Phil Beaver seeks to collaborate on the-objective-truth,
which can only be discovered. The comment box below invites readers to write.
"Civic"
refers to citizens who collaborate for responsible freedom more than for the
city.
A personal paraphrase
of the June 21, 1788 preamble: We the civic citizens of nine of the
thirteen United States commit-to and trust-in the purpose and goals stated
herein --- integrity, justice, collaboration, defense, prosperity, liberty, and
perpetuity --- and to cultivate limited services to us by the USA. I am willing
to collaborate with other citizens on this paraphrase, yet may settle on and
would always preserve the original text.
“[worsening] the 2007 tally of 96” would not have
delayed me as “besting” did.
What are the specifics of “Broome
. . . chose Paul for the job because he is experienced, progressive and
visionary.”
What does “the city needs a force commensurate to its
obligations” mean?
I think the city
needs to promote the reality that each human has the potential physical and
psychological power to control his or her energy for mutual, comprehensive
safety and security: Each citizen has and may develop the human authority to
behave for responsible freedom, and that authority cannot be reassigned by the
person. For example, God will not behave for an individual. Jesus will not stop
an individual from using someone else's drug needle.
It would help if the Mayor-President spent her energy exemplifying
authority to behave for responsible freedom instead of church and dialogues on
racialism. The members of the Metro-council could also consider promoting civic
morality.
The Advocate could conform to a free and responsible press
that promotes individual authority to collaborate for responsible freedom.
Promotion of the agreement offered in the preamble to the constitution for the
USA would be a good starting point. Once the agreement is widely adopted, the “how
to” could follow. Neutrality to religion is essential, as Gods are personal and
not everyone claims one. A better 2018 is achievable through super-majority
attention to the preamble’s agreement.
Today’s thought, G.E.
Dean (Exodus 34:12 CJB), The Advocate, January 6, 2018, page 5B.
“Be careful not to make a covenant with
the people living in the land where you are going, so that they won't become a
snare within your own borders.”
Dean says, “Don’t make partnerships
with those who do not hold to serving the Lord.”
How can The Advocate continually
publish such contradictory thinking?
In the over 3,000 year old Exodus
thoughts, why would anyone go to a land whose people might offer a covenant or
agreement? The indigenous people of the Americas did that, but the invaders
took their land under arbitrary European-Church rules. Why wasn’t it obvious
then that everyone on the earth wants private liberty with civic morality? If indigenous
people offered to collaborate for civic morality, how could European lands be
adversely affected?
Today, many people behave as though
we are all in the same struggle: to make
the most of the-objective-truth during our private lifetimes.
But Dean would separate people in
other countries and within the USA as “those who do not hold to serving the
Lord.”
Like everyone else, Dean may accept
his human powers to collaborate for civic justice. Will he? Until he does, I
commend The Advocate to stop publishing Dean blasphemy.
Christopher Simon, “Recognizing
Others,” page 2D.
I oppose unwarranted recognition
just as certainly as unwarranted respect and love. Most people want private
liberty with civic morality. In civic morality, a person who does not make eye
contact is making the statement: Give me privacy. Thus, as glance is all it
takes to get the message: Don’t enter my space.
Appreciating that message is the
first step in establishing civic peace. If the other party returns the glance,
a greeting is in order, and if it’s returned, there may be conversation. The next
exchange may be unwelcome---a request for money, a religious proselytization, a
solicitation of business, egocentric philosophizing, etc. Quick exit is in
order, and if the exit becomes contested, it should be hastened by stride
frequency and distance. However, if good will continues, mutual appreciation
may be experienced and, by agreement either developed or allowed to dissipate
into happiness.
Letters
Liberal-democracy
vs rule of statutory law (Arcement,
Dec 3) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_f395db5a-efe9-11e7-971a-5739228c7a9c.html)
To GM King: Modifying a quote from my original post, “Just as each citizen
[may] work for their food in order to be free, citizens [may] collaborate for
statutory justice. That is, [written] laws with enforcement [wherein justice]
is based on discovered reality rather than dominant opinion. In other words,
based on the-discovered-objective-truth or the indisputable reality rather than
intellectual constructs. The human individual is so physically and
psychologically powerful that he or she will circumvent arbitrary opinion. In
other words, even criminal individuals are too powerful to subjugate to
nonsense.”
By replacing “need to” with “may,”
I intend to lessen the preachy tone of my message. But not to lessen earnestly promoting
the civic agreement that is in the preamble to the constitution for the USA (which
is positive preaching). Thereby, citizens separate: some are civic and some are
dissident to the agreement. Some are dissident due to ignorance, resistance, stubbornness,
arrogance, honest opposition, or belief in another agreement. Some dissidents
intent to apply a religious doctrine; some seek to preserve a mixed
constitution that preserves economic classes---favors elites by educational
heritage; some honestly think crime pays; some wish to remain in this land but
apply the laws of another nation; there are evil people.
Rose Wilder Lane’s 1943 book, “The
Discovery of Freedom,” helped me understand that most human beings, delivered
from the womb---newborns, have the physical and psychological potential to
accept personal authority to collaborate for mutual justice in all contacts
with other persons. “All” means public and private; direct and indirect; secret
and disclosed. Lane transformed herself from communist to recognize the human
opportunities created by the original constitution for the USA---under the
people rather than under God. Abraham Lincoln seemed to share that view in
1861.
No human individual is excluded
from the option to accept the personal authority to behave for civic justice.
Some accept human authority, yet many assign their personal authority. Some
spend their individual energy for a cause, a government, a god, or combinations
of them. Regimes condition citizens to look for authority rather than exercise
the human authority to establish good will in daily connections. “God made me
do it” or “My bosses did not authorize me to serve the customer.” However, the
human being is too psychologically powerful to yield to arbitrary opinion.
Illustrations abound that
coercion and force, especially military might “makes things right”---erroneously.
Joshua conquering Canaan illustrates this false principle. The Church’s
doctrine of discovery in taking this land is another example; the USA
conquering the CSA rather than using diplomacy.
The consequence in the world’s
cultures is that the individual is coerced by his or her civilization to
erroneously assign personal authority for mutual justice to some higher power.
Often, within a nation, the individual perceives supporting the lesser of evils,
however, in personal connections, there is no excuse for not accepting the
authority to collaborate for justice. Huckleberry Finn did not think he would
go to Hell when he decided not to report Jim a runaway slave, but Finn took the
risk of suffering civil retribution if his behavior was discovered. Most humans
face moral dilemma like Finn’s: With individual authority goes responsibility
(and freedom), and we share that human condition.
Humans have a common higher power:
the-objective-truth which can only be discovered---cannot be thought up. Each individual
who is born into a special-interest culture, has the challenge of looking past
that culture to the-objective-truth. For example, the idea that smoking marijuana
is harmless does not have to control a person’s life. The idea that God is the
prince of peace does not have to relieve an individual from personal authority
for civic justice. The fact that a person was born into a lower middle class
family does not mean he or she cannot be the first in the family to graduate
from college and serve one great company in a great public service for
thirty-five years. The notion of human rights does not have to dissuade a
person from the fact that every human may earn his or her living in order to
have responsible freedom to collaborate for mutual justice---protect every
person’s right to deal with the-objective-truth in their own best interest.
I perceive that a person who
thinks studying a carbon-monoxide eating bug from Utah will help advance
discovery of extraterrestrial life or some such theory is on his or her own.
Best of luck.
In 2018 news, I perceive three dividers
in the USA: the theism-politics-partnership
in support of classism, arbitrary human rights claims, liberation-theory
violence, failure to understand democracy (chaos) vs statutory justice (civic
order), and neglect of the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble.
The remedy I perceive is for most
citizens to accept their personal, human authority to spend their private and
public energy for mutual, comprehensive safety and security. How a person uses
their human authority is in their hands. But it seems to me the expression of
the principle of human authority has the potential to produce an achievable,
better way-of-living in a short time. I think it is happening now in some
bodies, minds, and persons.
Random erroneous
thoughts (Kennedy)
(theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_3157ba70-f0ea-11e7-b0ac-37ef62b52d76.html)
“. . . the black vote really does have power.” Every
block vote has some power. When an individual elects the block vote has he or
she exercised his or her personal authority to favor his or her personal interests?
Or has he or she abdicated personal authority to the organizers of the block vote?
Neither Kaepernick-sitting nor Boyer-kneeling, in church,
reduces NFL TV-ratings. “Overall
NFL ratings for this season dropped by 9.7% compared to last season, according
to data released by Nielsen on Thursday.” si.com/tech-media/2018/01/04/nfl-tv-ratings-decline-ten-percent-colin-kaepernick-thursday-night-football.
Columns. (The
fiction/non-fiction comments gallery for readers)
Seven habits for
responsible freedom
(Froma Harrop) (creators.com/read/froma-harrop/01/18/seven-habits-of-highly-effective-resisters)
Harrop starts
with a self-contradiction, deeming Donald Trump voters like me (twice), then
presented Rule # 5, “Do not condemn Trump voters.”
Individuals
have the personal authority to vote for responsible freedom, in other words,
private liberty with civic morality, in other words, statutory justice. In
statutory justice, people who collaborate for civic morality work to discover
the-objective-truth, which may civically settle disputes with dissidents. Like
everyone else, dissidents have the physical and psychological power to resist
arbitrary opinion and will reform only according to the-objective-truth:
Criminals do not yield to legislative lies.
Everyone knows
that democracy is mob rule---nowhere near statutory justice. Liberal democrats
urge voting for representatives who promise to guarantee human rights. They
think most people will agree that human rights are defensible without
definition or limit: The government can
provide everything. However, everybody knows that liars cannot communicate. By
lying, liars take themselves out of the civic forum. For the past five decades,
the liars have not been discovered, but they are now plainly exposed.
Saul Alinsky,
in 1967, said that violence is justifiable in the demand for human rights (as
he defines them): youtube.com/watch?v=OsfxnaFaHWI
. He went on to found Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF),
with its Baton Rouge affiliate, Together Baton Rouge togetherbr.org/about. The
purpose is to organize and mobilize so-called-victims of the American republic,
the rule of law, and replace it with liberal democracy, or chaos. The idea is
that the collective weak many will overthrow the strong few, so it is a form of
Marxism. I refer to this violent demand for arbitrary rights Alinsky-Marxist
orginzation or AMO. (Note: I want reform
in the distribution of GDP so that wanted jobs functions earn the cost of
living. I see high pay for entertainment stars and top CEOs as symptoms of the
problem. Also, I see the abuse of children for adult satisfactions as barbaric.
Alinsky was addressing a real problem, and Buckley did not respond
constructively to him nor to Baldwin: youtube.com/watch?v=oFeoS41xe7w.)
Every individual may accept and
develop personal authority to collaborate for responsible freedom. But the
liberal democrats offer chaos based on the demand for arbitrary human rights,
which no government can provide, much less guarantee. Every individual may
choose to work for a living and may collaborate for private liberty with civic
morality. It is important to know that a citizen may vote for his or her
preference rather than what is recommended by AMO or any other cause, doctrine,
political power, or institution that would prevent a civic culture.
Supporting deregulation of the Internet (Walter Wlliams)
creators.com/read/walter-williams/01/18/dangers-of-government-control
Williams reviews the three causes
of the Great Depression then convincingly supports terminating the FCC.
Phil Beaver does not “know” the
actual-reality. He
trusts and is committed to the-objective-truth which can only be discovered.
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