One valid 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

We are studying identity politics and so far reached one thought. There is one valid political policy, and that is collaboration, communication, and connection for mutual, comprehensives safety and security.

More later.

News

Writers for the press ought to be journaling the path by We the People of the United States toward civic integrity (John Simerman) (https://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/politics/article_bfd491e2-bcfa-11e8-8564-5f492a3d65bd.html)

Harrop uses some interesting turns of phrase: democratic socialist, raw identity politics, and its parental political correctness.



Columns

Expressing identity politics (Christopher Simon) https://issuu.com/richlandcentershoppingnews/docs/vp0207 (Page 6)

I identify with the politics that the human being may alter his or her destiny by developing fidelity to the-objective-truth. Thus, love and compassion follow appreciation and pity, respectively. Anyone who expresses hate has no influence, and that includes St. John in John 15:18-23. The fellow citizen who develops fidelity corrects human errors as he or she discovers them, and by no means nourishes appetites into habits. The idea that a person cannot individually create his or her heaven in life is false.

Simon, intentionally or not, writes against responsible human liberty.

A rebellious path? (Susan Larson) (https://www.nola.com/users/profile/susan%20larson/)

I was struck by the exhortation/anguish expressed in the picture that accompanies this article.  

It’s no wonder. Sister Helen Prejean has always searched for whatever-God-is according to the mysteries she learned. Prejean has yet to open her mind to a human standard. For example, civic citizens agree to collaborate for equity under statutory justice rather than for charity. No citizen wants to thank a bureaucrat for food whether it's church or government.

I quote Larson about Prejean’s pursuit of “. . . God, or whatever name the writer gives the Divine.” The “Divine” implies non-earthly or other worldly and reflects the identity politics of excluding non-believers.

 Prejean and other believers could seek a human standard and thereby improve mine. In my identity politics, individuals may collaborate, communicate, and connect to discover the-objective-truth, the ineluctable evidence on which truth is measured. For example, the non-existence of God has not been proven, so the human standard regarding the existence question is “I don’t know.” The mystery of “whatever-God-is” becomes “whatever-God-may-be” or better. Either way, human understanding is served.

Some living citizens appreciate that just as one must earn the money for individual preference rather than thanking a bureaucrat for unwanted food quality, a citizen must collaborate for liberty. One factor is the popular replacement of “civic” with “social,” a likely consequence of “social science,” an error of its own promotion. Larson wrote, “St. Thomas housing development added a social dimension to [Prejean’s] religious and moral education.” Civics is a public endeavor whereas religion is a private pursuit. For example, Prejean would not, could not disclose her god for public evaluation.

And notice what happens to “justice” when one modifies it to “social justice.” Chaos ensues. Consider the current U.S. Supreme Court. With a Judeo-Christian dominance, the people can only expect the identity politics that fits the dominance. The U.S. Supreme court justices can individually consider the proposition offered each of them in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution under the-objective-truth (the U.S. preamble’s proposition) and choose to consider themselves foremost civic citizens so defined.

Larson quotes Prejean, “African-American people at St. Thomas became my teachers.” Prejean applies to fellow citizens a political identity---an exclusion from responsible human liberty under the U.S. preamble’s proposition.

Prejean insists on the childhood of her time in insisting “I really needed . . . to . . . directly commit to loving my neighbor.” In many cases, “love” is too simplistic and in some cases one neighbor has victimized the other, and the “love” must choose. I feel weak in money changers in a temple as my first example. Civic citizens have no prerogative to love or have compassion for each other, because they appreciate each other’s human privacy regardless of outward appearances excluding civic harm. Then, the civic-citizen receives aid; the criminal receives constraint.

Prejean uses “white privilege” to impose identity politics based on skin color and wonders at the quote “What the eye doesn’t see, the heart cannot feel.” Prejean seems both blind and unfeeling about evil acts. Further, “. . . the poor are to be poor no longer,” is empty without responsible human liberty.

Talk of liberation theology will not draw me to Prejean’s book, because I learned from Anthony B. Bradley’s book “Liberating Black Theology” (2010) and from Jeremiah Wright that liberation theology is identified with Marxism. It replaces Jesus as God with the un-privileged Biblical tribes from Adam, the origin of sin. Groups of self-appointed victims in reality become Christ. Prejean wants to replace justice with charity, but I support justice under the U.S. preamble’s proposition (don’t forget the-objective-truth).

Does Prejean confront the racism of African-American Christianity? I understand some proponents believe the only way a white person, at least a white man, can save the “soul” is to help black Americans reign supreme. I propose that most fellow citizens join We the People of the United States under the U.S. preamble’s proposition (don’t forget the-objective-truth).

“I don’t think humans can live without intimacy,” seems too absolute to remain abstract. I get the idea Prejean is bi-sexual at least, but what not say what is suggested? But my principle objection is with “intimacy.” There are many people in the world who practice intimacy without sex. And according to the-objective-truth, progression to sex in fidelity fallows a path like: encounter; eye contact; mutual attraction; talk; sharing contacts; sharing interests; sharing aid; reliability; trust; mutual commitment; agreement to family monogamy; marriage; sexual intimacy. The key to ultimate civic morality is fidelity to the-objective-truth. Social morality promises chaos. It’s no wonder Goethe is controversial:  In civic integrity, each human is a light to the world.

    

Writer for his identity politics (George Will) (https://triblive.com/opinion/george-will-shootings-the-causes-of-violence/)

In 2016, George Will claimed his political identity is non-GOP. Did Will discover his actual reality or did the GOP change?

I voted for Donald Trump twice, the first time in order to empower the only (GOP) candidate who I thought could keep Clinton out of office. Trump’s method of un-hiding liars astounds me, but I cannot fault him for it. He’s convinced me to wait and “See how it turns out.” So far, so good, and I hope for more.

As things stand, I cannot imagine a better choice for president. Trump/Pence presidency might, at last, establish We the People of the United States as defined by the proposition that is stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It proposes five public institutions to secure responsible human liberty.

I hope to vote for Donald R. Trump and Mike Pence a third time.

George Will continues to impress that he is a man without convictions. How many psychologically mature citizens leave their political party because of one person? See https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/us/politics/george-will-leaves-the-gop-over-donald-trump.html . Thank goodness Will could not convince enough citizens to vote for Clinton.

Now, Will indicts me long before he knows the 2020 presidential candidates. How can a writer for the press become so lost?

The candidate who this citizen deems more able to promote responsible human liberty in the USA can dissuade my third vote for Trump/Pence. I am not aware of such team. However, I hope the GOP comes forth with candidates for 2024.

People like Will have no grounding in the-objective-truth. It does not respond to opinion.

(Shortened for posting at the above URL.)

Conservatives: in 2019 admit (to yourselves) identity politics is ancient and reform to fidelity under the-objective-truth (Froma Harrop) (https://democratherald.com/opinion/columnists/froma-harrop-democrats-drop-identity-politics-now/article_ad3be6c8-b5b4-52c9-8b5d-963df781fbce.html)

Harrop uses some interesting phrases: democratic socialist, raw identity politics, and its parent--political correctness. However, like other lame-column writers (George F. Will comes to mind) she does not offer reform. We the People of the United States may establish the preamble’s proposition under the-objective-truth, accepting civic integrity and boldly identifying with responsible human liberty.

Harrop cites https://hiddentribes.us/pdf/hidden_tribes_report.pdf. “Political correctness . . . is disliked by 82 percent of Asians, 87 percent of Hispanics, 79 percent of whites and about 75 percent of African Americans.” She suggests that practitioners should be dismissed, especially the identity politicians.

Joshua Mitchell’s article in National Affairs, Number 40, unintentionally draws attention to the descendants of Adam and Eve. Perhaps the story’s authors initiated identity politics. Adam’s “privileged heirs” are permanent transgressors regardless of individual human integrity. For example, the abolitionists of Bleeding Kansas who were white heterosexual men were transgressors and their descendants owe retribution for slavery. Mitchell seems religiously political.

Last week, identity politics was ironically on display in two celebrations of the 400^th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was in Ghana, unwittingly with a black caucus some of whom may believe the only way Pelosi can save her soul is to materially help black Americans reign supreme. Pelosi furthered a claim: “When we met with our AFRICOM leadership on our way here, they told us that Ghana is a shining star in terms of exporting security to the continent and a model for thriving democracy in the world.” President Trump was in Jamestown to celebrate “American democracy’s” comprehensive history, unfortunately including the statement “And in 1618, the Great Charter and other reforms established a system based on English common law . . . in tribute to that English legal inheritance.” Pelosi celebrated the continent that sold a bitter commodity, while Trump celebrated the empire that accelerated the purchase and distribution the evil practice of slavery for colonialism. Read the two speeches at each https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/73119/ and https://www.rev.com/blog/donald-trump-speech-transcript-in-jamestown-virginia-july-30-2019 .

It seems plain that governments are incompetent, and whatever-God-is left to humans the responsibility for establishing civic integrity on earth.



Keep actual reality in public view and let informed voters choose preferences (Jessie Balmert) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ohio-gop-leader-tells-rep-candice-keller-to-resign-over-dayton-shooting-facebook-post/ar-AAFnJ64?ocid=spartandhp) and (Rebecca Morin) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/beto-orourke-on-texas-shooting-trump-has-no-place-in-el-paso/ar-AAFoIIX) and (ABC News) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/former-president-obama-offers-rare-rebuke-in-wake-of-el-paso-dayton-shootings/ar-AAFnWly)

I oppose censors---including each Jane Timken, Beto O'Rourke, and former-president Barack Obama.

Consider the necessity of nationalism (Byron York) (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/nationalism-rightly-understood-is-a-necessary-ingredient-of-political-success)

In my mid-seventies, I am woke to my naiveté in past objections to the press requiring control of the caption used to publish a letter-to-the-editor:  the media so abuse columnists---even journalists who select words that enable them to pass the editors’’ censorship.

To the point, my socialist democrat newspaper captions this opinion “Nationalism, grasped right way, can be good.” As the URL above expresses, York’s column originated under “Nationalism, rightly understood, is a necessary ingredient of political success.” In a sort caption, “Nationalism relieves conflicted politics.”

Moreover, York presents a writer’s well-grounded assessment of nationalism as a remedy for imperialism, naming offenders, then states that the premise is “congruent with” President Trump’s recent statements. “Congruent with” is not as arrogant as “agrees with.” Thus, York does not offend the editors.

I make the point---about a press unworthy of freedom of the press---at the risk of distraction from York’s political lesson. York quotes the reviewed book in naming imperialists: “from the Holy Roman Empire to the United Nations, as well as Nazi Germany . . . to conquer [perhaps Clinton’s ‘basket of deplorables’], and the Soviet Union.” York considers the European Union.

In 1993, York wrote that Western politics had evolved to four dispositions: religious, socialist, liberal, and nationalist. Each is weakened, respectively, by actual reality, impracticability, weakness, and some writers for the press. In other words, today’s press would be imperialist. But We the People of the United States read beyond the press-writers to discern journalists.

York writes for the people rather than the imperialists, and it is good when readers take the time for journalism in the press.



Quora

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)

Answer: 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.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/How-can-administration-of-justice-enhance-the-development-of-society

People who have considered equality, equity, and justice, may have concluded that they want to collaborate, communicate, and connect for responsible human liberty (RHL). RHL requires a public agreement for equity under statutory justice, a perfection yet a worthy goal.

Equity is necessary rather than equality, because even the human ovum possesses dignity but not equality, depending upon the mom’s physical and psychological well-being. The ovum with the highest wellbeing may face annihilation after conception. After conception, the influences of a confused world lessen the person’s chances of accepting RHL.

The person who accepts RHL stays informed about his or her governance and demands that elected and appointed officials maintain their status as fellow citizens and collaborate, communicate, and connect for RHL. In other words, being a civic citizen is administration of justice during the individual’s lifetime.

I do not participate in the equivalence of “society,” “humankind”, “culture,” “the people,” “nation,” or “civics.” However, a culture or nation that develops individuals who practice these principles will accelerate the discovery and implementation of statutory justice by amending un-just statutory law.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-expectation-for-this-subject-of-understanding-culture-society-and-politics

I expect most people to realize that politics is power and cultures emerge in competition for dominant opinion.

The culture of mutual, comprehensive safety and security is worthy of dominance. I think we are now at the abyss of identity politics. In other words, an achievable better future is imminent because of 1) the chaos we now suffer and 2) our abilities to communicate, collaborate, and connect for responsible human liberty made possible .



https://www.quora.com/What-major-changes-must-humanity-implement-to-become-a-truly-unified-planetary-society

The living parents must encourage and coach their own children to accept human individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity to the-objective-truth or infidelity.

The-objective-truth is the ineluctable evidence by which truth, reason, revelation, reality, statutory law and other human constructs are measured. The-objective-truth exists and can only be discovered. For example, the mystery of whatever-God-may-be may be resolved in a better future.

With this change, the lifetime benefits of responsible human liberty will become evident by example rather than by exhortation. Extant acceptance of oppression by dominant opinion enforced by police domestically and the military globally will decline. Under HIPEA, the people will develop statutory justice, a perfection yet a worthy pursuit. In other words, the people who accept responsible human liberty will hold their governments accountable.

I write to learn of better ideas for an achievable better future.

https://www.quora.com/How-will-identity-politics-facilitate-an-achievable-better-future (I posted the question)

Answer by: Michael Kupperberg, B.A. in political science

Do not believe they will, they are based on subtraction, not addition.

Identity politics, takes a portion of the population, that has something in common, skin color, religion, ethnicity, bicycle riding, it doesn’t matter, and then turns them into a lobbying group, with grievances, some of which are real.

It, identity politics, is based on all these set asides behaving as a base for a larger group, that will promote their aims, wishes, and gather their votes, for an agenda that may or may not benefit them.

In life, as in politics, making friends and influencing people adds to one’s life, dividing people, and creating sources of hatred, even if valid to some degree, degrade life. Just do not see how identity politics moves us to a better future.

Nationalism, at its best, includes all in the nation, with no exceptions. Instead of continually dividing up the pie, why not make the ingredients of the pie be more in harmony with each other, working together for a common aim? That seems to be outside the realm of identity politics.

Phil Beaver

Mr. Kupperberg, I appreciate your well-grounded response.

I especially like nationalism at its best and don’t think identity politics will survive the entity We the People of the United States at its best.

I’m trying to find improvement on my thought and perceive that you helped: Identity politics uses a specific interest to divide the people who behave in civic citizenship. And division does not promote a better future.

Michael Kupperberg replied to your comment

Thank you very much for you kind words. Am glad to have been any part of putting forth a vision, that gives you some clarity. For all that, as a friend of my said, stay warm, it is a cold world out there. Keep being open, to all ideas, and thank you very much for your reply.

Answered by: James Evans, former Professor of Behavioral Sciences (Emeritus) (1990-2015)

The term “identity politics” is a political pejorative for how politics has been organized in all republics since ancient Rome. In Rome, the political groups were called “Optimates,” the rich and elite and “Populares,” the average Roman citizens. Political organizations such as political parties have always recruited and organized citizens by various identity groups. Our original Constitution even designated identity groups: “…free persons including those bound to service for a number of years, Indians, not taxed, and …other persons.” (Article 1, Section 2) That was late 18th century “identity politics” designating white people, American Indians and black slaves of African origin. Whether identity politics has any role in facilitating an achievable better future depends on who is running our political system. No one factor determines the future.

Professor Evans, I appreciate your time to respond.

Did the republics since ancient Rome originate identity politics?

You wisely made no predictions yet supported my question, “How will . . . “ I will continue to collaborate to learn possibilities for the present chaos to improve chances for a better future.

Thank you.

Jeff Redman responded: Given that ALL politics is “identity politics” the question is nonsensical and, therefore, unanswerable.

Mr. Redman, your point is well taken, and Prof. Evans cited Roman political correctness.

I respond by changing consideration from the practice to the phrase, “identity politics.” Google books at https://books.google.com/ngrams/...? informs us that “political correctness” appeared in books before the 1960s and “identity politics” in the mid 1980s but began to decline by the late 1990s.

One of the ideas I pursue is that political factions keep the people bemused by changing the dominant language for their association or society. That is, while humankind is ineluctably marching to fulfill its responsibility for peace, the political factions continually change their proprietary terminology so as to distract the people. For example, “conservative” is employed to represent preservation of diverse political interests: fiscal responsibility or economic viability, the dominant culture when a nation was formed as in colonial British tradition in the USA or constitutional originalism with its competing factions; religious dominance as in theism, particularly Christianity, specifically Protestantism perhaps in competition with Judeo-Christianity. I consider myself an open-minded fiscal conservative and responsible-human liberal.

If the political factions admitted to themselves that they represent an identity politics, a movement toward civic integrity could emerge.

These thoughts would not have been written without your response and Professor Evans’ comments. Thank you.



https://www.quora.com/Do-you-feel-incompatible-with-today-s-society

No, because I feel part of the living humankind. I do not like the constraints of the word “society.” Perhaps it is one of the unfortunate products of “social science.” “Society” as substitute for “the people” blocks civic collaboration, communication, and human connections.

I am a citizen of the world and of the USA and observe both civic contracts.

The general requirements of citizenship include 1) behaving for equity under statutory justice no matter where you may be in the world, 2) neither initiating nor tolerating harm to or from anyone, where intolerance’s strength is expressed verbally or physically, depending upon the other party’s aggression, 3) accepting mutual eye contact that invites collaboration, communication, and civic connection, and 4) accepting the other party’s non-harmful expressions, especially demands for privacy. I write to improve these thoughts.

I am a U.S. citizen, and my agreement to pursue equity under statutory justice is expressed in the proposition that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. preamble). Fellow citizens may reject the agreement but risk the consequences of statutory law if they cause harm.

Citizens who consider the U.S. preamble may interpret it so as to help order their pursuits in life within civic obligations. Interpretations differ according to the individual’s choice to develop either integrity or infidelity to the-objective-truth. My interpretation of the proposition is: We the People of the United States collaborate, communicate, and connect to provide public integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity so as to encourage responsible human liberty. I have no idea how beneficial the ultimate interpretation might be and doubt that the 52 original words need amendment.

I view fellow citizens as they are, where they are, in their individual paths to their preferences regarding the civic issues mentioned above. If I have the chance to interact with someone, I apply the above principles.

Only if I err by breaking one of my own principles might I lose sleep: I feel compatible with the living humankind.

https://www.quora.com/Is-Pride-Week-a-symbol-of-equality-for-all-humanity

No.

Pride Week is aptly named, according to Merriam-Webster-online’s “inordinate self-esteem : CONCEIT.”

The human individual begins as two viable gametes: an ovum and a spermatozoon. Conception initiates events that may result in a person who understands and intends human responsible liberty. The transition from newborn infant to young adult who is developing responsible human liberty requires about 3 decades of encouragement and coaching (along with financial support).

Included are the examples of monogamy for life in the parents, grandparents, and perhaps by stories, four sets of grandparents. Fortunate is the ovum that becomes a person who develops integrity rather than nourishes infidelity. Unfortunate is the ovum that becomes a person who lives never having been appreciated.

The viable ovum has the dignity and equality to be conceived, gestated, and reared to understand and intend to develop integrity. Integrity is a practice: 1) confirming a personal concern is not based on a mirage, 2) discovering the actual reality, which I call understanding the-objective-truth, 3) learning how to benefit from the understanding, 4) publicly sharing understanding and listening for improvements, and 5) remaining open to discovery that requires new understanding. The extended family provides, by examples more than instruction, the importance of fidelity to the-objective-truth.

Adult contracts that create a person who is destined to live without the opportunity to observe what’s required for monogamy lessen chances for monogamy. Only 13% of marriages are monogamous, so there is not much responsible human liberty to observe.

Fortunate is the human being who actually falls-in-love: discovers mutual appreciation for life. Fortunate are the partners who want to satisfy each other in intimacy for life. The partners in intimacy for life who are same-sex sense pride as MW’s “a reasonable or justifiable self-respect.”

If a same-sex couple decides to parent, they encounter the challenge of appreciating the viable ovum. The ovum has human dignity and equality which he or she may develop after conception, gestation, and rearing. I would not know how to accept the responsibility to maintain an ovum’s dignity and equality without providing heterosexual monogamy for life.

Therefore, I could not apply to same-sex parenting MW’s “pride” as “delight or elation arising from some act.” Appreciating children to be born, I do not encourage LGBTQ pride.

All the literature I’ve read about homophobia ignores “heterophobia”---appreciation of the responsible human liberty to preserve the dignity and equality of the viable ova the wife will produce during her fertile years.

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-unity-liberty-and-equality-so-prevalent-as-the-3-core-values-of-any-society?

I am not familiar with the proposition you state: unity, liberty, and equality are core values of any society.

I promote individual use of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution to order personal living. I encourage each individual to study the preamble’s words, consider what they might mean as humankind approached human perfection, and write then nourish an interpretation of the 52 words so as to make the most of their brief cognitive lifetime.

That exercise forced me to choose a standard for justice. I chose the-objective-truth, the ineluctable evidence by which truth is measured. I admit to myself that I do not know what is not known. For example, I cannot solve the mystery of whatever-God-is---intelligence, chaos, or other.

I think the simple message in the U.S. preamble is this: civic citizens collaborate, communicate, and connect to provide five pubic institutions---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to encourage the individual to choose responsible human liberty.

I did not arbitrarily eliminate unity and equality from the six key words in my interpretation. I think the U.S. preamble’s authors and ratifiers accepted that unity, equality, and religion are not inherent human potentials as liberty is.

By his or her fidelity to the-objective-truth a person chooses to make the most of his or her life or settle for less.

https://www.quora.com/Social-and-political-change-occur-on-the-individual-level-Are-we-responsible-in-any-way-for-our-family-friends-knowedge-of-politics

Now in my late 70s I grew up under the adage “never talk religion or politics.” Perhaps in my mid-30s, after 16 months expatriate duty in Greece, where I saw communists drag the American flag in the street, I started searching for two explanations.

With so many wonderful people in the world, why are there wars? With such a wonderful preamble to our republican constitution, why are Americans not fulfilling its potential?

Forty years later I think talking about the mystery of whatever-God-is is futile if not injurious, because the two parties discuss God, not knowing each addresses a different, personal object. Only when both parties accept that they each are speculating about the mystery of whatever-God-may-be can such discussion be rewarding.

However, fellow citizens have a mutual obligation to collaborate, communicate, and connect for equity under the rule of statutory justice. Statutory justice, ultimate judicial perfection, is developed by discovering erroneous statutory law and amending it.

In the U.S. citizens have the obligation to consider the proposition that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. constitution, interpret it so as to order their pursuit of justice in personal behavior, and share with others how the U.S. preamble supports their behavior. If he other objects and offers a supporting alternative, the fellow citizen may consider the suggestion and perhaps respond.

Citizens who adopt the U.S. preamble’s proposition are civic citizens---in other words, are of the entity “We the People of the United States.” Fellow citizens who have not done so are dissidents, whether they are aware of it or not.

The civic citizen may discover human individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity or fidelity. Further, he or she may discover the need for a standard by which to judge the law. The standard I adopted for that purpose is the-objective-truth, the ineluctable evidence by which truth may be measured.

On my blog, I maintain a list of people, nearly 70 now, who have spoken to my expressed concerns and well-grounded remedies and thereby produced the above articulations. I cannot wait to learn the next collaborative idea. Moreover, I think I will witness an achievable, better future with more people accepting the U.S. preamble’s proposition under the-objective-truth.

I think identity politics faces the ineluctable pursuit of mutual, comprehensive safety and security under responsible human liberty.

If you like this response, share the good parts of the politics every way you can, and if the mystery of whatever-God-is comes up, address it according to your preference.

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.