Skip to main content

The State of Maine and its Freedom of Speech Crisis


Tweet This http://goo.gl/TRhOuA

SHARE IF YOU AGREE ! -The Maine media excludes most constitutional considerations from political talking points- except when they are used as political points against one party or the other. In 2013 The Legislature passed a bill that removed the constitutional requirement that certain fiscal information accompany bond questions on the ballot and declared that such information would be placed outside the guard rail (meaning outside the voting area) . Although this was blatantly repugnant to the Maine Constitution, Governor Lepage did not veto it and the Maine media did not cover it. And so bringing the US and Maine constitution back into the political talking points in Maine is going to have to start as a grass roots movement.


 I have often written about the Maine media being part of the problem in which the state of Maine has been fundamentally transformed away from its constitutional basis and into the Corporation of Maine.

 And I have written about the censorship of my direct comments as implemented by the Bangor Daily News, a model now being followed by the Portland Press Herald and ironically censoring my comment in which I contest that the larger issue in the Senator Willette comments is not Maine's reputation as defined by Senator Alfond: 
Alfond told reporters that Willette’s apology was a “start,” but said there was a larger issue at stake, including Maine’s reputation as a state and its treatment of immigrants and people of varied races.
But that the larger issue is freedom of speech- one of the freedoms which attracts immigrants to the USA in the first place.  The post I wrote did not display in Portland Press Herald comments but it did post on FaceBook as shown in this screen shot:
https://www.facebook.com/mackenzie.andersen.1/activity/10153147428656240?comment_id=10153147487801240&notif_t=open_graph_action_comment

The larger issue at stake is freedom of speech and whether government's role is to serve the people or rule the people. I do not find the criticism leveraged against Willette to be honest and I do not see why taxpayers should have to pay the legislature to assert their own arguable opinions over the people which is nothing other than regulating speech. Freedom of Speech means freedom to express and let other express their views whether you like those views or not. I find the critics of Willett to be hypocritical in light of all the abuse the left has directed at Bush and Sarah Palin and more. But worse their assault on freedom of speech is infinitely more offensive than that which they are asserting to be "bad manners"  Post by Mackenzie Andersen censored by the Portland Press Herald

 So there is your evidence that freedom of speech is endangered in the state of Maine as its legislature and government and their alliances in "public-private relationships"  lead the state further and further away from its Constitution to transform Maine into a corporate state- an ultimate form of "public-private relationship"

 Also This week I saw a post by my nephew Colin Woodard on twitter- an article that Colin penned for the Portland Press Herald. It is an article about how Lepage's elimination of revenue sharing will affect that Indian tribes and how that revenue is distributed through patronage in much the same model that tax payer money is distributed to its special interests by the corporate state.- though that comparison was not part of Colin's article. I was going to retweet the article but when I went to do so I was informed that I have been blocked from retweeting tweets by Colin, my nephew and Portland Press Herald reporter.

 I wondered why Colin can only block participation by myself rather than engaging it- but this has been his standard for as long as I have been writing about politics and so it was not surprising. I could speculate on various theories to explain his adverse attitude toward my own engagement but I will just leave it at that- almost !. Some would say I have already said too much. I will add that Colin is part of the PPH culture which dominates the Maine main stream media. The times they are a changing- or so I have noticed recently from other online comments. Soon may come the day when the PPH culture might have to address that something is happening in the state beyond what the main stream media depicts.
Labels:

Comments

  1. For the PeopleMarch 14, 2015 at 11:36 AM

    That day won't come as long as We the People continue to allow our government to be the masters and ourselves the servants/slaves.
    Until we alter or abolish this government that trashes daily our state and US Constitutions and creates laws/statutes that are contrary to them both and which allows (and even participates in) the judicial system to create laws from the bench and chooses which laws it will or won't follow and exempts all state, law enforcement and judicial officials from persecution and the very laws that We the People are subjected to, we will continue to see more of our unalienable rights stomped on and ignored. As Lincoln said: "The people of these united states are rightful masters of both Congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution".
    We are in dangerous territory now, and if We the People don't act swiftly and do our duty as stated in our Declaration of Independence to limit our government to be within the four corners of our constitutions now, it could possibly end up in another armed revolution to rectify it as the only way later on. JFK said it best, "If we make peaceful revolution impossible, we make violent revolution inevitable".

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How The MPERS Contract Came To Be Embedded in the Maine Constitution

Is The Maine Public Retirement System Unconstitutional? According to the Maine Public Employees ComprehensiveFinancial Report of 2010 , the Maine Public Employees Retirement System was established in 1942 to provide services for retiring public employees. No information is given about how the Public Employees Retirement System was legally structured in 1942. In the report MPERS is described as “an independent public agency of the State of Maine that traces its history to 1942”. Wikipedia  uses the same term but when the link is clicked it reveals that Wikipedia has no idea what " independent public agency " means.  An online search for history of MPERS between 1942 and 1985 comes up empty.  In 1985 during the administration of Governor Joseph E Brennan, the Maine Legislature passed a statute announcing its intentions of using general taxpayer monies to provide for retirement funds and death benefits for public employees, a faction which, incidentally, includes th...
1 comment
Read more

High Brow Art VS the Marketplace and the Maine Juice Conference

TWEET THIS http://goo.gl/xdwZDk Continuing with my story from HERE ...(and incorporating a few paragraphs from this earlier but incomplete telling ) Finally, after a year of receiving stimulus fund notices for non-profits only, in the fall of 2009, I received an email from the Maine Arts Commission about a competition for small businesses for what I took to be, a modest grant for the sum of 30000.00 from an "anonymous source". In a moment of hopeful delusions, I imagined that the Maine Arts Commission had come to its senses and realized that they needed to support the private sector. The competition was called an "elevator pitch competition" which means a pitch delivered in five minutes. Even the written answers to questions on the application were required to be answered in a minimal number of words, brevity being stressed as being so important that if your couldn't explain a business idea in five minutes, then one's business idea is simply not ...
2 comments
Read more

Statutory Bond Question Requirements Amplify -NOT Negate Maine Constituion

TWEET THIS http://goo.gl/VcBj8O UPDATE NOV 11 2014:  Since I wrote This post- I cam across the statute governing Bond Ratification- as amended by the 2013 legislature It looks to be that the sentence "To meet the requirement that the signed statement of the Treasurer of State accompany any ballot question for ratification of a bond issue, the statement may be printed on the ballot" was amended by adding this "or it may be printed as a separate document that is made available to voters as provided in Title 21-A, sections 605-A and 651" Section 605-A no longer exists and I am tracking it down. Section 651 says it can be posted outside the guardrail which separates voters from the rest of the world. I am writing a new post to cover this new information Update Nov 12, 2014!   The link I originally referenced is here ,  THIS IS HOW THE LAW WAS WRITTEN IN  2011 - showing the process of incrementalism at play In this link  part of the sentence below is s...
1 comment
Read more