By: Lou Archambault

Helmets are devices meant to protect the head in unsafe situations.

Accidents may cause head injury to the occupant of a car, bus or any other means of travel such as a horse carriage or buggy, not just motorcycles. There may be statistics that show more heads are injured as the result of motor cycle accidents than the other forms of travel. It does not mean they need to wear helmets to prevent those injuries.

There is risk of head injury in many instances. It is prudent to protect your head in every incident of risk taking; but you could cover your head your whole life and never be dealt a blow to the head - we die from many other causes.

My point being - I believe that requiring, rather than recommending, the use of headgear to protect the head goes beyond the need for legal involvement in regulating the protection of society. I think putting better laws into effect to protect the air we breathe and the water we drink could derive much more benefit than interfering with the rights of individual choice provided in our constitution.

Riding a motorcycle involves risk taking. The ability of the operator to operate the equipment in an environment that was not designed for its use is the primary obstacle - why is it not a law to provide lanes for two wheel, four wheel and heavier vehicles - the joint use of the same lanes impedes traffic function. The fact that vehicles are produced to exceed the speed laws is another anomaly of the traffic safety intent.

The helmet is one piece of gear and it is not a life saving device, just as the seat belt is not a life saving device. Society views and believes them to be life saving devices because they have been taught to, but life cannot be saved only lived - we can only postpone death. Let riders live their lives the way they want to. Concern yourself with the civility of the world and the laws that protect it.

The use of the helmet is not the issue - the issue here is the right of the motorcycle riders to make their own choice. I can make arguments for and against the safety attributes helmets provide the riding experience. It should be the right of the rider to choose - it should not be a legal decision. It is the rider's responsibility to put on a helmet. It is the government's responsibility to manage its population in a civil manner to improve humanity - stopping wars, cleaning up the environment, curing diseases, and protecting the rights of the people.

My point - lets do the things that actually accomplish change in the quality of life of our society, like laws to enhance the civility of the life experience. Let the riders of motorcycles decide the risk they want to take. Let the law protect this right of choice.

By: Lou Archambault

The intent is not in the act but in the purpose of the act. The purpose of the act must benefit the whole; if it does not it is not, a civil act; it is a counter productive act. It is an evil act. All acts in themselves are neither good nor bad in the scheme of existence. In life we impact on one another. These acts that impact our lives are felt in terms of emotions conveyed to our mind through our thought sensory system. This system deals with thought stimulus and response. It is composed of three energy capacity functions: our will, our desire, and our emotions of love, hate, and despair. The intent of this system is to provide the capacity to derive the purpose of our actions.

When we understand our role (PURPOSE) we know our metaphysical sensory system (INTENT) is of a higher order of intelligent energy than our physical system. We feel a flood of emotions for what we choose as our intent because these emotions do not choose us. We are our emotions at the sensory level of our metaphysical existence. Everyone views life from his or her own personal perspective through his or her own thought sensory system.

Do you cringe at the thought of the slaughter of animals? Maybe at the thought of how we are destroying the ecosystem of the earth? Or, do you just cringe at the thought of your own personal agony? Do you let yourself understand the intent and purpose of the rest of the whole of your being and how you impact it?

What are you going to do? How do we balance the synergy of our impacts on the world of our existence? How pertinent are your thoughts? Do they allow you to contribute a civil intent and purpose for your thought existence?

By: Lou Archambault

What is the point of government if not to guide the behavior of its people? Why does the court reject the tenants of the TEN COMMANDMENTS? Let me tell you why. The courts' decision process is controlled by legal procedure manipulation. Opponents manipulate decisions using procedure rules to disallow information and entering dubious information to cast suspicion. Opponents have managed to promote the notion that the Commandments are relegated to religious notions and that secular society cannot use them because they are religious in nature; and invoke the separation of church and state law. The fact of this matter seems to be left without representation, so I thought I might enlighten the court on the rest of the story.

The legal system has no exemption from being as stupid as anyone else is. It relies on the rules of procedure to derive its answers rather than using rules of procedure to manage the procedure for deriving its answers - it does not develop what the truth in the facts might be. It does not care to understand the mitigating circumstances of the facts. It is a first order procedures game without much, if any, merit. It only rules on conclusions developed by the contestants in the case before it, based on their ability, to enter information for consideration.

Well I am here to provide an argument in behalf of using a facsimile of the TEN COMMANDMENTS as the tenants of our democratic governments' codes of ethics and laws. Use the Commandments to formulate the guidance for our ethics and legal proceeding to affect civil temperance.

As for the definition of God in these tenants, it is defined to be the Source of our nature. It is a secular interpretation of the religious thought on the issue. No icon is in representation of the Source as defined. The Source is the origin of our being as biological entities and precludes the notion of religion.

I will start my argument by declaring in statement that this case is not about a notion of religion but one of behavior development and management. Borrowing the terms of understanding provided by the Bible in no way shape or form implies that religion is the issue.

Let me elaborate: Civil behavior management is the thesis of argument for the case to incorporate the TEN COMMANDMENTS into the Constitution as guidance on our rights and responsibilities for a civil and just government. To not allow the formulation of a facsimile of these tenants describing civil behavior would imply the converse of civil intent or more specifically evil intent. It appears at present that the intent and purpose of our legal system is to promote evil behavior by not providing guidance for what is considered to be civil behavior.

Why is it that the courts cannot see and judge in behalf of the civil behavior guidance provided by the TEN COMMANDMENTS? The courts make law to state the things that are not civil in nature. Why does the court not allow our constitution to provide guidance to manage and maintain civil behavior? If a better delineation of tenants for civil behavior guidance is possible let it be done and incorporated into law. If not I suggest we adopt what has been provided till the time we can see fit to develop a better delineation of laws for guidance on civil behavior and responsibilities.

The court has stumbled around this issue for years. Let this day be the last. Let us recognize that the TEN COMMANDMENTS are social guidance for a civil society to build world humanity worthy of our creation. The question we must ask ourselves is - are we a civil society?

By: Lou Archambault

Drawn like moths to a flame these people are drawn to hate the other because of the greed and anger born in the past that drives their thought.

Like the moth that seeks the light of the candle only to be burned, these people seek the light of their God only to find that their will is not the will of their God.

They want what they do not have. They want the attention of God for their own. They want to be God’s chosen people, but God’s chosen people are civil people intent on glorifying God’s creation.

These people believe that their enemies will fall at the hand of their God, but their God is a civil God. Their God is the same as the God of their enemies. They do not realize we are each the same in that we are of creation and there is no ethnicity in the eyes of creation. We are the work of the same God. Each power is derived from the same source – the thought of the God of creation.

When these people realize they are their own worst enemy – their hunger for what they want won’t blind their sense of civil duty founded in the notions of the 10 Commandments given to them for us - like the thoughts of all great works of humanity. Works that have fueled the thoughts of the people of the world to pursue a civil and just purpose intent on improving the quality of our existence..

They do not practice the words given to them by our God. The words of the Commandments are the way to peace, the essence of what they need. They will exhibit civil behavior when they put into practice the tenants of the Commandments.

The world needs to learn this lesson from these chosen people. These people are the model for the world. They are the example for developing the purpose for which we are here. They need to set the example of peace making and civility - this is their purpose and the intent of our God.

By: Lou Archambault

Existence is the charged thought that configures its essence - charged thoughts compose the ontology of thought that creates action, place, and mass. Existence is the action of being migration in a matrix of positive and negative forces. Existence in motion is the state of being which is thought energy in motion. Existence at rest is the nothingness of the Source of thought - in nothing all exist.

Nonexistence is the void in which existence resides - all that lacks the thought to stay in motion as a phase of existence. Non-existence is the balanced or neutral state of existence from which all thought is derived.

Being is the thought expression of the 3-dimensional spheres of influence - DESIRE, WILL, AND EMOTION. These constitute the three planes of the two phases of existence - TO BE OR NOT TO BE (being or not being). Being resides in the state of existence. Not being is a transition phase that migrates between the states of existence.

Energy is the essence of thought in motion. Mass is manifested thought. Thought at or approaching rest is mass decay or death.

Life is thought migration in the physical matrix of the to be stage of existence seeking discovery (intent) and decision (purpose), under the influence planes of existence - planes of the 3-dimensional spheres of influence (DESIRE, WILL, AND EMOTION).

Death is the rest or transition position of being in route to another phase of existence or to non-existence.

The balance of the forces of existence is the objective of this subjective routing of energy forces. The physical life stage is an impression of the metaphysical existence stage expression of our being stages - of which there are also the two, being or not being.

The delineation, integration and balance of the planes are the objective purpose of the life experience decision process. The intent is to qualify the quantity of the associated energy capacity. Essentially, what to do with what you have. The ultimate decision on a grand scale - do you continue to work at improving or do you discontinue the effort on the direction of the thought process to formulate a likeness. Kind of like the debate for genetic and robotic engineering that goes on in our life experience - such is a reflection of the ultimate grand decision to retain your thoughts into the depths of existence.

The physical descriptions of thought energy as compression and expansion manifestation features such as: light wave, particle wave, sound wave, brain wave and mind wave energy was derived from thought. The void of non-existence in which existence resides is the product of thought; therefore, the energy of life's physics is bound to thought as the essence of its being.

The states of thought are of two types of Energy: Physical and the metaphysical energy types. They are the same but act on different stages of existence. The brain is part of the physical stage of existence while the mind is part of the metaphysical stage of existence. Our current science expresses the physical realm but it does not express its correlation to the metaphysical realm of desire, will, and emotion. These metaphysical values of expression have physical impact due to their capacity to manifest, apply, and direct the forces of physical energy. It is well known that the strength of the will, the force of desire, and the power of emotions are values that describe the energy of our being. These values equate to quantifiable physical properties - mind thought properties. These properties in turn can be expressed mathematically.

Mind thought is three-dimensional exploration of existence in motion - using the planes of the 3-dimensional spheres of influence - DESIRE, WILL, AND EMOTION. This is accomplished by jumping the fences of our inhibitions so we can explore the vastness of our mind's potential. We are what we think we are, as we will the emotions of our desires.

Letter to USA Today Wednesday, May 1 2002

My name is Louis Phillip Archambault. I am from Conyers, Georgia. I wish to comment on an article by Jayne O'Donnell and James Healey that appeared in USA Today on this day. The title, Oil execs: Probe on price fixing.

This article points to the job at hand; we need to continue to evolve as a species.

Industry is subject to the expectation and or temptation to control the market place. The consumer is at the mercy of this ethic of corporate behavior, where the bottom line is gain (profit). Consumers need protection from this exploitation. Consumer industries need to be regulated. There needs to be fixed profit margins on sales and services to deter the temptation to gouge the consumer.

Once the worth of a product or service is determined it should be priced to cover the cost of providing it to the consumer without inflation of those cost. Industries' gain should be regulated.

The object is to allow society the opportunity to value purpose of being over the greed of individual group gains. Life is a force to be managed for developing the perfection of our societies by shaping and improving our perspective of our being.

Gain, advantage, greed, and control only deter from the purpose of our existence. We are each part of the same whole. We must fit together in harmony.

Commerce pits the consumer against the investor. To whose advantage is the market place? Everyone loses when greed and the ethics of the boardroom compete for control.

A strategy, process, and plan must be designed to regulate the greed and ethics of the marketplace. A plan to balance the worth of goods and services with the objective of solving the needs of society. The strategy is to discover meaning for the collective suffering of humanity by solving this phenomenon. Why do we live and die in the confines of this finite monetary world without the justification of balance? The process for this transformation is found in the balance of our desires, our collective will, and our emotions.

I desire that we see ourselves for what we are. We are the force of desire, the strength of will and the power of emotion that our creation has yielded. We make the laws; we break the laws. We are the bottom line, not you as one, you as a group or, you as an opinion. You are not significant as a single entity. United we express the balance of our being.

What is significant is that we, each of us, must balance our assets and our liabilities as a whole to derive our worth as humanity. This is the job at hand. We are humanity and in it we all reside with our history and our future. What will be is our choice just as we chose our past.