Voluntary Civic People of Baton Rouge: August 2019

Saturday, August 31, 2019

Did columnist slight President Barack Obama’s black-Americanism?

1. On June 21, 1788, the 9^th required state ratified the preamble to the U.S. Constitution with the articles that follow, establishing the USA as a global nation. The USA grew from 9 eastern seaboard former British colonies to 50 states and six territories.

2. On July 5, 1852, fellow citizen Frederick Douglass challenged domestic slave trade allowed by an audience of 3^rd generation U.S. officials including the President: “[T]he Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it . . . not somewhat singular that, if the Constitution were intended to be . . . a slave-holding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it.”

3. On December 27, 1856, R. E. Lee erroneously, religiously begged ruin during the Bloody Kansas raids: “Although the abolitionist must Know . . . that . . . it pleases Providence to accomplish its purposes . . . Still I fear he will persevere in his evil Course.”

4. On December 24, 1860, South Carolina seceded from the USA, concluding “[P]ublic opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.” The USA was kept whole by the military tribunal of We the People of the United States.

5. On January 26, 2005, the Senate confirmed Condoleezza Rice’s nomination by a vote of 85–13 to succeed Colin Powell as Secretary of State.

I agree with Williams’ implication that Barack Obama is not black-American. I oppose Obama’s recent anti-American lectures anywhere he’ll be heard; https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/04/in-germany-obama-praises-indoctrinated-school-children-for-holding-weekly-protests-against-global-warming-junk-science/.

I encourage column writers to focus on abolition of identity politics that opposes the entity We the People of the United States as defined by the U.S. preamble: Promote political identity with providing five public institutions to secure responsible human liberty to living people.

Post accepted at the above URL.

Will wounded by my two votes for Trump/Pence (George Will) (https://www.saratogian.com/news/local-news/george-will-amash-s-independence-shows-voters-they-don-t)

Will’s writing seems to progress away from the proposition he and all fellow citizens are offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. preamble).

Does pride in Max Weber’s Calvin-Protestant connection to capitalism alienate believers from the opinions held by whatever-God-is? Does the U.S. preamble encourage responsible human liberty to living people?

Did George Will sacrifice columnist’s reliability by not reporting the loud sport coats were worn by President Gerald Ford, not just any Ford? And it is too easy for the reader to learn: "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there." So runs the famous first line of L.P. Hartley's British novel, "The Go-Between." And feel duped by Will’s cautious neglect of Hartley.

Will attributes to “the Founders” with a capital F the opportunity to communicate, collaborate, and connect for responsible human liberty rather than choosing “between bossy progressivism and populist Caesarism.” Using “choice” twice in the same thought ought to give Will the thought of retiring. But more importantly, after all these years of writing Will has yet to understand the chasm between perhaps 250 “founders,” 55 delegates from 12 states at the Philadelphia convention, 5 delegates who created the U.S. preamble from a weak sentence, 39 delegates who signed the 1787 U.S. Constitution, and the people’s representatives from 9 states who established the USA on June 21, 1788, leaving 4 free and independent states with the opportunity to join or not.

The U.S. preamble is the civic, civil, and legal proposition that empowers We the People of the United States to hold their local, state, and national government-officials accountable. The fact that George Will, nine Supreme Court justices, and many government officials may consider themselves above fellow citizenship does not negate the renewal in each moment of time of the U.S. preamble’s validity to living people, especially citizens.

No one knows the ultimate good the U.S. preamble offers, but its intentions---to develop civic integrity---are in perpetuity by the phrase “and Our posterity.” Hartley’s sentiment about England does not apply in the USA, where responsible human liberty is encouraged.

I think Trump, in his way comprehends the U.S. preamble. My third and fourth votes for Trump, whether it includes Pence or not are on deck. I trust Trump with that decision, but feel betrayed by the people who are competing with Pence.

I also feel betrayed by Will’s unique opportunity to accept responsible human liberty under the U.S. preamble’s proposition and apparent failure to even comprehend it. He could have been a journalist and could yet reform. I hope so.

Posted at the above URL.

An overarching identity politics rather than a plea for mercy (Kathryn Jean Lopez) (http://thefacts.com/opinion/article_853ae770-cb83-5d4e-8313-5928e69d36c9.html)

Lopez recalled someone’s comment “Airports are places of joy” as segue to a book that didn’t make my list. I saw no suggestion for how to establish a civic culture like the usual positive atmosphere in an airport terminal building.

Lopez ends with someone’s identity politics: “The healing balm of mercy and humility may help us serve each other better.”

Lopez, intentionally or not, rejects the civic agreement that is offered to her in the USA. The agreement is stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution: We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to provide 5 public institutions---Unity, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare---in order to encourage responsible human liberty to living people. The 5 public institutions offer mutual, comprehensive safety and security so that the individual may responsibly choose personal pursuits such as religion or none.

How does Lopez express a U.S. alien-ship three ways in one sentence?

First, “the healing balm of mercy” works for offenders at the expense of their victims. Only when statutory law enforcement constrains offenders until they reform or leave is the civic agreement upheld. When unjust law is discovered, it is upheld until amended so as to pursue the perfection of statutory justice. Lopez is not the only writer who confuses mercy to offenders with charity to those who cannot help themselves: Joshua Mitchell begs mercy to Protestants.

Second, “humility” is often misdirected. Each human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity or infidelity. With each choice, the developing human moves either toward the-objective-truth or toward irresponsibility. Some choose to game the U.S. culture---responsible human liberty---by practicing crime or worse: tyranny. Others, aware or not, try to consign HIPEA to an institution---a religion, a government, a movement, or an ideology. As bad choices accumulate, ineluctable evidences urge some humans to reform---to develop fidelity to the-objective-truth or to accept HIPEA for integrity. With humility toward the-objective-truth, reform is possible, but with pride, misdirection prevails. Misdirection (pride) maintains a civic culture’s failure to encourage HIPEA, fidelity to ineluctable evidence, and responsible human liberty.

Third, “serve each other better” is no substitute for communicate, collaborate, and connect to provide mutual, comprehensive safety and security. “Serve” is subjective. A well-known argument is that you can feed the poor and a better plan is to teach them to earn their living. A tyranny we live with is that laws foster development of extreme wealth with encouragements for philanthropy used to circumvent the law.

It is well known that Catholic Charities solicits money to encourage illegal aliens; https://forums.catholic. com/t/usccb-accepting-money-from-hhs-for-illegal-immigrants/369898 and https://www.ncronline. org/news/opinion/parish-diary/catholic-charities-volunteer-i-head-immigration-law-thicket and https://friendlyatheist.patheos. com/2012/08/17/the-economist-estimates-the-catholic-church-spent-171600000000-in-2010/.

The Catholic Church is an agent of the nation located at Vatican City. Helping another nation defeat this nation of people is alien to the citizen’s agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

Submitted for approval at the above URL.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/In-America-is-the-2nd-Amendment-more-important-than-the-6th-commandment

To the non-criminal American personal defender and/or hunter, DC v Heller may be more important than the 2^nd Amendment. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller.

https://www.quora.com/To-those-who-say-America-has-freedom-and-the-rest-of-the-world-doesn-t-how-do-you-define-freedom?

You’ve asked two questions. Why do people say America has freedom unrealized by the rest of the world? How does Phil Beaver define freedom?

To the first question I respond, it depends on the speaker, and I doubt each knows what they ask.

To the second question I respond with my interpretation of the people’s proposition in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. preamble). Its essence is: We the People of the United States provide freedom-from oppression so that aware citizens may have the liberty-to develop human integrity rather than infidelity. Interestingly, this sentence contains the distinction “freedom-from” and “liberty-to” that some 800 years of classical liberalism has not discovered. For example, I don’t think John Locke reached such clarity. How could he? He did not have the 52-word U.S. preamble to contemplate as I have for two decades.

In more U.S.-preamble-detail, We the People of the United States publicly communicate, collaborate, and connect to provide integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity (modernizing Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare) in order to secure responsible human liberty to living citizens.

This civic, civil, and legal individual’s contract is one U.S. interpretation of Pericles’ message 2500 years ago: Individual persons may pursue human equity under statutory justice. The consequence would be utopia, and the pursuit is worthy. A less worthy statement adorns the U.S. Supreme Court Building: Equal Justice Under Law, which seems to tolerate unjust law. However, the entity We the People of the United States has no such tolerance.

Western Europeans, especially England, are perturbed that the USA does not join their divisive trends in competing traditionalism, social democracy, socialism, or communism. That’s because Europeans and colonial-British American scholars continue to generate sophistry that may be terminated by accepting the controversial U.S. preamble and developing its achievable better future.

Most Americans have not yet grasped that factional American Christianity, which has morphed to American Judeo-Christianity offers standards that humankind cannot accept. Humans have experienced and observed enough ineluctable evidence to accept that the human individual has the power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity to the-objective-truth. As the combination the U.S. preamble’s proposition for freedom-from oppression to secure the individual liberty-to pursue fidelity to the-objective-truth is shared, the achievability of a better future may become evident.

To Marc Jones

When I use the term “fellow citizen” I am using a phrase I learned from Frederick Douglass’s claim in introducing his speech on July 5, 1852, with the president of the United States in attendance.

It is alright with me for you to dislike my innovation—-freedom-from oppression to secure the individual liberty-to pursue fidelity to the-objective-truth—and I am confident in its originality.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Which-right-is-a-human-right-as-well-as-a-fundamental-right

The human is the only species with the individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to either develop integrity to the-objective-truth or infidelity. For example, some people think crime pays. The criminal perceives the right to dissent.

The human either accepts HIPEA or not. If the person uses his or HIPEA to develop integrity, he or she is choosing to benefit from the-objective-truth. In fidelity, he or she perceives no need to claim rights. Unfortunately, the personal condition HIPEA is not promoted.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-case-for-always-defending-democracy

The human species is the only one wherein each individual has the power, the energy, and the authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity. Many individuals use HIPEA to develop infidelity---crime, tyranny, and evil.

Developing integrity is not easy: the practitioner must examine each concern and ascertain that it is not a mirage. With ineluctable evidence that the concern is actually real, he or she must then understand the discovery. Next, he or she must learn how to benefit from the understanding. Then, he or she must not only behave accordingly but communicate, collaborate, and connect with others for mutual understanding. Any ideas for improvement the other perceives must be incorporated, and open-mindedness for new evidence that demands change must be maintained.

It is easier to lobby for a dominant opinion, tolerating opposing dominance and waiting the opportunity to exert influence. The consequence is chaos.

Fortunately, there are human individuals who accept HIPEA and use it to develop integrity. In integrity, individuals collaborate for responsible human liberty, which requires equity under the rule of law with development of statutory justice.

In responsible human liberty there is no case for defending democracy.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-biggest-problems-society-is-facing-today

The first problem is that individuals think they need to accommodate society rather than communicate, collaborate, and connect to develop integrity.

The human individual has the power, energy, and authority to develop integrity (HIPEA). However, civilizations inculcate the idea that each human needs to seek a higher authority---good government or whatever-God-is or some ideology. Seeking higher authority seems more convenient than accepting HIPEA.

An achievable better future may begin when the majority of infants and beyond are coached and encouraged to accept their HIPEA and use it to develop integrity.

With the majority of people accepting HIPEA for integrity rather than infidelity, many problems will lessen in influence and impact.

https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-democracy-provide-the-power-to-the-people-to-dissolve-the-government-that-is-not-doing-good

Competing tribes don’t have the necessary military power.

My interpretation of Pericles’ 2500 year-old idea is that humans may communicate, collaborate, and connect for equity under statutory justice. It’s expressed by an architect as “equal justice under law.” Justice is an impossible perfection but a worthy pursuit that requires amendment of unjust law for the next actual harm.

According to physics, there are always outliers. Crime and tyranny exist, so law must be enforced, whether the code is just or not. For governments, force means military power as a nation and police power for domestic justice.

According to responsible human liberty or a civic culture, citizens communicate, collaborate, and connect for mutual, comprehensive safety and security. However, there are always individuals and tribes who want to game the civic culture. Criminals think crime pays. Oligarchies pursue tyranny.

To overthrow the rule of law requires sufficient military power. Accountable governments make certain they can uphold the rule of law. If a civic people, We the People of the United States, ever enact the proposition in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, an achievable better future may begin.

Incidentally, I tried to join a group that advertised open mindedness. One night my topic was happily discussed: Civic integrity journals its discovery of ethics. But I learned a leader owns a military weapon in order to combat the police and dropped out.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-modern-democracies-seem-to-be-so-ineffective-and-unstable

Democracy does not accept the standard by which truth is measured. Therefore, people in democracies can be persuaded to vote for any doctrine that promises to relieve immediate concerns.

Western political thought struggles over economics, power, and religion, creating proprietary volumes about “natural law.” In general, reason is favored over natural law to establish norms.

Proprietary thinkers are loath to admit they do not know, and natural law involves much that humankind has yet to discover. Therefore, authoritative Western writers tend to favor reason over what they call natural law.

However, the-objective-truth exists and humankind’s task is discovery and application. The-objective-truth is discovered through ineluctable evidence, the standard by which truth is measured.

The phrase “the-objective-truth” captures discovered, ineluctable evidence and therefore is itself a standard by which truth, objective truth, and other classes of truth may be measured.

It also, is the standard against which justice may be measured. Volumes of proprietary thought about justice may be lessened or discounted due to infidelity to the-objective-truth. For example, social democracy is not financially viable; Maslow’s hierarchy of needs can only be fulfilled by individual, responsible human liberty.

Consider the value of a human being admitting to himself or herself “I don’t know” when he or she does not know. For example, ponder this Abrahamic challenge: to save your soul must you yield to the One, submit to Allah, or accept Jesus? Under the-objective-truth, a person my respond to himself or herself “I don’t know.” I go on to admit to myself that I think when my body, mind, and person stop functioning the only entity that will remain will be my lifetime accomplishments. Since I don’t know the-objective-truth, I don’t want anyone to think as I do: I want the other people to live under responsible human liberty.

Yet under my democratic-republic, the USA, I must suffer statutory law that does not pursue yet ultimately tolerates statutory justice if the-objective-truth becomes evident. For example, racism is evil yet dominates civic issues.

https://www.quora.com/Is-being-a-liberal-a-trendy-thing-to-be-in-the-United-States-of-America

Liberalism is not a trend, and the current attention to socialism is a correctable error of Western European influence on the USA together with “liberation” identity politics. More specifically, the USA, while militarily independent from England has not articulated psychological reform from its colonial-British traditions. Exactly, civic-citizens have not adequately established the proposition that is stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. That would require the reform followed by constitutional amendments, for example, changing Amendment I to defend integrity rather than religion and the press.

The USA has always been internally controversial. Consider key facts in a brief review of the European dominated and African-Arabic influenced history impacting the people in this land (skip 6 paragraphs to “This ends . . . “ if you want to decide whether or not you are interested in collaborating on my history points):

In the fifteenth century an identity politics held that it was correct to invade occupied land to convert, enslave, or kill the indigenous people who would not believe God and his son Jesus. Further, it was politically correct to purchase slaves from African commodity captors and Arab sellers and locate them to help colonize the “discovered” lands.

In the seventeenth century, the British Empire sent unhappy British subjects to colonize the “discovered” lands. The hapless British commoners knew nothing about hunting and fishing, but the indigenous people kindly taught them how to survive in their lands. A decade later, the British sent African slaves to assist in colonization, imposing the loathsome role of slave-master on some “loyal” British colonists. Other colonists were abolitionists from the start.

In the seventeenth to eighteenth century, some colonial-British subjects saw the inevitable ruin of being slave-masters and rebelled. Their political identity was “abolitionist,” and the politically correct majority hated them. During this time, Spain and France were also colonizing, and England and France were at war both in Europe and in N. America. When British elites began to tax colonial subjects for English revenue, rebellion became popular among American elites.

In September, 1774 farmer-militia liberated Worcester MA; the British never returned. In the next month, 12 colonies met and declared 13 colonies were nation-states under a confederation. In 1776, they declared war against England for their independence. When probable loss appeared, France, already at war with England, provided aid. The victory battle was under the strategy and military power of France at Yorktown, VA, in 1781. In 1784, the 13 former British colonies ratified the Treaty of Paris naming each one a nation-state. The 13 states continued in global independence for nearly 4 years until they realized a global nation would be necessary. Subsequently, 9 of 13 states dissolved the confederation of 13 states, establishing the USA on June 21, 1788. On March 4, 1789, operations began with 11 states. The people’s representatives had created state constitutions or re-affirmed charters by 1780.

In 1788, the people’s representatives of nine states had terminated government under a confederation of states for a citizens-discipline agreement to hold republican federalism accountable. The people granted limited powers to either their states or to the central government for overarching services the states could not effect, such as providing a navy. Civic citizens in their states would also manage the central government. Dissidents would be constrained by the rule of law.

However, by 1791, then with 14 states in the USA, Congress had re-established colonial-British traditions that obfuscate and repress the civic people’s civic, civil, and legal powers under the U.S. preamble. For example, the 1791 First Amendment protects religion, an institution not covered by the U.S. preamble, rather than integrity, a civic duty.

An unrecognized consequence of legal freedom of religion is the Civil War. The complaints in the declaration of secession conclude “. . . public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.” The pertinent belief is that black people suffered enslavement under God’s plan for Christianity. That’s consistent with the fifteenth century “discovery” identity politics stated above. Today, there are 50 states struggling for local autonomy in an administrative state encumbered by Congress, the US Supreme Court, Judeo-Christian freedom of religion, and unconstrained, fake journalism. I live in the state from which responsible human liberty under the U.S. preamble may emerge at last.

This ends the history review and positions me to suggest the reform that seems underway in the USA. The identity politics that restored colonial-British traditions that were potentially negated, briefly from June 21, 1788 until March 4, 1789, is being confronted by the controversial proposition that is stated in the U.S. preamble. Freedom of religion is confronted by civic integrity.

Every citizen owes it to himself or herself to develop (and consider publicly defending) his or her interpretation-of and use-of the civic, civil, and legal proposition that is stated in the U.S. preamble.

Foremost in this urgent need for civic identity politics are the fellow citizens who happen to be elected or appointed political officials, whether local, state, or national. Clergymen who wish to be civic citizens need to resign their partnerships with government so as to serve responsible human liberty; if necessary resign from religious service so as to serve in a civic capacity such as social-worker.

For example, here is my interpretation of the U.S. preamble’s proposition: We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to provide 5 public institutions---Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare---so as to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens. I have quoted the exact nouns in the U.S. preamble that state the people’s goals, and neither religion nor spirituality is included.

We the People of the United States is transitioning from dependence on the mystery of whatever-God-is in partnership with elected officials to the identity politics of individual discipline for mutual, comprehensive safety and security; in other words, responsible human liberty; in other words, civic integrity. We live in the best of times for appreciating the U.S. preamble.

Law professors

https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/08/27/the-precarious-state-of-liberty-in-the-usa

Professor Rasmussen could have served himself by setting this political-identity complaint aside until he worked out a viable proposal to follow “this challenge can be met.”

First, to place Trump in Obama’s alien class expresses abject failure to comprehend the entity We the People of the United States. Obama never joined (but could yet repent and reform). Trump seems to understand the people’s proposition in the U.S. preamble more than most fellow citizens do.

Rasmussen could criticize today’s interpretation of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. preamble): A civic people of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect in order to provide 5 public institutions that protect freedom-from oppression in order to approve-of and encourage responsible human liberty to the continuum of living citizens.

The human liberty to develop integrity is renewed each time a woman produces a viable ovum. The ovum’s right to develop integrity activates on conception. In other words, the actually-real human right is the liberty-to develop integrity. Individuals who accept the human-individual power, integrity, and authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity know this. “Life, liberty, and property” express an identity politics that is being challenged in practice more than in concept. Most people want to identify with mutual, comprehensive safety and security during their lifetime.

Statutory law does not completely encourage responsible human liberty. The articles that follow the U.S. preamble’s proposition may be amended in order to pursue statutory justice.

“Power corrupts, and . . . there is no real standard by which it can be controlled.” Statutory justice may be pursued by discovering the-objective-truth, the ineluctable evidence by which the truth is measured. The-objective-truth does not respond to reason or any other human construct. The-objective-truth is the standard Rasmussen seeks.

Fellow citizens can offer an achievable better future by promoting the U.S. preamble’s proposition---5 public protections of freedom-from oppression so as to secure the liberty-to pursue responsible human happiness during each individual’s life---under the-objective-truth as standard for statutory justice. Fellow citizens may develop civic integrity anytime they perceive they want responsible human liberty.

https://www.lawliberty.org/book-review/makeover-reading-machiavelli-john-mccormack-review

“. . . oppressive-minded elites who detest the people’s liberty, bitterly resent their participation in politics, and oppose any reformer who attempts to limit their own aristocratic power and privilege.”

That seems like the-objective-truth, which I do not often know.

Responsible human liberty is an individual privilege. My recent studies include “identity politics,” and perhaps it started before theism; justice, and it seems like fidelity to the-objective-truth in human connections including your person; and (unfinished) audacity. “Insolence” could be translated “audacity,” but Machiavelli seemed to distinguish their usages. I found “audacity” 8 times and “justice” 7 times in “Discourses.” “Political” is there twice, once in “best political existence” not too different from best political identity. In “The Prince,” “justice” appears 3 times. “Audacity” is only in Chapter XXV’s statement “[Fortune] is, therefore, always, woman-like, a lover of young men, because they are less cautious, more violent, and with more audacity command her.”

What is “effectual truth?” Effectual for what standard? “The Prince” uses “truth” 8 times, 5 as “the truth.” Is psychological power the standard in “[There] is no other way of guarding oneself from flatterers except letting men understand that to tell you the truth does not offend you; but when everyone may tell you the truth, respect for you abates.” In other words, if you say, “uhuh” to a liar, you lessen yourself (smacks of RW Emerson). “Discourses” uses “truth” 20 times, 14 with the article. Apparently, Machiavelli did not think “objective truth” differed from “the truth” but we can’t be certain. Perhaps ineluctable evidence was not critical to academies of reason. After all, they had not the intent to put a human on the moon, an endeavor that results in ineluctable evidence. I think “the-objective-truth” would have aided Machiavelli’s clarity for scholars.

Is “popular republicanism” secular and Machiavelli’s republicanism?

Clarke’s opinion about “scholarly norms” [doesn’t] influence my consideration to read McCormick’s book. I am accustomed to attacks by the likes of that anonymous, perhaps AI, “gabe” and an abundance of stonewalling.

Each time someone attempts to lessen “the-objective-truth” with “objective truth” or “the truth” or “Truth” or such, I chalk up another incidence of Machiavellian insolence but am glad they read that far.

Regarding Machiavellian popular government, I find a severe indictment of the people in “The Prince,” Chapter XI: believers expect the pocket-picking church-government partnership to eventually conform to whatever-God-is and are willing to wait an eternity rather than reform or leave. Terminating church-state tyranny is responsible human liberty.

The preamble to the U.S. Constitution offers relief from Chapter XI Machiavellianism through self-discipline rather than self-government. The 52 words are controversial, and my interpretation to order my life is this: We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to provide five public institutions—Unity, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare—in order to encourage responsible human liberty to living people. I’d like to address European interpretations of the citizens’ agreement for human equity to develop statutory justice in the USA. I think we appreciate Machiavelli’s irony.

Reply to Wayne Lusvardi:

It seems bold to say “You will learn about the academic interpretations of Machiavelli in this book but it misses the entire point of The Prince” and “. . . but that in all other issues Christian morality should be the default position (Discourses 2: 2).”

I was intrigued and discovered another book review at https://www.religion-online.org/article/god-beats-up-on-people-who-ask-useless-questions/. Lusvardi calls the question: Does whatever-God-is respond when humans misrepresent whatever-God-is?

I am especially grateful to have read “. . . is one to accept or reject a discovery in physics on the basis of a physicist’s moral qualities? Does the theory of relativity depend on Einstein having been a nice man?”

If everything springs from E=mC-squared, then every discovery is a “discovery in physics.” Thus, chemistry, mathematics, fiction (speculation about what has not been discovered)—everything is an offspring of physics the object of study. Discovery is accepted or rejected on ineluctable evidence, which I call the-objective-truth. The-objective-truth measures objective truth, truth, and all human constructs that are not derived from ineluctable evidence.

Reply to Logic Wings:

So much human injustice springs from “the Founders,” a scholarly technique for asserting a personal opinion by attributing it to others. The person who quotes James Madison may lessen himself or herself, much as an individual does by saying u huh to a lie.

Perhaps Madison’s most egregious act was drafting what became the First Amendment. It protects religion, an institutional business, rather than integrity, a human duty. Further it extends to the press immunity from justice that neither the Congress, nor the administration, nor the Court, nor the states, nor the people enjoys.

Madison was one of the five on the Committee of Style, who converted the erroneous preamble drafted by the 55 delegates to the 1787 convention to the controversial yet excellent preamble the 39 delegates signed. Regardless of my interpretation, the U.S. preamble uses Unity, Justice, Tranquility, defense, Welfare, and Liberty to prevent civic, civil, and legal imposition of religion as a public goal. So, in my view, Madison is a tyrant who, so far, has gotten away with his tyranny. Other “the Founders” were tyrants.

Among Madison’s erroneous claims is in Memorial & Remonstrance (1785), which may not be all his. “Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign.”

I wonder if “whatever-God-is” is aware of “the Governour of the Universe” and “the Universal Sovereign.” I doubt it, and opine that whatever-God-is finds them and their author wanting. Regardless, based on the proposition that is offered to fellow citizens in the U.S. preamble, I find Madison a dissident if not alien to We the People of the United States as defined therein.

I recommend that fellow citizens who want to impose their religion on others consider 2500 year-old Greek thought, in my interpretation: Humans may communicate, collaborate, and connect for equity under statutory justice. For civic, civil, and legal justice, no one brings their god to the public debate, because everyone may know that whatever-God-is leaves human justice to humans.

As for the Declaration of Independence, since establishment on June 21, 1788, the USA has demonstrated that “Life . . . and the pursuit of Happiness” are often sacrificed for Liberty to the continuum of living citizens. The USA’s actual reality is a reflection of the U.S. preamble. I don’t think Madison understood.

Reply to Standing Fast:

Mr. Fast, you lived by your moniker. A little time to reflect on my phrases could serve you well.

For example, do you think whatever-God-is is impressed with Judeo-Christianity? Is Judeo-Christianity a conflict of ideologies? Do you really think freedom-of religion constrains human liberty-to develop integrity? Is freedom of religion a colonial-British pretense? Do your ideas promote equity under statutory justice? Is statutory justice attainable or merely a worthy pursuit? Do you really think 250 controversial founders ought to offset the laws attributed to 39 signers of the 1787 U.S. Constitution? Do you not appreciate the Americans who gave up life and property so that you may have the liberty-to pursue individual happiness? Do you want me enslaved to accept Standing Fast’s happiness rather than Phil Beaver’s happiness? Would you like to debate my happiness before your imposition?

Can you imagine that I wrote to invite you to think rather than to stun you? You could start the process of joining We the People of the United States by publishing your interpretation of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution with which you would be willing to communicate, collaborate, and connect with me, a fellow citizen, I assume, even though I have never met a Fast.

Reply to Standing Fast again:

Mr. Fast, you write with alacrity to address what you dream about me despite what I write. You are clearly un-woke.

From Agathon (d. 400 BC) I learned to neither initiate harm to any person, or thing, or whatever-God-is nor to tolerate harm from any person. If I need defense I apply the required strength if I have it.

I think Agathon’s speech was erroneously plagiarized by New Testament writers (70 AD)—about 500 years later. We’re now 2400 years out and have more ineluctable evidence. Let’s use it.

Again, please take some time to consider Agathon’s message and share your interpretation. It will not be like mine, which is the result of two decades’ reading and mimicking Agathon’s speech.

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.

Saturday, August 24, 2019

Choosing civic liberty under the-objective-truth with private freedom of religion

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: “Willing citizens collaborate, communicate, and connect to provide 5 public institutions—integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity—so as to encourage responsible human liberty to living people.” I want to collaborate with the other citizens on this paraphrase and theirs yet 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

America seems confused by its confusion. Many Americans cling to colonial-British tradition, thereby preventing acceptance of a people’s proposition, the 1788-ratified preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The consequence is colonial-British pride in the 1791 First Amendment with its “freedom of religion” rather than liberty-to develop integrity.

There is no justice in imposing legal freedom of religion on a people whose proposition to encourage responsible human liberty is public provision of Unity, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare.

Announcement

Join discussion of an achievable better future at our 6^th Annual Constitution Day Celebration, September 17, 7:30 PM at Goodwood Library, second floor, Study Room 2F.

See https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/entertainment_life/local_events/?_ev_id=489814_6th_annual_constitution_day_celebration for more information.

News

Rarely has a newspaper so leaped out onto Pulitzer-lessening limbs (Gordon Russell) (https://www.nola.com/news/courts/article_1f48481c-c434-11e9-a4e4-03653e104871.html)

One of the clearest evidences of humankind’s ineluctable-march to conform to the-objective-truth is the high cost of statutory injustice. A civic citizen feels compelled to object to the local press working against statutory justice.

One is constrained to ask why Gordon Russell, a writer for the press, a particular press that has no appreciation for journalism would write, “Louisiana became the first state to break with centuries of Anglo-Saxon legal tradition,” without pointing out that the source, England, revised to 10:2 criminal-jury verdicts in 1967, lagging former French colony Louisiana by only 87 years. England's purpose is to reduce power of organized crime to influence empty votes in trials. Or was John Simerman responsible for this slight of actual-reality?

Do these two press-writers prejudicially interpret U.S. Supreme Court (USSC) decisions? “ . . . in 1972 . . . five justices said they believed the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to a jury trial includes a requirement for unanimous verdicts in federal courts. But one of the five, Justice Lewis Powell, said he did not think the requirement extended to the states. The result was an unusual 5-4 ruling that said federal juries must be unanimous to be constitutional but state juries need not be.” I take exception to “unusual” respecting USSC politics of 5:4. About 20% of cases are so decided; see https://yiqinfu.github.io/posts/supreme-court-kennedy-retirement-ot2017/. Also, federal courts, by design under federalism develop higher national standards based on constitutionally limited experiments in the various states (now 50 states).

Because of its unique French and Spanish influences, Louisiana was the only former member of the Confederate States of America that had the wisdom to enact the 9:3 jury verdict in 1880 (then codify it in the constitution eighteen years later). Some newspapers represent the facts: “Lawmakers in Louisiana passed the split-jury rule in 1880,” https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-louisiana-jury-20180912-story.html. The Advocate writers obfuscate, citing the 1898 constitutional convention, even though other writers report facts. And The Advocate editors allow mendacity against the journal of events. Perhaps obfuscation for political power is The Advocate’s intent.

Why don’t The Advocate writers quote the U.S. 6th Amendment, 1791? “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” The 6th Amendment’s words require states to provide impartiality not unanimity. Impartiality is both essentially and statistically impossible in a world of conflicting identity politics. That was as true in 1787-1791 as in other times.

Race may the least divisive of the three political identities including gender and religion---both factually and historically. Consider the subjugation of women and the religious suppression of individual human authority to develop civic integrity and statutory justice rather than religions like the factional mystery of whatever-God-may-be. The Advocate writers deny their own responsible human authority when they refuse to report the facts, for reasons they may or may not comprehend. To comprehend my statement takes understanding The Advocate ought to own.

I miss a lot, so I apologize if this is not the first time a writer for The Advocate has used the term “empty votes” regarding jury unanimity. However, a word search on my file before the people’s vote did not find the phrase “empty votes.” See in today’s article “. . . available data show black jurors are far more likely to wind up casting “empty votes” against conviction than white ones.” In the investment world, people with no shares create various ways to vote as a shareholder; https://www.lw.com/upload/pubContent/_pdf/pub1878_1.Commentary.Empty.Voting.pdf. The analogy in US citizenship is that voters who are not of We the People of the United States vote for their identity-favor at the expense of the people---an injustice. Further, as a jury member, with no interest in justice, an empty vote is biased for an identity---either personal or political. When both the victim and the accused are black, empty votes against conviction hurt black Americans, both the black victim and black taxpayers. Since most crimes are committed by blacks against blacks, this point as well as bias statistics support 9:3 criminal jury verdicts as a provision for impartiality.

I am little concerned about the USSC attempting to impose on states unanimity despite the impartiality required by Amendment VI. It's unlikely they will rule against Amendment VI. No one who gained relief wants to go back to the tyranny colonial Americans suffered from British, traditional unanimity.

What concerns my civic citizenship is The Advocate’s doubtable statistical studies, obfuscation of facts, and political influence to use a faction of misinformed voters to overrule a Louisiana treasure for the USA: the 9:3 criminal-jury verdict. At the heart of this tyranny was the Louisiana State Lawyer’s Association, who trumped up the case to the Louisiana Legislature. Part of the voter-foolery was the idea that if a member of We the People of the United States (citizens who communicate, collaborate, and connect to accomplish responsible human liberty) were on trial he or she would want jury-unanimity, the opposite of the-objective-truth. That is, civic citizens want impartiality rather than exposure to empty votes no matter who is accused or victimized.

In the case of Louisiana’s tyranny, Amendment XIV.1, second sentence, protects Louisiana citizens against the Louisiana legislature and governor, even though their method pretended to appeal to the people: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” I am seeking a lawyer to appeal on my behalf for restoration of Louisiana’s 9:3 criminal jury verdicts under Amendments 6 and 14.

Rarely is there such good news for Louisiana residents (Randy Boudreaux) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_06e7ea5a-c044-11e9-a38b-5b9bba3e6038.html)

Fellow citizens may celebrate Mr. Boudreaux's civic integrity. That's "civic" as in communicating, collaborating, and connecting for responsible human liberty according to actual-reality.

I called him this morning to thank him, congratulate him, and wish him success. This is a right-to-work state, and right-to-work ought to apply to lawyers, attorneys, and judges.

Unanimous criminal jury verdicts: I hope another lawyer will take up my complaint. The Louisiana State Bar Association is responsible for an egregious offense against the people of the state of Louisiana, and the federal government has the laws and responsibility to correct it.

Briefly, Louisiana, in 1812 inherited the British tradition of unanimous verdicts with 12 jurors in criminal trials. In 1880, Louisiana enacted the 9:3 verdict in order to meet U.S. Amendment VI requirement that states provide impartial juries. Congress chose "impartial" rather than "unanimous" knowing that unanimity statistically favors injustice. In 1967, England accepted Louisiana's wisdom and many jury-verdict studies, revising their requirement to 10:2.

The LSBA and The Advocate kept this kind of information from public view as they persuaded voters that if they were accused and found guilty they'd want the unanimous-jury requirement. Neither The Advocate nor the LSBA spoke up for the civic citizen, who is always the victim of the unanimous-jury requirement.

Federal courts have a remedy for this kind of tyranny by states: It's in the second sentence of U.S. Amendment XIV: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." I want a lawyer to file a complaint for remedy from Louisiana's change from justice to injustice by ending the 10:2 verdicts in favor or 12:0 verdicts on a emotional majority of wrongfully-influenced and miss-informed voters.

For more information, see my comments at https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_d19745cc-0ebd-11e9-8f3a-ff600552c1f2.html .

Quora

https://www.quora.com/Can-you-suggest-some-suitable-activities-for-elderly-people

I suggest trying to engage people in conversation and if they agree, collaborate on their concerns. That is, appreciate them and respond to their expressions, whether statement or question.

Share your ideas for addressing the concerns without apology for your opinions. In fact, state that they are opinions and that you do not know most of the-objective-truth.

Don’t hesitate to address politics and religion, letting the other party take the dialogue where they want to go.

Appreciate every human where they are as they are in their journey to responsible human liberty, including yourself. By so doing, you may connect with a fellow citizen.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Is-the-idea-of-American-Exceptionalism-still-valid-and-believed-today

The people’s proposition, the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. preamble) has been repressed since the people of 9 states had ratified it on June 21, 1788. When a majority of citizens have considered and adopted its proposition, the USA’s promises will emerge.

We encourage each person to consider the U.S. preamble’s proposition as a guide for ordering their civic lives. “Civic” refers to citizens communicating, collaborating, and connecting for mutual, comprehensive safety and security more than for a municipality.

Here’s my interpretation of the U.S. preamble’s proposition: We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to provide five public institutions---Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare---in order to secure liberty to living citizens.

With widespread adoption of this interpretation (or its improvement), an achievable better future will become evident in the world.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-is-power-biblically

“Twas Grace that taught my heart to fear.”

The Bible’s false promise of everlasting life empowers Bible-thumping clergy to partner with politicians to influence if not control many people. It’s called Chapter XI Machiavellianism (The Prince, 1513).

For all I know, upon my death I will actually be judged by Jesus, and I am prepared for it. However, I do not think it will happen. Therefore, I try to develop integrity in my performance and achievements in life.

I regret every moment I spent trying to master bible-power. Since I do not know the-objective-truth, I do not want anyone to think as I do. Let each person decide for their body, mind, and person.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-reasonable-to-refuse-to-be-friends-with-someone-who-doesnt-share-your-political-views

It is not reasonable to refuse friendship because of opinion.

Consider the proposition that is offered by the preamble to the U.S. Constitution: We the People of the United States communicate, collaborate, and connect to provide five public institutions---Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare---in order to secure liberty to living citizens.

Adopting this proposition is essential to civic citizens and people who do not adopt it, for whatever reason including unawareness, are dissidents to justice.

Notice that the list of public institutions excludes religion. Believing religion is a private practice under liberty.

Citizens appreciate each other for mutual, comprehensive safety and security regardless of personal opinion.

https://www.quora.com/Do-engineers-tend-to-be-more-conservative-or-liberal-in-their-political-beliefs

Probably 85% of engineers are fiscal conservatives, because they learn the First Law of Thermodynamics. That is, the total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains interchangeably constant. Stated in general by Einstein, E=mC-squared.

Perhaps 15% of engineers think they know the mystery of whatever-God-may-be; they are religiously traditional. Thus, perhaps 13% of engineers are traditional conservatives.

Some engineers trust-in and commit-to the-objective-truth, the ineluctable evidence by which truth is measured. They tend to influence responsible human liberty, which is neither classical liberty nor absolute independence. A culture of responsible human liberty continuously develops mutual, comprehensive safety and security among fellow citizens.

https://www.quora.com/As-a-whole-are-we-valued

To the extent of acceptance of human individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity to the-objective-truth rather than infidelity, humankind may be appreciated. (HIPEA to develop crime is dissident to civic citizenship.)

Choosing HIPEA to develop integrity may be encouraged and coached by amending Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to a hierarchy of responsibilities to self and to fellow citizens. The sooner an individual accepts HIPEA and develops the self-discipline for Maslow’s responsibilities, the faster humankind may appreciate the individual.

When civic citizens are in the majority, humankind may appreciate itself, and a person could say “as a whole we are valued.”

Law professors

https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/08/22/silent-originalism-and-the-reweighting-of-precedent

The problem is that no one in the legal profession accepts humankind’s ineluctable work to conform to the-objective-truth. Fellow citizens who do not know that they trust-in and commit-to equity under statutory justice ought not be authorized to vote. That may include some U.S. Senators and other officials.

Perhaps fortuitously, the preamble to the U.S. constitution (the U.S. preamble) offers the proposition to develop fidelity to the-objective-truth. The-objective-truth is the ineluctable evidence by which truth is measured. Scholars and others who reject “the-objective-truth” or its better expression (for example, by lessening it to “objective truth” or “truth”) refuse responsible human liberty. Moreover, they refute the civic, civil, and legal power of the U.S. preamble, a civic people’s proposition that defines We the People of the United States.

The U.S. preamble offers this proposition or better: civic citizens communicate, collaborate, and connect to provide five public institutions---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to encourage responsible human liberty to the continuum of living citizens. In public, I happily return to the original nouns---Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare---for unison reading of the U.S. preamble and use the five personal interpretations to order my life under the discipline of civic integrity.

The U.S. preamble is this nation-of-people’s commitment to human equity under statutory justice. Statutory justice is perfected statutory law, an unattainable and worthy goal.

Again perhaps fortuitously, the action taken by the U.S. preamble’s proposition is to establish and provide maintenance-of a system of governance held accountable by the civic people---those who trust-in and commit to the U.S. preamble’s five public provisions for responsible human liberty. Key is the provision to amend un-just articles that follow the proposition. No one knows the ultimate better future of a civic people under the U.S. preamble with the-objective-truth as standard.

People may oppose my interpretation of the U.S. preamble. It seems evident that the U.S. Congress has never supported it, erroneously labelling it secular.

Consider the U.S. Senate. Senators begin each session-day with prayer and the pledge of allegiance. Neither of those acts is consistent with the U.S. preamble’s proposition. The U.S. preamble leaves religion and political-allegiance for each citizen to determine under statutory law. By design, the Senate is the most reliable political body in federal government. Senators are limited to six years before facing accountability to We the People of the United States---a civic people. Both Supreme Court Justices and writers for the media are nearly exempt from accountability. More than any other body, the Senators ought to conform to the U.S. preamble’s proposition and ought to read it in unison to start each session-day. I request that the U.S. Senators so reform.

Religious prayer, a colonial-British tradition, and other forms of “originalism” oppose the U.S. preamble’s proposition. Counting “blessing” a religious expression is true for some, but not all. Even as a representation of whatever-God-may-be, “blessing” means approval-of and encouragement-in [responsible human liberty]. It seems evident that whatever-God-may-be, domestic peace is a human responsibility. We the People of the United States ought not continue suffering erroneous colonial-British traditions.

In tyranny against civic discipline, We the People of the United States suffers the folly of a U.S. Supreme Court who has yet to discover the standard by which humankind marches forward: the-objective-truth (or better expression of the ineluctable evidence by which truth and justice are measured).

To Paul C Binotto:

“But when the right to vote . . . is denied to any of the . . . inhabitants of such state . . . or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion . . .”

Does opposition to equity under the rule of law as proposed in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution establish rebellion and therefore disqualify the voter?

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.

Saturday, August 17, 2019

The Christian thing to do: another identity politics

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: “Willing citizens collaborate, communicate, and connect to provide 5 public institutions—integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity—so as to encourage responsible human liberty to living people.” I want to collaborate with the other citizens on this paraphrase and theirs yet 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

When I was a toddler, no one encouraged me to suspect that “the Christian thing to do” was politically correct identity politics. Nevertheless, I suspected exhortation that did not seem consistent with behavior I observed.

A half-century later I was developing trust-in and commitment-to the-objective-truth. Another quarter century later, I articulate that the-objective-truth is the ineluctable evidence by which truth is measured.

I think fidelity-to the-objective-truth is the standard by which politically-correct identity politics can be measured.

Columns

Political identity with illegal aliens (Michael Gerson) (https://pilotonline.com/opinion/columnist/guest/article_f8f350a2-6e4c-5aa1-a8f4-f251712f1966.html)

Michael Gerson indicts both himself and social science in his column “Trump undermines a belief in truth itself.”

First, he seems to imply that he is a journalist rather than an opinion writer. He uses the phrase “opinion journalist” as though subjectivity somehow completes objectivity. It’s a false idea, no matter where it is expressed. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_journalism for example. Gerson illustrates the inadequacy of the word “truth.” It must be measure by the-objective-truth, the ineluctable evidence. Maybe the-objective-truth is a new expression, but the concept of verifying the truth should not be new in this age.

Second, he indicts himself by faulting President Trump for independently leading the people with 1) direct messages using distribution tools he chooses and 2) being first to express what most people may be wondering. President Trump, like the rest of us wonders about Bill Clinton’s trips perhaps on Jeffrey Epstein’s generosity.

Self-styled “social scientists” will cringe at the generalization of Gerson’s statements: “This presents a problem for social scientists. Since they can't even ask questions . . . without influencing the answers, how do they measure the true influence of [human reasoning]?”

Political identity with illegal aliens (Alanah Odoms Hebert) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_cd67a49a-ba22-11e9-b9ed-9b480106dab7.html)

The Advocate editors create the captions for letters. Their opinion “Anti-immigrant policies will not keep Louisiana safe” combined Hebert’s falsehoods “undocumented immigrants make our communities safer” and “Anti-immigrant fear mongering will not make Louisiana safer.”

Legal immigration is an American identity politics.

The evaluative phrase “political correctness,” peaked in about 2005, giving way to “identity politics.” Suddenly, advocates and writers make their political identities plain. In this case, both The Advocate and the local ACLU executive director choose illegal aliens over both civic fellow citizens and legal immigrants and against Louisiana’s elected Attorney General, Jeff Landry. Both The Advocate and the local ACLU choose opposition to the USA.

Individuals have two tools by which to order their personal, civic integrity or assess their identity politics: the U.S. preamble as civic proposition and the-objective-truth as standard for justice. The proposition is to provide five public institutions---Unity, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare---in order to secure responsible human liberty for living citizens in the USA.

The-objective-truth is the ineluctable evidence by which truth is measured. Converting “illegal aliens” to “undocumented immigrants” does not meet the standard of justice (the-objective-truth). Both The Advocate and the local ACLU promote falsehood.

The U.S. preamble encourages citizens to assess their individual identity politics.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/Which-culture-seems-to-be-the-most-restrictive-regarding-freedom?

Culling the top 100, my first choice is freedom of religion, which discourages development of integrity.

The human individual has the power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity but without encouragement and coaching may develop infidelity unto habits.

Fortunate is the person who accepts HIPEA and chooses fidelity to the-objective-truth, the ineluctable evidence by which truth is measured and on which justice is founded.

Many people want freedom of religion but few imagine “freedom of integrity,” a contradiction. The standard of integrity is the-objective-truth, which exists, may be discovered, and cannot be refuted by reason, revelation, doctrine, coercion, force, and other human constructs.

However, if a culture encouraged and coached its youth to accept HIPEA and employ HIPEA to develop integrity, an achievable better future might become evident.

I added three paragraphs including this one after thinking about the original post.

https://www.quora.com/How-will-you-personally-help-to-improve-the-civic-discourse-in-the-US?

I will first learn if the other party wants to talk, and accept “no” if that is their message. If “yes,” I will assert that when I use the word “civic” I am referring to collaboration for each other more than for the municipality. The municipality will benefit if individuals reject the old adage “never talk politics or religion.”

Then, I will listen to the other party in order to learn from them. If his or her concerns are similar to mine, I will explore mutually beneficial solutions.

If I perceive the possibility, I will introduce my ideas for an achievable better future in the U.S. so as to improve on them from the other party’s views of his or her experiences and observations.

I promote the U.S. preamble’s proposition not knowing its possible outcomes under the-objective-truth, most of which I do not know. However, I perceive that fellow citizens have much to teach about the civic tools from my identity politics.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Will-the-world-be-better-if-the-world-is-just?

The world would be better if it was just.

The question is, what is the standard for justice? The standard is the-objective-truth, the ineluctable evidence by which truth is measured.

See the essay on the-objective-truth at https://promotethepreamble.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-objective-truth.html.

https://www.quora.com/If-the-world-eventually-becomes-a-one-world-government-would-the-world-still-be-divided-by-different-cultures-and-practices-or-would-people-mold-them-together?

Perhaps a successful world government would require the preservation of the civic cultures some people want.

I’ll never forget the conversation with my favorite person, my wife’s Aunt Margaret. None of my ideas ever made her emotional. Escorting her and my wife to a wedding she asked my latest idea, and I said, “I’ve been thinking humankind does not need religion at all.”

She responded, “Maybe so, but I want religion.”

I appreciate civic people, and that includes individuals who want religion.

I think most people want mutual, comprehensive safety and security; in other words, civic integrity. Religion can be compatible with civic integrity.

The preamble to the U.S. Constitution presents a controversial proposition to the individual citizen: civic citizens collaborate for five public institutions---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity so as to encourage responsible human liberty to living people. It is a proposition for civic discipline rather than self-government, which easily corrupts.

Religion is not mentioned, because pursuing-religion-or-not is an individual choice. In other words, religion-or-none is part of responsible human liberty.

Despite the disparaging ideas that have been written about humankind, each individual has the power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity or infidelity to the-objective-truth: the ineluctable evidence by which truth is measured. Some individuals are either unaware or don’t accept HIPEA. Some who accept HIPEA develop integrity and some choose infidelity. Individuals who develop integrity cannot be coerced into cooperation, subjugation, or submission. They can be constrained by force or killed yet will do all they can to resist.

The U.S. preamble’s proposition under the-objective-truth as civic, civil, and legal standard seems adequate to develop a culture of mutual, comprehensive safety and security. Development of those two tools for that purpose is possible in the USA or elsewhere. Whichever nation develops it might lead the world to nationalism with civic integrity.

(I read and liked Lynn Muskat’s U.S. history but stopped at the description of the world government.)

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/How-are-astronomical-events-relevant-to-society

My comprehension is woefully inadequate to respond to this question, yet I will share my thoughts.

Starting with Merriam-Webster online we see that astronomy means “the study of objects and matter outside the earth's atmosphere and of their physical and chemical properties.” Wikipedia adds “[The study] uses mathematics, physics, and chemistry to try and explain their origin and evolution.”

I think that Einstein’s general relativity, E=mC-squared, informs us that everything evolves from physics, the object of study more than the research for discovery. Thus, mathematics and chemistry are offspring of physics. Likewise, biology and psychology are offspring of evolution, and thereby, the study of the object called physics is the study of everything. Even fiction and religion are speculations derived from what has not been discovered about physics.

For example, it is broadly accepted that “the sun’ll come out tomorrow.” From that mirage, some people had the impression that the sun is like a god, traversing the sky by day and sinking below the horizon at night. However, we know that each evening the earth’s rotation on its axis hides the sun then un-hides it again each morning. To protect children from the waste of unlearning false impressions, adults have the duty to put aside traditional expressions for updates, in this case, adults can observe at daybreak, “The earth’s rotation un-hides the sun again.” From this observation, the child’s mind can then progress to the rotation as the day progresses to the hiding again before dusk. Next, he or she may wonder how fast his or her spot is rotating on earth’s axis: some 1,000 mph.

With these bases, the idea of an intelligent being having created everything can be regarded as an un-disproven speculation. Thus, the mystery of whatever-God-may-be can be discussed from the posture “I do not know” rather than in defense of reason, revelation, doctrine, tradition, and other human constructs.

In a culture with most people separating hopes about whatever-God-is from communication, collaboration, and connection for mutual, comprehensive safety and security, the chances for peace are higher than humankind experiences today.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Is-grassroots-media-the-way-forward-in-our-socially-dominated-world

I don’t think grassroots media can compete in a heavily dispersed, conflicted world. As always, an alternative approach is to reform the education of human beings for individual happiness with civic integrity.

I’ll start with why I don’t think grassroots media is the answer.

First, individuals are too busy trying to live as they think they want to live to educate themselves on how to live with optimal benefits. Most people seek individual happiness by trying to accomplish what another entity has in mind for them.

Second, the individuals who educate themselves for optimal living already know how to tap actual reality rather than fake news.

Third, once someone knows the happiness they seek, they realize it is so unique most other people would not lend aid. This problem could be lessened by revising “Maslow’s hierarchy of needs,” to a hierarchy of responsibilities to integrity.

Fourth, in time, the leadership of a grassroots organization corrupts.

In reformed education, the moral excellence of humankind is emphasized and encouraged, as in the revision to “Maslow’s responsibilities.”

First, from infancy to adolescence, the individual is inculcated with human, individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity to the-objective-truth (or better expression of ineluctable evidence and how to benefit from its discovery) or infidelity. By young adulthood, the person comprehends and intends to practice his or her choice: integrity or infidelity.

Second, an online journal or timeline of discovery of the-objective-truth and how to benefit is maintained. Wikipedia is supported by voluntary contributions (I am an annual contributor), and I use it as a first resource for confirmation of information. If the Wikipedia information is critical, I follow up with further work. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie, gives no clue that Albert Einstein wrote, “This means that the rule ‘Thou shalt not lie’ has been traced back to the demands: ‘Human life shall be preserved’ and ‘Pain and sorrow shall be lessened as much as possible.’” https://samharris.org/my-friend-einstein/ Youtube also has a catalogue of videos about lying, such as the delightful https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbftlDzIALA.

Every individual may participate in the revolution from habitual lying to fidelity to the-objective-truth by collaborating, communicating, and connecting for civic integrity.

I am writing during preparation for our sixth annual September 17 public library meeting to celebrate Constitution Day in the USA, an unheralded federal observance. I have no expectation for attendance but hope for a pleasant surprise.

https://www.quora.com/What-does-social-equality-at-its-finest-look-like

The human species is the only one wherein each individual has the power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to either develop integrity or not.

In a civic culture, most adults develop integrity, and dissidents may reform on evidence rather than exhortation, coercion, force, or violence. Dissidents remain fellow citizens unless he or she invited the death penalty.

In integrity, most adults recognize that, due to HIPEA, the consequences of a person’s life are directly related to choices made under either fidelity to the-objective-truth or infidelity. Because each person is unique, equality of consequences is not possible.

Moreover, the single cell from which a human may develop, the ovum, is unequal to other ova. It is unique. However, adults may choose to do all they can to provide each ovum equality and dignity of care. In a civic culture, citizens collaborate, communicate, and connect.

The woman, in assuring her personal well-being accounts for some 400 ova she may deliver during her fertile decades. She is attentive to both physical and psychological well-being.

In like fashion, the man cares for his well-being with more ubiquitous spermatozoa in mind. Furthermore, he regards a woman as a group---herself and the viable ova she may be carrying. There is no way he would threaten her welfare nor the welfare of an embryo she could gestate and deliver.

Similarly, there is no way a couple would form a family to which they are not committed for life---their lives, the lives of their children, and the lives of their grandchildren.

In a culture that intends social equality most families’ best intentions anticipate the parent’s grandchildren and beyond, and the journal of tradition reminds the parents not to promote past errors.

https://www.quora.com/What-kind-of-dormant-or-unprecedented-activism-do-you-believe-may-arise-in-the-next-decades

Perhaps the people will establish a civic and civil culture in the USA. Here’s how it may happen.

The greatest political sentence ever written, the U.S. preamble’s proposition, is only 52 words of controversy. It has been falsely suppressed as “secular” ever since the people’s representatives of nine former British colonies, then individual states in the world, effected legal establishment on June 21, 1788. The U.S. preamble’s proposition legally ended the 1774 Confederation of States, and the opportunity remains for the proposition’s civic and civil establishment.

Unfortunately, the First Congress, 1789-1793, made the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. preamble) ineffective by restoring colonial British traditions in the eastern seaboard states, eleven in 1789 and increasing to fourteen by 1791 when Congress imposed the Bill of Rights.

Most offensive is the First Amendment, which in its religion, speech, and press clauses defends religious institutions above human integrity. Integrity is the practice of obtaining ineluctable evidence that a concern is not a mirage; comprehending the evidence so as to benefit from the facts; understanding how to benefit from the discovery; collaborating, communicating, and connecting with fellow citizens so as to listen to their ideas for improvement; and remaining alert for ineluctable evidence that change is required.

The civic culture will develop when most citizens consider, adopt, and practice, under the-objective-truth, the proposition that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The-objective-truth is the ineluctable evidence by which truth is measured. It is acceptable for dissidents to the proposition to learn either by observing a civic people’s individual happiness under civic integrity or by suffering the rule of law.

The U.S. preamble’s proposition is necessarily abstract, because the authors accepted each: that they did not know the-objective-truth, could not bind the continuum of living citizens to 1787 understanding, and had no idea what successive generations’ civic culture should be. In other words, the authors wrote a civic, civil, and legal proposition that, together with provisions to amend unjust laws, might serve the continuum of living citizens.

Our collective citizenship may form a civic culture if most individuals interpret the U.S. preamble’s proposition so as to responsibly order the happiness each individual pursues. Just now, my continually examined interpretation is this: Civic citizens collaborate, communicate and connect so as to provide five public institutions---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---so as to encourage responsible human liberty in the USA. I write these ideas so as to receive suggestions for improvement from fellow citizens.

The former eastern-seaboard, colonial-British colonies (about 13% of today’s contiguous land area) won political independence from England. They became free and independent states in the world. Controversially, about 2/3 of the states established the USA on June 21, 1788. However, the First Congress, with a population that had predominantly colonial-British psychology, re-establish English tradition.

Today, 231 years later, most Americans are not attracted to colonial-English tradition. The time to establish the U.S. preamble’s proposition (originally with six formative nouns: providing Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare to secure liberty) under the-objective-truth has arrived.

There is so much public apathy that these ideas are met with “That’s very noble, Mr. Beaver, but it will never happen.” However, all it takes is for individuals who like the ideas to nourish them for personal use and practice their political identity. For example, a believer in one of the Abrahamic religions may recognize that while spiritual hope is not included in the proposition’s six nouns, the option to believe or not is included by the five provisions to secure liberty. Under individual happiness with civic integrity there is no restriction beyond responsible human liberty: civic integrity.

The USA can establish a civic culture under the U.S. preamble’s proposition if most citizens want to apply the-objective-truth.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-biggest-problems-facing-the-United-States-of-America

Assuming you have asked for the top 100, my first thought is preservation of colonial-English traditions.

The remedy is for each citizen to consider, adopt, and practice under the-objective-truth the proposition that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The-objective-truth is the ineluctable evidence by which truth is measured. It is acceptable for dissidents to learn by suffering the rule of law.

I can’t prioritize the other 99 problems.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-is-the-relationship-between-human-rights-and-human-development

The human individual has the power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity to the-objective-truth or infidelity. Fidelity requires the self-discipline to individually discover and apply the ineluctable evidence on which truth is measured.

Most cultures inculcate a search for higher power---spirituality or governance---which inevitably proves insufficient and unreliable to the individual.

In the human condition, equality may be questioned at the single-cell level—the ovum. Ova are unique and thus unequal. Fertilization by a spermatozoon does not impart equality. As a conception is gestated to fetus and delivered uniqueness and thus inequality does not lessen. Therefore, the best a new born can hope for is equity and justice.

The newborn has the right to encouragement and coaching toward acceptance of HIPEA and its use to develop integrity rather than infidelity. Unfortunately, most newborns are equally denied the right to develop integrity.

Recognition and acceptance of these observations for collaboration, communication, and connection among civic citizens could develop an achievable better future. Dissident citizens could be encouraged to reform by the examples set by people who accept HIPEA to develop integrity rather than infidelity: exhortation, coercion, and force seem insufficient to establish human equity and justice.

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-it-is-ok-for-a-person-to-be-mistreated-based-solely-on-their-political-beliefs

A Greek recorded some 2500 years ago that, in my modern interpretation, a human may collaborate, communicate, and connect for equity under statutory justice.

It seems self-evident that of the earth’s living species, only human individuals may accept the power, the energy, and the authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity or infidelity. Those who develop infidelity often do not grasp the concept: equity under justice.

Thereby, they invite opposition from statutory law, the imperfect progress toward statutory justice. They naturally oppose the law and face the consequences, intentionally or not.

The individual who insists on un-just law by stonewalling persons who both express concern and propose reform have chosen inequity by not collaborating, communicating, and connecting. (BTW, politicizing whatever-God-is exemplifies a dominant inequity older than 2500 years.)

The un-faithful actor may face woe and usually feels mistreated.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-feel-compelled-to-define-themselves

Unfortunately, the world’s conflicted cultures inculcate in their youth the tendency to seek higher authority to order their lives. However, humankind does not approve of and encourage election of the-objective-truth as standard for advantageous living.

The-objective-truth is the ineluctable evidence by which truth is measured. For example, the earth is like a globe rather than flat. Again, the earth’s rotation on its axis un-hides the sun each morning.

Each human being has the individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity to the-objective-truth or infidelity. Fortunate is the adolescent who accepted HIPEA and is developing the integrity required for fidelity to his or her responsible human liberty.

These principles are reflected in humankind’s innate collaboration for equity under civic justice. The proposition for justice in the USA seems stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution as approval-of and encouragement-to responsible human liberty under the-objective-truth.

However, so far, the U.S. preamble’s proposition is bemused by a civilization founded on the mystery of whatever-God-may-be as a civil norm rather than a private belief. The First Congress, 1789-1791, lessened the U.S. preamble’s proposition for equity in justice by falsely labeling it “secular” even though it is intentionally neutral to religion (and race and gender and other political identities).

In the human condition, the individual is too powerful to accept compromise, subjugation, or submission. Individuals who accept HIPEA may either develop integrity or pretend infidelity pays. The individual’s day to day experiences inform him or her to choose integrity.

No matter where the individual stands on his or her quest for responsible human liberty, HIPEA, recognized or not, compels him or her to never stop pursuing integrity. Human loss and misery may lessen at an accelerated pace by encouraging all youths as well as adults to accept HIPEA and use it to develop integrity.

Next day: Mr. Maher, thank you for your upvote. My writing attempts to be direct for my thoughts. Did you notice word changes that would better align with your thoughts?

https://www.quora.com/What-might-happen-if-the-current-U-S-Senate-started-each-daily-meeting-with-the-unison-recitation-of-the-peoples-proposition-for-equity-under-justice-the-preamble-to-the-U-S-Constitution my question, from last week

Answer:
Michael Lee, Public Policy Analyst

Answered 20h ago

Nothing different.

Very few people watch the Senate’s opening each day anyway.

76 views · View Upvoters

Upvote· 1011

Phil Beaver

Just now

That’s true. The observers might take interest.

Note that, 100 civically engaged voices expressing the U.S. preamble’s proposition is an awesome experience. Some of the 100 senators might be reminded that they can be, first, members of We the People of the United States.

On the preamble’s proposition citizens divide themselves: civic collaborators, communicators and connectors against dissidents.

How many senators have considered the proposition and written their own interpretation? As they spoke the 52 words, they’d be expressing their interpretation or nothing.

David Muccigrosso

I always hate these sorts of stunts that pretend as if some made-up ritual is magically going to solve decades of partisan combat.

Phil Beaver

I especially dislike the actual Senate meeting beginnings: a prayer and the pledge of allegiance, neither of which is consistent with the U.S. preamble’s proposition.

The U.S. preamble’s proposition accepts that no one has the responsible human liberty to impose on fellow citizens the mystery of whatever-God-may-be if there is anything but chaos. In Chapter XI Machiavellianism, only a few citizens rebel or leave the nation.

Michael Lee

Scene: a town hall meeting.

Congressman: “I had to vote it down! They read the preamble to the Constitution!”

Curb Your Enthusiasm theme plays.

Keith Thompson, Software Engineer

What might happen if the current U.S. Senate started each daily meeting with the unison recitation of the people's proposition for equity under justice: the preamble to the U.S. Constitution?

Nothing.

Requiring people to recite certain words every day is an effective way of making those words meaningless.

Perhaps they could do it for Richard Stans.

Phil Beaver

That’s funny. Some Senators probably think they are saying “for Richard Stans” during their current daily recitation.

Kent G. Budge, Staff Scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory (2012-present)

They’ve been starting their proceedings with a prayer for over two hundred years, and this appeal to a higher authority than the Constitution seems not to have helped.

Mike Jones, Worked in technology for over 30 years.

Nothing. Some Senators would make a show of their recitation, others would mumble along, but it wouldn’t make a bit of difference once it was done.

Gary Porter, I teach Saturday Seminars on the U.S. and Virginia Constitutions.

They would waste 15 seconds of valuable legislative time!

Seriously, they have already taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution, what further is required? Why not have them read the entire document at the start of each day? Would that help? In think not.

Congress is going to do whatever they think We the People will let them get away with.

Phil Beaver

First, some senators might consider and realize for the first time that the preamble to the U.S. Constitution is a civic, civil, and legal agreement.

Most citizens do not have a personal interpretation of the preamble’s proposition, but each senator should know his or hers and be collaborating, communicating, and connecting for acceptance of that interpretation or its improvement. The interpretation ought to reasonably reflect the consensus of his or her constituency.

Over the course of six years, the senator’s voting could indicate his or her interpretation of the U.S. preamble’s proposition.

In my interpretation, the preamble proposes to encourage responsible human liberty to living citizens. For example adults would not create debt for their children to inherit.

Second, the articles that follow the U.S. preamble’s proposition ought to work for it’s ultimate goal, which I think is statutory justice. That is, statutory law is amendment when injustice is discovered.

I share my interpretations only as an example of engaging the U.S. preamble’s proposition. My hope is to witness most people using the preamble to order civic, civil, and legal life so that the worthy pursuit of statutory justice is noticeable more than the struggle for dominant opinion.

If the U.S. Senate took the bold step of declaring the members are first members of We the People of the United States as defined by the preamble’s proposition, the other branches of government would be encouraged to follow suit. Moreover, citizens might pay closer attention to their duty to hold elected and appointed officials accountable to the preamble’s proposition.

Gary Porter

Your goals are indeed noble - preserving the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity should be the objective of every elected official, at every level of government. Yet I’m not convinced that today’s Senators’ behavior will be influenced by a daily recitation of, well, anything.

Jim Vineyard

It would likely turn into an empty ritual recited by a minimal number of Senators, therefore rendering it meaningless. I am sorry to have to say that, but I believe it to be true.

What WOULD be better is, if possible, at each and every public meeting of the members of his/her state the Senator would be required to answer questions about how what he/she has done in the Senate could be demonstrated to have furthered the purposes of the Preamble. That would be interesting.

Phil Beaver

Excellent recommendation, and I’ll act on it . . . and.

And, the fellow citizens who organized the meeting would first need to understand the preamble’s proposition and reflect the expectations of the political party.

In my experience, the people are so busy trying to live the life they think they want, they don’t care to challenge the Machiavellian suppression of the preamble’s civic, civil, and legal power.

The First Congress, 1789–1793, rendered the preamble “secular” and thereby ineffective for the 1790s and beyond. However, the preamble is neutral to religion, gender, and race and has not been weakened in the 231 years since its ratification on June 21, 1788.

It is appropriate that the Senate, in particular this Senate, encourage the establishment of the U.S. preamble’s proposition in the USA.

Getting the horse before the cart, the individual who reads this could accelerate the public support to motivate the Senate to take the lead on establishing the preamble’s proposition to living people.

Law professors

https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/04/05/how-classicists-undermine-the-case-for-classics (continued)

Ms. Barnhizer, I think you misconstrue Wilson's plea. She wants classics sold as journals of mistaken "truths" of the past so that living people (a continuum) may observe mistakes without experiencing them.

Quoting McGinnis' quote of Wilson, "I think we should stop selling classics as, “These are the societies that formed modern America, or that formed the Western canon” — which is a really bogus kind of argument — and instead start saying, “We should learn about ancient societies because they’re different from modern societies.”

In support of Wilson's "bogus kind of argument," we may observe that "the societies that formed modern America" is an overt claim to identity politics.

That the "Western thought" proponent objects to the stonewalling he or she currently receives is perhaps a new, covert experience.

What's happened in the last 25 years is that the older phrase "political correctness" yielded to "identity politics." I was reared in the identity politics of "the Christian thing to do," and realized only on studying Joshua Mitchell's "What is Identity Politics?", in the current issue of National Affairs, that not only Christianity but monotheism is identity politics that spawns many violent factions---the Abrahamic top three factional religions to cite a few of the thousands.

By accepting that "Western Civilization" is 17th-19th century British dominated political correctness, reform to an achievable better future may accelerate.

The preamble to the U.S. Constitution has been proposing reform from colonial-British tradition to responsible human liberty under civic, civil, and legal authority in the USA for 231 neglectful years. This unfortunate human loss has occurred because of the determination to impose errors of the past on the continuum of living citizens.

Beware the political correctness and identity politics of preserving colonial tradition and attend to the journals of past errors.

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.