Monday Irony

Once again, in an effort to lower crime, town officials across the United States are violating the Constitution in order to pass laws that turn law-abiding citizens into criminals.

Advertisements

Monday Irony

 

 

Christians are prosecuted for refusing to bake cakes for gay weddings, while banks and airlines are celebrated for refusing service to supporters of The Constitution of the United States of America… strange days, indeed!

-Michael Pajak

The Intellectualism of Stupidity Pt 2

 

by Andy Torbett

The very basic essence of a civilization is the secure propagation of Life. Our Constitution describes it as “to insure the domestic tranquility”. It has become a matter of debate for our civilization as to whether it is Constitutional to defend the traditional structure of marriage. I would counter that the whole of the Constitution was designed to defend that structure. You cannot ensure the domestic tranquility unless you have a domestic to insure.

Still, the argument will be that domestic tranquility was in reference to the early colonists’ way of living, their desire for freedom. Some would argue that their patterns of commerce, trade, and the free market thereof were the ideas behind domestic tranquility. My response is that there is no living without Life. Commerce, trade, the free market of ideas, all things libertarian cannot survive unless there is an assurance of the stable propagation of Life, which can maintain our living.

Our Founders understood this and created an entire document dedicated to the preservation of Life, “to insure the domestic tranquility”, and the Freedoms inherent, “endowed”, to it. All of our Freedoms, our Unalienable Rights, are predicated on and activated by Life. But the modern man looks to the document or the government it creates as the actuator of Rights, not Life and certainly not God. It is this present stupor that breeds the inane argument that the Framers of the Constitution, those learned men, provided no protection for the most basic foundation of civilized Life, the marriage construct, and instead, despite all the evidence afforded them through their extensive study of the history of civilization, allowed for the desolation and destruction of their new Nation, at it’s onset, as an expression of Liberty.

The haze of modern intellectualism has made it difficult for us to understand the basics of Life it would seem. Yes, the Birds and the Bees. The Founding Fathers understood what we do not, that the basic building blocks of a civilization are babies.

In this series of articles, I will have more earth shattering revelations and profundities. Stay tuned for “It’s not just Christians that get married” and “Christians weren’t the only ones who built civilizations”. The research was daunting but I persevered.

This is a true statement: You can’t make a civilization if you can’t make a baby. You can’t build a civilization if you can’t build a baby. That is to say that in order to construct anything you need a stable framework on which to build. Our Heterosexual Marriage Traditions are that framework, yet we are willfully ignorant of the fundamentals of Life.

Its important to realize that when we say that the marriage construct is fundamental to civilization, its because it predates said civilization. The Heterosexual Marriage Tradition birthed civilization because it birthed Life. Because there was Life there had to be a way to live and, therefore, the Heterosexual Marriage Tradition predates civilized law, including our Constitution.

The idea that the Constitution validates our marriage tradition is flawed. The Heterosexual Marriage Tradition validates the Constitution for it provides the Life which activates the Rights the Document defends. If the fundamental structure to raise Life remains strong and intact then the Life it breeds remains strong and productive giving the society strength to flourish. If the fundamental life structure of the society is damaged then the society begins to wither and fail. The Heterosexual Marriage Tradition is the security of the Nation.

Gibbons in his time honored definitive study of the Roman Empire offered five reasons for the fall of Rome. The first and highest impact of the five he offered was the destruction of the Heterosexual Marriage Tradition. It is incumbent upon us in a day when we are surrounded by knowledge to learn from history. Yet, studies show that four out of five of modern millennials do not believe there is truth. So therein is the stupor in which we stumble drunkenly. In all our learning, will we get wisdom?

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…