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



No, it is not a spelling error…really.  And, no, it’s not a word… yet.  It’s just one of my specialty.  A word coined to help find the appropriate emotion to attach to a situation.  This, the latest of my installments to the Webster’s dictionary, is the combination of the words redundant and ridiculous. I did this all by myself.  For some reason, Webster keeps sending back my offerings of literary coinage and asked that I please stop, as it has caused the great patriarch of the book, Noah Webster himself, to turn incessantly in his grave.  I guess that would be rather unsettling.

But I like the word.  It has an essence to it, the essence of economy.  Oh yes, I economized.  We all have to nowadays.  I took the two most prevalent manifestations of the liberal mind, redundant and ridiculous behavior. I combined them into one word and, now, I can respond to them both at once.  I….I….feel so focused.

And quite timely, I might add, because we have had a slew of redunculous behavior swirling around the State of Maine.  We just had the Senate President, Justin Alfond, make a speech assuring State workers an increase in the pensions and wages, while the those in private sector, who pay for those wages and pensions with their taxes, can barely put food on the table for their families.  This was a follow up to his speech attacking private schools.  The Senate President doesn’t seem to be fond of the private sector.

Mr. Alfond suffers from the liberal illusion that Maine people have an unlimited supply of revenue and that we work at our jobs simply to give it to him to disperse amongst his government allies.  I have to agree with the great conservative apologist Thomas Sowell who asked, “…why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take someone else’s money.”  Alas, I fear Alfond and his allies think its good policy; that is, if you look at the budget they passed. Tax increases to pay for those government employee raises.

Strange, Maine is looking at a $58 million surplus for the closing fiscal year, before these tax increases.  So, why, Mr. Alfond, would you want to increase taxes on a struggling economy when you don’t need to?  Oh, is that my “greedy” old self, wanting to keep my money in my wallet for my family to use.  I’m just so greedy that way.

That leads me to another issue to be resolved.  Recently, I criticized those activists, who seem bent on telling people what to do in their own backyards.  I feel very strongly about the sanctity and privacy of a person’s private lands.  I have been rebuked by some of those activists, saying that if I don’t want anyone to tell me what to do in my backyard then I shouldn’t criticize public government officials.

Let me try to help and clarify the issue.  There is a huge difference between private and public issues.  I do not criticize any official on what he does in his private home and on his private lands.  I have, and will continue to do so, criticized public officials on the actions or inactions in the public tax funded sector.  It is the taxpayer’s job, since our dollars fund their public decisions, to critique the exercise of their representative duties.

Secondly, I have been admonished that, because I am a Christian, I should not publicly criticize or rebuke public officials.  This individual obviously did not read the story of Jesus cleansing the Temple, nor has he read the accounts of Paul the Apostle rebuking Roman leaders to their very face, also of rebuking Peter to his face.  The idea that I should abdicate my God-given liberties for the sake of some contrived sense of propriety and allow myself to be relegated to the doormat of society as a reflection of my faith has no intellectual, Constitutional or, for that matter, Biblical merit.  The very conception of such an idea is utterly and unequivocally redunculous.

King Of The Mountain



It’s a mantra of sorts for some.  It can be seen splashed across the backs of vehicles in the form of bumper stickers.  Groups have formed across the Internet using the phrase as their rallying cry.  The statement is “Not In Anybody’s Backyard”.

The premise of that statement should give any lover of liberty pause.  It assumes that if one body feels their beliefs and opinions are of the utmost importance, than anybody’s opinions should succumb and adhere to the mantra that the body with the loudest voice trumpets. It’s the essence of anarchy, the ruthless struggle of the strongman beating his way to the top of the heap to claim, for the moment, to be King of the Mountain. For a time, he has the opportunity to demand that anybody must embrace the belief system that his body is preaching.

Label me an old fashioned fool if you will, but I am not willing to surrender the jurisdiction of my backyard to any mantra, emotion or activism.  There is no cause so grand that makes my privacy expendable nor should my belief in private property capitulate to the so-called greater good.  Do we so easily lose sight of the consequences of our actions?

We are all creatures of passion, driven at varying degrees by the emotions attached to the things we hold dear.  But when the passion has dissipated, what is the residue of our actions?  What were we willing to sacrifice to gain the prize that fired our soul during the heat of the conflict?

Our Founding Fathers valued a man’s private life, his backyard.  They detested the idea that one man could encroach upon another’s privacy just because he deemed it necessary, a means to an end.  They objected in strong terms to the never-ending cycle of the toppling and resurrecting of strong men, its damage upon the people.

Are we so willing to forfeit the rights to our own land and, for our neighbor, his land, our backyards, to fulfill a vendetta we deem worthy?  Does your backyard belong to anybody or does it belong to you?  Which body should tell anybody what to do?  My backyard is my backyard and I have no interest in allowing the opinions of others, of any stripe, supplant my authority, my rights, on my land.

From the moment we are willing to trade our freedoms and individuality for an emotion and passion, we have begun the slide toward the totalitarian concept where the strongest and loudest dictate the beliefs of others.  Where then, will the freedoms we hold so dear be found?  Quite frankly, not in anybody’s backyard.