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

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

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

Walter Williams continues to publish provocative views for Americans about black Americans. It is not too late for him to promote We the People of the United States, an entity with the purpose of developing statutory justice. Perfecting statutory law is an impossible yet worthy goal.

Williams could have noted Thurgood Marshall’s service as associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States beginning October 2, 1967, but chose to commemorate Colin Powell’s service as the 65th Secretary of State beginning January 20, 2001. Powell was succeeded by Condoleezza Rice.

Williams knows his preferences; perhaps there are criteria for preserving the exclusive label “black-American.” In the column referenced below, Williams did not mention Obama.



Columns

Does anyone else recall Nolan promoting racialism? (Lanny Keller) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/lanny_keller/article_2b49198c-c9a4-11e9-930e-97229965892a.html

I remember John Nolan in psychological shadows because he supported (and may yet) identity-politics for divisive indoctrination on American racism. It is not too late for Nolan to ponder and join the entity We the People of the United States as defined in this nation’s proposition. I think whatever-God-is might suggest consideration of red as critical to resolution of the black vs white competition in the USA. The liberty-proposition is blind to race, gender, religion, and other human constructs.





Slavery was promoted worldwide by African kings with Arab dealers and church-sponsored buyers. One identity politics today is celebrating 1619, when English explorers landed black slaves in Virginia under the Church’s doctrine of discovery with 15^th-century church-assigned monopoly on African slave trade. The 1619 celebrators address world history imposed on the USA, from which We the People of the United States is deliberately, slowly recovering. The recovery can be accelerated, especially if the opinion “God is red” is accommodated.



The USA struggles against an imposed human error (assuming there’s no such thing as “sin”). The USA did not exist in 1619. The settlers did not know how to hunt and fish. The indigenous peoples taught the settlers how to survive in the wilderness. The USA did not exist in October 1774 at the First Continental Congress. It did not exist on July 4, 1776. It did not exist on January 14, 1784. It did not exist on September 17, 1787. The people of 9 states established the USA on June 21, 1788. Two free and independent states joined the USA before operations began on March 4, 1789. Unfortunately, the First Congress re-established colonial-English elitism, so the USA has yet to establish psychological freedom-from oppression so as to secure the liberty-to pursue responsible individual happiness.



There has been light. A self-freed black man on July 5, 1852, speaking to the President of the USA, railed against his dissident fellow citizens who perpetrated third-generation domestic slave trade. Frederick Douglass stated: “the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? or is it in the temple? it is neither. While I do not intend to argue this question on the present occasion, let me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave-holding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it.”



Douglass had the human audacity to confront domestic slave-trade four years before abolitionists sacrificed life and property for the liberty-to pursue human integrity in Bloody Kansas. Dissidents to responsible human liberty cited “more erroneous religious beliefs” in their declaration of war against abolitionists. R.E. Lee expressed the erroneous religion in 1856, in plenty of time to sell everything and move his family to a free-state. Begging visible human woe like that in Kansas, Lee dismissed his liberty-to oppose his church-ministers.



The preamble Douglass cited, the U.S. preamble, is a people’s proposition interpreted for this day as:  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 secure responsible human liberty to the continuum of living citizens. In other words, connect for freedom-from oppression in order to secure the liberty-to pursue individual human integrity.



I invite each Nolan, Mr. Keller, and The Advocate employees to join We the People of the United States in the quest to understand and establish the achievable better future that is offered in the U.S. preamble’s proposition; no one knows how much justice human integrity can deliver in the coming days, years, and decades. And the path to domestic peace can be accelerated with majority identity politics to discover the-objective-truth as the standard for statutory justice.



Does anyone appreciate the abolitionists? (Walter Williams) (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams082819.php3)

Despite good intentions (pavement to Hell) Williams would have served himself by trashing this column. We now know he does not appreciate We the People of the United States as a nation of people who accept civic citizenship in order to secure responsible human liberty; it’s a hard, resilient sell. Accepting the preamble to the U.S. Constitution defines the individual as either a civic citizen or a dissident to development of statutory justice.

Here are some key features of U.S. history, established 1788:

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.