Journalism schools of tyranny

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, state, nation, or other institution.

A personal paraphrase of the June 21, 1788 preamble, the USA Constitution’s most neglected legal statement:  Willing 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 the children --- and to cultivate limited USA services to us and our states. I want to collaborate with other citizens on this paraphrase, yet would preserve the original, 1787, text, unless it is amended by the people.   

Our Views
 
May 14 (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_f178d0e6-5300-11e8-be1f-bbdbc9751ed9.htm)

The Advocate personnel had the gall to introduce their campaign on Easter Sunday, a traditional family day and coincidentally, April fool’s day. They pushed unanimous jury vote hard---every weekend, I recall.

Perhaps it proves the LSU journalism school's edict: public opinion sets public policy and LSU poles determine public opinion. I hope not.

I felt blindsided, because in my one jury duty, the 10-2 rule was critical to justice. A severely uninformed jury member just kept saying "It's Exxon's deep pocket. Just give him the money!" The guilty plaintiff had to pay his court costs.

Poor James Madison had a bad Federalist 10 dream: "The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest. The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose."

If the Louisiana Legislature fails Madison's dream, justice will be left to the people of the Great State of Louisiana. If so, we'll see how it goes.

Regardless, I have learned a lot about majority votes versus unanimous votes. Given the chance, I will vote to keep the 10-2 rule. Then, I hope We the People of Louisiana will vote that way, too.

Maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised by defeat of HB 365 in the next step, the senate update of SB 243.

As we go forward, it will be interesting to see the people's reactions to The Advocate personnel's intent to effect legislation and the legislature’s acquiescence.

Will We the People of the United States emerge and effect civic morality instead of social morality?

To Marsha Marshal: The Advocate personnel published a year’s worth of evidence-based policy making; https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/policy-based-evidence-making. A civic citizen likes to respond promptly, but on April fool’s day et. al., responding to family takes precedence.

James Madison was unjust for 1787 and honestly had not the integrity for the tasks, as I have illustrated to you. It is tragic for anyone to look to Madison for higher authority when they have the human authority to develop integrity for 2018: integrity now and here.

To Marsha Marshal: "Just give him the money," comes in a civil trial.

To Marsha Marshal: Nobody said my interest in the preamble is common. In four years, the collaborators who participated in about 12 public meetings at EBRP libraries number about sixty, and the attendance may have been under 100. The least was one participant and the most was fifteen.

The Louisiana corporation, A Civic People of the United States, has wording to apply for a 501-c3 nonprofit status, but I have no desire to apply for tax exemption or organize. I hope citizens will establish private liberty with civic morality (or better) to express what they individually want, rather than as a political movement.

Furtherless, the political regimes beginning with the First Congress, have done all they could to suppress the power of the people (the preamble). Patrick Henry lobbied for the states instead of the people. Frederick Douglass praised the preamble and the articles that follow it and shamed the people (exponentially white) who, sixty-four years after ratification had not eradicated slavery in the USA. But the USA upheld the preamble and the constitution when the CSA attacked, citing the erroneous religious belief that blacks were being punished by God for past sins and abolitionists were evil to try to interfere with God's millennial plan. When that interpretation came to my attention, I no longer felt there was any honor in R. E. Lee's dilemma: He could have sold everything and left the state of Virginia for a free state at least five years before the Civil War entrapped him to defend home and family in Virginia. The USA ended discrimination with the civil rights acts of 1964-5. However, particular black leaders saw political advantage in promoting the importance of church assembly in the termination of discrimination. A confluence of black power, liberation theology, rules for radicals, the riots of the late sixties, and the Congressional Black Caucus produced both AMO (Alinsky Marxist Organization), its current prince Barack Obama with OFA in Chicago and W. D. C., and African-American Christianity, which I glimpsed through Jeremiah Wright, Jr. in February, 2015.

I express daily my work to promote and apply the agreement that is stated in the preamble, because I appreciate people and want an achievable, better future. I think African-American Christianity and other African-American associations have dominance in mind. We are fairly warned not to use gods for political gain. History is replete with examples that justice can only come from people: the gods exempt themselves from responsibility for peace. Also, the people who wrote 300 years ago do not know what you and I know and could not possibly help us make a better world for America's people and especially their children, who are treated as though James Madison's vision was barbarism. It wasn't so, but after 229 years of observation, it is obviously a failure.

What is your vision for an achievable, better future? Can your vision and mine become collaborative? I hope so.

To Marsha Marshal: The facts of the law are built on opinion rather than the-objective-truth, and no human who accepts his or her power, energy, and authority to develop integrity is influenced by opinion. He or she may have to yield to power or coercion, but may speak against it.

The bias of the jury person who mindlessly (perhaps as in a person not having the mind to think) said, "Just give him the money," when the plaintiff caused the accident, is as prejudicial as in a criminal trial. My experience and the expression of it are valid regardless of your opinion.

No one, at least me, objects to your continuous display of honesty, as it is.

To Marsha Marshal: Quoting my last post, "What is your vision for an achievable, better future? Can your vision and mine become collaborative? I hope so."

Everybody, apparently excepting you, knows about Obama's princehood: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/democrats-vs-trump/obama-aligned-organizing-action-relaunches-trump-era-n719311.

Columns

Kill HB 365 (James Gill) (theadvocate.com/new_orleans/opinion/james_gill/article_501a5382-4ee1-11e8-b429-d35c9544b293.html)

Add to the English and Scotland cases, 10-2 and 8-7, respectively, France’s 4-2 jury vote: “. . . only when prosecuted for a felony (crime in French). Conviction requires a two-third majority (four or six votes).” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#France.

If anything, Louisiana ought to revise its rule to 5-4, and require the jury pool to be civic citizens rather than dissidents according to the preamble to the constitution for the USA. After all, We the People of the United States, rather than Blackstone and England’s Protestant God, authorized and maintain the USA.

But these reforms are matters for a state constitutional convention, with broader reforms. There, a civic citizen may be defined as the individual human who accepts his or her human authority, power, and energy to develop integrity. Further, individuals who accept that human authenticity collaborate to discover the-objective-truth as the basis of justice rather than conflict for dominant opinion. With all citizens practicing fidelity to the-objective-truth, the nation could develop infallibility.

However, there will always be individuals who choose to try to take advantage of civic citizens. Therefore, the people must develop statutory justice, or laws derived from the-objective-truth.

The theory of an achievable, better future is developing right here in Baton Rouge, in EBRP library meetings.

Meanwhile, contact your state representative and senator and ask them to kill HB 365, which would change Louisiana’s 10-2 jury rule to 12-0. Also, kill HB 699.

  

News

Pope’s arrogance (Nocole Winfield, AP) https://apnews.com/33b208ef4bc84576a503b059629607db/Chile's-bishops-resign-en-masse-over-sex-abuse-cover-up

“Francis said the investigation showed there were “grave defects” in the way abuse cases were handled, with superficial investigations or no investigation at all.”

“For years, sex abuse victims have blasted the Chilean hierarchy for discrediting their claims, protecting abusers and moving them around rather than reporting them to police and then handing out light sentences when church sanctions were imposed.”

“Francis, though, has also been implicated in the scandal and he took responsibility for his role as well.”

The Vatican is a nation. I commend the world’s nations to conduct its own trial for crimes against humanity and perhaps jail the pope himself.

Prophecy (Michele Chabin, RNS) https://religionnews.com/2018/05/14/some-christians-and-jews-hail-embassy-move-to-jerusalem-as-key-to-a-biblical-plan/

The world appreciating Israel as a nation is important, regardless of how the nation emerged; http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29123668.

However, the attempt to unite Judeo-Christianity is futile.

Judaism is divergent. Christianity is more divergent, with nubian competition dating from the Israeli refuge in Egypt; https://reformjudaism.org/were-jews-slaves-egypt.

In Christianity, during the last five decades, there has emerged African-American Christianity, which itself is divided, and some branches as intent on black power as old as civilizations. Black on black power struggles in Africa produced that continent’s bitter commodity: the black slave. A consequence is that some blacks think the only way a white can save their soul is to help black Americans reign supreme.

If history holds, justice for Israel will be won and maintained by people: neither gods nor men’s prophecies about gods.

The biased leading the biased; or is it stupid leading stupid? (Gordon Russell) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_9d504fc4-5861-11e8-8165-2b2f550014c3.html)

It’s hard to imagine a weaker gubernatorial comment: “. . . we ought to get in line with the other states across the country for these felony convictions.” Yet I am grateful for Gov. Edwards unabashed ignorance, because it motivated me to look for crime data and have the luck to find it. Edwards can recover, but I doubt The Advocate personnel can. BTW, Gov. Edwards: For the USA’s sake, veto the act resulting from HB 699.

What’s happening in the other 48 states, the line Edwards wants to “get in”? There’s a glimpse in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide. The 2013 US Department of Justice data has the percentage of murder arrests by race as follows: 51.3% black, 33.5% white, 12.8% Hispanic. But numbers as arrests per million of that race in the population is 102 arrests per million blacks, 14 white, and 19 Hispanic. “Most homicides were intraracial, with 84% of white victims killed by whites, and 93% of African Americans victims were killed by African Americans. Juries could be managed by race: All white for white accused and so on. But we can have a population of impartial humans, if 2/3 of members of like-minded groups work for impartiality rather than discrimination.

Black Americans may realize at any time now, that Walter Williams, columnist and economist, and other leaders who react to data rather than manipulate data to support policy are correct: black leaders and black caucuses are picking black citizens’ pockets. Not only that, they are decimating black families and have been for about seven decades. Bad ideas, like discrimination, beg woe.

Last week Baton Rouge suffered five homicides in five days. A woman was interviewed who has lost, I recall, five family members. Losing one ruined my life, and I cannot recover from it. Jeremiah Wright, Jr’s words about what it means to lose a loved one draw tears in my person every time I think of them, let alone read them.

The above mentioned article could not identify a cause of black murder rates, but I think there emerged an unfortunate culture of domestic vigilantism the USA must defeat. The history of slavery, then Jim Crow, then the riots of 1968, have produced the community Ta Nehisi Coates describes, with police called only to clean up what the gangs did and nobody stepping forward to witness what went down.

The point of the 10-2 jury rule is to help guarantee impartiality. Plain and simple. That was the purpose in Louisiana from the beginning, no matter what language was being used. I have no idea what murder rates blacks suffered in 1898, but I’d bet they were much lower than they are now.

No way could “founding fathers” understand the good of 2018 diversity. I'm reminded of Kahlil Gibran's "On Children," from a new perspective; http://www.katsandogz.com/onchildren.html. Edwards’ words are as empty as any I have ever read. The words are as empty as Edwards’ aid to 2016 flood victims and competition with Kentucky for federal funds to combat street crime.

I don’t know about the rest of readers, but I am incensed at the systematic campaign The Advocate personnel have conducted on a drive to eliminate one of Louisiana’s great laws: the 10-2 jury vote, the purpose of which is to help provide an unbiased, impartial decision about the evidence presented at trial.

Federalism is designed for fifty states to learn from each other, and the other 48 cannot benefit from obfuscation and lies. Gov. Edwards, please veto the former HB 699. The advantage of federalism is among the reasons the U.S. Supreme court defended Louisiana’s 9-3 vote in Johnson v. Louisiana (1972). And now the Legislature and governor turn their back on its citizens, especially its black citizens. For what? The Advocate personnel’s hubris?

Between now and November, The Advocate personnel have the opportunity to gather and report data on which a vote can be decided rather than emotional propaganda on which their personal opinion can be promoted; add moral responsibility to freedom of the press. Gov. Edwards and Louisiana Legislators have the same opportunity. It’s never too late to correct a recognized error, no matter how the recognition of error emerges.

Every human entity has the power, energy, and authority to develop integrity and fidelity. I commend The Advocate personnel and the Gov. to reform from earnest bias. I would not want them on anyone's jury. I recommend people who understand and practice the preamble without discrimination.

Did not post:

I have been leading public discussions at EBRP libraries, now in the fifth year, discussions to consider, embrace, practice, and promote the civic agreement that is offered citizens in the preamble to the constitution for the USA. Our next meeting asks, what the preamble means to you and what American myths most seriously hurt private liberty with civic morality. The public is invited;  http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/entertainment_life/calendar/?/event/8721598/53272800/5th-annual-independent-independence-day-celebration.

The meeting room holds twenty, and I wish we’d need Tiger Stadium. However, sixty collaborators during about twelve meetings and in private discussions have developed ideas for an achievable, better future, not to satisfy the past narrow population of white factional Protestants with slaves, but for living citizens of all psychological maturities, where we are.

We envision achievable freedom-from oppression and liberty-to responsibly pursue individual happiness rather than the plan someone else has for the person. We envision a civic culture wherein most individuals develop the habit: In every thought, every word, every action, neither initiate nor tolerate harm. Use of the preamble empowers a civic people to, by example, encourage and coach dissidents to reform, whether incarceration is involved or not. Dissidents have as much power, energy, and authority as civic citizens; dissidents respond to the-objective-truth but reject arbitrary opinion.

These ideas do not describe a utopia, but they have never been expressed before in these ways, except on these pages. The people of Louisiana can initiate this way of living as soon as they want to, but it has to start with the curiosity to learn the theory, perceive its integrity, and start practicing.

To Marsha Marshal:

Thanks for the clarification.

Let me add that the U. S. Supreme Court, in 1972, upheld Louisiana's 9-3 jury rule. They recognized that Amendment 6 requires the state to guarantee the victim and the accused an impartial judicial process and Amendment 14 requires the USA to not meddle with state constitutions.

To Marsha Marshal: The 14th amendment defends a crime-victim from federal judicial processes that would impose favor to the fellow-citizen who is accused of the crime. In other words, the USA would not negate a state's method of providing impartiality to both victims of crime and the accused.

Any of the 48 states that use unanimous jury verdicts may understand the unfairness to crime victims and establish an 8-4 jury rule, passing possible challenge at the U.S. Supreme Court on the 14th Amendment. I hope these debates stir other states' imaginations for improving their judicial systems.

The idea of Louisiana giving up the statutory justice it has, and social democrats have fought for decades, is the product of The Advocate personnel’s sensationalism with selective Legislative camaraderie and vote swapping. (I speculate in that last statement, as I know nothing about fellow-citizens' motives.)

BTW: Fellow-citizens may become collaborators when they appreciate each other. You may find evidence of my sincerity by purchasing a book that contains my only published poem, "Davey." It's listed at https://www.amazon.com/Colors-Life-International-Library-Poetry/dp/0795152396/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8, from $2.99. The reviews inform that the 233 pages contain a 2003 treasure. If I can find the file, I'll post it and the "Artist's Profile," on my blog and let you know. Then, you may then want to call me by my name, Ray, as I requested.

To Marsha Marshal: The-objective-truth about law schools is that they are conflicted, confused, and a costly drain on the world's economy. Integrity in law schools seems essentially non-existent. Yet there are individuals who have discovered and develop integrity.

The consequence of the public meetings at EBRP libraries our group conducted during the past four years is a well-grounded theory of an achievable, better future. The goal is private liberty with civic morality by collaboration to discover and benefit from the-objective-truth rather than conflict for dominant opinion. Only a person who has this vision can make these statements, but that does not negate the attainability of the better future.

The practice may get under way without change to the USA legal system, merely by a super-majority of the people recognizing that the agreement offered in the first sentence of the constitution for the USA authorizes and maintains the entire legal system and its institutions and making the agreement.

Also, the preamble divides citizens into two groups: those who accept the agreement and dissidents. Among those who accept are many types, from law-abiding citizens to collaborators to discover the-objective-truth, and thereby statutory injustices. On discovery of injustices, collaborate to establish statutory justice. Statutory justice comes from the-objective-truth rather than dominant opinion. Most people, I think at least 2/3, want private liberty with civic morality and are willing to collaborate.

The fact that you cannot imagine what I have written means nothing. Typically, when I express our latest articulation, the other party responds, in effect, “I’ve never heard that before, but that’s the way it is.” And they smile or give me a high five. However, you cannot even muster the honesty to respond to the statement. Last time, you made fun of the acronym. Try to face the statement itself and respond to it rather than try fruitlessly to demean Ray.

The articulation, whether it is the-objective-truth or not:  Every human being has the individual power, energy, and authority (IPEA) to develop integrity.

To Marsha Marshal: It's not that you are informed about civil morality, social morality, and perhaps religious morality: you do not recognize civic morality: the intent to collaborate for mutual, comprehensive safety and security during life in this place rather than according to ideas that are obsolete by hundreds and thousands of years. Civic morality is person to person and it applies in the city, in the woods, in space, and most of all in private.

Since the first sentence in the constitution for the USA is laughable to you, nothing that follows in either the 1787 Constitution or the amended, extant constitution counts for anything. By all means no book about it is reliable.

Wake up! Life is too short to try to understand "impartial jury" according to miles of jurisprudence. It is far better to accept your individual power, energy, and authority (IPEA) to develop integrity . . . and fidelity.

To Marsha Marshal: I watered some flowers and fruit trees and recalled that I had tried to share my appreciation for Frederick Douglass’s 1852 speech.

He directly differed with the future you when he said: “I hold that every American citizen has a right to form an opinion of the constitution, and to propagate that opinion, and to use all honorable means to make his opinion the prevailing one. Without this right, the liberty of an American citizen would be as insecure as that of a Frenchman.”

If, four years after Douglass’s speech, Robert E. Lee had appreciated it, he would have sold everything and moved from Virginia to a free state, perhaps Massachusetts. Five years later, he could have accept President Lincoln’s request for his services as general for the USA.

If you are a person (not AI) and a lawyer, I hope someday you will smile and think, “One of my lessons in integrity came from Douglass’s success and Lee’s failure.”

By November, I hope you will perceive the justice of the 10-2 jury rule and vote to preserve it.

The 10-2 jury rule protects both victim and the accused, while 12-0 favors the accused (Gordon Russell) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_9d504fc4-5861-11e8-8165-2b2f550014c3.html)

The point is an impartial jury. The 10-2 jury rule facilitates ten unanimous votes when there are two partial jurists.

We'll learn if the Louisianans who vote in November will favor the 10-2 rule by an 8-4 vote, representing 2/3 of citizens who trust-in and commit-to the agreement stated in the preamble to the constitution for the USA.

Racism (John Simerman) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/article_3b633f84-5798-11e8-a5d1-f361ba45aedc.html)

I commend Gov. John Bel Edwards to veto any enactment of SB 243, as it neglects the victim of the crime. Forty-eight states suffer this neglect, but that’s no reason for Louisiana to deny its excellence.

As a victim of a crime, a citizen is guaranteed, by the laws of this land, an impartial jury to hear the evidence against the accused and the accused’s defense. On what basis could a victim demand relief from partiality? Surely not race, gender, religion, or wealth. I suggest civil dissidence.

The laws and institutions of the USA begin with this statement: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our [Children], do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” I know, "Posterity" is more than Children, but I do not like the USA's neglect of children.

The above agreement is offered to citizens of the USA. Many citizens are dissident to the agreement for individual reasons---from ignorance, to civil objections, to belief that crime pays, to evil. Dissidence against the purpose and goals of the laws of the land seems just cause for exclusion from the jury pool. I hope the reader perceives my point: an impartial “jury of peers” is select. In the present system, qualifications are determined in the courtroom.

SB 243, as presented in this article, is intended to end a 120 year-old racial problem. In other words, it is a dialogue on racism. However, its effect is to negate Louisiana’s judicial excellence in preventing partiality from disallowing unanimity among a constitutionally sound majority---anything above 8-4, presently 10-2. Let me repeat that: A partial jury member’s vote is negated when a super-majority reaches unanimity. This principle has been expressed by the U. S. Supreme Court. It is possible to improve the existing jury rules, but the super-majority vote should not be eliminated.

I encourage Gov. John Bel Edwards to consider the victim’s view in these legislative emotions; review the U.S. Supreme Court opinions, especially in Johnson v. Louisiana (1972); consider the jury pool he would want for both victim and the accused in a jury-trial; consider the Federalist 10 appeal to elected officials to exercise wisdom the people cannot perceive (because they are too busy living); and veto any SB 243 enactment.

Every governor, being human, has the individual power, energy, and authority to exercise integrity, and integrity is both particular and abundant. That is, the integrity delivered one time does not reduce its availability for the next decision.

On the other hand, if Gov. Edwards takes the easy route, “let the people decide,” Louisiana will get a November opinion from the few who vote.

I did not quote the article, but wanted to save these statements:

“Liberal advocacy groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Southern Poverty Law Center have been campaigning to change the law for years. But over the past few weeks, conservative groups such as the Louisiana Family Forum and Americans for Prosperity also got behind it. 

Meanwhile, the powerful Louisiana District Attorneys Association, which initially opposed it, backed off and took a neutral position.”

To Marsha Marshal: Thanks for the reference and interpretation.

About, "I get to write that a lot," I write to promote the-objective-truth, and when constitutions refute the-objective-truth, they are destined for amendment. I have felt that should be obvious.

I had seen Edwards' comments, but an individual's honesty can always turn to integrity.

The important event is to save the 10-2 jury vote, and move on to a collaborative future. All things are possible. We'll see how it turns out.

Marsha Marshal

82-15.

78-18.

OUCH.

Place your bets: Who will Phil Beaver put the blame on for this debacle?

a) The Council of Nicaea
b) Alinsky Marxist Organizations (AMOs)
c) Abraham Lincoln’s lack of integrity
d) The First Congress of the U.S. 
e) un-civic non-2/3rds dissidents to the Preamble
f) African-American Christianity
g) Factional Protestantism that was inserted into the Constitution (in 1791?) and suppressed the Preamble 
h) Me 
i) The 6th Amendment 
j) Black leaders who need to all resign
k) People Phil wants to strike from jury pools because they won’t swear to his stupid Preamble pledge or whatever
l) The irresponsible press 
m) Chapter XI Machiavellianism
n) Our Precious Bodily Fluids 

Vote now. Or on November 8th.

Like · Reply · 17h · Edited

To Marsha Marshal: A couple omissions of my arguments come to mind.

Appreciation of each human’s individual power, energy, and authority (IPEA) to develop integrity and fidelity---or not.

Frederick Douglass, in his 1852 speech before the President of the USA extolled the preamble, complimented its authors, and scolded the younger generation that had ended purchasing Africa's commodity, black slaves, but conducted a vigorous domestic slave trade.

Jeremiah Wright, Jr. on the other hand, metaphorically burned his flag, which I explained at Southern University in February, 2015 (see my essay). I oppose his version of African-American Christianity, but never stop trying to learn more about it.

One woman told me it was an Ethiopian Christianity. Regardless, it matters not to me as long as believers cause neither civic harm, civil harm, nor legal harm.

Of course, I would be happy to iteratively collaborate on any and all of my statements. I am especially interested in promoting the preamble as the first civil statement in the constitution for the USA and the civic agreement that the USA offers to citizens.

Chapter XI Machiavellian coalition (Gordon Russell) (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/article_4441459e-4cb0-11e8-9360-afe50deb651e.html)

Before the day is done (because the vote may come tomorrow), consider to phone or email your state representative and state senator and urge them to kill HB 365, a Louisiana judicial treasure.

The only way I can imagine the political coalition The Advocate describes is that the Louisiana Legislature imagines the end of the Chapter XI Machiavellianism that has sustained legal largesse, at the expense of the people. That partnership against the people has prevailed for 1700 years.

The end of the priestly-politician partnership requires integrity of a civic people; in other words, people living in their time and place to collaborate for mutual, comprehensive safety and security rather than the life someone else prescribed for them. A civic people practices their religious comforts and hopes in privacy rather than trying to impose on other citizens. One consequence of the past 1700 years, over and above sexual abuse by the clergy, is the divisive phrase “African-American Christianity.”

Everything that has transpired had to happen to bring the USA to the possibility for an achievable better future. It is right and good that the vision would form in the Great State of Louisiana. Louisiana is distinguished by its association with France, which to this day is a world leader in liberty, equality, and fraternity. The French distinction is special to me, because MWW is Louisiana-French Catholic with serene, individual integrity. Her genes empower dual citizenship.

Moreover, with her collaboration on public meetings at EBRP libraries since June 21, 2014, there has emerged a proposal for an achievable better future. Elements include: 1) a super-majority, historically 2/3, of citizens trusting-in and committed-to the civic agreement that is stated in the preamble as the legal purpose for the constitution for the USA; 2) appreciation of each human’s individual power, energy, and authority (IPEA) to develop integrity and fidelity---or not, for example, if he or she thinks crime pays in an unjust culture; 3) collaboration to discover and understand how to benefit from the-objective-truth, such as the earth is like a globe, civic citizens don’t lie to each other, and crime begs woe; and 4) developing statutory justice that both constrains dissidents and coaches the willing to develop integrity. In this possible culture, a civic person, in every thought, word, and action, neither initiates nor tolerates harm. Every citizen is free-from oppression so that he or she may responsibly live to achieve his or her dream rather than accept the happiness someone else imagined for them.

HB 365 facilitates a civic culture, and the other 48 states may eventually mimic Louisiana in its deliberate judicial balance in the victim-accused deliberation. First, Louisiana may celebrate the excellence of it 10-2 jury rule.

To Marsha Marshal: The-objective-truth seems totally bonkers to social moralists and Bible thumpers. It is not Phil Beaver that rebukes your brand of conservatism: It's actual reality---the indisputable facts, which reason cannot produce. For example, my name is Ray.

A collaborative reader can easily goolge “Chapter 11 Machiavellianism” and find "http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince11.htm." James Madison read The Prince, but Chapter XI did not favor Madison schemes, so he ignored it. All your pretense bemuses only you.

The era of ignorance is over, because the age of integrity has arrived. Catch the train; grab the caboose; or remain dissident.

It is not too late to email or call your state representative and state senator and urge them to kill HB 365. It may be heard on the house floor tomorrow.

Biased lies (Jim Mustian et. al.) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/courts/article_db7c4a82-0a9b-11e8-80fd-7b5b18c775c3.html)

Do your part to kill HB 365, to be heard on the floor on May 15.

It is difficult to imagine that The Advocate personnel do not perceive that the public is reading their mendacities; the record is not erasable.

The Advocate personnel do not even analyze how and why the US Supreme Court upheld the non-unanimous jury vote. At stake is impartial reality rather than biased lies. The sixth amendment holds a state responsible for “an impartial jury.”

   

Consider freedom of integrity. The Louisiana Constitution reads, “No law shall curtail or restrain the freedom of speech or of the press. Every person may speak, write, and publish his sentiments on any subject, but is responsible for abuse of that freedom.” For example, yelling “fire!” in a crowded venue invites woe. During 227 years under the USA’s First Amendment, the irresponsible press invited public disdain let alone mistrust. The press has demonstrated that it neither understands nor revers integrity.

Jury rules address the “impartial” provision. Involved are human fallibility and perceptions, ethnic bias, ignorance, and criminality.

Everybody knows that if ten people witness an unexpected event, like an auto accident, there will be ten eyewitness accounts and controversy about responsibility.

Ethnic bias has produced, over the last five decades, the concept “African-American Christianity.” I spend a lot of energy trying to understand, and told a black friend, “It makes me no difference if my neighbor thinks I am going to go to hell because I do not work to make black Americans reign supreme, as long as he or she observes the law---does me no civic harm.” However, I oppose ministers who preach ideas like Jeremiah Wright’s “look to our god, not government.” See unconstructive quotes at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/mar/18/barackobama.uselections20083. I do not even quote awful swearing, so referred to “flag burning” in my essay about it. When I asked Wright to read it, he said, “But I did not burn my flag.” I responded, “I do not quote awful swearing.” I think we both smiled as he signed my flyer. I think underneath the pain he’s a nice person. But I would not accept him into a jury pool.

Most Americans are ignorant that the preamble to the constitution for the USA is a legal contract. It’s essence is: Willing people of the USA agree to the purpose and goals stated herein and for that purpose created and maintain these laws and institutions to effect the laws under the name “The United States of America.” Some people oppose one of the goals and work to improve the agreement. For example, I prefer integrity to unity, as opinion can be involved among the people. However, some people oppose the contract because they perceive advantage by abusing the willing citizens, whom I refer to as civic citizens, meaning they collaborate for freedom from oppression during the shared parts of their lifetimes in this country. I do not plan to be the subject of a jury trial, but because I neither initiate nor tolerate harm to my fellow citizens: Therefore, I want the jury pool to consist of citizens who can demonstrate both trust-in and commitment-to the agreement that is stated in preamble to the constitution for the USA. It is the first legal statement in that document.

Lastly, there are, among the citizens, persons who accept individual power, energy, and authority but personally develop criminality rather than integrity. Such people should be kept out of the jury pool.

I want to mention one other point made in today’s coverage by The Advocate personnel. Unanimity puts undue pressure on the human fallibility in jury duty. Similar pressure is relieved in some firing squads. One rifle has a blank cartridge. All squad members may hold doubt as to whether he or she was an executioner or an exempt servant. It’s not quite analogous, but jury members should have a similar benefit of doubt. Jury members are judging judicial proceedings, rather than the accused.

The above considerations---human fallibility, ethnic bias, ignorance, and criminality---address impartiality. The struggle for impartiality is as old as grammar. Therefore, what anyone in history had to say about impartiality pales before the integrity that the Great State of Louisiana expresses in its 10-2 jury rule and the ability to disallow a limited number of prospective jurors without explanation. If there will be any change to the rule, it should be to provide an impartial jury pool and move toward a smaller majority rule, perhaps like the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decisions. If any states correct their failures to provide impartial jurors, some may mimic Louisiana, but in no circumstance should Louisiana compromise its distinct civic justices.

As for The Advocate’s racial opportunism, my only caution is that institutions, like persons, have individual power, energy, and authority to develop integrity . . . or not.

Kill HB 365; http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?s=18RS&b=HB365&sbi=y.

To Bob Watts:  Watts, you read the evidence in the data despite the policy The Advocate personnel try to impose on Louisiana. The Advocate’s victim is our black fellow citizens; The Advocate’s basis is social morality, which opposes justice.

By a states’ vote of 27-7, the USA defeated the immorality of Christian slavery in the Civil War. The USA continued to fight for justice through the 1964-5 civil rights acts. However, beginning in the early 1970s there emerged “African-American Christianity.” See https://www.wsj.com/articles/dr-kings-radical-biblical-vision-1522970778 , but the divisive phrase is not attributable to Martin Luther King, Jr., as I understand it.

It is a community, spiritual vigilantism, and it breeds crime. The policy of church and dialogues on racism promise divergence unto chaos. Rather than nourishing the vigilantism, We the People of the United States may work on assimilation. But assimilation to what?

Every person has the individual power, energy, and authority (IPEA) to develop integrity. The preamble to the constitution for the USA offers an agreement to achieve public integrity. By personally accepting individual authority and the preamble’s agreement, assimilation as a civic people who, by example, encourage dissidents to reform, may be achieved.

To Marsha Marshal: I would neither impose an appearance at the State Capital on anyone nor encourage them to subject themselves to such abuse, except as an exercise in learning about Louisiana, legislative vote-swapping. Some legislators, in their camaraderie and colloquialisms habitually insult their constituents. Some constituents drive for hours, discover the parking maze, find a seat, sign a green card, and face a panel whose members had negotiated their votes days before the meeting.

Friends and neighbors, call or email your representative and your senator and ask them to kill HB 365; http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1090162.

HB 365 would negate one of the Louisiana citizen’s constitutional treasures: the majority, 10-2 vote in jury trials. The provision has been under attack for decades. The U. S. Supreme court upheld the Louisiana Constitution’s 10-2 majority provision in Johnson v. Louisiana (1972). Justice Powell wrote, “. . . a system employing a 7-5 standard, rather than a 9-3 or 75% minimum, would afford me great difficulty . . . ‘a substantial majority of the jury’ are to be convinced.” In all functions, including Louisiana legislative decisions to offer voters an amendment to the constitution, “Beyond a shadow of doubt,” is fictitious. If anything, Louisiana should consider restoring 9-3 and instituting 4-2 in petit juries.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Lambert’s 2015 appeal against Johnson V. Louisiana; http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2017/10/us_supreme_court_wont_hear_lat.html and http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2017/09/could_a_treme_retaliation_murd.html. “We've reached the point as a society where this issue of race and oppression and social justice is starting to be something that we can no longer ignore," said Southern University Law Center professor Angela Allen-Bell. Why doesn’t The Advocate inform readers about this racial “social justice”?

The Advocate personnel, in their folly and irresponsibility, have made a strong, biased bid (I think for hubris in power of the press and social justice rather than moral justice) to give up a provision of equity for victims that no other state has. Oregon’s provision is not as equitable as Louisiana’s and the other 48 must work harder for justice for victims.

At stake is integrity of the Louisiana Legislature to resist The Advocate’s support of social democracy rather than the civic citizens’ rule of law. Lawyers who favor offenders (why?) constantly attack Louisiana’s just system in settlement of disputes between the victim and the accused. Legislative energy should be spent on law enforcement that produces evidence beyond doubt, to be presented to an impartial jury. The jury is charged to consider the evidence against the accused and his or her response to the evidence, in appreciation of the law, rather than innocence/guilt of the accused.

Kill HB 365.

BTW (and omitted from the post as not helpful to my purpose) If this was football, you’d get a 15-yard penalty for taunting. As always, you may choose to call me by my name, Ray. Anything else is your habitual attempt to abuse my person.

To Marsha Marshal again: In 1860, the states, despite intentions of the 1787 Constitutional Constitution, were still split: slave states v free states. In February, 1861 seven states' representatives met and established the CSA, and organized to attack the then 27 opposing states. The CSA's declaration of secession listed complaints and concluded that dispute-resolution was not possible because politics in the North was influenced by "a more erroneous religious belief."

In 1865, the USA's military might had defeated the South's belief: the blacks were suffering a millennial punishment according to an erroneous Christian opinion. White Christians who thought blacks were people defeated white Christians who thought abolitionists were trying to force their will on Christianity.

I cannot imagine what it would be like if my retirement plan, now in its 17^th year of execution was suddenly wiped out, but that’s somewhat like what happened financially to black families in vanquished Richmond, when Abraham Lincoln visited on April 4, 1865. “. . .  Admiral Porter . . . ordered a guard of marines to follow as escort; but [Lincoln] was directed by negroes”; http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/richmond.htm. The negroes were jubilant, because they knew they were free, even though they did not know what to do next day. White Christians with the integrity to recognize negro personhood had rejected erroneous white-Christian Bible beliefs.

Their plight was isolation from their homeland of capture and sale, without awareness of the civic morality they could develop in their land of destiny. They could help develop We the People of the United States, as defined in the preamble to the constitution for the USA. Political regimes could have aided the horrendous task of assimilation of erroneous Christians and blacks by promoting the preamble, but instead they have tried to continue the use of force and coercion. CONTINUED

CONTINUATION

After the 1964-5 Civil Rights acts, a conflation of black power, liberation theology, check cashing, and rules for radicals produced a divisive phrase “African-American Christianity,” whose authors may interpret; https://www.wsj.com/articles/dr-kings-radical-biblical-vision-1522970778. I heard Jeremiah Wright’s view. It may prevail, but I imagine Christianity will yield to We the People of the United States. I hold Wright's claim that it is white Christianity's fault in less esteem than Lincoln's immoralities.

Unfortunately, Abraham Lincoln’s political career was grounded in the 1776 Declaration of Independence (DoA) from England’s Blackstone common law and Canterbury Christianity rather than the 1787 Constitution for the USA. Its first legal statement, the preamble, establishes the division of citizens: those willing to trust-in and commit-to the civic contract stated therein versus dissidents. Political regimes, for particular reasons have suppressed the civic contract that is offered to citizens in the preamble. I write “civic” rather than “civil,” because the agreement works justice for current people where they are rather than erroneous, extant laws and institutions which the people can change when they discover statutory injustice.

As far as I know, in 1863, when Lincoln expressed his private dream, “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth,” he also dreamed of relocating the blacks to Africa or Central America; https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/9/book-lincoln-sought-to-deport-freed-slaves/. In other words, it seems Lincoln did not consider blacks as We the People of the United States. IMO, Lincoln’s political use of the DoA rather than the preamble to the constitution plus Frederick Douglass’s preamble-complimentary July 5, 1852 speech to fellow-citizens is evidence of Lincoln’s individual immorality and privation of integrity. Weak individuals look to higher power to carry the burden of evil schemes.

The South Carolina legislation acted to favor perhaps 1% of the population when they made their bid for secession. If the citizens of SC had considered, adopted, promoted, and celebrated the individual liberty with civic morality that the preamble offers, in its agreement, I think they would have stormed Charleston and demanded of the legislators, “Not on my citizen’s watch will you secede from my country.”

Alas, most citizens today do not admit to themselves that the preamble is a civic contract on which the civil management of the USA’s federalism is based. Especially ministers, politicians, and lawyers do all they can to prevent citizens from admitting to themselves that each person has the individual power, energy, and authority (IPEA) to establish integrity. As long as the majority citizens do not collaborate for integrity the USA has not integrity. As a human being (I assume, recognizing you could be a computerized AI) you are qualified to collaborate for integrity rather than conflict for dominant opinion.

The constitution for the State of Louisiana has the distinct provision that jury votes of 10-2 may decide felony cases. Almost weekly a pertinent case with its importance occurs. The 10-2 decision is supported by the USA. The other 48 states may reform to Louisiana’s excellence in this regard, but Louisiana should not regress to their erroneous oversight.

Meanwhile, citizens for statutory justice may contact (today, since the vote goes to the house floor tomorrow) their representatives and senators to defeat the erroneous HB 365.

To Marsha Marshal again:

That's right: a citizen showing up at the capital tomorrow, as you suggested, instead of following my request---if they oppose HB 365, to call or email their representatives today, May 14---would be a waste of the citizen's time and energy, except to observe any overt vote-swapping. But you'd prefer they waste their time and money when the bill may (may not) go to the floor on May 15.

  

And while 7-5 or 58% is favorable to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 or 56%, I urge for 2/3 of citizens (66%) to be civic according to the preamble. I read and write to collaborate, and accepting Justice Powell’s preference for 9-3 (75%) is collaboration. You misrepresent the quote as "the Supreme Court" rather than Justice Powell’s opinion, but mendacity is typical on these pages.

If you are human rather than AI, don’t forget: individual power, energy and authority (IPEA) may be exercised for integrity rather than mendacity; for morality rather than dominant opinion; for statutory justice rather than deceptive legislation; for humanity rather than racial privilege; for privilege earned by responsibility rather than coercion. Each human establishes his or her record of developing integrity or not.

To Marsha Marshal again: I read, write, talk, and preach to learn, and based on what I quoted, I defer to 9-3 (75%) or 8-4 (my usual 67% goal). Powell opinion is what it is: opinion.

Every US Supreme Court opinion is subject to reversal, if and when injustice is discovered. The potential to reverse is a direct consequence of the agreement that is stated in the preamble to the constitution for the USA. The preamble offers citizens an agreement to pursue integrity, which is determined upon the discovery of the-objective-truth rather than opinion.

But the agreement is not for every citizen. Some erroneously think crime or worse pays and that civic citizens are ready victims. Citizens, by their thoughts, words, and actions distinguish themselves, many with unawareness that in America, the people's march to justice is unrelenting and failing integrity echoes from the capital-chamber walls.

   

Other fora

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-problem-with-masculinity-in-society-today/answer/
The question, “What is the problem with masculinity in society today?” is perhaps the most important one I can imagine that has the potential to help create an achievable better future.
My response has three important elements. First, the human condition is such that each person has individual power, energy, and authority (IPEA) to develop integrity (or not). Unlike animals of instinct and independence soon after birth, the human being requires about three decades to complete its brain and begin to evaluate experiences and observations to build wisdom. I doubt “wisdom” applies to any other species.
Second, so far, no culture I am aware of has evolved to take advantage of the above articulation (“articulation” so as not to make the assumption that it expresses the-objective-truth). Instead, cultures foster the arrogance that children ought to behave as the parents who physically conceived them, even though the children will be adults during a time their parents cannot imagine, much less control. See Kahlil Gibran (Kahlil Gibran On Children) for a theological statement of this important idea.
Instead of “teaching” children, educators should present them the extant information and encourage them and coach them to utilize IPEA to develop beyond integrity to fidelity to the-objective-truth. It is a comprehensive fidelity.
Third, according to the-objective-truth, every human may be conceived in appreciation. Appreciation is an intention that surpasses both love and life; psychology and physics; god and government. Thus, the man and woman (or more adults) who collaborate to create a new human being do so in appreciation and intent to care for that person until death. Adult contracts that terminate on creation of a human lack the appreciation required and therefore deny the person’s humanity. The slighted person has the IPEA to recover, and recover she or he may. William Faulkner’s “Barn Burning,” illustrates such IPEA; a child walks away from his natural family to seek justice; Full text of "Collected Stories Of William Faulkner".
As a consequence of these three articulations, we may think that every fertile woman may recognize her collaboration with her viable ova, each a potential person. She may care for her body, mind, and personal relationships so as to protect her ova. Likewise, every man may appreciate the woman’s collaboration with her viable ova. In no way would he threaten the woman and her viable ova with un-attachment for life: neither physically nor psychologically.
The way of life that follows these articulations may be labeled “a civic culture,” where “civic” represents citizens responsibly living for individual happiness rather than the dictates of technology, government, religion, tradition, or any other constructed constraint on the-objective-truth. If a civic culture existed, any other way of living would seem barbaric.
There will always be humans who employ IPEA for infidelity, so a civic culture requires statutory justice—-law and law-enforcement according to the-objective-truth. The possibility that a civic culture has not been articulated before does not mean it is unattainable.
I write to learn and hope there will be comments.

https://www.facebook.com/WSJOpinion/posts/909881512525657

The agreement that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA replaces disputes over religions, spiritualisms, metaphysics, and philosophies, making them private pursuits of personal happiness rather than public interests. Judeo-Christianity as civilization, civil morality, and even religious morality is obsolete. Let me repeat that: An individual's religious beliefs are private affairs and have no public standing unless coercion or force becomes involved in the imposition of religious opinion.

What children need is mutual, comprehensive safety and security, and adults like Lieberman are barbaric in their competition with their children's, grandchildren's and beyond's future. It is time for 229 years of unconstitutional imposition of religion in the USA to end.

https://constitution.laws.com/we-the-people

Jurisprudence in the USA is confused by statements like, “While the Preamble in which those words appear does not actually have any innate legal implications beyond introducing the rest of the Constitution.” The author may be honest, but the statement is not verifiable.

The preamble offers each citizen an agreement, and depending on acceptance, he or she is either civic or dissident. Likewise, a state that does not agree is dissident. The Civil War demonstrated that a state that rescinds its perpetual commitment can secede only with the military power to effect the separation.

The preamble is revolutionary. It breaks from Great Britain, the oldest constitutional monarchy and the oldest continuous civilization in the world. When the American Revolution broke out, free citizens were 40% statesmen, 40% passive, and 20% loyalists. The prevalent way of living was British colonial, in other words American factional, Protestantism with Blackstone Common Law. Therefore, the First Congress restored legislative “divinity” by hiring factional-Protestant members, obfuscating governance under the people with “under God.”

My paraphrase is: Citizens in our state want to achieve the goals stated herein and therefore maintain limiting laws and institutions whereby the USA may serve us in our states. A citizen who cannot accept the preamble as the basis of American civics and law ought not to serve in any civil capacity, even to vote. That includes people in the highest offices of the land.

The preamble may be improved, so state the objection and suggest improvement, but meanwhile, be civic; that is, behave according to the agreement.

We encourage citizens to read, contemplate, adopt, practice and promote the civic agreement that is stated in the preamble.

libertylawsite.org/2018/04/03/to-secure-the-blessings-of-liberty-sharing-stories-of-american-civic-purposes-virtuous-citizenship-symposium/

Nothing confuses readers more than Abraham Lincoln’s revisionist history. Some people think the preamble to the constitution for the USA, 1787, is the first sentence of the eastern seaboard British colonies declaring to the king that they were free and independent states, 1776.
 

Joe Lieberman, “A Holiday for the Rule of Law”, Wall Street Journal, May 18, 2018, page A13, https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-holiday-for-the-rule-of-law-1526598748

Quoting Joe Lieberman, with two changes in order of thought, “The Ten Commandments, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution require the U.S. to do everything possible to help restore justice and freedom [in] the [world’s] balance between [law and liberty].”

I disagree and cannot imagine a more precise expression of why the USA suffers divergent, rational chaos instead of the human integrity and fidelity it offers to its own citizens.

The preamble to the constitution for the USA is the world’s only sentence that offers civic citizens---those who intend to responsibly live their lives according to personal happiness rather than to a conflicted prescription such as Judeo-Christianity---the opportunity to admit to individual independence by collaborating to discover and benefit from the-objective-truth.

The preamble proposes to set aside the 1774 colonial declaration of free and independent statehood; accept the independence that thirteen states won from Blackstone common law, Canterbury religion, and the English bill or rights; replace the confederation of states with a statutorily limited federation; preserve the integrity of willing citizens in their states; and continually address the concerns of dissident individuals.

Every human has the individual power, energy, and authority (IPEA) to develop integrity or not. Integrity demands fidelity to the-objective-truth, which yields not to objective truth, reason, tradition, force or any other human construct. IPEA empowers a person to reject erroneous opinion; that is, neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from any person, government, or god.

The government that attempts to deny its citizens’ IPEA is a tyrant. A tyranny may have an achievable, better future if most of its citizens trust in and commit to the preamble, or better, for civic morality, keeping religious morality private. Elected and appointed officials are first citizens: either willing citizens or dissidents.

Note: Lieberman also erroneously claims that Israelis were slaves in Egypt.

 Phil Beaver does not “know.” He trusts in and is committed to the-objective-truth which can only be discovered. Conventional wisdom has truth founded on reason, but it obviously does not work. Phil is agent for A Civic People of the United States, a Louisiana, education non-profit corporation. See online at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com, and consider essays from the latest and going back as far as you like.