"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 want to collaborate with other citizens on this paraphrase,
yet would always preserve the original, 1787, text. .
Our Views
Richard E. Parisi I think
most civic Americans are concerned.
Dissidents to the American republic not so much. Social democrats, for
example, are so put out they lost all sense of morality.
I think integrity will prevail and speculate integrity is what President
Trump demands. Those who approach him with a lie cannot possibly receive
the-objective-truth.
Perhaps Trump practices Matthew 7:6 with individual authority I cannot
imagine yet may be observing. Ponder, for example, how you might handle an
interview with Anderson Cooper or Don Lemon.
April 4 (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_30565c22-375c-11e8-96f5-8311b397eaaf.html)
The
Advocate editors, IMO, after expressing erroneous, social-democracy, wrote a
commendable editorial commemorating Martin Luther King, Jr’s civic ideas.
Forgiveness informs appreciation. (In civic connections,
love, even empathy, often either is overboard or seems insincere, doctrinal
imposition.) Both religious immorality and social morality bemuse civic
morality; however, collaboration to discover the-objective-truth establishes a
civic standard. I appreciate, “An individual has not started living until he
can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns.” Yet, I do
not agree with the rest of that quote. Most humans I know don’t want my concerns
about their lives: People want personal
privacy with civic morality. In other words, individuals want mutual,
comprehensive safety and security. In other words, persons want human justice.
In contrast, the lead article for today, by Errin Haines Shack
and Adrian Sainz of AP (dailyherald.com/article/20180403/news/304039852/)
clearly state the AMO intentions of today’s leaders. Lee Saunders: “We must
still struggle; we must still sacrifice. We must still educate and organize and
mobilize.” President Obama: "As long as we're still trying, Dr. King's
soul is still rejoicing.” These are the appeals to Alinsky-Marxist organization
(AMO) that have prevailed these five decades.
Readers may gain some balance by reading Jason L. Riley’s
views in today’s WSJ; wsj.com/articles/martin-luther-king-we-cant-keep-on-blaming-the-white-man-1522792580.
“. . . the pretenders in place today . . . have turned a movement into an
industry, if not a racket. Black-white differences in poverty, homeownership
and incomes all grew wider under President Obama. Activists who long ago
abandoned King’s colorblind standard . . . tell black youths today that they
are victims, first and foremost. [That’s Marxist teaching.] Black activists and
liberal politicians stress racism because it serves their own interests, not
because it serves the interests of the black underclass.”
The Advocate personnel, Mayor Broome and the people in her
administration, Gov. John Bel Edwards, the Louisiana Black Caucus, and the
minister coalitions like Together Baton Rouge may reflect on whether or not
they are using black children to promote themselves, and if so, reform.
Any citizen who perceives he or she is being subjected to
AMO ought to avoid the people involved like the plague. Every individual has the human
authority to behave for civic morality.
April 2 (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_12dceee4-2628-11e8-9af8-7bd623119ed9.html)
The Advocate personnel are far too casual about restricting freedom
from oppression.
“House Bill 562, sponsored by Rep. Julie Emerson,
R-Carencro, would put into state law that the ability to pursue lawful
occupation is a fundamental right and the state will defer to the least
restrictive regulation available while maintaining consumer safety. The Emerson
bill requires reviews to justify licensing requirements. It's a great idea, but
it is also one that will require some political muscle to enforce.”
HB 562 seems to use unlawful jargon. Freedom from oppression
includes “the ability to [lawfully pursue] occupation” more than “pursue lawful
occupation.”
Government has long practiced usurpation of property under the hubris of colonization. As a consequence, in America, you can’t be an indigenous person without racial constraints. See “a game played by European states to justify and give legal effect to their colonial ambitions – an ‘uncontrollable weapon in their hands’” at http://removethewall.org/.../Laws-of-Occupation-Christine....
Any bill to relieve flower-shop employees from Louisiana burdens needs to be well crafted to protect a civic people from lawyers and judges. HB 562 seems to empower courts to pick the people’s pockets.
The preamble to the constitution for the USA does not authorize "politcal muscle," which is of, by, and for legislators. After 229 years of legislative charades, it is time for a civic people to accept the human authority to manage civic morality instead of leaving it to gods and governments.
Civic morality must be addressed at four levels: dissidents to justice and officials of city, state, and nation.
Government has long practiced usurpation of property under the hubris of colonization. As a consequence, in America, you can’t be an indigenous person without racial constraints. See “a game played by European states to justify and give legal effect to their colonial ambitions – an ‘uncontrollable weapon in their hands’” at http://removethewall.org/.../Laws-of-Occupation-Christine....
Any bill to relieve flower-shop employees from Louisiana burdens needs to be well crafted to protect a civic people from lawyers and judges. HB 562 seems to empower courts to pick the people’s pockets.
The preamble to the constitution for the USA does not authorize "politcal muscle," which is of, by, and for legislators. After 229 years of legislative charades, it is time for a civic people to accept the human authority to manage civic morality instead of leaving it to gods and governments.
Civic morality must be addressed at four levels: dissidents to justice and officials of city, state, and nation.
April 1 (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_9e97a99e-32d3-11e8-a696-b72954df9722.html)
No legal issue I have encountered lately directs me so immediately to
the aims and purpose stated in the preamble to the constitution for the USA.
The Advocate’s egregious exercise of freedom of the press in today’s Section A
is the worst newspaper-offense I have experienced in my lifetime, now in its
eighth decade. The Advocate also opposes the preamble! (Ponder the
"also" in that statement.)
Among citizens
of the USA, if the individual does not comprehend, commit-to, and trust-in the
civic agreement that is stated in the preamble, he or she is not in the
statistical group that seeks justice. Many jurors do not seek justice. LSU
telephone poles on constitutional issues that do not classify respondents on
the basis of the civic agreement are not valid. It’s like including Russian
citizens who are not US citizens in a vote for President of the USA.
On the agreement that is offered by the preamble, citizens are divided: civic citizens vs dissidents to justice. James Madison, who opined that first you have to be considered a citizen of God (whatever that is), was by that statement a dissident: I am a citizen according to the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered ---pays no attention to opinion in the determination of justice.
The Supreme Court itself is predicated on opinion and often could not care less about the-objective-truth. The-objective-truth may involve a God, but I doubt it, and it cannot be any of the American gods, in my opinion. (To remove some reader’s fake objections, The-objective-truth does not yield to my opinion.)
On the agreement that is offered by the preamble, citizens are divided: civic citizens vs dissidents to justice. James Madison, who opined that first you have to be considered a citizen of God (whatever that is), was by that statement a dissident: I am a citizen according to the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered ---pays no attention to opinion in the determination of justice.
The Supreme Court itself is predicated on opinion and often could not care less about the-objective-truth. The-objective-truth may involve a God, but I doubt it, and it cannot be any of the American gods, in my opinion. (To remove some reader’s fake objections, The-objective-truth does not yield to my opinion.)
I wondered in an
earlier post if Louisiana law on the 10/12 jury decision is influenced by
French law, and I still wonder. I trust The Advocate for sensation for social
democracy rather than American republicanism, so I do not trust their history
about this law.
I am enjoying
family and will not read and research Section A today. However, I oppose the
proposed Louisiana constitutional amendment as presented here.
If The Advocate’s history is accurate, I propose to amend the language so that it expresses intentions for justice according to the-objective-truth. In that case, a majority vote by a jury of twelve citizens who trust-in and commit-to the agreement stated in the preamble would be sufficient.
If The Advocate’s history is accurate, I propose to amend the language so that it expresses intentions for justice according to the-objective-truth. In that case, a majority vote by a jury of twelve citizens who trust-in and commit-to the agreement stated in the preamble would be sufficient.
Today’s thought, G.E. Dean page 5B
or 7B (I appeal to The
Advocate to stop publishing Dean’s promotion of mystery in opposition to civic
morality)
(Numbers 32:23 CJB), The Advocate, April 6, 2018
(Numbers 32:23 CJB), The Advocate, April 6, 2018
Exhorting men to cross the Jordan and take land from the
dwellers there, Moses concludes, “But if you will not do this, then you have sinned
against Adonai,
and you must understand that your sin will find you out.”
Dean says, “We can’t hide our sin from God. He knows.”
Obviously, Dean is a slave to his
personal wants and the Holy Bible is his tool.
What I can’t understand is why The
Advocate publishes Dean’s disrespect for easily understood literature.
(Psalms 63:5-7 CJB), The Advocate, April 5, 2018
(Psalms 63:5-7 CJB), The Advocate, April 5, 2018
“I am as satisfied as with rich food; my mouth praises you
with joy on my lips when I remember you on my bed and meditate on you in
the night watches. For you have been my help; in the shadow of your wings
I rejoice.”
Dean says, “The Lord can give us peace and joy like on one
else or nothing else can do.”
David was weird.
(Luke 4:8 CJB), The Advocate, April 3, 2018
(Luke 4:8 CJB), The Advocate, April 3, 2018
“Yeshua answered him, "The Tanakh says, `Worship ADONAI
your God and serve him only.”
Dean says, “We were created to worship our creator. He alone is worthy
of our highest praise.”
David and Dean can agree with each other.
However, when trouble comes, I want to collaborate for safety and security
rather than worship and pray.
(Luke 4:4 CJB), The Advocate, April 2, 2018
(Luke 4:4 CJB), The Advocate, April 2, 2018
“Yeshua answered him, “The Tanakh says, ‘Man
does not live on bread alone.’”
Dean says, “God’s Word will sustain us. Read the Bible. Believe it.
Apply it.”
Dean probably thinks Jesus is
expressing love for me in Luke 14:26, “If anyone comes to me and does
not hate his father, his mother, his wife, his children, his brothers and his
sisters, yes, and his own life besides, he cannot be my talmid.”
Dean might even support the Bible’s
advocacy for the slave-master relationship regarding Europeans and the African
commodity: black slaves.
However, I accepted my human
authority to behave for civic justice rather than advocate human oppression
derived from imposed mystery and confusion. Personnel employed by The Advocate
could oppose Christ’s hate and the Bible’s slavery, or at least stop condoning
conflict.
Letters
Appeal to F.
King Alexander and other celebrities (Raymond
Jetson) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_3bd051d0-3823-11e8-9327-af248bb35136.html)
Mr. Jetson, my
experience is that you have no interest in collaboration with fellow citizens,
so your appeal must be to celebrities and wealthy people, regardless of
citizenship.
After meeting
you at an EBRP library meeting, I emailed you on 9/24/2015 about our library
meetings as A Civic People of the United States, a Louisiana education
incorporation, and sent you our blog address, promtethepreamble.blogspot.com.
We spoke on the phone on 10/30/2015 about one of our civic projects, “Child
Incentives.” I work has built on promoting the preamble and now focuses on
human, individual authority to express good will and behave with civic
morality.
I attended F.
King Alexander’s 2-day symposium styled under your phrase: “Moment or
Movement?” lsunow.com/daily/moment-or-movement-ends-with-speeches-from-norman-francis-don/article_575ae9f2-8b08-11e6-ad6b-73ec0e34ef55.html.
In my full report, on the blog, I was unfavorable toward Don Lemon’s controversial
speech. See Josh Torton’s (Thornton?) differing objections at lsunow.com/daily/opinion-don-lemon-wrong-choice-to-speak-on-past-issues/article_84a90374-8a8d-11e6-86c9-a76e9f58efc6.html.
Based on my experiences, I do not think you are sincere beyond personal gain. Establishing trust by which I would hope to collaborate with you for private liberty with civic morality or a better expression of the American dream would be difficult if possible.
Based on my experiences, I do not think you are sincere beyond personal gain. Establishing trust by which I would hope to collaborate with you for private liberty with civic morality or a better expression of the American dream would be difficult if possible.
Physics and its
progeny such as biology is the higher power on abortion. (Guillot) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/article_bf885e20-3821-11e8-aff7-efbc4b0764f9.html)
Saved from
abortion? Not some initially viable ova.
With determined
online study, a student may learn that with with 4 million live births in the
USA, there are about 5.1 million terminations, with only 0.7 million abortions
for fun (so called by MWW). The other 4.4 million terminations were caused by
biology, including 0.67 million cases when the doctor advised the mother to
terminate her pregnancy.
Thus, about 9.1
million viable ova were reported by the mother. The 61 million women in their
fertile years perhaps produced 800 million viable ova. But 500 million were
disallowed by birth control. Thus some 300 million were candidates for
conception. Some conceptions biologically terminated during the eight days to
attachment to the uterus, and the tiny embryo passed out of mom’s body
unnoticed. Could termination before attachment account for another several
million biological abortions?
With integrity,
legislators would encourage and coach individual authority, especially male
attacks on women and their viable ova, to behave civically rather than badger
women who have the biological and psychological responsibility to remain
pregnant or not.
Introducing a
personal god into this physical (biological and psychological) woman’s
responsibility is a moral travesty by legislators. Overlooking the importance
of ova is a religious error on par with thinking the earth is 6,000 years old.
It is past time
to terminate religious imposition on civic morality. Keep religion for the believer’s
afterdeath, but abort religion for civic justice.
To Tom Robinson: I oppose abortion but think
informing and coaching men that they have the human authority and duty to take
good care of women and their viable ova and coaching women to take care of
their ova is the moral approach.
Whatever is in
charge of what-is gave the female the responsibility to remain pregnant or not.
Males who want to dictate to females have no standing---are tyrants. Call it
evil if you like.
Columns
Judicial justice
(Ed Tarpley) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/article_51ca1c88-32af-11e8-ac74-33079e43fbf4.html)
The preamble to the constitution
for the USA divides inhabitants into two groups: a civic people and dissidents
to justice. A jury of peers can only come from a civic people---those who
understand, commit-to, and trust-in the preamble. Therein, a simple majority
vote is sufficient.
Lawyers are so divided: civic vs
dissent. Just as the people who rely on lawyers for their supper thank someone
when they get fed, people who rely on lawyers for justice suffer loss and pain.
Every human being has the authority to collaborate for civic justice, but few
accept that authority and therefore tolerate injustice.
The United States Supreme Court
is among the world’s leading lawyer factions. A committee of nine Jews and six
Catholics consider opinions about opinions regarding the provisions of the
people who agree to the civic contract stated in the preamble and articles of
the 1787 Constitution. Many opinions are reached by majority vote, 5:4. Errors
prevail as law until a future majority opinion makes a correction. It’s a house
of cards that can be corrected by collaboration to discover the-objective-truth
rather than conflict for dominant opinion, such as “in God we trust.”
The civic agreement that is
stated in the preamble, being neutral to race and religion lasted until it was
ratified by the people’s constitutions in nine states on June 21, 1788 with its
intentions to add a bill of rights. Since then, it has been set aside by
“divine” legislation and Blackstone common law. Congress hired
factional-protectant ministers in April and May, 1789. Congress took advantage
of Chapter XI Machiavellianism. Presidents from first to last have supported
the tyranny over the people. The Supreme Court’s affirmation is traced in
Greece v. Galloway (2014), which purports that I am niggling to object to the
imposition of religion to suppress civic morality.
I was talking to a dear neighbor
just now and learned after five decades of sharing that he neither knows nor
cares about the civic agreement that is offered by the preamble. It’s no wonder
the USA is in such misery and woe: socially democratic chaos.
Like most lawyers, Tarpley
probably considers the preamble has no standing in the judicial system.
A civic people are allowing the
chaos to prevail. The innocent people are among the dissidents.
To William Bonin: Does a decision regarding a convicted felon reached by a 5:4 Supreme Court temporal faction negate Tarpley's "and in all federal courts"? A chemical engineer can only guess, but I think Tarpley was wrong on that point, too.
Also, doesn’t the preamble, ratified on June 21, 1788, take civic precedence over Magna Carta, 1215, and Blackstone (English common law including Protestant Christianity)? Does Tarpley represent an erroneous, tory faction of the USA? I think he does.
To William Bonin: Does a decision regarding a convicted felon reached by a 5:4 Supreme Court temporal faction negate Tarpley's "and in all federal courts"? A chemical engineer can only guess, but I think Tarpley was wrong on that point, too.
Also, doesn’t the preamble, ratified on June 21, 1788, take civic precedence over Magna Carta, 1215, and Blackstone (English common law including Protestant Christianity)? Does Tarpley represent an erroneous, tory faction of the USA? I think he does.
Imposing injustice
on murder victims’ entire lifetimes (Michael Graham) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/article_b23b92a2-369e-11e8-a7e1-1756a3b7258c.html)
For some crimes, the death penalty is essential
to a civic people.
Both statutory
law and its enforcement may be based on the-objective-truth rather than
dominant opinion, and that is the reform a civic people ineluctably seek. It is
essential for life that a civic people constrain dissidents to justice. In this
country, fellow-citizens divide themselves on the civic agreement that is
offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA.
An inalienable
human condition is the potential to develop authority over personal behavior
during every moment of life. A few humans remain feral for reasons they may or
may not understand; some choose infidelity as a way of living; others choose
fidelity. Infidelity takes many forms, from ignorance to criminality to evil
and worse.
Those who
choose fidelity also have options. Some experience and observe that things go
better with fidelity to the-objective-truth; for examples, the earth is like a
globe rather than flat; civic citizens do not lie so as to lessen misery and
loss; and some facts have not yet been discovered. Yet they learn that some fellow-citizens
cannot be trusted. Others nourish self-doubt and therefore relinquish their
authority to a leader, to a doctrine, to humankind, to a god, or to a
government. Every individual must deal with the other powers, but need not yield
their personal authority for civic behavior.
When statutory harm is discovered, application of opinion rather than the-objective-truth in order to accuse, indict, and try someone is a disservice to the victim. The perpetrator must be discovered using the-objective-truth. If so, the prosecutor is confident in his case.
Second, a jury of fellow-citizens is unjust if the individuals have not accepted the human authority to collaborate for justice. Only citizens who pursue the-objective-truth in all civic morality are qualified to judge a judicial outcome.
When statutory harm is discovered, application of opinion rather than the-objective-truth in order to accuse, indict, and try someone is a disservice to the victim. The perpetrator must be discovered using the-objective-truth. If so, the prosecutor is confident in his case.
Second, a jury of fellow-citizens is unjust if the individuals have not accepted the human authority to collaborate for justice. Only citizens who pursue the-objective-truth in all civic morality are qualified to judge a judicial outcome.
The ideas I
have expressed may be the 231-year-old, unarticulated, particular intentions of
the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the
USA. If so, all that is needed for the USA to restore its promise of justice is
for most people to accept their human authority and collaborate so as to
constrain dissidents to justice, wherever they may be: at large or in the
judicial system.
The death
penalty, in some cases is essential to justice. To prevent the death penalty
would exacerbate injustice to the victims, including a civic people itself.
Budget secrecy
as usual (John Bel Edwards) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/article_da631812-381b-11e8-91a1-8f8de61d4652.html)
“In Mississippi, typically
55 percent of the DOT’s capital preservation budget is expended on rural roads
and bridges.”
There’s no shame that Louisiana reports nothing about roads and
bridges expenditures.
News
No harder return
to work (Advocate staff) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/alton_sterling/article_ac1825be-3691-11e8-8978-470b11c1ac53.html)
I appreciate
Officer Lake's past service, his two years of sacrifices, and his courage to
return to his dedication to a civic people. Best wishes to you, your family,
and the BRPD.
Reform in a
better direction (John Simerman) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/article_08d58890-3846-11e8-bfea-2ba7bfc878a9.html)
I whole-heartedly oppose discrimination based on skin color or other
racial characteristics.
The present attention to majority voting by juries presents an opportunity to consider Americanism itself. It’s a chance for the Louisiana legislature to present to citizens the question: Do you want justice as defined by the preamble to the constitution for the USA or do you prefer AMO vigilantism?
The present attention to majority voting by juries presents an opportunity to consider Americanism itself. It’s a chance for the Louisiana legislature to present to citizens the question: Do you want justice as defined by the preamble to the constitution for the USA or do you prefer AMO vigilantism?
And again, it is altogether appropriate for the consideration to come
during the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s
assassination as well as during local, controversial police management.
In 2018, many black citizens think the “equal” statement in the
Declaration of Independence applies to them but do not consider that the
preamble to the constitution for the USA includes them. However, every
individual has the opportunity to consider the preamble, understand that it
offers an agreement to collaborate for civic justice, and join the work or be a
dissident---a dissident to justice.
Blacks who disagree with my opinion may consider the opinions
represented by Fredrick Douglass in 1852: see rbscp.lib.rochester.edu/2945.
I think it would be appropriate and legal under the constitution to require potential jurors to affirm that they understand, trust-in, and commit-to the preamble in order to qualify for jury duty. Without such a provision, I do not trust twelve votes. If qualification for jury duty is mere existence, I think a majority vote is moral; that is 7 of 12 or 4 of 6. If a citizen disagrees with the purpose and aims of the law, he or she should not participate in law enforcement. In other words, if a citizen does not agree with the preamble, he or she ought not serve on a jury.
I will send my suggestion to my state senator and my state representative and hope others read my comment and act on it. I consider the jury question a great opportunity for public integrity.
I think it would be appropriate and legal under the constitution to require potential jurors to affirm that they understand, trust-in, and commit-to the preamble in order to qualify for jury duty. Without such a provision, I do not trust twelve votes. If qualification for jury duty is mere existence, I think a majority vote is moral; that is 7 of 12 or 4 of 6. If a citizen disagrees with the purpose and aims of the law, he or she should not participate in law enforcement. In other words, if a citizen does not agree with the preamble, he or she ought not serve on a jury.
I will send my suggestion to my state senator and my state representative and hope others read my comment and act on it. I consider the jury question a great opportunity for public integrity.
Protesting for a
culture of vigilantism (Grace Toohey) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/alton_sterling/article_c8479394-368e-11e8-a204-4b75f5eebbc5.html)
It's AMO in action. "It is against this backdrop that
the Woodlawn Organization, supported by community organizer Saul Alinsky,
planned a “shit-in” (Alinksy, 1971)." See
http://societyandspace.org/2017/10/03/the-ohare-shit-in-airports-occupied-infrastructures-and-excremental-politics/.
The AMO record is 50 years of abject failure for a people.
I think most citizens want mutual, comprehensive safety and
security or civic justice. Gov. John Bel Edwards and Mayor Sharon W. Broome may
opt for civic morality instead of racialism and church vigilantism to divide
the people using AMO tactics, but they seem to have other ambitions: erroneous
AMO support.
AMO group (Staff
writing) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/crime_police/article_78b35098-376a-11e8-9bd8-d33420451370.html)
PHIL: CHECK THE ORIGINAL COMMENTS FOR MORE.
As an affiliate of Chicago’s Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), Together Baton Rouge is the local AMO body; togetherbr.org/about.
“The Industrial Areas
Foundation was established in 1940 by Saul David Alinsky and a Board of
Directors that included business man Marshal Field, Roman Catholic Bishop Sheil
and Kathryn Lewis, daughter of John L Lewis, President of the United Mine
Workers. The mission of the new endeavor was to build from Alinsky’s
experience developing the Back of the Yards Neighborhood Council into other
communities in the greater Chicago area and beyond.” industrialareasfoundation.org/content/history.
Alinsky was America’s most
popular church organizer until he died in 1972. Black leaders, by using
Alinsky’s scheme to recruit people for a church cause, often poverty among
blacks, staging a public demonstration, then allowing passions to erupt into
violence, have victimized America for the past five decades. I think
the AMO era has ended, despite Barack Obama's OFA; see nbcnews.com/storyline/democrats-vs-trump/obama-aligned-organizing-action-relaunches-trump-era-n719311.
An alternative has been
developed and publicized in Baton Rouge library meetings for the past five
years. It began as only coaching and encouragement to use the preamble to the
constitution for the USA to collaborate for civic morality. At its leading edge,
a civic people now encourage each individual to accept the human authority to
choose personal behavior, whether moral or immoral.
In choosing un-civil behavior
the individual may risk constraint under the rule of law that may be arbitrary
or opinion dominated. Those who choose morality have two alternatives: each may
develop fidelity to the-objective-truth or may subjugate their human authority
to a god or a government. Gods may provide comfort and hope for the afterdeath,
and government operates for its own benefits. For me, trust-in and commitment
to the-objective-truth is preferred.
For this reason, I do not
pray for safety and security in Baton Rouge: I collaborate for private liberty
with civic morality. I encourage Mayor Broome as well as Gov. Edwards to
consider the-objective-truth as an alternative to church and dialogues on
racism. As for Together Baton Rouge and other clergy collectives, I encourage
citizens to avoid them like avoiding the AMO plague.
To Kb Ott: An AMO is an Alinsky-Marxist organization. Alinsky
(d. 1972) is easily understood, because he wrote books and argued with
conservatives. Marxism is a little mysterious, because the person who claims to
be a Marxist has trouble explaining why they say so. However, in the Alinsky
application it’s a matter of a group claiming they are victims and disrupt the
civic order under which their oppressors live.
Organizers proclaim a human right, for example, the right to
develop a list of convictions for civil immorality and illegality, be on
probation, carry a gun, and resist first responders to a 911 call. AMO steps in
and erroneously claims that a civil system must be changed to accommodate
uncivil living.
The AMO platform is prayer and dialogue on racism.
Confusion of prayer with responsible behavior is a mendacious staple of clergy coalitions, and that is the reason the USA has been on the reluctant march toward civic morality rather than socialism, religious civilization, or other dominant opinion. Together Baton Rouge is a clergy coalition: civically immoral. There’s nothing as disgusting as watching Gov. Edwards ply personal Catholicism while the factional-Protestant clergy ply their black church vs white church conflict and the rest of the AMO recruits grin and smile their Chapter XI Machiavellianism.
Not understanding my thoughts is no reason to deny individual authority to comprehend and collaborate for civic morality in fidelity for personal benefits rather than AMO victimization of you.
Confusion of prayer with responsible behavior is a mendacious staple of clergy coalitions, and that is the reason the USA has been on the reluctant march toward civic morality rather than socialism, religious civilization, or other dominant opinion. Together Baton Rouge is a clergy coalition: civically immoral. There’s nothing as disgusting as watching Gov. Edwards ply personal Catholicism while the factional-Protestant clergy ply their black church vs white church conflict and the rest of the AMO recruits grin and smile their Chapter XI Machiavellianism.
Not understanding my thoughts is no reason to deny individual authority to comprehend and collaborate for civic morality in fidelity for personal benefits rather than AMO victimization of you.
To Kb Ott again: Together
Baton Rouge, an Alinsky affiliate, represents the will to incite people to
violence. Meet Alinsky himself in 1967, online at
youtube.com/watch?v=OsfxnaFaHWI. During the last two minutes, a student asks if
Alinsky condones violence. Alinsky responds that when a fundamental right is at
stake, yes, he recommends violence. However, I do not think violence as a
legitimate means of expressing a right or is ever justified except in actual
defense against violence.
I'd like to be involved in the categorization of violence. I
think lying or stonewalling a civic issue is verbal violence. I think a
representative voting for the lobbyist’s favor against the people is political
violence. For example, local favor to nursing home businesses is political
violence. Gov. John Bel Edwards' collegiality with Together Baton Rouge---the
Catholic vs white Protestant vs black Protestant vs dissidents bantering--- is
political violence. Mayor Broome’s platform of church and dialogues on
racialism are more arrogance than violence, but AMO influence is in there.
I might add that while clergy-coalitions always draw my
opposition, I was naïve about AMO until Jeremiah Wright, Jr. spoke at Southern
in February, 2015; nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2015/02/jeremiah_wright_tells_a_southe.html.
Hearing Wright speak inspired me to seek understanding, and I am still trying.
One thing is clear: the media try to obfuscate the fact that some blacks think
the only way a white can save his or her soul is to help black Americans reign
supreme.
I’m still naïve, because I think I can often talk to a person, black or of other color, for under five minutes and establish my belief that he or she considers me a fellow-citizen and would never lie to me . . . or not gain that trust.
I’m still naïve, because I think I can often talk to a person, black or of other color, for under five minutes and establish my belief that he or she considers me a fellow-citizen and would never lie to me . . . or not gain that trust.
To Harold Lasserre: Nicolo
Machiavelli, in "The Prince," 1513, Chapter XI, informed us that the
priest-politician-partnership picks the people's pocket and the people trust
their personal god to relieve them of the burden and debt;
maartens.home.xs4all.nl/philosophy/machiavelli/prince/notes/chapter11rem.html.
The partnership-tyranny goes on from generation to generation. The First Congress restored Chapter XI Machiavelianism as "freedom of religion," by May, 1789, and the consequence of "governance under god" instead of by the people is the chaos we now experience.
Humankind has achieved both physical and psychological
discoveries at exponential rates in the past 231 years---the time since the
civic agreement in the preamble to the constitution for the USA was offered.
Perhaps at last, most individuals will accept the human authority to behave for
civic morality during life even as they nourish comfort and hope for their
afterdeath.
Freedom of the
speaker (Elizabeth Crisp) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/article_9b7a66da-3368-11e8-977d-b39ebdb58a5d.html)
I found
the subject videos at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwliDxUblmI at 715
views and youtube.com/watch?v=zgsBQr4UqqA
at 27 views. I found three more videos by searching in youtube with “Louisiana
House Republican Delegation.”
The
age of freedom of the press’s competition with the National Inquirer is over.
The 2018 press may work on the means of being more reliable than the speaker,
in this case a political faction.
Consider someone who does not want to go it alone: I do my best to 1) understand whether I am dealing with a discovery or a mirage, 2) gather the facts about a discovery so as to comprehend and understand, 3) behave so as to benefit from the discovery, and 4) remain open-minded for new discovery that might change both understanding and my behavior. However, I cannot accomplish fidelity to the-objective-truth alone: Other civic citizens and a responsible press are essential to me and the people, including dissidents to justice.
Consider someone who does not want to go it alone: I do my best to 1) understand whether I am dealing with a discovery or a mirage, 2) gather the facts about a discovery so as to comprehend and understand, 3) behave so as to benefit from the discovery, and 4) remain open-minded for new discovery that might change both understanding and my behavior. However, I cannot accomplish fidelity to the-objective-truth alone: Other civic citizens and a responsible press are essential to me and the people, including dissidents to justice.
A criminal claims innocence, but the people want security.
Ministers promise attractive afterdeath, but an individual wants to live until
dead. Politicians politic, but the people seek justice. Social democrats want
what they want and demand it now. The (erroneous?) First Amendment authorizes
the press to be free, but the people require integrity.
A case closing
truth (Emma Discher) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/crime_police/article_78b35098-376a-11e8-9bd8-d33420451370.html)
To Thomas Winn: Winn, this is not your usual brevity, and for
good reasons.
Police Chief Murphy Paul: “The truth is if Alton Sterling was white and the
officers were white, we probably wouldn’t even be down here talking about it.”
Paul publicly witnessed to the denial of Salamoni’s civil
rights against racial discrimination. Paul may be fired, and Broome may resign.
Other forums
libertylawsite.org/2018/04/03/cultivating-virtuous-citizenship-a-law-and-liberty-symposium-on-american-national-character/
With the chaos we suffer, the USA
may consider the civic agreement that is offered in the preamble to the
constitution for the USA.
With a view to defend Magna Carta (1215),
the premise representing Professor Smith herein might hold in some groups, but
it does not offer civic morality:
Quote: Washington and
Madison recognized the need to . . . cultivate civic friendship, by which they
meant the formation of habits of “a people” dedicated to a common purpose and
informed by a certain set of principles and practices. Those principles were
the principles that Americans had fought and died for in the American
Revolution, summarily expressed in the Declaration of Independence and captured
in the phrase “self-government.” Unquote.
Imposing Madison’s
thoughts on Washington and the Declaration of Independence on the 1787
Constitution is unfavorable to 2018 collaboration, since Madison’s god differed
from Washington’s god; and they did not necessarily believe Jefferson’s god.
Here’s Washington, as fellow-citizen and expressing civic morality on June 8, 1783; loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/amrev/peace/circular.html. He said, “the existence of the United States as an Independent Power” requires:
Quote: The prevalence of that pacific and friendly Disposition, among the People of the United States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community. Unquote.
Here’s Washington, as fellow-citizen and expressing civic morality on June 8, 1783; loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/amrev/peace/circular.html. He said, “the existence of the United States as an Independent Power” requires:
Quote: The prevalence of that pacific and friendly Disposition, among the People of the United States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community. Unquote.
Soon, the Treaty of Paris would submit that the thirteen states that
conducted the Revolutionary War were free and independent. The thirteen free
and independent states ratified the treaty on January 14, 1784. The rest of the
Washington quote appeals to willing citizens in their states to collaborate for
general prosperity. It in effect, disengages from the declaration of war
against England so as to focus on establishing a nation. The states would
subsist independently for over three years before they began to negotiate the
USA, a negotiation that is as fierce today as ever. However, Washington’s
statement in 1783 was independent from Madison and other 1787 delegates.
“Self-government” seems a John Locke idea, but Locke’s religious diversity was confined to theism---did not consider trust-in and commitment-to the-objective-truth. Madison, in Memorial and Remonstrance said a citizens’ propriety for civic morality began with theism; my person, exercising human authority to direct fidelity, adamantly opposes Madison’s opinion. Washington seems a theist, but I doubt he would oppose my human authority regarding my fidelity. The heart of the USA regression so far is failure to recognize that the human individual must accept the authority to develop fidelity to the-objective-truth or not yet collaborate with other citizens so as to share the benefits of discovery.
“Self-government” seems a John Locke idea, but Locke’s religious diversity was confined to theism---did not consider trust-in and commitment-to the-objective-truth. Madison, in Memorial and Remonstrance said a citizens’ propriety for civic morality began with theism; my person, exercising human authority to direct fidelity, adamantly opposes Madison’s opinion. Washington seems a theist, but I doubt he would oppose my human authority regarding my fidelity. The heart of the USA regression so far is failure to recognize that the human individual must accept the authority to develop fidelity to the-objective-truth or not yet collaborate with other citizens so as to share the benefits of discovery.
I write “regression,” because the 2/3 of delegates who signed the 1787
Constitution (with Washington as chief advocate) created the framework by which
the people collaborate despite another division: civic citizens collaborating
against dissidents to justice. There are some dissidents to justice in almost
every social association, including theism.
On June 21, 1788, the people of nine states ratified the 1787 Constitution, establishing the USA, but with the intention to add a bill of rights. With that political opening, the First Congress (of ten states) hired, by May, 1789, factional Protestant ministers so as to represent themselves as divine on par with Parliament and its Canterbury clergy. American theism has fought to regress to Blackstone instead of the 1787 Constitution or the 1791 amendment, ever since. I work to separate church from state; and, to constrain civil alienation of some churches or none, to separate state from church.
Moreover, I work for private liberty with civic morality according to the-objective-truth, which in 2018 is a defensible view of the intent of the preamble to the constitution for the USA. Rather than conflict for dominant opinion, every human may develop his or her lifetime of energy in fidelity to the-objective-truth rather than religious beliefs as purported surrogates for civic morality.
On June 21, 1788, the people of nine states ratified the 1787 Constitution, establishing the USA, but with the intention to add a bill of rights. With that political opening, the First Congress (of ten states) hired, by May, 1789, factional Protestant ministers so as to represent themselves as divine on par with Parliament and its Canterbury clergy. American theism has fought to regress to Blackstone instead of the 1787 Constitution or the 1791 amendment, ever since. I work to separate church from state; and, to constrain civil alienation of some churches or none, to separate state from church.
Moreover, I work for private liberty with civic morality according to the-objective-truth, which in 2018 is a defensible view of the intent of the preamble to the constitution for the USA. Rather than conflict for dominant opinion, every human may develop his or her lifetime of energy in fidelity to the-objective-truth rather than religious beliefs as purported surrogates for civic morality.
In 2018, the need for reform to the 1787 Constitution by amendment of
the 1791 injustices is too obvious to stonewall. Most Christian clergy have
failing leadership: the pope, the archbishop of Canterbury, and Elmer Gantry
all are well known for sexual abuse. Many blacks don’t seem to care about the
preamble, even though Frederick Douglass did on July 5, 1852. Some believers
want salvation of their souls according to personal preference, but when they
face hurricanes, wild-fires, and tornedoes, they collaborate for mutual,
comprehensive safety and security---for life that yet waits death. Freedom of
the press has wandered so far from responsible reporting that it has made
itself irrelevant to on-line media. The entire Supreme Court is comprised of
theists: 3 Jews and 6 Catholics! Meanwhile, fidelity to the-objective-truth
empowers life and offers civil reform.
In 2018, we know so much more than humans knew a couple thousand years
ago when the Holy Bible’s books were written; 1700 years ago, when the Church
chose books to canonize; 800 years ago when the clergy-politician partnership
was formed so as to coerce believers; 500 years ago when Machiavelli warned of
the partnerships tyranny in “The Prince,” Chapter XI; 231 years ago when the
signers gave us a constitution that was neutral to religion, the races, and wealth;
and 77 years ago. Then, Albert Einstein suggested that fidelity to
the-objective-truth works both in the discovery of physics, with its progeny
such as mathematics and biology, as well as in morality;
samharris.org/my-friend-einstein/. Einstein’s only example is that a civic
people do not lie so as to lessen misery and loss rather than to observe a
divine law.
Self-government can succeed if a willing people accept human authority to collaborate for statutory justice based on the-objective-truth rather than dominant opinion. Human individuals have the authority to control their energy for life, and they may choose fidelity or not---criminality or worse. Humankind may coach and influence but cannot teach or coerce collaboration for justice. Therefore governments establish laws by which to force constraint, imprisonment, or death to uncivil people. But even the unjust individual has the human authority by which to judge and oppose arbitrary laws---laws based on dominant opinion. Therefore, arbitrary law produces chaos, as we observe in 2018 “under God.”
I know of no better forum than this one from which the proposal for civic collaboration for fidelity to the-objective-truth may emerge.
libertylawsite.org/2018/04/03/defining-freedom-up-national-character-revived-symposium-villanova/
Professor Allen asks, “can America
still be worthy of imitation if its national character does not point to the
fulfillment of spiritual needs as its highest priority?”
I think General George Washington, as fellow-citizen, answered “yes” on June 8,
1783; loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/amrev/peace/circular.html.
He said, “the existence of the United States as an Independent
Power” requires:
“The prevalence of that pacific and friendly Disposition, among the People of the United States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community.”
“The prevalence of that pacific and friendly Disposition, among the People of the United States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community.”
Thus, Washington, a theist, did not bring theism into
“general prosperity, and . . . sacrifice.” In other words, his appeal was
neutral to spiritualism. I think Washington would defend my objection to James
Madison’s attempt to impose theism, particularly Christianity, onto
citizenship.
Meriam-Webster online (WMO) defines spiritualism “the view
that spirit is
a prime element of reality,” spirit “an animating or vital principle held to
give life to physical organisms,” and reality “something that is neither
derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily.” I think inspiration and
motivation are less constructed than spiritualism, but would not impose that
opinion on other persons, especially MWW, who is Catholic.
Some people, perhaps like me, are inspired and motivated by
the-objective-truth, which exists and can only be discovered, perhaps
understood, and used for benefits. For a first example, knowing that the earth
is like a globe and influenced by gravity empowers people to sail without fear
of falling off an edge. Second, establishing trust by consistently neither
initiating nor tolerating a lie empowers collaborating partners to share
integrity rather than mere honesty. In these two discoveries, one physical and
the other psychological, yet coming from the same source, there is no need for
civic introduction of either of the collaborator’s private concerns, such as
hopes for a favorable afterdeath or reincarnation or rejoining a universal soul.
Conscience was critical to 17th century European
thought. MWO defines it “the sense or consciousness of
the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or
character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good.” Every
human individual has the authority to express civic good will and to behave
morally, yet must contend with coercion, mendacity, and force. An individual
may offer civic morality with private liberty.
The preamble to the constitution for the USA offers an
agreement on which to collaborate for civic morality; in other words, justice.
When he or she trusts-in and commits-to the preamble’s agreement, an individual
changes or reforms from dissident-to justice to civic citizen. The dissident
may live in peace as long as he or she conforms to both civility and legality.
The civic citizen may develop fidelity. It may be fidelity to-the-objective
truth, with or without religion.
I think with most citizens using the agreement offered by the preamble and collaboration based on the-objective-truth rather than dominant opinion, America can become what the signers of the 1787 Constitution intended.
I think with most citizens using the agreement offered by the preamble and collaboration based on the-objective-truth rather than dominant opinion, America can become what the signers of the 1787 Constitution intended.
libertylawsite.org/2018/04/03/masterpiece-cakeshop-religious-liberty-and-americas-character-villanova-symposium/
Mr. Santorum’s view of citizenship differs from mine. He
states, “Should the court rule
against [the baker,] “decent and honorable people” may no longer have a right
to publicly hold their opposing viewpoint.”
Therein,
Santorum does not appreciate civic citizenship. In the USA, Supreme Court
opinion on opinion is merely established law for enforcement, holds no sway on
individual opinion, and may not express justice. Unjust law, like Obergefell
vs. Hodges, waits to be overturned by a civic people of the United States, not
on religious opinion, but on appreciation of children as persons to protect
them from adult contracts and satisfactions. Adult same-sex bonds can be
otherwise honored and accommodated.
Between 200 and
300 Supreme Court opinions have been overturned. The frequency could be reduced
with an improvement in the court’s objective.
The court could
collaborate to discover and use the-objective-truth. When constitutional
injustice is discovered, the injustice must be referred to the Congress for new
legislation or potential constitutional amendment. From discovery during the
229 years of USA operation, We the People of the United States is informed that
conflict for dominant opinion, especially about theism, often increases but
does not lessen human misery and loss.
The clearest
example is the 1850s factional Protestant ministers in the South castigating
abolitionists as rebels against the Christian god’s plan to redeem blacks. See
Robert E. Lee’s 1856 erroneous lament at leefamilyarchive.org/9-family-papers/339-robert-e-lee-to-mary-anna-randolph-custis-lee-1856-december-27.
The CSA fired on the USA under the hubris, “public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with
the sanction of more erroneous religious belief”; http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp. The USA’s military power resolved the
1860s clergy-squabble over literature canonized as the Holy Bible. However,
another belief-squabble has arisen during the last six decades: black
liberation theology presented as Christianity posits that black is the chosen
skin color. The woe begged by CSA religious error is evidence of a fundamental
flaw in American morality: governance under theism.
In the
Philadelphia summer of 1787, Benjamin Franklin proposed to begin each morning’s
deliberations with prayer. The other 54 delegates did not second the suggestion.
Why?
Perhaps the
delegates knew that despite prayer their factional Protestant gods had not
defeated England’s Protestant god. France’s 30,000 military personal along with
the Continental army’s 11,000 soldiers had defeated England’s 9,000 at
Yorktown, VA, 1781. France rather than “Nature and Nature’s God” had helped the
thirteen states become free and independent according to the Treaty of Paris.
The states collectively ratified individual independence in 1784.
Three years
later, regardless of religious sentiments, 39 delegates from twelve states
issued the 1787 Constitution without the English tradition of acknowledging their
temporal god. Some delegates could not brook this or other provisions, so only
2/3 of delegates signed. Regardless of the founders and Declaration of
Independence signers, those 39 signers made the USA possible on September 17,
1787. On June 21, 1788, the ninth of the required state constitutional
conventions, the nine “ratifiers,” established the USA. The four dissenting states
were then in the position of joining the USA or remaining free and independent.
One joined in time for operations to begin on March 4, 1789 by a ten-state USA.
A long journey
to ruin began in April and May, 1789, when Congress hired factional Protestant
ministers perhaps so that congressmen could claim divinity on par with the
Canterbury-Parliament partnership. The 1787 Constitution’s signers were aware
of Chapter XI Machiavellianism and had prevented the priest-politician
partnership. However, the First Congress embraced divinity, and theism’s woe
has bemused and plagued America ever since.
Even the
marriage debacle Santorum strains at was made possible by Congress grounding the
1996 Defense of Marriage Act on Judeo-Christian tradition. As a person who
trusts-in and commits-to the-objective-truth I am incensed with Judeo-Christian
prevention of civic morality in the USA. In the USA, priests are barbarically,
practically exempt from laws against child abuse and other sex offenses! And the
US Supreme Court is split: 6 Catholics who have no religious bias vs 3 Jews who
have no religious bias. Yet the nine practice Judeo-Christian ritual rather
than collaborate to discover the-objective-truth.
According to
the-objective-truth, the state would prefer that children be conceived by
psychologically bonded couples who have committed both to mutual monogamy for
their lifetime and to love and care for any children and grandchildren.
Monogamy for life is not easy. Divorce rate is 50%, and only 13% of spouses
achieve monogamy for life. Often, spouses need counselling to overcome
psychological crises. For a man, nothing can compare with the challenge of
wooing a woman to bond with him for life! Some can’t. To encourage dedication
and responsibility, the state creates incentives and codifies the arrangement
through civil marriage. A religious marriage ceremony has no impact on the
civil incentives, such as legal responsibility for non-adult progeny.
Children are
not civically protected in same-sex partnerships, and I view same-sex family-hood
as a dangerous physical and psychological experiment. Same-sex partners may
bond for life, and if they agree to monogamy, a civil union is practical for
civic provisions such as co-insurance, medical responsibilities, retirement
benefits, and such.
However, the
partners can neither offer children the experience of monogamous, heterosexual
family-life nor procreate without third-, fourth-, or fifth-party adult
contracts. Also, there is nothing genetically wrong with one of the partners
falling in love with an adult child and divorcing in order to start a new
partnership or an original, heterosexual bond. Herein lies the civic
immorality: a civic people does not condone experimenting with the lives of
children. And it is immoral for the USA to impose the experiment on a civic
people. The basis is the-objective-truth rather than religion.
Do not harm. The
baker needs the opportunity to tell partners the products the bakery offers do
not include same-sex representations. It is up to the partners to shop
somewhere else. The moral principle here is: in every thought, every word, and
every act, neither initiate nor tolerate harm. The considerations are grounded
in physics and its progeny, including both biology and psychology. The gay
partners express harm if they try to force an unwilling vendor to serve them.
The vendor expresses harm if he tolerates the abuse rather than confront it.
The US Supreme
Court may neither initiate nor tolerate harm. It is important for the Supreme
Court to opine for the baker. Not for the baker’s sake, nor for religion’s
sake, but to begin to restore the court’s integrity.
Observing the erroneous religion of the Civil War as well as popular stonewalling, it does not seem likely that Santorum can imagine a better civic future by keeping spiritualism a private pursuit while collaborating to discover the-objective-truth rather than competing for dominant opinion. But I hope for pleasant surprise: Consideration, collaboration, and ideas better than the expressions herein.
Observing the erroneous religion of the Civil War as well as popular stonewalling, it does not seem likely that Santorum can imagine a better civic future by keeping spiritualism a private pursuit while collaborating to discover the-objective-truth rather than competing for dominant opinion. But I hope for pleasant surprise: Consideration, collaboration, and ideas better than the expressions herein.
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