There are many visions of America in the minds of its citizens. Based on my life experiences and observations, I would like to have an America where:
1)The provisions of the U.S. Constitution are strictly observed and enforced, with no hidden meanings read into the document's actual text. State and local rights respected, as per the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
2)Taxation voluntary and not compulsory. A government by truly popular democratic will has no right to go beyond the voluntary will of the American people, as expressed by their free-will financial support. Government has no intrinsic right to the people's money.
3)No military alliances or commitments to any foreign countries exist. As Thomas Jefferson said it, we should have free trade with all but entangling alliances with none.
4)There exists no national financial debt or deficit. Government always keeps its budget balanced, and the gold standard is restored. Fiscal responsibility is a key to our government's success.
5)No man or woman is bullied, harassed or hounded for reason of ideological or theological belief. Constitution First Amendment rights to express these beliefs freely without fear of retaliation are also respected.
6)The needy through no fault of their own are cared for through private charity initiative, and not through government programs. No government financial appropriations given to shield anybody from the consequences of their own fiscal recklessness and irresponsibility. Medical care not covered by private insurance are fully tax-deductible, as opposed to national government-administered programs.
7)No abortions are performed, not because of coercive laws prohibiting it, but because the women concerned sincerely feel it to be unnecessary.
8)No foreign political pressures compelling any change in the direction of American domestic politics. National energy independence is especially in view here.
9)People are free to make their own mistakes in life, rather than the government to make mistakes for them. Government does not always know best!
10)Government does not interfere with the right of parents to raise and educate their own children as they(the parents) see fit.
11)Food, air and water are free of all industrial pollutants.
12)Financial status is irrelevant to citizen access to the courts and the justice system. Equal justice under law for all, not just for the rich. Access even to the U.S. Supreme Court for all cases with Constitutional merit.
13)No marital divorce exists. Marriage as a lifetime commitment taken seriously, marital problems worked out.
14)No rights, priviledges or monetary benefits given to illegal aliens. Valid American citizenship required as a prerequisite to enjoyment of the American "good life". America does not belong unconditionally to the rest of the world!
15)Race, national origin and ancestry of all American citizens is irrelevant in the eyes of the law. Equal justice under law, and no man or woman is pilloried or penalized for the sins and crimes of their ancestors.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
Man: A Sinner By ANY Standard
The Bible defines "sin" as personal dereliction to live up to the laws and teachings of God. However, man, in his constant rebellion against all authority, refuses to abide by other sets of rules and regulations as well.
At least ever since the turn of the 20th century, the United States Constitution has also been virtually ignored by all three branches of the federal government. In relation to it, the individual states have much less sovereignty now, than they used to have, as the central federal government has made many unconstitutional power-grabs. Part of this problem lies with the fact that the American people have been brain-washed into believing that the federal government is a consumation devoutly to be wished in solving their problems, rather than a solution of last resort. "Pass the buck" and "Let George do it", rather than acceptance of personal responsibility, are largely the reasons for this problem. These are sins of omission.
Finally, everybody knows that those New Year's resolutions do not last long! Even by our own standards we set for ourselves, we decline to faithfully maintain them over any significant length of time.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
At least ever since the turn of the 20th century, the United States Constitution has also been virtually ignored by all three branches of the federal government. In relation to it, the individual states have much less sovereignty now, than they used to have, as the central federal government has made many unconstitutional power-grabs. Part of this problem lies with the fact that the American people have been brain-washed into believing that the federal government is a consumation devoutly to be wished in solving their problems, rather than a solution of last resort. "Pass the buck" and "Let George do it", rather than acceptance of personal responsibility, are largely the reasons for this problem. These are sins of omission.
Finally, everybody knows that those New Year's resolutions do not last long! Even by our own standards we set for ourselves, we decline to faithfully maintain them over any significant length of time.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Thursday, April 2, 2009
LKM's Life Principles
1)Truth matters supremely. The victory of truth over falsehood is more important than consideration of other people's feelings, when they are comfortable with their beliefs in falsehood.
2)Numbers cannot and do not substitute for principle in discernment of right from wrong, truth from falsehood. VOX POPULI VOX HUMBUG!
3)Economic Communism and socio-political liberty cannot and do not co-exist side-by-side.
4)Human rights are God-given, not man-given. Man cannot give rights, but only temporary priviledges. Anything and everything men can give to us, men can also take away from us.
5)Human governments are a necessary evil, not a consumation devoutly to be wished. In problem-solving, government should be a last resort, not a first preference.
6)The rich are those who rejoice in whatever possessions they have.
7)It is supremely important, to give thanks and praise to God when we are on the "up" side of life, and not just to beg his aid when we are on the "down" side of life. My favorite national holiday is not Christmas or Easter, but Thanksgiving. God is never under any obligation to put us and keep us on the "up" sides of life.
8)Whether you win or lose is not as important as how you played the game. Did you play by the rules, or did you cheat to get ahead?
9)WE must take responsibilities, and not just "let George do it".
10)EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW. God is not a respecter of persons, and neither should we be.
11)Name-calling does not get the ball rolling.
12)Actions speak louder than words.
13)If there be no music in heaven, I would prefer never to go there because between heaven and hell, there would then be no difference.
14)Seeing is only half-believing. Experiencing is the other half.
15)With relationship to God, once you have thoroughly established among men Whose you are, it is then completely unnecessary to establish among them, who you are.
16)The test of freedom comes in seeing how much we can get by with saying and doing, when government frowns on it.
17)It is no test of freedom, if the only exercise of it we permit is that exercise with which we all unanimously agree.
18)The degree of ease by which men take offense is merely a reflection of their vanity and pride.
19)Whosoever thinks himself to be wise, is a fool. But whosoever knows himself to be a fool is wise.
20)Today's errors assure to us great lessons for better tomorrows.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
2)Numbers cannot and do not substitute for principle in discernment of right from wrong, truth from falsehood. VOX POPULI VOX HUMBUG!
3)Economic Communism and socio-political liberty cannot and do not co-exist side-by-side.
4)Human rights are God-given, not man-given. Man cannot give rights, but only temporary priviledges. Anything and everything men can give to us, men can also take away from us.
5)Human governments are a necessary evil, not a consumation devoutly to be wished. In problem-solving, government should be a last resort, not a first preference.
6)The rich are those who rejoice in whatever possessions they have.
7)It is supremely important, to give thanks and praise to God when we are on the "up" side of life, and not just to beg his aid when we are on the "down" side of life. My favorite national holiday is not Christmas or Easter, but Thanksgiving. God is never under any obligation to put us and keep us on the "up" sides of life.
8)Whether you win or lose is not as important as how you played the game. Did you play by the rules, or did you cheat to get ahead?
9)WE must take responsibilities, and not just "let George do it".
10)EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW. God is not a respecter of persons, and neither should we be.
11)Name-calling does not get the ball rolling.
12)Actions speak louder than words.
13)If there be no music in heaven, I would prefer never to go there because between heaven and hell, there would then be no difference.
14)Seeing is only half-believing. Experiencing is the other half.
15)With relationship to God, once you have thoroughly established among men Whose you are, it is then completely unnecessary to establish among them, who you are.
16)The test of freedom comes in seeing how much we can get by with saying and doing, when government frowns on it.
17)It is no test of freedom, if the only exercise of it we permit is that exercise with which we all unanimously agree.
18)The degree of ease by which men take offense is merely a reflection of their vanity and pride.
19)Whosoever thinks himself to be wise, is a fool. But whosoever knows himself to be a fool is wise.
20)Today's errors assure to us great lessons for better tomorrows.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Friday, March 27, 2009
LKM Answers The Feminists
For better or worse, the nuclear family is the basic structural unit of every society and nation on earth. Even societies which recognize the legitimacy of such extended family forms as clans and tribes, still require nuclear families as the irreducible unit to comprise them. No human generational continuity with such organization is possible without joint sexual activity of one man and one woman.
Feminists say child-bearing is slavery, and marriage is therefore male chauvinist oppression of women. They call for the complete destruction of the marriage institution as a major step towards their freedom. Let us be sufficiently politically-incorrect to follow this road, and see, to where it eventually leads.
With nobody alive today having children, the earth would become completely de-populated in about one century, as people die without leaving any progeny. Shrinkage of the population on such a drastic scale would bring on excruciatingly painful economic adjustments, as the economy shrinks concommitantly with the population. This may make the environmentalists very happy in the short run, as the earth returns to a pristine state of wilderness existence. But they, too, would eventually find their own lives severely impacted by extreme economic reversals. Economic growth with population shrinkage is completely incongruous.
With the crashing of the marriage institution would also come the loss of all private property. The identification of all property as being private necessarily involves legal association of the property with a family name, to distinguish its unique personal ownership from all other possibilities of possession arrangement.
Karl Marx advocated destruction of the family for this reason, saying private property ownership makes a virtue out of greed. But the feminists, without private property ownership of their own, will likewise have no power base from which to rule the rest of society as they wish. So, the abolition of the private family in favor of some form of government-administered communal existence would render the rise of feminism as a form of special socio-economic priviledge highly unlikely to occur.
Feminists say if only maledom did not exist, their lives would be immeasurably happier. But women still have economic and socio-political conflicts among themselves which would not immediately and automatically disappear with the total demise of maledom.
What about gender role reversals, as some more moderate feminists advocate? Some men are gradually agreeing to such accomodations, and this writer has frequently wondered, what America would look like with all levers of government power and authority monopolized by the distaff side. It is indeed an intriguing question. But women would need to accept concommitant increase of responsibility with their expansion of political power. As their preoccupation with careers trumps traditional marriage and family life, they would rule over a populace faced with the severe economic consequences of dire population shrinkage. Planning accordingly would be an especially monumental task for an all-female government, with the institution of the family gone, and all private property with it.
It is often said that politics makes strange bed-fellows. In this case, the feminists, in their quest for total sexual freedom, have a staunch ally in pornography-king Larry Flynt and his ideological "progeny". They may both agree to the proposition of free sex for any consenting adults anywhere and any time. But finally, the feminists should be warned that this one objective is all the two camps share in common, and in the purveyors of pornography, they are likely to face mortal foes otherwise.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Feminists say child-bearing is slavery, and marriage is therefore male chauvinist oppression of women. They call for the complete destruction of the marriage institution as a major step towards their freedom. Let us be sufficiently politically-incorrect to follow this road, and see, to where it eventually leads.
With nobody alive today having children, the earth would become completely de-populated in about one century, as people die without leaving any progeny. Shrinkage of the population on such a drastic scale would bring on excruciatingly painful economic adjustments, as the economy shrinks concommitantly with the population. This may make the environmentalists very happy in the short run, as the earth returns to a pristine state of wilderness existence. But they, too, would eventually find their own lives severely impacted by extreme economic reversals. Economic growth with population shrinkage is completely incongruous.
With the crashing of the marriage institution would also come the loss of all private property. The identification of all property as being private necessarily involves legal association of the property with a family name, to distinguish its unique personal ownership from all other possibilities of possession arrangement.
Karl Marx advocated destruction of the family for this reason, saying private property ownership makes a virtue out of greed. But the feminists, without private property ownership of their own, will likewise have no power base from which to rule the rest of society as they wish. So, the abolition of the private family in favor of some form of government-administered communal existence would render the rise of feminism as a form of special socio-economic priviledge highly unlikely to occur.
Feminists say if only maledom did not exist, their lives would be immeasurably happier. But women still have economic and socio-political conflicts among themselves which would not immediately and automatically disappear with the total demise of maledom.
What about gender role reversals, as some more moderate feminists advocate? Some men are gradually agreeing to such accomodations, and this writer has frequently wondered, what America would look like with all levers of government power and authority monopolized by the distaff side. It is indeed an intriguing question. But women would need to accept concommitant increase of responsibility with their expansion of political power. As their preoccupation with careers trumps traditional marriage and family life, they would rule over a populace faced with the severe economic consequences of dire population shrinkage. Planning accordingly would be an especially monumental task for an all-female government, with the institution of the family gone, and all private property with it.
It is often said that politics makes strange bed-fellows. In this case, the feminists, in their quest for total sexual freedom, have a staunch ally in pornography-king Larry Flynt and his ideological "progeny". They may both agree to the proposition of free sex for any consenting adults anywhere and any time. But finally, the feminists should be warned that this one objective is all the two camps share in common, and in the purveyors of pornography, they are likely to face mortal foes otherwise.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The "Hate Crimes" Question
Let's face it, folks! ALL crimes are hate crimes, and has anybody ever heard of a "love crime"? All crimes are motivated and driven by hate directed at least towards society-at-large, if not towards certain targeted individual people.
Why should it be somehow more egregious, to inflict criminal violence upon members of certain segments or groups of our society, than to inflict the same upon any of the rest of us? Such law is clearly a violation of the U.S. Constitution 14th amendment. Equal justice under law is the mantra carved in marble on the facade of our supposedly-auguste and noble U.S. Supreme Court. That is one of the core moral values we as Americans should all live by.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Why should it be somehow more egregious, to inflict criminal violence upon members of certain segments or groups of our society, than to inflict the same upon any of the rest of us? Such law is clearly a violation of the U.S. Constitution 14th amendment. Equal justice under law is the mantra carved in marble on the facade of our supposedly-auguste and noble U.S. Supreme Court. That is one of the core moral values we as Americans should all live by.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Limits of Liberty
In America today, there is much debate both in government circles and among the public-at-large, as to how much liberty should be afforded to the general populace. There is in evidence today a strong desire to curtail the freedoms of other people, if their exercise of it rubs us the wrong way, and rattles our cages. Protection of people's feelings against all possible emotional injury seems to trump First Amendment free speech rights in particular these days. Both the political Left and the political Right are guilty of seeking recission of freedom on these grounds.
The problem with this approach to law and justice in controlling behaviour is that we do have the 14th amendment in our Constitution. One man's trash is another man's treasure, and one man's villain is another man's hero. So, how can we protect everybody's feelings against all possible sense of offendedness in a way that meets 14th amendment requirements? The answer is simple: that cannot be done!
In deciding which actions and modes of behaviour should be permitted and which should be prohibited, we should just ask four questions: 1)Does the action or behaviour inflict physical violence and injury upon anybody? 2)Does the action or behaviour inflict damage and destruction upon the properties of others, without the consent of the owner(s)? 3)Does the behaviour pick anybody's pocket or bank account? And 4)Do all parties directly involved in the behaviour or action voluntarily agree to it? If the answer to any one of the first three questions is "YES" and the answer to the fourth question is "NO", then the action or behaviour should be legally prohibited. But if the answer to all three of the first three questions is "NO" and the answer to the fourth question is "YES", then the behaviour or action should be permitted, and third-party observer offendedness be damned!
Collective society also has rights; however, the burden of proof is always on the claimant. America was not originally established as an absolute majoritarian democracy; rather, it was established as a republic, in the which individual citizens SHALL be granted certain enumerated freedoms which cannot be rescinded either by government or by majority will of the people. As Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman once put it, VOX POPULI VOX HUMBUG! If collective society-at-large would claim that the actions or behaviours of free individuals threatens to somehow damage society-at-large, the burden of proof in the matter should be on the collective entity rather than upon the individual. As the most vulnerable in our society and in our nation, individuals need the shield of the law most of all, against either maddened mob-ocracy or government goon-squads.
The Bible book of Matthew 18:12-14, records the words of Jesus Christ, telling His apostles the story of the Good Shepherd, who leaves the flock of 99 sheep to look for the one which is lost. This parable tells us that God unequivocally considers each and every individual supremely precious in His sight. Here is the basis of individual civil liberties, in the which the nation's founders proclaimed absolute inviolability as man's "natural God-given right".
Sad to say, as America turns its collective back upon God and the positivist school of legal thought replaces the naturalist one of our nation's founders, the proposition possesses the collective American mind that rights are from the generosity of government, to be granted or rescinded at its political convenience. We cannot claim to be a truly free nation, while living in fear of what may happen to us, if our neighbor is also free. Freedom is indeed risky business, but America was not established by cowards. How much longer will the American flag wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave? The nation's founders observe us today from their heavenly abodes with the gravest of concern.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
The problem with this approach to law and justice in controlling behaviour is that we do have the 14th amendment in our Constitution. One man's trash is another man's treasure, and one man's villain is another man's hero. So, how can we protect everybody's feelings against all possible sense of offendedness in a way that meets 14th amendment requirements? The answer is simple: that cannot be done!
In deciding which actions and modes of behaviour should be permitted and which should be prohibited, we should just ask four questions: 1)Does the action or behaviour inflict physical violence and injury upon anybody? 2)Does the action or behaviour inflict damage and destruction upon the properties of others, without the consent of the owner(s)? 3)Does the behaviour pick anybody's pocket or bank account? And 4)Do all parties directly involved in the behaviour or action voluntarily agree to it? If the answer to any one of the first three questions is "YES" and the answer to the fourth question is "NO", then the action or behaviour should be legally prohibited. But if the answer to all three of the first three questions is "NO" and the answer to the fourth question is "YES", then the behaviour or action should be permitted, and third-party observer offendedness be damned!
Collective society also has rights; however, the burden of proof is always on the claimant. America was not originally established as an absolute majoritarian democracy; rather, it was established as a republic, in the which individual citizens SHALL be granted certain enumerated freedoms which cannot be rescinded either by government or by majority will of the people. As Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman once put it, VOX POPULI VOX HUMBUG! If collective society-at-large would claim that the actions or behaviours of free individuals threatens to somehow damage society-at-large, the burden of proof in the matter should be on the collective entity rather than upon the individual. As the most vulnerable in our society and in our nation, individuals need the shield of the law most of all, against either maddened mob-ocracy or government goon-squads.
The Bible book of Matthew 18:12-14, records the words of Jesus Christ, telling His apostles the story of the Good Shepherd, who leaves the flock of 99 sheep to look for the one which is lost. This parable tells us that God unequivocally considers each and every individual supremely precious in His sight. Here is the basis of individual civil liberties, in the which the nation's founders proclaimed absolute inviolability as man's "natural God-given right".
Sad to say, as America turns its collective back upon God and the positivist school of legal thought replaces the naturalist one of our nation's founders, the proposition possesses the collective American mind that rights are from the generosity of government, to be granted or rescinded at its political convenience. We cannot claim to be a truly free nation, while living in fear of what may happen to us, if our neighbor is also free. Freedom is indeed risky business, but America was not established by cowards. How much longer will the American flag wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave? The nation's founders observe us today from their heavenly abodes with the gravest of concern.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Monday, March 23, 2009
Islam In Our Midst
"The good men do is oft interred with their bones, but the evil they do lives after them." So wrote William Shakespeare in his play, "Julius Caesar" assigning these words to Marcus Antonius in oration at Julius Caesar's funeral.
So it is, too, with Islam in America after September 11, 2001. Because the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York City and the Pentagon on that day were perpetrated by Muslims, in the name of Islam, the entire religion became in the collective American mind a categorical and unconditional evil. Forgotten is the fact that the American government declined to call to account the particular Islamic nations from which the terrorists came, i.e. Saudi Arabia and Egypt. These are supposed friends of the United States, and could have easily prevented the tragedy. Instead, hysteric presumption of guilt by association in America has spoiled universally the repute of all Muslims everywhere, good and evil alike.
It is incumbent upon all Americans to remember that Islamic Americans among us still enjoy all the same religious protections and rights under the U.S. Constitution First Amendment which the rest of us enjoy. At the same time, it would be well for all Islamic Americans to eschew as far as possible all association with their foreign co-religionists. Islam under the U.S. Constitution, not Islam under the Shari'ah, must be the watchword for Islamic Americans. The acceptance of foreign Muslim country money to finance construction of mosques and related institutions will cast upon Muslims among us an appearance of being a dangerous domestic "fifth column" of subversion on behalf of foreign Islamic country interests. Indeed, in the Islamic mind, a co-religionist brotherhood supersedes nationalist identities.
How should America respond to the Islamic challenge? While America has no official religion per se, its ruling government institutions and precepts are at least vaguely Christian in philosophical outlook. Americans do "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", in response to a teaching from Jesus Christ.
Given the overt propensity of foreign Muslims to resort to terrorist violence as their method of choice by which to spread their religious faith, America would be very wise, to close its doors to further immigration from Islamic nations. As a sovereign country, America does not owe the rest of the world a living. By the same token, Islamic Americans have equal legal right of access to mass electronic and print communications media as do other religious groups, to broadcast their message as a peaceful effort to proselytize America to Islam. They might be well-advised that honey attracts more flies than vinegar, and good ideas stand well on their own merit, without any backing of physical force and violence to guarantee their implementation.
All Americans must remember these sage words of Thomas Jefferson: "It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read."
-Lawrence K. Marsh
So it is, too, with Islam in America after September 11, 2001. Because the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York City and the Pentagon on that day were perpetrated by Muslims, in the name of Islam, the entire religion became in the collective American mind a categorical and unconditional evil. Forgotten is the fact that the American government declined to call to account the particular Islamic nations from which the terrorists came, i.e. Saudi Arabia and Egypt. These are supposed friends of the United States, and could have easily prevented the tragedy. Instead, hysteric presumption of guilt by association in America has spoiled universally the repute of all Muslims everywhere, good and evil alike.
It is incumbent upon all Americans to remember that Islamic Americans among us still enjoy all the same religious protections and rights under the U.S. Constitution First Amendment which the rest of us enjoy. At the same time, it would be well for all Islamic Americans to eschew as far as possible all association with their foreign co-religionists. Islam under the U.S. Constitution, not Islam under the Shari'ah, must be the watchword for Islamic Americans. The acceptance of foreign Muslim country money to finance construction of mosques and related institutions will cast upon Muslims among us an appearance of being a dangerous domestic "fifth column" of subversion on behalf of foreign Islamic country interests. Indeed, in the Islamic mind, a co-religionist brotherhood supersedes nationalist identities.
How should America respond to the Islamic challenge? While America has no official religion per se, its ruling government institutions and precepts are at least vaguely Christian in philosophical outlook. Americans do "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", in response to a teaching from Jesus Christ.
Given the overt propensity of foreign Muslims to resort to terrorist violence as their method of choice by which to spread their religious faith, America would be very wise, to close its doors to further immigration from Islamic nations. As a sovereign country, America does not owe the rest of the world a living. By the same token, Islamic Americans have equal legal right of access to mass electronic and print communications media as do other religious groups, to broadcast their message as a peaceful effort to proselytize America to Islam. They might be well-advised that honey attracts more flies than vinegar, and good ideas stand well on their own merit, without any backing of physical force and violence to guarantee their implementation.
All Americans must remember these sage words of Thomas Jefferson: "It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read."
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
