Voluntary Civic People of Baton Rouge: March 2019

Saturday, March 30, 2019

The opportunity to vote

Qualification to vote in the U.S.

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 individual happiness with civic integrity more than for the city, state, nation, or society.

Consider writing a personal paraphrase of the preamble, which offers fellow citizens mutual equality: For discussion, I convert the preamble’s predicate phrases to nouns and paraphrase it for my proposal as follows: “We the civic people of the united states in order to develop individual discipline, civic integrity, justice, defense, and prosperity so as to perpetually preserve liberty, maintain statutory law for the USA.”

I want to collaborate with the other citizens on this paraphrase and theirs. I would preserve the original, 1787, text, unless it is amended by the people.

It seems no one has challenged whether or not the preamble is a legal statement. The fact that it changed this independent country from a confederation of states to a union of states deliberately managed by disciplined fellow citizens convinces me the preamble is legal. Equity in opportunity and outcome is shared by the people who collaborate for human justice.

Every citizen has equal opportunity to either trust-in and collaborate-on the goals stated in the preamble or be dissident to the agreement. I think 2/3 of citizens try somewhat to use the preamble but many do not articulate commitment to the goals. However, it seems less than 2/3 understand that “posterity” implies grandchildren. “Freedom of religion,” which fellow citizens have no means to discipline, oppresses freedom to develop integrity.

Selected theme from this week

The importance of the U.S. preamble’s proposition has been hidden since March 4, 1788, when the first Congress was seated representing eleven eastern seaboard states. Fellow citizens who care nothing for the U.S. preamble should hold no office in the U.S. and should not be allowed to vote. Fellow citizens, especially elected officials, who do not collaborate for statutory justice ought to reform or be excluded from elections.

Columns

On civic education, prompted by Bobby Jindal’s upcoming speech in Ohio (Roger Beckett, 2015) (https://www.twincities.com/2015/03/27/roger-beckett-students-must-fully-understand-the-principles-that-make-america-great/)

Note: this was prompted by the news that Bobby Jindal will speak about civic education next month. My comments are also posted at the URL I referenced.

I wholly agree with Beckett that "Teachers spend too much time learning how to teach . . . and not enough time learning what to teach." The problem is that most education professors and others don't understand the USA, and some prefer British tradition.

The chief deficiency of civics education is that U.S. scholars have not accepted the consequences of the French led victory over England at Yorktown, VA, in 1781. This is the USA, not a former British possession. (My state, Louisiana, has always had French influence and thereby sometimes thinks with justice rather than British tradition. For example, Louisiana in 1879 uniquely applied U.S. Amendment VI justice, to provide 9:3 impartial jury verdicts rather than traditional British tyranny of 12:0 verdicts. The wonder of this outcome illustrates the importance of people's discipline to develop justice in their state even though the rest of the states maintain traditional tyranny. England corrected the tyranny in 1967, adopting 10:2 jury verdicts.) Establishing psychological independence from the colonial-British influence is critical to the survival of the USA under the U.S. preamble's proposition: responsible liberty.

A constitutional convention followed, and the consequence was a proposal to dissolve the confederation and replace it with a union of people in their states. On June 21, 1788, nine states ratified the 1787 Constitution, establishing the USA.

The laws and institutions created were amendable so as to facilitate the intentions stated in the U.S. preamble: Each citizen may choose to collaborate for five provisions respecting freedom-from oppression so as to approve and encourage human liberty-to pursue individual happiness for living and future citizens. In other words, corporate provisions---Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare---secure for current and future citizens the opportunity to take responsible liberty-to pursue personal happiness rather than the dictates of others.

The first Congress, starting with eleven states, two remaining dissident to the U.S. preamble, knew not how to discipline themselves according to the U.S. preamble, and like adolescent parents who know no better than to "do what [four moms and dads] did" re-instituted the colonial-American modification of Blackstone with church-legislature partnership. The U.S. preamble's proposition has thereby been sidelined for 230 years, and it is our generation's privilege to restore it.

The 51-word preamble is the greatest political sentence in existence. The provisions for liberty have unstated issues. Deceased citizens are not involved in the collaboration. The difference between the salient freedom-from and liberty-to is critical. Most wonderfully, the U.S. preamble is a voluntary civic contract, and the wisest person alive need not adopt it, because he or she practices civic integrity and ought not be limited by ethics, civilization, societies, reason, religion, etc.. Such people discover ethics and enable others to record a continually improved code. An example is Albert Einstein, who in 1941 informed humankind that civic people do not lie so as to lessen human misery and loss.

To wrap this up, the U.S. citizen who does not understand the U.S. preamble should not have a leadership role of any kind. That begins with the right to vote.

https://www.prageru.com/video/what-is-the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/?fbclid=IwAR21MmLVC5gb0lXtU5Pr0fV91Y49P2JFvHtNEgLRpgdBtel3-0J_FIym9Uk

Responsible liberty seems expensive but need not be.

The civic citizen chooses to take individual responsibility for freedom-from oppression, providing, under the U.S. preamble: Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and welfare so as to encourage civic liberty-to both living and future citizens. Dissidents against the U.S. preamble’s provisions earn approval by individually reforming.

Civic integrity is a practice---taking individual responsibility to develop the life your individual prefers, constrained only by the statutory justice being developed by the people under the U.S. preamble. In statutory justice, spiritual pursuits or none are individual, adult preferences.

Elected officials who do not collaborate for justice under the U.S. preamble may be---ought to be---voted out of office by fellow citizens. Appointed officials who do not collaborate for the U.S. preamble's proposition may be fired by the responsible elected official.

Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/phil.beaver.52/posts/10157128389113599

March 26 at 9:31 AM

This was prompted by the news that Bobby Jindal will speak about civic education next month. My comments are also posted at the URL I referenced.

After the liberation of Worcester, MA in 1774, there was the ratification of the 1783 Treaty of Paris by the thirteen names free and independent states, followed by the failure of their confederation, highlighted by Shays' rebellion, 1786-87.
A constitutional convention followed, and the consequence was a proposal to dissolve the confederation and replace it with a union of people in their states. On June 21, 1788, nine states ratified the 1787 Constitution, establishing the USA.

To wrap this up, the U.S. citizen who does not understand the U.S. preamble should not have a leadership role of any kind. That begins with the right to vote.

https://www.facebook.com/phil.beaver.52

March 25 at 12:01 AM

Because each human being has a personal god, God, or none, discussions happily using "God" are substantially babble and the speakers do not realize it. (Among native Americans, it is well known that God is red. There are well grounded arguments in their favor.)

A Civic People of the United States, a Louisiana education corporation with collaboration by over 70 people and recently aided by Pennie Landry, works diligently to discover words that replace trite sayings and slogans such that most fellow citizens can communicate, perhaps for the first time. In other words, the new use of old words empowers conversations civic citizens want to have.

For example, we view "separation of church and state" as too impersonal to serve as more than an illusion. Instead, we promote individual happiness with civic integrity, perhaps like the U.S. preamble's proposition: responsible individual liberty. "Civic" citizens collaborate under the U.S. preamble and encourage reform by dissidents against responsible-liberty.

We discovered that "whatever-God-is" expresses an entity that serves most people's longing for civic integrity, a practice more than an achievement. "Whatever-God-is" serenely confronts hypocrisy. It immediately clarifies the falsity of the slogan "In whatever-God-is we trust" or the privation of the supplication "Whatever-God-is bless America." Who would pledge allegiance "under whatever-God-is"? I would be impressed if not pleased by a U.S. presidential oath that ends "so help me whatever-God-is" but for the concern that some president's Gods oppose the U.S. preamble.

At last, it may become clear that domestic peace can come only from the people who collaborate for responsible liberty under the U.S. preamble or better, if it may exist. It is up to the voters to keep elected and appointed officials who are opposed to the U.S. preamble out of office.

This practice---developing words that most everyone can appreciate---has emerged from public library meetings to promote actual practice of the U.S. preamble's proposition, now entering our sixth year. Our next scheduled meetings will be during the week of June 21, 2019. We dub that day Responsible Liberty Day. We hope you will help plan it and attend.

The glossary on our website, promotethepreamble.blogspot.com, may help you consider possible interest.

Phil Beaver, agent and co-founder for A Civic People of the United States
#whatevergodis

Phil Beaver For physical and psychological well-being I use the exercise stations at Perkins Road Park and walk the path from there to the trick-skate facility, where some skaters know I read, write and LISTEN. When I told three of them this news by asking, "Do you believe in whatever-God-is?" explaining the hyphens and capital G, they had quick, hearty reaction that could be interpreted as "That's pretty good. Most persons can answer "Yes," without objection."

Thanks to Josh, Logan, and one other great skater, I would be happy to pledge allegiance under whatever-God-is, provided everyone in the crowd has demonstrated commitment to the propositions in the U.S. preamble.

To me, whatever-God-is determines the-objective-truth, whatever that is.

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.

Sunday, March 24, 2019

whatever-God-is

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 individual happiness with civic integrity more than for the city, state, nation, or society.

Selected theme from this week

A confluences of experiences perhaps dated from 2008 led to the discovery of a hyphenated expression, whatever-God-is, that may empower public collaboration for individual happiness with civic morality. In other words, for individual responsible liberty in conformance with the U.S. preamble. Much of the conversation is included below under “quora.”

Columns

One U.S. journalist, in my opinion (Byron York) (https://www.joplinglobe.com/opinion/columns/byron-york-trump-is-target-of-harassment/article_2ad2cffa-a7d3-5a33-8cc4-be6dfd8c694a.html)

“Democrats, in Congress and in some key blue states, saw investigation as a way to weaken a president they never thought would be elected and want to ensure is not re-elected in 2020. And Trump, with the most extensive business history ever brought to the presidency, presented a lot of avenues of investigation. When he complains about harassment, he has a legitimate case to make.”

Moreover, all Democrats and some Republicans work to defeat the U.S. preamble’s proposition. We the People of the United States, the subject of the U.S. preamble, takes responsibility for five collaborative provisions---Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense and Welfare---so as to secure human liberty. This is the actually real reform that voters need, and I think President Trump, in his words expressed intentions for that reform in his inaugural address. I hope to vote for his second inauguration.

York, I think intentionally, journals events with a view toward responsible liberty.

Comment posted at the above URL.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-fundamental-belief-that-the-United-States-of-America-was-founded-on

Civic people founded the USA on individual responsible liberty. Civic people of nine states established the USA on June 21, 1788, leaving four dissident states still free and independent. So divided according to their ratifications of the 1783 Treaty of Paris for thirteen eastern seaboard states. Now there are 50 states, sea to sea, and under the U.S. preamble, an achievable better future may be developing after 231 years’ preservation of eastern-seaboard repression. The 50 states and six territories owe the 13 eastern-seaboard states nothing but to reform from erroneous traditions.

The 51 word U.S. preamble expresses a commitment in perpetuity to five political responsibilities (Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare) so as to approve and encourage human liberty for citizens both living and future. Past citizens don’t collaborate. The idea of each generation collaborating for its own body of law in order to comport to the U.S. preamble and the-objective-truth rather than obsolete opinion is more valid today than ever before. “Founding fathers” is used to preserve proprietary powers promoted for past tyranny: It’s tyranny by tradition. Some of the people who refused to sign the 1787 U.S. Constitution are labeled “founding fathers” to preserve the tyrannies they promoted.

Individuals who choose “We the People of the United States” agree to take the responsibility to provide freedom-from oppression so that each individual citizen may take the human liberty-to pursue personal preferences during their lifetime. In other words, the human being is too psychologically powerful to compromise liberty and cannot consign it and therefore may choose to collaborate to preserve equity among fellow citizens. Again, responsible liberty is an individual goal that can only be collectively empowered.

Some fellow citizens decline both the U.S. preamble’s proposition and human liberty. Dissidents to the five responsibilities may find themselves subject to statutory law and ultimately statutory justice. In other words, part of the commitment is to amend unjust laws upon discovery. Hopefully, the mere existence of statutory law approves and encourages responsible liberty and reform when error is realized. In other words, even the condemned criminal remains a fellow citizen.

Among the 51 words, “Tranquility” is a key responsibility, especially regarding domestic violence, both physical and psychological. Merriam-Webster Dictionary offered “free from agitation of mind or spirit” or “free from disturbance or turmoil.” Cambridge Dictionary offers “a peaceful, calm state, without noise, violence, worry, etc.:” and lists the synonym “peace.”

I know of no greater offense than for one human to publicly exhort another, “Your view about whatever-God-is is wrong.” The very idea of assessing, evaluating, or judging another human’s view about whatever-God-is is an affront. Therefore, civic fellow citizens do not interject spirituality, soul, and other mystery into civic collaboration. However, the civically offended-citizen must respond to spiritual affront, because appreciative fellow citizens neither initiate nor tolerate wrong. In other words, passivity toward offense or civic stonewalling discourages reform. In civic integrity, the privacy of opinion about whatever-God-is is appreciated and honored. The old saw, “never discuss religion,” may be reformed to “plainly discourage religious imposition into civic collaboration so as to approve and encourage responsible liberty in the USA.”

Peace comes from the peaceful person, hopefully most of the people, and We the People of the United States in the achievable future. Peace can be consigned to neither government nor whatever-God-is. The human being is too powerful to exchange liberty for peace. The framers of the 1787 U.S. Constitution were well aware that prior political documents that referred to whatever-God-is prevented peace and omitted it from the U.S. preamble.

It was well known in 1787 that government officials who partner with whatever-God-is can live high off the hog and believers will neither rebel nor leave the country. This principle may be labeled “Chapter XI Machiavellianism,” referencing “The Prince,” 1513. We the People of the United States, the body of people who order civic integrity under the U.S. preamble, claim responsibility for tranquility rather than consigning it to whatever-God-is. Conforming to this principle requires major, achievable reform.

Many citizens are aware of the U.S. preamble. Some choose infidelity rather than responsible liberty. Some, aware or not, promote Chapter XI Machiavellianism. I write “or not,” because some fine scholars have not the propriety to recognize Chapter XI Machiavellianism in American life so far.

Theists work to impose whatever-God-is into the 51-word U.S. preamble, not admitting to the actual reality that is plain to civic people. Some think Chapter XI Machiavellian crime pays. Some of America’s slogans promote Chapter XI Machiavellianism. Consider “[Whatever-God-is] bless America,” or “In [whatever-God-is] we trust” or we pledge allegiance under whatever-God-is. Who cares who initiated the tyranny against We the People of the United States” that developed Judeo-Christianity? We the People of the United States rejects that tyranny in writing: the U.S. preamble. The sooner each Supreme Court justice, who are first fellow citizens (civic or not--by choice like all the rest of us) get this message the better.

Civic fellow citizens may make certain that politicians and officials who do not conform to the U.S. preamble’s proposition leave office. First, the individual voter must understand the U.S. preamble’s proposition: responsible liberty.

We develop words and phrases that empower brotherhood among living citizens and facilitate an achievable better future for “our Posterity”: children, grandchildren, and beyond. For example, instead of “separation of church and state,” an impersonal political quest, we promote “individual happiness with civic integrity.” We celebrate each June 21 as Responsible Liberty Day.”
“Whatever-God-is” seems a phrase that may promote civic brotherhood for the USA. It originated from the late Bob Dorroh’s get-well wish in 2008; March 2019 meetings with Penny Landry’s aid for A Civic People of the United States with collaboration by Carolyn Lowe, Janie Ewing, Bob McBride and David White; related conversation with Diana Dorroh; responses to Mike Rappaport’s essay on the U.S. preamble’s influence on Law&Liberty’s blog; and reactions to this quora question. Some of the people I list might not accept the appreciation I express, and if so, I will accept their wishes.

We think the USA is currently transforming to the U.S. preamble’s 1787 proposition. I know this essay is detailed, but I hope you will be personally excited to help establish the civic, civil, and legal powers of the U.S. preamble’s proposition: individual responsible liberty.

Facebook

Thread after revision:

Jim Robertson The coup Phil has launched against our unalienable rights graciously endowed to all men by our Creator and the Constitution is religious in nature and is as old as the hills. It is his holy war so to speak. To bad he was not there when the Constitution was signed and dated. Maybe he would have convinced the founders to write “the seventeenth day of September in the year of whatever-God-is seventeenth hundred and eighty seven.” Not me.

To Jim Robertson: Jim, while I appreciate your return, that's pretty weak, and I think off topic.

Alas, there's no reform toward individual happiness with civic integrity. Just as "whatever-God-is" does not overpower "whatever-god-is, "whatever-Creator-is" does not overpower "whatever-creator-is." And "our Creator" does not equate to Jesus except to Jesus-believers (perhaps not me, but I can't judge). And opinions of men on September 17, 1787 are important to living citizens in any year only to empower their posterity (including us) to avoid obsolete errors and tyranny.

To get on topic, you could bloviate on the U.S. preamble's words "and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Let us hear it from you.

Jim Robertson Hi Phil: Again, Jesus loves you and thank you for publicly avoiding my point and desparately attempting to prove a negative. You seem to treat the Constitution and founding principals as predominantly a human invention. In reality they are an inheritance from tried principals and truths proven through blood over course of about seven hundred years of struggle from reoccuring tyranny. I encourage you to check that out and again to consider holding to the Truth that our Creator endows all men with certain unalienable rights. Peace.

Phil Beaver Jim, your beliefs deny the historical events that led to the U.S. preamble.

Your first denial is that Magna Carta, 1215, a partnership by priests and Lords to force the king to yield to their partnership, dividing the British empire into classes, with the majority of inhabitants in poverty.

Second, the Declaration of Independence has no global import beyond the self-styled states on the eastern seaboard declaring independence from the British empire. The perpetrators would have lost everything had France, already at war with England, not come to their rescue.

Third, the thirteen states ratified their global status as "free and independent states," each one named in the 1783 Treaty of Paris. The next four years proved they could not survive without forming a nation.

Fourth, in the highly informed and contentious convention that produce the 1787 U.S. Constitution, the formerly usual conduct under prayer was proposed but did not receive a second. They had not the articulation "whatever-God-is," but each one knew he would neither yield to nor adopt another delegate's personal pursuits such as salvation of whatever-soul-is. They had experienced human liberty, free from England's constitutional church-state partnership. When it came time to summarize the consequence of the 1787 conference, they did so in the 51-word U.S. preamble that condensed and eliminated the imposition of whatever-God-is imperiously on display in the Massachusetts preamble.

Fifth, the First Congress, seated on March 4, 1789 with eleven U.S. states, two remaining free and independent in dissidence, had not accepted the U.S. preamble's proposition: individual citizen's responsible liberty. Like adolescent parents, who know no more than to debate the four parenting philosophies they inherited, abuse their children with falsehoods, the First Congress reinstated colonial British American traditions rather than adopt to freedom-from oppression the U.S. preamble proposes.

Thereby, property owners continued to oppress the rest of inhabitants. Slave-holding states refused to follow the end of the slave trade in 20 years and negotiate emancipation of the slaves. They used false Bible influence for master-slave relationships to continue a practice that every individual knew was alright as long as he or she was not the slave. On that falsehood, the claimed the North had political influenced based on a more erroneous religious opinion. Since their churches claimed the same whatever-God-is, they illustrated the principle: Aggression founded on whatever-God-is begs woe. The woe was family, friends, and neighbors killing each other at a rate equivalent to 8 million Americans at todays population.

Jim, your refrain "peace" seems insincere. I urge you to take the time to consider the historical facts I have shared with you. They did not occur to me overnight, but are the accumulation of almost seven decades' work to understand why Mom and Dad wanted me to adopt a religion that is so weak its method is to persuade me to fear my afterdeath or destiny of whatever-soul-is for me. I do not choose to either live life or encourage responsible liberty based on mysteries.

The U.S. facts I have cited did not come from university, whose scholars have competitive agenda. I learned them by my own initiative and ability to ignore major works whose biases I perceived so as to explore thinkers I had never imagined studying. Because of that, I am a fellow citizen who appreciates you and hope you will learn to appreciate me. I appreciate the time you have spent so far.

Talking to me about Jesus is not productive, because the Jesus I might trust is not represented by Bible writers and interpreters. When it comes to scripture, I deny whatever-the-Word-is when it disagrees with civic integrity. I collaborate to discover civic integrity. I hope this helps us out of the whatever-Jesus-is do loop.

Jim Robertson Hi Phil: Thank you again for avoiding all my points, which I have discovered must be kept simple. I also counted about ten desperate attempts to prove negatives. It demonstrates the intensity of your battle, which is clearly not against tyranny.

The hope in people driven legally enforced conformity more accurately describes your religion. It will not work Phil. Possibly in a public school or University class room where students are forced into subjection through authoritarian tactics, but not in the public domain. We see through it and are tried of it.

Please consider that our founders understood that history was dated and centered on the person of Jesus Christ, which they identified as “our Lord”. I encourage you to check that out. Peace.

Phil Beaver Jim, I agree that your points are simple. You don't seem to recognize that "founders" who "understood that history was dated and centered on the person of Jesus Christ," were wrong.

The 1787 signers of the U.S. preamble left it to wrong-minded fellow citizens to reform from personal errors by not referring to religion at all. The preamble's proposition for equity under statutory justice is for you as for all U.S. citizens. It does not require you to deny Jesus but encourages you to collaborate for responsible liberty.

You seem to want liberty without responsibility. You somehow impose Jesus into the preamble's proposition and expect me to subjugate to your arbitrary stipulation. Your imposition has not worked in 231 years and won't work now.

Original Thread:

Jim Robertson Learn from His Story.

Phil Beaver I think you refer to liars like John, in John 15:18-23. I reject hate no matter the source. I especially reject John's idea that I hate believers. I expect believers to develop fidelity to the-objective-truth as reliably as non-believers do.

Nevertheless, I appreciate John for expressing his nested-hate opinion. Too bad he is not alive to collaborate for human peace.

Jim Robertson Hi Phil: Jesus loves you. It is good to hear from you. I hope you are having nice day and thanks for posting a great question. Peace.

Phil Beaver Jim Robertson We live in the best of times. Fellow citizens may come to admit to their mirrors that your statements are too weak to influence a fellow human being. Each human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop either integrity or infidelity.

Some people try to consign their IPEA to another entity, but it cannot be done. That is IPEA, is one of the fortunate characteristics of the human being.

In 2019, a growing number of fellow citizens are aware of these issues and are patient with fellow citizens who rely more on their conversations with dead people than on collaboration with fellow citizens who are worthy of appreciation for comprehensive safety and security regardless of private, spiritual pursuits.

I, for one such fellow citizen, consider your sequence "Jesus loves you. . . . Peace," as a weak withdrawal from collaboration for peace. Those who do not collaborate for peace for living may never appreciate living with fellow citizens.

Lastly, more than love, I sense Jesus appreciates me for standing up against ancient writer's claims that he would utter the word "hate" regarding human relationships. Of course, I know nothing about Jesus' opinions. He may be a hater, after all.

Jim Robertson Hi Phil: I urge you to hold to the Truth that our Creator graciously endows all men with certain unalienable rights. Peace.

Phil Beaver Sorry, Jim: I do not hold to the Truth. I collaborate with willing fellow citizens to discover the-objective-truth and apply it for responsible liberty. I approve of and encourage fellow citizens to develop responsible liberty for living and pursue religious beliefs in privacy.

To make my point, I invite you to characterize your God so as to persuade me to turn my back on the-objective-truth. I caution you that you will be attempting to draw me into a God competition from which I withdrew 1/4 century ago after a half century trying to force my IPEA to accept what Mom and Dad each wanted: Me to accept Mom's Southern Baptist God in competition with Dad's Southern Baptist God. MWWW, Cynthia, aided my rejection of Christian conflict.

To me, each time you write to me, you turn your back on whatever is in control in order to promote your God, for reasons I'm not certain you understand. But it will not work.

I suggest a decade of thought might help you accept my thinking for me as well as find a peace regarding your thinking for you. Perhaps you will discover the serenity MWWW lives and from which I benefit.

Jim Robertson That’s sad. Neither did Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. And neither does Kim, XI, and the Iranian Imams. But thank you for your honesty. Peace.

Phil Beaver Jim, for a Thursday flashback, recall my Thursday post you commented on.

"The U.S. preamble’s proposition is that individuals may collaborate for equity by discovering statutory justice that approves and encourages responsible liberty. Many citizens adopt this principle, but some choose infidelity. First, the individual voter must understand the U.S. preamble’s proposition: responsible liberty."

The U.S. preamble put religion in its proper, private place---in the believer's heart, closet, home, and church. However, many dissident citizens want to impose their God on fellow citizens. The federal government worked to impose American, factional Protestantism, through some variations and on to Judeo-Christianity. Now, there's African-American Christianity. Fellow citizens who work to impose religion on the people are dissidents to the U.S. preamble's proposition: responsible liberty.

From such dissidence you attempt to label me with your lie (error is quite different from bold lie), classing me with global tyrants.

Jim, you place too much emphasis on honesty. Please discover integrity. Perhaps some day you will want to be of We the People of the United States and to encourage responsible liberty. As it is, you are merely a dissident.

You are not alone. Dissidents have bemused the U.S. preamble for 231 years, or beyond eleven generations. Our generation has the privilege of restoring the U.S. preamble's civic, civil, and legal power, and I hope you will collaborate for the reform.

An offer of peace may be either sincere or not.

Jim Robertson Hi Phil: What part of unalienable do you not understand? That explains why you hate the Bundys victory stand for their unalienable rights to their land so much. How about Jews. I suppose now, according to you, Jews do not have an unalienable right to their land. Interesting coup you are attempting—against our Creator and the gracious endowment of his unalienable rights.

Phil Beaver Jim, I hope you understand that some readers interpret your silly impositions like "why you hate the Bundys victory . . . " not unlike asking me, "Phil, when did you stop beating Cynthia?" (That's the person in the Facebook pic with me.)

You could look in the mirror and ask, "Do I honestly misunderstand integrity?" or "Will I learn to express myself rather than attack a peaceful fellow-citizen like Phil Beaver?"

Jim Robertson Hi Phil: Please keep your comments coming. I love this and am giving you a golden opportunity to prove me a liar. Simply clarify whether you support the unalienable right the Bundys have to the land endowed to them by their Creator. While you are at it tell us whether the Jews have an unalienable right to their land also endowed by the same Creator. I will publicly apologize. Peace.

Phil Beaver Jim, you seem to think you can comment on my post with pretense and deceit, lie some more, and then present a hypothetical that challenges me. I disagree and find your tactics childish.

You remind me of a Democrat who still sheds tears over my two votes for Donald Trump and Mike Pence.

You present yourself as necessary for peace. Your religion promotes hate rather than peace (again, John 15:18-23). I am satisfied to ignore your civic ideas for the rest of my life yet hope you'll reform.

Based on my recovery from Christian fear and violence, I estimate it will take a quarter century. So I suggest a few years of silence between us.

On the other hand, if you would like to share your paraphrase of the U.S. preamble as a means of collaborating for individual happiness with civic integrity during our lifetimes (I hope for another 46 years), I will be thrilled to converse.

Jim Robertson I agree, your only option is censorship, if you fear the opportunities handed to you on a silver platter to prove the Truths held by the founders false.

My suggestion is that you preface your public requests for input. When asking, for example, what the founding principles of our country concisely means to us, you add something. Simply say that the Truths learned through blood and peril and held by the founders frighten me and asking me to prove why they are false makes me even more afraid. Something like that. Peace.

Phil Beaver. That exhausted the value of that thread, so I do not plan to respond.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-something-that-you-should-have-done-when-you-had-the-chance-and-now-cant-because-the-opportunity-has-left-the-building?

I failed to suggest to the clergyman to resign, become a social worker or other civic influencer and try to persuade people to be faithful to both the U.S. preamble’s proposition, individual responsible liberty and the-objective-truth.

Fellow citizens who choose civic integrity rather than infidelity discover that while they have human individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (IPEA) they have not the omniscience and omnipotence to select a god or God to impose on other humans.

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-support-the-idea-of-team-work-Why-or-why-not?

Yes, because collaboration is essential for responsible liberty in human living. Human individuals are too physically and psychologically powerful to adopt thinking they oppose, so parties must converse to establish and maintain responsible liberty.

In my eighth decade, I lead work to promote widespread use of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. After introduction, I shorten the label to “the U.S. preamble.” Its subject or actor is “We the People of the United States.”

Perhaps the special font “We the People,” reflects the struggle by some framers of the 1787 Constitution to preserve the 1774 confederation of states and have the U.S. preamble’s actor be “We the United States” or equal. I do not know the-objective-truth about the font and do not think I can learn it from either the framers (55 delegates) or the signers (39 delegates). Nor would I accept the claims of a scholar who asserts authority about the opinions of the 1787 delegates.

Much as the 1787 framers had to address the unknown future hopes, we, the fellow citizens of this time may collaborate for responsible liberty. We live 231 years after willing people in nine states established the USA on June 21, 1788, leaving four dissidents among the 13 free and independent states enumerated in the the 1783 Treaty of Paris.

Two states joined before the USA began operations in 1789. By 1861, territories had applied for statehood and were admitted, increasing the USA to 34 states. That year, at first 7 and then 13 states denied their prior commitments to the U.S. preamble’s proposition and declared secession from the USA.

Citizens of the 7 organizing states could have collaborated to tell their legislatures: not on our watch will you secede from my nation of people. But none of them were aware of the U.S. preamble’s proposition: statutory coercion and force for Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense and Welfare so as to secure human liberty.

Past generations have left our generation the duty and privilege to establish living for “ourselves and our Posterity” under the civic, civil, and legal agreement that is offered in the U.S. preamble. Just yesterday before a meeting about the U.S. preamble, a fellow citizen asked me, “Phil, are you a Christian?” to which I responded, “Not according to the Bible, and I cannot judge myself,” to which I heard, “Then you and I have nothing in common.” I responded, “We may each pursue in privacy the religious concerns we perceive while publically collaborating for responsible liberty.” I feel the conversation will resume, and I will converse.

Whether or not the propositions of the U.S. preamble will prevail for us two depends on team-work by both parties.

Saturday, March 16, 2019

Let St. George vote their preference

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 individual happiness with civic integrity more than for the city, state, nation, or society.

Selected theme from this week

In 2013, I felt the U.S. preamble’s propositions could be used to improve Baton Rouge civic reliability (integrity) so as to preserve its wholeness (integrity) rather than division by St. George City. I held library meetings to promote use of the U.S. preamble in individual daily life.

However, six years later, it seems to me that Baton Rouge neither approves nor encourages responsible liberty, the intention of the U.S. preamble. We the People of the United States, the subject of the U.S. preamble, takes responsibility for five collaborative provisions---Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense and Welfare---so as to secure human liberty.

The Baton Rouge mayor expects liberty on church coalition and dialogues on racism rather than individual responsibility.

In other words, majority voters in Baton Rouge do not trust-in and commit-to the opportunity for human equity in the U.S. preamble’s proposition. If citizens of St. George perceive they can encourage responsible liberty better on their own, let them vote to separate and improve their responsible liberty. The can always consolidate if the irresponsible people of Baton Rouge reform. Either way, the responsible people of Baton Rouge will continue to approve and encourage human liberty.

News

A forum I tried to resign from, because I adamantly oppose The Advocate personnel’s work for socialism and against responsible liberty (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_8ededf94-41e7-11e9-9f46-5ff1adcacede.html)

Richard Voivedich Perhaps the trickster you are addressing removed the post. Regardless, the real Phil Beaver in Baton Rouge is depicted with MWWW---my wonderful, witty wife.

When the trickster tries to copy and paste one of my pics, FB deletes the fake account. Otherwise, neither The Advocate nor Facebook nor BRPD offer relief from what I consider a crime---misrepresenting my views using a fake account. But the First Amendment does not recognize my opinion about the crime. I advocate for revising the First Amendment so as to protect responsible liberty instead of “free speech” and to encourage both individual and corporate pursuit of integrity rather than religion. The First Amendment represents colonial British oppression.

As for your opinion, I could not agree with you more. I want the best for Baton Rouge and don't know the-objective-truth: If my neighbors to the SE think forming their own city is best, I support them and will continue to develop responsible liberty in my location.

In 2013, when I first learned of the St. George proposal, I contacted many politicians and local leaders saying that sincere consideration of the proposition in the U.S. preamble could save Baton Rouge civic integrity (both as wholeness and as understanding). One of my points was that if citizens of South Carolina in 1860 had marched on their state legislature with the message “Not on my watch will you secede from my country” the Civil War might not have happened.

With not one response, on June 21, 2014, I started public library meetings (thank you Steve Crump, Hugh Finklea, and my wonderful family) to promote the practice of the U.S. preamble’s proposition.

(Back to 1860, I now think if the 1860 people had practiced the U.S. preamble, Abraham Lincoln might have done the right thing: Emancipate the slaves on civic integrity that rebukes an erroneous religious belief. See the conclusion of the 1860 Declaration of Secession. I wrote to local politicians to affix on monuments plaques about Bible interpretation as the source of "erroneous religious belief" but do not feel like wasting my time on Richmond, VA.)

These five years later, with collaboration by over seventy fellow citizens attending nearly twenty library meetings plus meetings at LSU and elsewhere, I attest that the U.S. preamble proposes responsible liberty. I support that point with grammar diagrams in speeches I currently conduct. In short, a civic people of the USA either coerce or force five provisions---Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense and Welfare---and encourage citizens to responsibly practice human liberty. In other words, responsible citizens accept the liberty they have. The U.S. preamble states that liberty is not in the catalogue of enforceable practices: Only the individual can practice liberty, so government's only option is to coerce or force the five provisions and urge responsible liberty as opposed to infidelity to self. In other words, responsible liberty requires self-discipline, the U.S. premble's proposition.

The U.S. preamble’s civic and civil proposition was legally established on June 21, 1788 when nine states ratified the 1787 Constitution for the USA. A significant portion of leaders, perhaps 1/3 opposed the U.S. preamble’s requirement that individual citizens self-discipline for liberty. On that concern, the first Congress re-instated the colonial-British tradition of church-state partnership. The twelve or so generations since then have left it to us to separate church from state so that churches that support responsible civic liberty may flourish for the spiritual hopes and comforts of their believers.

This reform can occur in a surprisingly short time, and I offer a series of discussions titled “An Achievable Better Future.” There are two key actions: fellow citizens practice the U.S. preamble’s proposition and use the-objective-truth to discover justice rather than conflict for dominant opinion.

I appreciate Fred Bear motivating me to write this.

Charles Mayeux

Phil Beaver Mr. Beaver-As my daddy used to say "We shall see what we shall see"

Like · Reply · 1d

Phil Beaver

To Charles Mayeux: I hope you know there's a bogus Phil Beaver in these parts. My FB id is marked by MWWW, my wondeful witty wife, and if someone copies the pic, I'll go to a different pic in my files while I report them to FB again.

Like · Reply · 1m

To Charles Mayeux again: I learned that the perhaps female entity claiming "Phil Beaver" has the FB address https://www. facebook.com/marsha.marshal.129, which is not surprising to me. This is the entity I have reported to The Advocate, Facebook, and BRPD, with no relief from its irresponsible freedom of expression. Irresponsible liberty begs constraint.

This brings to mind promoting the U.S. preamble. The proposition that We the People of the United States coerces/forces five provisions---union, justice, tranquility, defense, and welfare--- "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" is in some fellow citizens' genes and memes and not in others. For some fellow citizens, human liberty is a curse because of the responsibilities involved: Some people erroneously want another being to take their responsibility.

Many people in the St. George area tend to take reasonability for liberty. Some perceive that many people in Baton Rouge expect and demand that government or god provide union, justice, tranquility, defense, and welfare. Mayor Broome has had ample time to reform from her platform: church and dialogues on racism. Governor Edwards could not reform if he wanted to. Together Baton Rouge, a gods collective, takes no responsibility for its passion. Like churches, AMO pays no civic bills.

Since Pericles, 2,500 years ago, it is well known that people can collaborate for equity under a civic, civil, and legal agreement, and in the USA, fellow citizens may join We the People of the United States according to the U.S. preamble. It is an agreement offered to today’s fellow citizens for themselves and their posterity rather than for dead citizens, who can no longer collaborate for civic integrity. The U.S. preamble expresses responsible people’s civic, civil, and legal power.

I think a better future is achievable right away but promoting the U.S. preamble has fallen on deaf ears for the past five years and before that 226 years. It would not surprise me for the people of St. George to vote for responsible liberty now and leave it to future Baton Rouge citizens to admit to themselves that personal responsibility for personal liberty is not a curse.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-valuble-lesson-you-learned-too-late-in-life

I admit misapprehension of the word “oxymoron” and think it is never too late to learn a valuable lesson. Furthermore, I think the principle that it is never too late to reform is essential to life.

No matter how low a person’s offense may be, I would be the last fellow citizen to say it is too late for them to recognize the offense and reform, with some exceptions: for examples, malice murder and statutory treason.

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-believe-society-changes-based-on-what-s-marketed-and-why?

I think marketing is effective and have an example that has operated for 230 years so far and is prime for termination as fast as within two years if this message goes viral with approval.

Before September 17, 1787’s draft U.S. Constitution, major European documents on this continent made reference to a Christian God, some documents citing his son Jesus Christ. However, there were many definitions of gods, especially Christian gods, on the continent. Benjamin Franklin suggested religious allegiance through prayer in the early days of the constitutional convention, but the motion did not receive a second. The committee of forms, in the 51-word U.S. preamble, represented the consequence of all the delegates’ discussions as a document without allegiance to a god by a responsible people. In other words, the people have responsibility for liberty.

The U.S. preamble is neutral to gender, religion, ethnicity, wealth and other human inequalities. After a couple decades of study and discussion, I perceive the U.S. preamble propositions individual citizens to aid five coercible/forcible provisions---Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense and Welfare---so as to approve and encourage individuals to responsibly practice human liberty. In other words, responsible citizens accept the liberty each human has to develop civic integrity rather than nourish infidelities.

The U.S. preamble codifies that liberty is not in the catalogue of enforceable practices: Only the individual can practice liberty, so government's only option is to coerce or force the five provisions and urge responsible liberty as opposed to infidelity to self. In other words, responsible liberty requires self-discipline, the U.S. premble's proposition.

The U.S. preamble clearly, in my opinion, establishes civic, civil, and legal power by the people in their states to discipline themselves by managing the USA so as to approve of and encourage (bless) responsible liberty. Nine states ratified the U.S. preamble’s proposition on June 21, 1788. However, the Frist Congress, seated representing eleven states on March 4, 1789, feared approving and encouraging responsible liberty, so they imposed factional-American Protestantism in a partnership with Congress. Perhaps they also imagined representing themselves as divine. At the time, probably 99% of free inhabitants and 100% of the 4% who could vote subscribed to the Christian formula of fear: Either submit to Christianity or be ostracized in this country; moreover, in your afterdeath spend eternity in the fires of hell instead of enjoying refined gold.

Today, this fear formula is marketed despite the obvious: Christian believers have the human right to pursue the spirituality they choose but public imposition of their beliefs opposes responsible liberty. Consider for example, U.S. Rep. Cory Booker’s recent marketing of the phrase “civic grace.” Compare the second stanza of the beloved propaganda, “Amazing Grace.” The fear formula is expressed “Twas grace that taught My heart to fear And grace my Fears relieved.” I could sing that song at a friend’s request but only to honor my friend. If my opposition to fear drives a friend away, I accept that I am an ostracizer for now and wait for a better time.

The marketing of “freedom of religion” by the USA’s political regimes so far has bemused the U.S. preamble’s civic, civil, and legal power to approve and encourage individual, responsible liberty. Our generation has the power to amend the First Amendment to approve and encourage civic integrity leaving spiritual pursuits such as religion or none as an individual choice for adults.

I hope we delete freedom of religion from the First Amendment and approve and encourage civic, civil, and legal integrity under the U.S. preamble within a couple years.

Chris Grebe

3h ago

Can you rephrase this? Are you saying that the United States Constitution should NOT exercise the freedom of religion?

Phil Beaver

No. I am saying the First Amendment is unconstitutional according to the U.S. preamble, which intends and offers civic, civil, and legal approval and encouragement of responsible liberty. To conform to the U.S. preamble, the First Amendment would be silent on religion and spirituality in order to approve of and encourage civic integrity. The First Amendment imposes colonial British civic psychology that the U.S. preamble forbids. Religion and spirituality are private pursuits for mature human beings. I am not willing to participate in a public forum to evaluate another citizen’s private pursuits and do not want to compromise mine. However, I do want to collaborate for responsible liberty.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-reasonable-political-view-that-you-have-makes-people-unreasonably-angry?

The First Amendment to the Constitution for the United States must be amended so as to protect the individual citizen’s opportunity and duty to develop responsible liberty under the U.S. preamble. The U.S. preamble is neutral to religion, a business institution that exists on believers’ private wishes but causes public misery and loss.

This 1791 fundamental flaw in civic, civil, and legal self-discipline under the 1788 U.S. preamble must be reformed as soon as possible. Fellow citizens need only consider the current congressional nonsense (https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/429895-house-approves-motion-condemning-anti-semitism) over anti-Semitism, indeed an egregious offense, but an extension of long-standing failure to approve and encourage responsible liberty and civic integrity under the U.S. preamble. The First Amendment is the major cause of that failure.

https://www.quora.com/Is-is-true-that-freedom-is-not-given-but-must-be-demanded-from-the-people?

About 2500 years ago Pericles suggested, in my interpretation, that human beings have the individual and collective power to collaborate for equity under statutory justice. That’s a packed sentence, and the key words worthy of explanation include power, collaborate, equity, and justice. The U.S. Supreme Court building is adorned with “Equal justice under law,” which I do not appreciate at all. For example, I think the First Amendment should encourage each individual to develop civic integrity rather than civil religion.

About 2400 years ago Agathon said, in my interpretation, individuals who appreciate being human neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from any person or god. For example, I think the First Amendment errs to allow citizens to speak without conformance to Agathon’s idea. That is, speech should be responsible and free.

The civic, civil, and legal powers granted the USA are plainly stated in the preamble to the Constitution for the USA, or the U.S. preamble. My paraphrase today (I continually improve my understanding by stating my paraphrase then listening to fellow citizens) follows: We the civic people of the united states in order to develop individual discipline, civic integrity, justice, defense, and prosperity so as to perpetually preserve liberty, maintain statutory law for the USA. My 32 word interpretation of the U.S. preamble’s 51 words asserts that civic citizens use coercion/force for five provisions that encourage and approve human liberty. In other words, freedom-from oppression empowers the human practice of responsible liberty.

Study the actual preamble (which I would not change) and write your own paraphrase. Especially consider who can provide the civil freedom so you, an individual, may practice responsible liberty. If you like the results of the exercise, aid acceleration of an achievable better future.

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-believe-some-people-are-more-equal-than-others-What-makes-them-more-equal?

I view this question on the basis of ova. Of about 800 million U.S. ova per year, only 4 million become infants. Thus, 0.5 % of ova survive. Perhaps the survivors are more equal than the terminated ova. If we accept the ova view, the ova survivor view may be analogous for humans. That is, 99.5% of humans fail to develop their potential.

How might this be so?

It seems the human being is the most powerful living species. Every human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop either infidelity or integrity to the-objective-truth. Most cultures teach their young to seek higher power---a government, a philosophy, or a god. Therefore IPEA never occurs to most people and few even care about the-objective-truth.

The-objective-truth exists and can only be discovered. However, most people are not satisfied to admit to themselves, “I do not know when they do not know.” Most people choose to believe something. Yet because IPEA is real and cannot be consigned, they have a nagging doubt in the belief. Therefore, there is a slight chance the believer will be motivated to discover and develop IPEA. If so, they may choose integrity rather than infidelity. (Some people use IPEA to develop crime unless their actual harm is discovered.) I often write that I do not believe in believing, yet I believe in believers’ chance for reform.

The more serious concern is that existing cultures I know of do not inculcate IPEA by encouraging newborns to develop responsible liberty. People who develop responsible liberty may collaborate for statutory justice, an impossible perfection yet a worthy goal. Without early coaching and encouragement, it is doubtful that an infant will discover and develop IPEA, much less choose to practice civic integrity. Civic integrity requires the person to understand the-objective-truth in every choice he or she makes.

The chance of two humans reaching their individual, ultimate human maturity is so slim I do not think it can be said that any two humans are equal.

https://www.quora.com/What-can-you-do-to-make-a-possitive-change-in-society-today?

The first liberty fellow citizens can take is to realize that associations/societies do not determine---may oppose---civic integrity. Even collaboration for responsible liberty can be misleading, for example, when neither party understands the-objective-truth. Under the-objective-truth, when neither party understands, they agree, “We do not know.” Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop either integrity or infidelity to the-objective-truth. Some people think crime pays and therefore use IPEA to perfect their scheme until actual harm comes to the attention of fellow citizens.

Some scholars rebuke the-objective-truth by insisting on The Truth or the objective truth or ultimate truth or the Almighty truth or absolute truth or some coercion/force for dominant opinion. Fear is their most powerful tool, and they do not accept that the human being is too psychologically powerful to ultimately compromise or subjugate to fear. And the person who accepts his or her IPEA is intolerant of tolerance from purveyors of fear.

Civic citizens encourage each other to use IPEA to develop responsible liberty. Criminals and other dissidents to statutory justice resist the encouragement for reasons they may or may not understand, but often merely to nourish banal habits, sometimes abusing other humans.

Many individuals are persuaded to be dissident by societies who oppose justice. Individuals excuse self-defeating habits by attempting to consign IPEA to the errant society, even though they perceive it won’t work. I think the human being is so psychologically powerful that the individual knows when he or she is subjugating or compromising for a society. Persons in voluntary enslavement perceive their denial of IPEA.

About 2,500 years ago, Pericles suggested that humans may enjoy equity by collaborating for statutory justice, a perfection. In the meantime, they may make the most of a worthy cause by collaborating on statutory law. This interpretation of Pericles’ ideas does not benefit societies who oppose human, responsible liberty.

In the USA, the preamble to the Constitution for the USA offers the agreement to practice civic, civil, and legal statutory law while pursuing statutory justice. The discovery of statutory justice comes from fidelity to the-objective truth. Wonderfully, fellow citizens can prefer not to contribute to responsible liberty, which is necessary since statutory justice is a continuing discovery. If dissidents do not observe statutory law, they may encounter civic, civil, or legal encouragement to reform. Fortunate are the dissidents who reform early.

The U.S. preamble’s proposition for responsible liberty under statutory justice was offered only 231 yeas ago and so far has been repressed by political regimes and neglected by most people.

Improving these ideas and practicing the improvements can help individuals collaborate for an achievable better future here and among humankind.