if we fail to preserve it, it will never, ever exist
again. So we cannot fail.”
“To those who would criticize our tough stance, I would
point out that the United States has demonstrated not merely with words but
with its actions that we stand firmly behind Article 5, the mutual defense
commitment.”
“And for its own protection -- and you know this, everybody
knows this, everybody has to know this -- Europe must do more.”
“Just as Poland could not be broken, I declare today for the
world to hear that the West will never, ever be broken. Our values will
prevail. Our people will thrive. And our civilization will triumph.”
Unexplored territory (Michael Gerson).
washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-to-handle-an-unhinged-president/2017/07/06/88b2ec38-628b-11e7-8adc-fea80e32bf47_story.html?utm_term=.3cf15dfc4883
Gerson employs proprietary pretense
to propose that the press has never, before President Trump, had the
opportunity to honestly work for public integrity.
Perhaps he will waken from his dream;
perhaps not.
Views from a fish (Richard Cohen).
washingtonpost.com/opinions/on-his-trip-abroad-trump-left-americas-values-behind/2017/07/10/4811a272-6593-11e7-9928-22d00a47778f_story.html?utm_term=.16fcec3a8c58
Cohen unwittingly speaks for himself: “This fish rots from the head.”
Only a writer could be so reflective.
Public integrity (Page 1A). How does Southern University
expect to establish public integrity?
It’s no wonder part of the
community wants to focus on LSU.
Slave-owning
presidents (Page 1A). To Wayne Hughes:
I’m not sure it’s a case of La. Democrats following.
What chaos has
Mitch Landrieu unleashed? Once the conflict-for-conflict-Democrats (AMO)
collaborate on public understanding of the larger history---the one dating from
canonization of the Holy Bible, they’ll be trying to tear down St. Louis
Cathedral as well as Jackson Square.
They might
storm the square shouting “God is black! God is black! Slaves are white!"
It’s transparent: I don’t know what they
are hiding from.
But I don't
want to live in the past.
Phil Beaver does not “know”
the-indisputable-facts. He trusts and is committed to the-objective-truth of which
most is undiscovered and some is understood. He is agent for A Civic People of
the United States, a Louisiana, education non-profit corporation. See online at
promotethepreamble.blogspot.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment