Thursday, June 23, 2016

The Orlando Tragedy, and Washington's Response

The hellish tragedy that befell attendees of a popular
Orlando, Florida nightclub, has had repercussions and
responses innumerable in the days that followed.
We all know the gory numbers: 49 dead, 53 wounded.
We also know that the killer had pledged himself to
ISIS and to their jihad, taking a gun into Pulse nightclub
to make his bloody contribution to the cause he embraced.
Our president's response? At least this time, unlike the
Fort Hood and San Bernadino shootings, Obama actually
used the word "terror" in connection to this horrible event.
But he still couldn't bring himself to use the term
"Islamic terror" to describe it. And his fellow Democrats
on Capitol Hill? They are, as I write this, having a sit-in
a' la the '60s, calling for new federal gun control legis-
lation as a "preventative measure" to ensure that no more
such slaughters will take place in the U.S.

But here's the rub: the shooter was employed as a security
guard, and had been issued a Class 3 licence, which allowed
him to carry a firearm in the course of his duties. He also
had no difficulty in obtaining a firearm for his personal use,
as he had been able to obtain a firearm licence with ease.
He passed a psychological exam as a condition of his employ-
ment. He underwent a background check which produced no
red flags.

But in May 2013 and in July 2014 the killer became a person
of interest to the FBI in connection with remarks he made to
coworkers about having family connections to Al -Qaeda
and being a member of Hezbollah. He was removed by his
employer from his post and the county sheriff reported him
to the FBI. He also made remarks about hating Jews and
other minorities, as well as homosexuals while on the job
and in social situations away from work. Did this bring any
serious scrutiny to bear? Hardly.

And then, on June 12, the murderous jihadist shot up Pulse,
a gay nightclub in Orlando. Obama blamed the slaughter on
a lack of gun control laws and his fellow Dems fell in line
with him. But something noteworthy happened: some gay
people in Orlando, as well as in other cities around the
country, have openly disagreed with Obama and the Dems
as to the cause of the tragedy: they pin the blame on radical
Islam and its adherents, who consider anyone who isn't
Muslim (as well as anyone who is gay) to be fit only for
wiping out. One of the Democrat Party's major constituency
groups isn't buying their party's line on this terrible episode,
and they also are not in agreement regarding any need for more
gun control laws; moreover, many of these folks are planing
on buying firearms and taking training in how to use their
weapons. They must be asking themselves whom does
President Obama and the Democrats place a higher political
value upon, gay Americans or the followers of Islam, be they
citizens or visitors?

These aforementioned gays are not fools; they know who their
enemy is, they know the threat that their enemy poses to not only
them but to us all in the U.S. And they certainly realize that the
president's response to the Orlando nightmare is not merely
inadequate but feckless and irresponsible, for among other things
Obama would not name the very enemy which we must, as a
nation, acknowledge as our enemy, the danger it poses to us,
and the need to actually take steps to resist and repel said
enemy. Political correctness, nicey-nicey thoughts and wishy-
washy sentiments are not going to cut it. The question, then,
is can they get the president, which so many of them supported
for the office, to listen to them and take appropriate action?
And how about the Democrat members of Congress, basking
in their '60s style moralistic self-indulgence?

The Orlando gay community, and all Americans, deserve better
then what Washington is treating us to. This November, we
have an opportunity to get that better thing.


MEM



Monday, June 13, 2016

The Peasant Takes A Break

Your faithful Peasant needs just a week or so to take care of some
personal business, and will return to you directly. In the meantime,
enjoy these wonderful online conservative publications:

National Review Online www.nationalreview.com

Newsmax.com www.newsmax.com

And let us take a moment to reflect on the tragedy which took place
in Orlando this past weekend, and to pray for the dead and wounded,
and for their families and friends. May the slain in that Orlando night
club rest in everlasting, splendid peace.

Thank you, my understanding and wonderful readers!
I'll be back ASAP!


MEM

Wednesday, June 8, 2016

A Bold and Daring Move

A study in retrospect: One of the presidential
contenders has, long before the staging of his
party's convention, chosen a Vice Presidential running
mate. Republican Ted Cruz has offered former presi-
dential candidate Carly Fiorina the position, and the
former CEO of Hewlett Packard happily accepted.
Cruz announced his choice this Spring while attending
a rally for his presidential candidacy in Indianapolis.

Why the early VP pick? Isn't this move not only a bit
premature, but also rather foolhardy, in that it gives
one the impression that Sen. Cruz believes that he
already has the GOP nomination in the bag, or soon
shall have, despite front-runner Donald Trump leading
Cruz by 400 delegates at this stage and the mathematics
of Cruz overtaking Trump before the Republican Party's
convention in July? Actually, this gambit has been
employed before, and by a Republican candidate, before
the party's convention in 1976: Ronald Reagan chose
U.S. Sen. Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania to be
his running mate just a few weeks before the GOP
gathering in Kansas City. The conservative Reagan
picked liberal Republican Schweiker to run with him
in order to attract delegates who worried that Reagan
might be seen as too conservative for the electorate
in the general election. Although Schweiker was indeed
politically liberal, he opposed gun control and court-
mandated busing to desegregate public schools, making
him at least somewhat palatable to the party's base.
Although Reagan narrowly lost the Republican nomina-
tion to incumbent President Gerald Ford, his ploy was
considered a bold maneuver, one that may well have
netted Reagan nearly enough delegates to wrest the
nomination from a sitting president, the first time that
such a feat would have occurred in over one hundred
years.

Another reason for Cruz' pick of Fiorina: her presence
on this ticket, if Cruz wins the GOP nod, will be a
wonderful counter to Hillary Clinton if she gets the
Democrats' nomination, and at this point that is looking
increasingly likely. But know this: Carly Fiorina is
not simply a hook to get delegates who may place any
stock in playing the gender card in order to battle with
Hillary for the women's vote. This lady is very much
up on the issues of the day, and has strong conservative
stands on them --- pro-life on abortion; economic growth
rather than government growth, especially regarding
lowering taxes on businesses, families, and individuals;
maintaining a strong defense for our country; standing by
our allies rather than turn from them, carping at them all
the while (as our current president has done vis-vis Israel).
And Fiorina has a keen intellect, as well as fine debating
skills (she had exhibited these in the early debates with
the Republican field of presidential hopefuls). She is
neither a  wallflower, nor a shrinking violet.

Cruz explained his borrowing a page from The Gipper's
book thus: "After a great deal of consideration and prayer,
I have come to the conclusion that if I am nominated to be
President of the United States that I will run on a ticket
with my vice presidential nominee Carly Fiorina,".
With these words, he introduced his running mate to the
assembly at the Cruz rally to thunderous applause and cheers.
Carly added, "Ted could not be more right in what he said:
There is a lot at stake, and, in fact, this is a fight, ... for the
soul of our party and the future of our nation ... everything
about the campaign, everything about this election, is
unprecedented ... I think this is a confident leader who knows
what he wants to do for this nation and who wants the nation
to understand who he is, what he believes and who he wants
by his side to fight this fight on behalf of the American
people."

Did this audacious move bring the desired results for Ted Cruz?
Sadly, this strategy did not pan out for Cruz any more than it
did for Ronald Reagan forty years earlier. But when your back
is against the wall, boldness and daring will do more for you than
caution and discretion.

MEM



Thursday, June 2, 2016

Mayor de Blasio vs. Freedom of Choice (of Where to Have Lunch)

New York's Mayor Bill de Blasio is busying
himself with a campaign of his own concoction
to get his fellow New Yorkers to boycott the
Chick-fil-A restaurants which have recently
opened around old Gotham.

What has incensed the Big Apple's mayor to
the point where he wants to make the city
give a collective cold shoulder to the southern
U.S.-based chicken fast-food business's eateries?
He claims that Chick-fil-A is anti-LGBT (which,
by the way, stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgender), in that, according to Hizzoner
their restaurants discriminate against these folks,
especially regarding marriage for gay people.
"I'm certainly not going to patronize them and I
wouldn't urge any other New Yorker to patronize
them. But they do have a legal right," the left-wing
mayor stated. At least he hasn't issued a proclamation
ordering New York's citizenry to avoid Chick-fil-A;
knowing the penchant for nanny-stating the people
in that city that both he and his predecessor in
the office of Mayor have exhibited, this is quite
a blessing.

For their part, a spokesman for Chick-fil-A informed
the public that "The ... culture and service tradition
in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor,
dignity and respect --- regardless of their beliefs, race,
creed, sexual orientation or gender." But Mayor de
Blasio's reason for his hostility to Chick-fil-A with
his accompanying resentment of its presence in his
city is that Chick-fil-A's owners political views are
on the right while the mayor's are on the left. And
even though there are laws in New York City that
prohibit discrimination, as there are anywhere you
go in these United States, de Blasio, being a good
progressive liberal holier-than-thou, more-moral-
than-thou, elitist pig, wants to punish and castigate
any person or organization that politically disagrees
with him. Moreover, New York's mayor who would
be king has neither the business, nor the right, to
tell the citizens of New York where they should eat
lunch or engage in any kind of commerce. This is
one of the freedoms that people in a free society
such as ours is guaranteed and safeguarded, much to
the dismay and discomfort of far lefties like Mayor
de Blasio. By the by, Chick-fil-A also employs the
very people that de Blasio claims the company shuns,
which renders his criticisms of Chick-fil-A devoid of
fact. Where applicable law is concerned, so long as
Chick-fil-A doesn't discriminate against anyone based
on whatever racial, gender, sexual orientation, or any
other category that our government concerns itself
with, then what does it matter what opinions that the
owners of Chick-fil-A hold? The left-wingers haven't
yet rendered illegal the thinking of certain thoughts ---
at least not yet.

In this, and all like matters in the marketplace of goods,
services, and ideas, let the people decide. Free markets
and free minds are the rule in the U.S., and this rule
is inviolable. If the Bill de Blasios of our country can't
handle this, and apparently that is the case, then too bad
so sad for them.


MEM

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Memorial Day is Near

With Memorial Day approaching quickly your
grateful Peasant wishes once again to express
my gratitude to all those Americans who have
fought to make and keep our wonderful country
the free and grand homeland that it is for us,
from those who fought for and won our inde-
pendence from Britain to our military people
of today who have fought the radical Islamic
forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and who in
the course of fighting our enemies made the
biggest sacrifice that a person can make in
the service of our country and to their fellow
Americans so that we may continue to live and
thrive in freedom instead of existing and languish-
ing in captivity.

As I so often say: freedom isn't free, it has a dear price.
But freedom isn't a luxury; rather, it's a necessity.


MEM



Thursday, May 19, 2016

Facebook and the Right

It has been said by some, especially by conservatives
who have individual or political group Facebook
pages, that Facebook dislikes, slights, and harasses them
simply for posting politically conservative content.
Accusations have ranged from deleting some posts
to suspending accounts, with the latest being
omitting from their "trending stories" feature pieces
touting the conservative point of view on an issue
of interest. Just a few days ago the website Gizmodo
reported that Facebook employees jiggered FB's
section for trending stories which carries the most
liked and shared stories of the day, excluding stories
from conservative online outlets such as Red State
and Breitbart News. Anonymous ex-employees of
Facebook have revealed that they deleted said material
to Gizmodo. Moreover, according to Gizmodo,
Facebook also "injected" stories that were not receiving
as much attention into the FB trending column,
most notably a piece about the leftist racial group
Black Lives Matter after receiving complaints about
an alleged lack of representation. Selected stories
zoom to the top in shares and likes, as they get the
most attention.

Facebook has strongly denied the charges of such
disdain and favoritism, claiming that no evidence
of having done so has been discovered. The company
claims it takes such complaints "extremely seriously",
and that "There are rigorous guidelines in place for
the review team to ensure consistency and neutrality
... these guidelines do not permit the suppression of
political perspectives."

Now, Facebook is a media company and therefore is
not a public utility. It is certainly free to set its own
editorial standards. Yet they chose news stories through
a proprietary algorithm, after which a human staff member
makes news choices as to what will and will not be
touted by Facebook. To Facebook's credit, they do allow
conservative groups to have their own Facebook pages
where their members can gather online to share news items
and their opinions; your ubiquitous Peasant is a member
of a few such groups. But the administrators of some of
these sites have alerted their members that Facebook
has given them warnings about the content of some of
the material posted, and in some cases has stepped in to
censor the groups by deleting some pieces posted by them.
What could raise the ire of Facebook so that they would
resort to such action? Articles and opinions critical of
President Obama, certain race-themed political figures
and groups, radical Islamic individuals and groups and
such. Gee, haven't they gotten Hillary Clinton's message
from the Bush II era stating "dissent is patriotic"?

It should be noted, as an FYI, that Facebook founder and
CEO Mark Zuckerberg gave quite generously to both of
President Obama's presidential campaigns. Gee, do you
think that this might be impacting Facebook's company
policies?

Here's a way to end this brouhaha: Facebook should make
public a detailed look at its policies and standards. A news
distribution system such as Facebook's even suspected by
the public as being biased, especially to the point of being
censorious would lose the trust of the customers who make
the company's revenue possible with advertisement clicks.
Besides, if Facebook is not, after all, playing with content
to exclude conservatives, they would then have nothing to
hide by welcoming the public to study their standards and
how they adhere to them. I'd take a peek myself!

In the meantime, Zucky will host a sort of summit meeting
with some prominent conservatives to explain what Facebook's
content policy and related policies are, and that there is in fact
no attempt by Facebook to give short shrift in any way to
its conservative account holders. That's all very well, but he
had better follow it up with taking appropriate actions to ensure
that Facebook gives fair and honest treatment to the
conservatives who have Facebook pages, ferreting out and
disciplining its staff members who are not complying with
this standard.

Talk is cheap; action is a more valuable currency in the realm
of business interaction. Time for Facebook's honcho to pony up.


MEM



Thursday, May 12, 2016

You Can't Make This Stuff Up!

Recently, two prominent figures of the political
left have made public statements on some topics
of import, sharing their wisdom, or what they have
that is trying desperately to pass for wisdom, with
we the Great Unwashed.

Remarking on a commercial for Doritos chips that
appeared during the recent Super Bowl game, which
showed an unborn baby jumping out of his mother's
womb to grab some of the aforementioned chips to
snack on, long-ago feminist icon Gloria Steinem
castigated Frito-Lay, the makers of Doritos for
"humanizing the fetus" in their uniquely cute
advertisement. A longtime champion of legalized
abortion, the Doritos piece must have given her
major conniptions at even the humorous depiction
of a pre-born baby sensing a delicious snack just
outside of mummy's tummy, making a play for the
treat. Now anyone with even a scintilla of smarts
and sense knows that a baby in the mother's womb
cannot see or smell anything outside the womb,
much less burst forth to grab a food item; poor
Gloria must be losing it at her advanced age, or
perhaps the geriatric radical is simply so
ideologically glued to the idea that a not-yet-born
human baby is not human, is not living, is not capable
of much of anything that even a light-hearted commercial
taking a little humorous license sends her into fits.
Note to Gloria: One, the commercial was just an artistic,
humorous melding of entertainment and advertisement;
no more, no less. Two, you should lighten up and humanize
yourself!

Then, former Secretary of State Madeline Albright was
stumping for Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail, exhorting
women to vote for the wife of her old boss, President Bill
Clinton. Madeline Not-So-Bright admonished female voters
to turn out for Hillary because "there's a special place in hell
for women who don't help other women". Your falling-down-
laughing Peasant is spoiled for choices as to how to respond
to her bizarre statement, but I'll say this: Madeline dear,
your pal Hillary has been anything but a help to women,
especially those who had been preyed upon by her predatory
husband. She had, after all, headed up the team to respond to
hubby Bill's "bimbo eruptions", in which she savaged the
reputations of the women that Slick Willie tried to have his
way with, publicly pillorying each one of them, especially
those who threatened legal action against Billy boy. And
Hillary had the gall to claim in a speech that women who have
been mistreated by such men have a right to be heard and
believed (!). I suppose so, just as long as it wasn't Hill's Bill
who was doing the mistreating. And this is who you think
would make a fine president? I need to have a swig of
Pepto Bismol!

Why don't these two ageing, washed-up, elitist left-wing
has-beens just fade away? Their time on our political stage
is long up, and they should be long gone from it. Time,
as well as women and their aspirations, have passed them by,
and the more they try to speak for the members of their gender
the more they embarrass themselves, for they have ceased being
relevant to their fellow females as well as to our society
years ago.


MEM