August 1, 2017

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.  

  

Today’s thought, G.E. Dean (Zechariah 7:12-13, CJB)

“This is why great anger came from ADONAI-Tzva'ot; and it came about that just as they hadn't listened when he called, so ADONAI-Tzva'ot said, 'I won't listen when they call; ”

Dean says “When God speaks we should listen. If not, when we cry He may not listen. Think it over.”

No way would I entertain such mysterious bargaining.

BRAVE (Mayor Broome) theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_c93b2cfa-763d-11e7-8dfd-9b7b5783ed5d.html

To Mark Perkins: Thank you.

When the municipal agenda is church and dialogues on racism, BRAVE loses to audacity. It seems like an amateur AMO needing civil constraint.

It seems the public is benefitting from a good neighbor: “Meanwhile, [John] Delgado’s public records request has yielded some interesting stuff . . .”

Thank you Mr. Delgado.

It seems The Advocate, while prize winning, is the slower press: beyond time to routinely check thehayride.com.

 

Other forums 

libertylawsite.org/liberty-forum/measured-against-a-reasonable-standard-the-answer-is-yes/

Right away, I think erroneously, Professor Alexander defines self-government as democracy, seemingly “doing fine in the United States and in a number of peer societies.” He seems oblivious to the civic agreement offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA and dismisses both Postel’s “American republic” and Kendall’s “diverse republic.” More importantly, he perhaps stonewalls Postel’s point about James Madison’s failure: “factions are often willing to organize and combine in order to give each faction some or most of what it seeks.” Saul Alinsky was a mater Alinsky-Marxist Organizer (AMO) a top advocate for democracy to overthrow the republic.

Alexander asserts that America has thrived despite “challenges from authoritarian and totalitarian regimes,” and to a lesser extent, so have some European countries and Japan. He bases this statement on coalitions of “democracies” defeating tyrannies such as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Thus, Alexander takes the discussion away from internal governance to international wars, equating material success to democracy.

Alexander then shifts to internal conflicts, such as voting, media, polarization, arrogance of elected officials, bureaucratic power, and hate speech. Even President Trump’s menace to democracy is constrained by “the constitutional order.” The competitive political parties thrive, perhaps without wisdom. Are elected officials and some citizens aligned in wisdom? Alexander overlooks that the federal budget is log-rolled on the backs of the nation’s children.

He conveniently avoids evaluation of competitive points: 1) is the common good served by narrow demands or 2) does it tag along? Has it always been this way? Alexander asserts that “public choice theory” informs us that pursuit of narrow interests is the norm. But sometimes narrow interests become civic projects like a new stadium or healthcare entitlement. War is a major collective interest.

Alexander doubts whether today is worse than the past by ambitions, political ignorance, demagoguery, anger, protective, and tribal. Without evidence, he hopes “a special Providence” will sustain democracy.

Alexander seems to dismiss altogether the American republic. I wonder if he realizes that a California Senator represents nearly twenty million people while a Wyoming Senator represents about 0.3 million people---democratic by population but not so much by state. I wonder if he imagines that, based on his sense of satisfaction, I could perceive he, intentionally or not, advocates for AMO. AMO cares little about your factional motive: simply join the disruption.

Those who wish to know more about AMO may find a quick, comprehensive read through 2010 by googling “D.L. Adams+Alinsky” and using the first URL

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.