Double Down Double Standard (Non-Poetic Version)

 

It seems my recent poem has caused many to have an attack of the giggles. Perhaps they think its unmanly to write a poem…or…something. If so, then by all means stay away from such girlish pursuits as The Iliad , Beowulf, or even that silly little National Anthem of ours. We wouldn’t want to clutter your “open” mind. Just keep that wind tunnel of yours wide open and clear of any obstruction between both your ears and behind those vacant eyes.

Once again let me remind people, that my reason for the angst is not the picking of berries blue and red or the foraging of fiddleheads. Uh-oh, did I just rhyme again? Get over it! It’s the lack of respect for private property and ambivalence to the double standard conservatives portray.

Did you know that long before our foraging and hunting traditions here in Maine, our Founding Fathers put a high premium on private property? Yes, so much so they were willing to die for it. They challenged the most powerful Nation in the world at that time, Great Britain, for Life, Liberty, and Private Property.

Oh, I can hear giggles the more. “Idiot! Not only does he write poems but he screwed up the most famous line in American History!”(giggle snort) I am well aware the line reads Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but do you know that line was originally drafted Life, Liberty, and Private Property.

I’m sure there are different reasons why it was changed. I can imagine they realized that one is not necessarily born endowed with private property, hence, the pursuit. Still, this shows that our Founders placed private property on a very high pedestal, a thing to be protected.

Much of the anger by conservatives here in Maine against landowners who asked for this foraging bill is really seeded in the fact that most of these major landowners are of a liberal persuasion. They have bought up large tracks of land and have begun to block hunting , foraging, and recreation on their land. Yes, it makes me angry, too.

But the fact of the matter remains, they still own the land. Still, the anger remains and the desire to use or block the legislature from defending their rights because they appose our will and our want seems, ahem, poetic justice. The question remains, what of the Constitution?

According to the Constitution, private property rights trump all including the Bill of Rights. For example, when I was campaigning during the Q3 referendum if a homeowner took exception to what I was saying they could order me off their property. I had to go and exercise my 1st Amendment rights elsewhere. If a homeowner objects to my sidearm on their property and demands I remove myself, I need to remove myself and exercise my 2nd Amendment rights elsewhere. The rights of the private landowner overrule our rights to hunting, foraging, and recreating. So take your various pursuits of happiness and pursue them elsewhere.

Sadly, it seems we are willing to preach the Constitution when it works in our favor but trample it when it doesn’t. The issue is more than foraging and hunting traditions, berries and fiddleheads. The question should be asked: Is the Constitution the foundation of the Republic for all citizens or just a weapon to wield against our opponents to win elections?

Whenever I write against this double standard among so-called conservatives, the immediate retaliation is, “No! We are going to teach them a lesson!” or “Now, they can know what it feels like!” I have been a conservative all my life but this double standard on so many issues, not just this, is not conservatism. It’s something I don’t recognize. The politics of retaliation and me first, the future be dammed. It seems we are not interested in winning elections to make the Republic stronger but simply to gain the power to inflict our double standard on our opponents, payback. And faster the pendulum swings…

Double Down Double Standard

 

When fools build a caricature and call it a crown,

Blindness is bliss in the new double down.

The Republic will crumble and walls start to tumble

But no care is taken to the cause of our stumble

We secure victory and revel in bliss

No effort no pining for the standards we miss

Its power we’re craving and “new” ways we’re paving

We’re forging the fetters of our own enslaving

Its my rights alone and you come along

If you see things my way then we have song

But don’t sing my tune you’ll find out soon

Its trample and stample to your old dusty rune

We cry Constitution and say its for me

But don’t you dare cross me and say its for thee

We want what we’re getting wherever its setting

And laugh at the rights of the ones who are fretting

We say that its right because we’ve always done this

And one can’t say “No” to how we’ve always won this

Some berries are red The fiddle his head

You stop us from picking Your rights have no cred

When tables are turned and we take a stand

To keep those we wish to stay out of our land

Double your standards run up on their lanyards

Your words will come back like drunken old tankards

So we might be gladden to forage with glee

On land bought and paid for, but no not by thee

Its our own tradition Its worth the sedition

If need be we’ll trample that old Constitution

When fools build a caricature and call it a crown,

Blindness is bliss in the new double down.

The Republic will crumble and walls start to tumble

But no care is taken to the cause of our stumble

Dribble Much?

Once again the Bangor Daily News has allowed itself to be the platform for anti-American dribble from the alt-left. Khalil Gibran Muhammed teaches that racism is the bedrock of US history and he’s come to Maine to inform us of this “truth”. No where in the BDN’s glowing coverage of Mr. Muhammad’s speech is there a slightest attempt to check the validity of his claims. To the contrary, a nominal perusal through historical fact would debunk Mr. Muhammad’s claims and the self-same nominal perusal through the religion Mr. Muhammad embraces, Islam, would expose the hypocrisy of accusing Americans of perpetrating slavery, when Islam is the overwhelming greatest perpetrator of slavery throughout history, its atrocities ongoing.

These flaming epitomes in the mind numbing study of the intellectual duplicitous standardizing of selective amnesia have become nauseatingly predictable but no less repulsive to those who strive to be objective thinkers. What is far more morally repugnant to any decent American on this day is that Mr. Muhammad speaks as a representative of the MLK Foundation. For it was Martin Luther King who understood the “bedrock” of this society, our Constitution, better than perhaps any of the great leaders of this Nation when he said these words:

When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.”

Reverend King understood that in the bedrock of this civilization our Founders had placed the “promissory note” in the Founding Documents with the intent and belief that good people of this Nation, in the light of their faith in God and their love of freedom, would in time eradicate the stain of slavery from this Nation.

And they did so, spilling the blood of their own sons to cleanse this land. No other nation has accomplished what our nation has in fight against racial injustice. So I ask, if slavery is the bedrock of this society, how is it that so many have fought from its very inception and laid the groundwork step by step to destroy slavery? Does Mr. Muhammad think that if the foundational bedrock of this nation was slavery and racism that the slaves would have been freed and the Nation would have heeded the calls of Martin Luther King to follow the words of its own Constitution with all men? If slavery is the very fabric of our society, as Mr. Muhammad intimates, than how is it a majority of Americans abhor slavery and racism? In no other nation could King have voiced his concerns much less mount the call for equality with out being crushed. Why? because its in the bedrock of who we are, freedom for all. 

Martin Luther King understood the unique opportunity afforded to him in the true fabric of this nation. It was Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Mr. Muhammad disdains the very thing, the very hope, that was the bedrock of Dr. King’s hope and the bedrock of this Nation, that “all men are created equal and our endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”. On this day, let us remember the truth that Martin Luther King believed and not the lies that Mr. Muhammad imagines.

Geographical Prejudice Part Two

 

It is called “The Great Compromise”. A fragile new Nation was on the brink of disaster. The states could not agree. The contention was so sharp between them that the Constitutional Convention was “on the verge of dissolution, scarce held together by the strength of a hair,” so recounted by Luther Martin, one of the delegates to the convention.

The schism developed over the proposed plan for government first presented by Virginia’s Governor Edmund Randolph, drafted by James Madison also of Virginia, which would select representation based on population. This would be called “The Virginia Plan.”

Quick to see this would greatly encumber the small states’ access to government and be weighted heavily in the favor of larger more populated states, New Jersey’s William Paterson countered with a “one state, one vote” concept. This plan, “The New Jersey Plan”, would protect the interests of small states, ensuring equal standing and representation at the table of governance. There was no small dissension between the factions and the convention was on the verge of implosion.

The salvation of the fledgling nation, teetering on demise, came in the form of an agreement which would create a bicameral Congress. The House of Representatives would be elected by popular vote and weighted by population, The Virginia Plan. The Senate would follow the concept of one state, one vote, The New Jersey Plan.

With the confidence that small states’ rights were protected, the Constitution of the United States was ratified. The idea that one geographical area could dominate the governance of a free people simply because of its population, the travesty of that idea of geographical prejudice was corrected and those fears allayed. Still, for all their fore site and amazing sense of fairness for all, the Founders neglected to see the need to remodel the states’ structure of governance to mirror the national template.

Perhaps despite all of their towering foreknowledge, the Founders could not envision a time when urban areas would be so large that the counties which held that cities boundaries could dominate the political landscape of a state in much the same way that Virginia could dominate the political influence in the days of the Thirteen Colonies. But that day exists and we see it here in our state of Maine. Yes, the division of the two Maines exists and the tension continues to grow.

The southern part of the state prefers “The Virginia Plan”, which is how our state and all 50 states are governed. Dominated by Cumberland County which encompasses Portland and all the surrounding suburbia, the South holds the majority of legislators in both chambers; in fact, Cumberland County alone holds a dominant majority of legislators in comparison to Maine’s other fifteen counties because of the majority of the population that resides in that geographical location. This flies in the face of everything our Nation was founded upon and specifically “The Great Compromise”.

Because of this inequity, the smaller rural counties of Maine are afforded no system of check and balance in the current form of governance that exists in our state. In recent political cycles, rural Maine has eked out some political victories by driving record breaking voter turnout, over 80% in some locals, and then waited in hopes of lower turnout in southern Maine to gain slim victory. The political climates of each of the Maines are polar opposites, yet southern Maine, due to “The Virginia Plan”, is able to often legislate the governance of northern Maine, despite their protestations.

In an effort to remedy this wrong in much the same way our Founders did, both Senator Paul Davis and Representative Heather Sirocki have proposed at different times separate legislation which would have amended the state Constitution to in essence apply “The New Jersey Plan” and give every county two Senators mirroring the United States Constitution. Predictably, southern interests defeated those bills. Simply put, big government has a vested interest in keeping equitable representation out of governance.

Often when the subject of this legislation is discussed with politicians they will respond that is too difficult or too complicated, which is code for too lazy or too cowardly. Many legislators have forgotten the basic tenet of a Republic that is for the people by the people in that all people regardless of where they live should have equal standing with our government. I would strongly encourage Senator Davis and Representative Sirocki to reintroduce their legislation. This was the spirit our Founders understood in “The Great Compromise” and must be the goal of our legislators if they truly believe in fair, equitable, and unprejudiced representation of the people.