Friday, December 28, 2012

A Very Happy New Year to All!

Your beloved Peasant wants to extend to you,
my beloved readers, my wishes for a very Happy
New Year! May you all have a year of prosperity,
of success in your business and educational
endeavors, and whatever other endeavors that
you may be undertaking. May you all have an
abundance of not only financial and material
success but an abundance of love, companionship,
health, and joy; the things that make life truly

This post is also your prolific Peasant's 200th to date!
Without you, my great and grand readers, this
milestone would not have been possible; for that
matter, neither would this blog! You are the fuel
in my tank, the encouragement that coaxes me
on, my reason for doing what I do --- sharing
my point of view and insight into the issues and
the challenges which we as a nation face, looking
for fresh ways of taking care of our business with
an ear tuned to the wisdom form our forefathers
who brought our great country into being.
These things will not only be good for you and your
loved ones, they will also be a poke in the eye to
Obama and his fellow Democrats, especially the
prosperity part! As a wise person once said long
ago, success is the best revenge; let us take that
advice to heart and use it to thumb our noses at
the regime in Washington! We won't let these
creeps mire us in depression, be it emotional or

Let us make this new year the best year ever!


Norman Schwarzkopf, R.I.P.

Just yesterday we lost a great military leader,
humanitarian, and patriot; General Norman
Schwarzkopf, who with General Colin Powell
led the American and allied forces in the Persian
Gulf War in 1991, passed away at the age of
78. He had been suffering from pneumonia.

Schwarzkopf's legacy famously includes his quick
and crushing defeat of Saddam Hussein's forces
in Iraq, which took just six weeks to accomplish.
This was done with minimal allied casualties, and
had freed Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. He was
feted as a hero at home and abroad; the soldier
known as "Stormin' Norman" was decorated for
his efforts in that war by President George H.W.
Bush and was given an honorary knighthood by
Great Britain's Queen Elizabeth II, among his
many accolades.

The general was known as a soldier who loved
soldiers; he was a West Point graduate and made
the Army his career, and he cared deeply about
the well-being of his soldiers under his command
as well as U.S. soldiers in general. He lived out
his storybook life in Tampa, Florida, where he
was last posted as an active military member,
and where an elementary school named for him
stands, reflecting the high esteem that the city
has for this warrior and humanitarian. He was
involved in veteran's affairs and children's
charities while declining offers to run for public
office as well as largely shunning the spotlight.

General Schwarzkopf was legendary yet humble,
larger than life in accomplishments but modest in
bearing. A fine soldier, a great military leader,
a caring citizen, and a true patriot, he will be
missed and remembered with fondness and
gratitude. May he rest in peace.


Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Robert Bork, R.I.P.

Our country lost a great legal scholar six days before Christmas.
One of the greatest legal minds that we have ever been blessed
with, and yet was blocked from becoming a U.S. Supreme Court
justice in a fear-and-loathing smear campaign waged against
him in the U.S. Senate, a distinguished law professor and a most
able U.S. Court of Appeals judge, Robert Bork passed away
on Wednesday, December 19 at eighty-five.

Judge Bork's defeat in his quest for confirmation to the Supreme
Court in the Senate was by a roll call of 58-42, the most votes
ever against a Supreme Court nominee. This galling defeat came
to be known as "Borking" --- the term was entered into the
Oxford English Dictionary, with the definition being the attempt
to prevent candidates for public office from attaining same by
"systematically defaming or vilifying them." The campaign waged
against Bork's nomination to the highest court in the land focused
more on his ideology rather than his qualifications. Ever willing
to share his opinions on legal matters and legislation, the
conservative judge left a paper trail which his left-wing enemies
were just as willing to use against him in the nomination hearings.
Advocacy organizations borrowed a page or two from political
campaigns, buying up space in print and air on radio and tele-
vision broadcasts to lobby against Bork's elevation to the Supreme
Court. The anti-Bork campaign began almost immediately
after President Ronald Reagan announced his choice of the
Constitutionally mindful judge for the seat on the Supreme
Court that was being vacated by the retiring Justice Lewis F.
Powell in 1987. Right away, then-Senator Joseph Biden (he has
long been a political mischief-maker) announced that he would
lead the fight against Judge Bork with a typical Bidenesque
statement: "I don't have an open mind; the reason I don't is
that I know this man." Biden was partially right about the first
part of his declaration; he doesn't have an open mind --- he
has no mind. As far as his knowing Judge Bork, he knew this
fine example of constitutional jurisprudence from hunger.
But he rallied his fellow Democrats, along with some liberal
Republicans, to stop Bork's attainment of a seat on the big
court, with the help of the aforementioned advocacy groups,
which included People for the American Way (a misnomer
of a name for that far-left wing political group!), the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National Organization for
Women (NOW), and various other liberal organizations
banded together in a wide alliance.

One of the biggest criticisms of Judge Robert Bork was a 1963
article in New Republic magazine in which he criticized civil-
rights legislation which barred public accommodations, i.e.
restaurants and the like from discriminating on the basis of
race. Bork slammed the racism behind the discrimination,
denouncing it as "ugliness", while also writing "having the
state coerce you into more righteous paths" is "a principle of
unsurpassed ugliness." Bork decried the cure as being as bad
or worse than the disease which it was crafted to eradicate.
Concerning abortion, Bork testified at a 1981 Senate hearing
that Roe vs. Wade was "an unconstitutional decision, a
serious and wholly unjustifiable judicial usurpation of state
legislative authority." Before the 1973 ruling which made
abortion legal throughout the land, the states had decided
as to whether to allow it or not, and if allowed then the
states each regulated abortions as they saw fit. Bork also
took issue with the 1965 Supreme Court decision in
Griswold vs. Connecticut which established a constitutional
right to privacy that allowed married couples to purchase
contraception; indeed, some legal scholars today state
that they see no such privacy right guaranteed by the
Constitution. All of which, in left-wingers' minds, were
more than sufficient to damn, excoriate, ostracize and
demonize Judge Robert Bork.

But the iconic conservative legal scholar had the last ---
and best --- word nine years later when he wrote and
published his famous book "Slouching Towards Gomorrah:
Modern Liberalism and American Decline" (1996). In
his treatise, Bork wrote that the Supreme Court was
having what he termed a "crisis of legitimacy" due to
"the judicial adoption of the tenets of modern liberalism."
Bork wrote that to remedy the situation a constitutional
amendment to make any state or federal court decision
subject to override majority votes in the House and Senate
could be passed.

Born in Pittsburgh on March 1, 1927, the only child of Harry
and Elizabeth Bork graduated from the Hotchkiss School
in Lakeville, Connecticut in 1944, after which he enlisted
in the U.S. Marines. Later on Bork would earn his undergrad-
uate degree in law from the University of Chicago and after
a second hitch in the Marines would return to his alma mater
to attend its law school for his graduate degree. Bork actually
started out as a socialist but converted to conservatism and
strict adherence to the Constitution, crediting what he called
the "rigorous analysis" of his university's economists.

He was named U.S. Solicitor General by President Richard
Nixon at the start of Nixon's second term in 1973. Bork was
soon embroiled in the Watergate scandal when, as acting
attorney general, fired independent Watergate prosecutor
Archibald Cox and ensured that a new special prosecutor,
Leon Jaworski, would be named to take Cox' place. Another
item that the lefties vilified Bork for.

Judge Robert Bork had a passion for the law, and for the
Constitution which lays out its scope and parameters in
its application and its practice. In these, he received the
enmity and hatred of the political left and the respect and
admiration of the political right. Will we ever see the likes
of such a jurist again? Only time will tell. Meanwhile, may
this legal giant know the comfort and peace of a better place,
a place where he will have no scheming enemies to combat,
who won't countenance any other views but their own,
attacking the good names of anyone daring to stand in their
way. Rest in peace, Judge Bork. Your work is your


Thursday, December 20, 2012

Christmas Greetings!

My fantastic, fabulous readers, your favorite Peasant
wants to extend Merry Christmas wishes to you all!
We shall get back together soon, and when we do I
shall have thoughts to share concerning the "Fiscal
cliff" showdown between our spendthrift president
and the GOP, along with same on the shocking, terrible
shooting tragedy which took place last week in
Connecticut. I also want to apologize for posting on
Wednesday of each of the last two weeks rather than
the per usual Thursdays; a combination of my schedule
and some online difficulties necessitated having to do
this. We shall now go back to getting together for our
weekly visits on Thursdays starting today. Thank you
all for your patience, your understanding, and your
enthusiastic support of your beloved Peasant and his

Merry Christmas everybody!


Wednesday, December 12, 2012

A Terrible Injustice

A family member posted an article on her Facebook page recently
which seized your favorite Peasant's attention and got his blood
boiling. The lady, a cousin who shares my love of our country if
not my brand of politics, showcased an article displaying a photo
of a young marine, a lance corporal in full dress uniform and
showing his battle-scarred face. He looks as if he may have lost
his right eye, that part of the photo is not very clear. A woman
sheds tears in the background as the marine tells of his time
in a war zone. The story begins by pointing out that our military
people serve twenty years to receive a pension which pays
them 50% of their regular pay, while members of Congress
receive 100% of their salaries after service of ONE YEAR!

The brave men and women in our armed forces sacrifice and
suffer greatly to protect us, including making the Ultimate Sac-
rifice in battle. They also, of course, protect our Congressional
members, who work and live in a rarified enviornment, where
they have air conditioning in summer and heating in winter,
the best food for their meals, comfy cushy offcies and comfy
cushy living quarters which they obtain with the generous
salaries that we pay them. Our military folk live in tents, are
continually exposed to the weather and elements wherever they
are depolyed, facing extreme heat in Afghanistan in summer
and frigid cold in winter in that war-torn country. Their meals
--- when they have time to eat them --- are rations which
generally consist of fruit cups, maybe some dried meat
such as beef jerky, and precious little else. And they are
always a target for enemy troops, And this is the thanks
they get for their shcokingly harsh toil, while we pamper
a bunch of elitist poultroons while they pick our country
apart with more and ever-increasing taxes and mind-
numbing regulations of our businesses and all other areas
of our lives!

Before your fit-to-be-tied Peasant has a fit of apoplexy,
I shall share the remedy to this travesty which was reported
in the article, a proposed constitutional amendment which

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of
the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators
and/or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that
applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not
apply equally to the citizens of the United States."

What this amendment, which if passed will become our
28th Amendment to the Constitution, says is that our
elected members of Congress shall pass only laws which
are applicable equally to all American citizens; that is,
there cannot be one rule for Congressional members and
another for the citizens. Neither group shall be treated
better than the other by the law. Regarding the matter of
pensions, Congress would not be able to vote themselves
a pension greater in payout nor in exchange for less time
of service than military personnel, nor vice versa (of
course, there's very little danger of Congress doing the

Your outraged Peasant cannot say anything more about
this inequality except that we citizens should hammer this
point home to our representatives and senators right away!
In the meantime, visit my Facebook page to see this article
and the picture of the disfigured marine. Just click the Face-
book badge on the right side of the screen. Those of you, my
grand readers, who are on Facebook, please share this piece
on your pages and encourage family and friends on Facebook
to do the same. We MUST get this story out so that we can
get as many people to take action as possible! It's about time
that Congress joins us in the Real World, and to show some
regard and respect for our family members, friends, and
neighbors in uniform. For all that they do for us, we can
do no less; how a nation treats its veterans says a lot about
the nation.


Thursday, December 6, 2012

Warren Rudman, R.I.P.

Our country lost a tremendous fiscal warrior on the nineteenth
of November, a man who served two terms in the United States
Senate with distinction and was a founding co-chairman of The
Concord Coalition, a fiscal responsibility advocacy group which
your faithful Peasant supports; former U.S. Senator Warren 
Rudman died at 82. Rudman was a member of the Senate from
1981 until 1993, having had no experience in elective politics.

The retired Republican senator was praised by many government
officials from both the Democrat and Republican parties over the
years he represented New Hampshire in the Senate for his
honesty, integrity, courage, and hard work in standing up for the
country's best interests. Vice President Joe Biden praised Rudman
for his respect for the American people and his faith in their judge-
ment stating "He was forthright, he was frugal and he was fair."
Biden's praise for a member of the GOP is something more rare 
than snow in July, so this praise commands attention.

Peter G. Peterson, a former U.S. Commerce Secretary and a fellow
co-founder of the Concord Coalition, remembered Rudman thus:
"He knew the facts of our budget reality and spoke of them with
a clarity and a passion. But what struck me was how much he
really cared. He wasn't just saying the words; he meant them." 
With the late Sen. Paul Tsongas (D-MA), these three men 
co-founded Concord twenty years ago.

Rudman was also masterful on other issues of importance to the
nation; in 2001, eight years after his retirement from the Senate,
he co-authored a report on national security with another former
U.S. Senator, Democrat Gary Hart, which forewarned that a
major terrorist attack on the United States within 25 years of
the report's issuance was likely. At the time of its release, no
one seemed to take the report's findings seriously, but as things
turned out we didn't have to wait 25 years for the worst to
happen --- it came that very year on September 11. Rudman
himself had military experience; he was a Marine Corps
officer. This experience helped him to land a seat on the
Defense Appropriations subcommittee. While making sure
that our military people got the equipment and other items
they needed, Rudman drew the line on wasteful spending in
making sure that the Defense budget would reflect his
standards of fiscal responsibility and accountability.

In the 1980s Rudman helped craft the Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings Act, which was designed to end federal deficits
by 1991 and mandated automatic spending cuts if annual
deficit targets were not met. A bold plan, to be sure.
However, Congress kept rolling back the timetable
every year, and in 1991 the budget that was supposed to be
balanced carried the second-highest deficit in U.S. history.
Instances such as this caused this dedicated, principled,
tough and gritty ex-marine to exit the Senate after twelve
years, announcing the next year that he would not seek
another term. A moderate on the whole, Rudman was not
at all squishy on any issues, especially fiscal issues;
contrast that to the "moderate" Republican senators of
the present, i.e. Sen. Olympia Snowe, the soon-to-retire
senator from Maine. If they are not squishy, then they are
foursquare on the left like Snowe had been. Rudman was
a moderate GOP sort whom conservatives could respect,
admire, and confidently work with. Whenever you hear
or read the laments from lamestream media pundits about
the dwindling ranks of GOP moderates, you can agree with
these apologists for liberals-in-true-moderates'-clothing
on a TRUE moderate: U.S. Senator Warren Rudman.
May he repose in the most perfect peace.


Wednesday, November 28, 2012

How to Fix a Broken Political Party

With the disastrous election behind us, and the passage
of enough time to clear our heads and regain our composure,
let us, my battle-weary readers, examine all what went
wrong and how to repair the broken things in the Repub-
lican Party --- the one and only political vehicle for the
conservative movement with any viability. This was
supposed to be a slam dunk, can't miss, in-the-bag
election for us conservatives; President Obama had
caused so much economic misery at home, made us
look like fools and patsies abroad (remember his
bowing to Middle Eastern potentates?), and tried
mightily to cover up the reason why our ambassador
and some of his staff were brutally murdered in
Libya and our post there in Benghazi overrun by
radical Islamists by blaming the attack on some
two-bit film with a politically incorrect take on
Islam and Islamists. Obama angered a lot of
people across the country. So why wasn't he shown
the door by the electorate?

And what happened to the Senate, which was supposed
to be a veritable ripe fruit, ready to fall into the hands
of the GOP? The Democrats GAINED two seats in
that chamber! Some slight losses to the Republican
majority in the House occurred, but the most painful
loss was that of U.S. Rep. Allen West in Florida. He
lost a very tight race in which vote fraud has been
suspected to be a factor in the former army lieutenant
colonel's defeat. By the way, have you heard of the
precincts in Philadelphia where the vote tallies showed
Obama winning them --- by shutout? Now, Philadelphia
is heavily democrat, as are many major American cities.
But to show NO VOTES for Romney in one or more
precincts? Something foul is afoot!

But the biggest obstacles to victory for the Republican
Party are internal, rather than external. And they are
certainly not insurmountable. But within these obstacles
are the problems which held the GOP back from electoral
success this year, and they will certainly do the same in
elections to come if they are not dealt with immediately.
Let us examine them here, and see what we can come up
with for viable solutions, shall we?

For a start, there is the old problem of the party all but
completely writing off blacks, Hispanics, and youth.
The tendency here is to dismiss these groups of voters
as being irrevocably situated in the Democrats' camp,
thinking that they are permanently for expanded social
programs, i.e. welfare, food stamps, and such, and that
the younger voters, many of them just having turned
eligible to vote, are on an idealism kick, and that there
is no sense talking to them about what the Republicans
have to offer. Over the years, blacks and Hispanics have
shown decidedly conservative tendencies regarding some
social issues, and have shown great concern for the
quality of education that their children are receiving
from the public schools, as many of these families
haven't the money to send their kids to private schools.
And many of them are concerned about the economy
and its impact on job availability. They know that the
path to prosperity and the kind of life that they want
for themselves and their families goes through the
private sector and individual initiative rather than
government assistance. But this is an earth-shaking
revelation to so many in the party, conservative and
establishment alike. As a result hardly anyone in the
GOP makes any overtures to these groups, and these
groups come to think that maybe the Republicans
don't care about them after all, so they march on over
to the Democrats' tent where the Dems ply them with
promises of all kinds of help in all areas of their lives
--- on the taxpayers' dime, of course.

On amnesty for illegal aliens, Republicans must make
clear that they want to help immigrants to enter and
start on the road to citizenship, regardless of where
they come from (this last part must be stressed),
provided that they enter the U.S. LEGALLY (this
part must just as strongly be stressed). We must make
it understood that our country is like a house, in
which we are the residents, and that while we
welcome people to visit or to live with us, we
have rules to which we require obedience for the
common good. If you, my grand readers, were to
invite people to visit you in your homes you would
certainly expect that your visitors respect your home
and your home rules. One rule would be, I'm sure,
is that people come to visit under your auspices
(that is, no one would be allowed to enter your home
without having been invited first; in other words,
if anyone entered your home under any other
circumstances, that would be illegal, according to
your rules --- and to the law of the community you live
in!). Well, the same applies to foreigners entering
the United States. Our "invitation" is all are welcome
here with a visa, and those wishing to become
permanent residents can obtain a green card and
begin the process of becoming American citizens.
Those who want to do anything different would
not be welcome. No exceptions made, whether
by country of origin, religious faith, skin color,
native language, or any other criteria. As it now
stands, Republicans are all over the map on the
subject, and no one is being satisfied as a result.
And building a several hundred-mile long fence
along our southern border is no different than a
homeowner building a fence along the borders
of his plot of land which his house and home is
situated on, as the reason for building it is the
same: to keep out those who would come without
welcome; those who would trespass.

The Republican Party must --- MUST --- also be
a unapologetic champion of capitalism, of free
market economics and the benefits of same as
opposed to the nanny-statist, cradle-to-grave,
-in-exchange-for-your-personal-liberty government,
which is the Democrats' stock in trade. Republicans
have to demonstrate not only the good of the former,
but the risks of the latter, and the latter's effects on
our country's economy and our sovereignty. That's
right, our sovereignty! We are borrowing more
and more money from China, a country not exactly
a bosom buddy of ours, with its communist govern-
ment. They are now, in fact, our biggest creditors!
Then there is our burgeoning budget deficit and
debt, a gruesome twosome growling at us daily.
We are making debtors of our children and our
grandchildren, with our great-grandchildren next
to become enslaved in these shackles. This is
not just irresponsible; it is immoral!

On the most sensitive of the social issues, namely
rape, abortion, and birth control, Republicans ---
conservatives especially --- have GOT to show
more finesse and less ham-handedness in discussing
their ideas regarding these topics. While many of
the GOP candidates, some of them being Tea Party-
backed, have erred in how they stated their opinions
and ideas on these delicate points quite innocently,
with only good intentions guiding them if not greater
forethought concerning phraseology, one candidate
in particular not only so grievously erred but caused
the failure to pick up an easy-to-win Senate seat held
by a very vulnerable incumbent by compounding his
mistake by refusing to step aside so that the GOP
in his state could quickly replace him with a more
credible candidate, thus preserving the possibility
of gaining the seat in question. Yes, my perceptive
readers, your still cheesed-off Peasant is referring
to U.S. Rep. Akin, whom I brand "The Misery From
Missouri"! After offering a weak apology for his
boobery about "legitimate rape", he thumbed his
self-serving nose at not only Missouri Republicans
but the national GOP and conservatives both in and
outside of the party when they urged him to cut his
and the party's losses and stand down as a candidate
for the U.S. Senate. If he ever wants to run for anything
again, it should be the border! Republican candidates
should simply decry rape, pledge to toughen the law
regarding punishment of rapists, and to strengthen
enforcement of said law; the arresting and sentencing
of rapists. Then the candidates, unless they have done
any research on these subjects and have received
proper coaching on how to answer questions regarding
them, should SHUT UP! An economy of words will
spare an abundance of embarrassment --- and lost

And the get-out-the-vote efforts seemed to rely almost
solely on hoping for enough people being up in arms
over Obama and his brand of governance to come to
the polls and vote into office a candidate with a poli-
tically checkered record (a smaller-scale version of
Obamacare in his state when he was its governor;
changing his stance on some key issues just to placate
conservative voters) who, some argue, is not and never
was a true conservative. The Democrats got their
supporters to the polls by firing them up and getting
them to look past their debacle of two years earlier,
and your perplexed Peasant has to give then credit for
doing a masterful job of this. The GOP looked
absolutely pitiful on this score. We cannot afford to
have a repeat of this.

In summation, the Republican Party should continue
to promote conservatism, but just do a better job of
it. And the party has to show the electorate that it
speaks with one voice, speaking in one language:
conservatism! It is counter-productive to have some
candidates talking up conservatism while other
candidates plug for "moderation" by advocating
what is basically what the Democrats are offering
but in a somewhat watered-down version. To put
a finer point on all this, the Republicans must offer
Republican Draught to an electorate thirsty for
constructive leadership, not Democrat Lite.

If the Republicans had done this in this election
campaign, we would now be counting down the
days until Barack Obama vacates the White House,
instead of dreading the beginning of his second term.
No reinvention is needed; just an improvement in
how the product is presented in the political market-


Monday, November 19, 2012

Thanksgiving Greetings to All!

My fabulous readers, your thankful Peasant wishes each
and every one of you and your families a beautiful, blessed,
truly happy Thanksgiving! I am thankful for so many things,
including being a child of God and an American, and I am
certainly thankful for you all! You are the reason this blog
is a resounding success! You are the reason I venture out
into cyberspace to share my observations, my thoughts,
and on occasion my counsel on the pressing political and
economic matters that our great and wonderful country
is facing.

May you and your loved ones enjoy this special day to
the fullest! God bless you all!


Thursday, November 15, 2012

Schedules Can Be Merciless

My fantastic readers, your encumbered Peasant has to take
a little time to tend to some business matters which have
already put me behind as far as getting material ready for
my next post. I do apologize to you all.

With Thanksgiving coming next week, I shall be even harder
pressed to make my next posting. I shall do the best I can,
but please don't be disappointed if I end up not posting
next week. If I do find time to post, it will likely be on the
Friday immediately following Thanksgiving, or else that
Saturday or Sunday. But I assure you that I shall rejoin
you as soon as possible!

Meanwhile, here's a brief item: apparently, there have been
some problems with voting computers in the cities that use
them (here in Wisconsin, we simply mark paper ballots and
feed them into a tabulating machine). Some voters touched
the screens to select Mitt Romney as their presidential pick
but the screen would signal that they cast their votes for
President Obama. Now, in each case that your alert Peasant
has heard the voters in question were able to delete their votes
and vote again, and ultimately be acknowledged by the tech
works that their votes went for Romney. It seemed, when
the news of these incidents broke, that all this was taking
place in just one or two cities, maybe a few more than that.
However, further revelations have shown that this has been
a more widespread occurrence which has taken place in
many cities in several states, the states in question having
been carried by Obama. Have the voters who faced this
problem been able to get their votes for Romney put
through as just that, or were some of their Romney votes
getting counted as votes for Obama? Were there any
instances of voters trying in vain to get some of these
computers to accept and recognize their Romney votes,
having given up after so many tries and not getting
adequate assistance from polling precinct officials?
Of course I shall be on the lookout for more information
regarding this story, and will share it with you as I
receive it. This was a pretty close election, and
although I am not casting aspersions upon anyone or
anything these reported incidents must be investigated
thoroughly. Also, there have been stories of possible
vote fraud from various places including, I'm sorry to
say, my city of Milwaukee. We'll sort all this out in
the days ahead.

Meanwhile, your favorite Peasant wishes all of you
a Happy Thanksgiving! May you, my grand readers,
get to spend the holiday with those whom you love!


Saturday, November 10, 2012

Veterans' Day Approaches

My fabulous readers, Veterans' Day is tomorrow
(yes, I know, Veterans' Day will be officially
observed the following day, Monday the twelfth,
as November 11 will be a Sunday). Let us take
time to remember why we have the freedom that
we, as Americans enjoy; they were fought for
to win and fought for to preserve and pass along
to successive generations of Americans to the
present day by our brave military folk. It may
seem like a trite little bumper sticker slogan,
but is a profound truth --- if you enjoy your
freedom, thank a vet! Your grateful Peasant
wishes to thank all of our current and former
military people for their dedication and sacrifice
for this noble prize. I am grateful for the many
people in my family in uniform going back to the
Revolutionary War who have served our country
in the various branches of our country's military.
Minors and extended family have served and
fought to free and establish what were a
handful of English colonies as an independent
and sovereign nation, and saw action in the War
of 1812, the Mexican American War, the Civil
War, Both World Wars, the Korean War,
and the Vietnam War. Your humble Peasant
will be forever grateful and indebted to these
courageous ancestors, as well as to friends who
in recent years have served, some seeing combat
in the current wars that our nation is engaged in.

God bless our brave veterans! We should think of
them and thank them all throughout the year, every
year, not just on this special day dedicated to them.
As your appreciative Peasant maintains, freedom
isn't free; it comes with a steep price but it is not
a luxury, rather it is a necessity. And the price
applies not just to its acquisition but to its preser-

Again, God bless our brave veterans, and God bless


Thursday, November 8, 2012

From "Morning in America" to "Mourning in America"

The 2012 presidential election has concluded
and not in the way that we, my fabulous readers,
have hoped.

Despite a campaign by Republican Mitt Romney
which pointed out the many failings of the current
regime and its head, President Barack Obama will
keep the title and the office for another four years,
and our country may not be able to stand the strain.
After the nationwide embrace of limited government
alternatives along with market-based solutions to
economic problems which repudiated the big govern-
ment having manifested at the state level in many
states across the land, your faithful Peasant's
Wisconsin prominently among them, the fervor
stalled short of reaching the White House.
Additionally, the Senate was untouched by this
wave, although a couple of Tea Party-backed
candidates were elected (Ted Cruz in Texas;
Deb Fischer in Nebraska). In fact, the Democrats
picked up a few seats there.

So many questions abound in the aftermath of this
debacle: Why did Gov. Mitt Romney lose? Why
couldn't the Republicans win that handful of seats
in the Senate needed to take control of that chamber?
Why didn't the Republicans' message of smaller,
responsible, less wasteful and more thrifty government
and more jobs resonate with more voters? Do most
American women actually believe the Democrats'
lie about the GOP waging a war on their gender?
In my coming postings your studious Peasant will explore
these and other related questions in order to assemble
a comprehensive post mortem, along with offering
ideas to remedy whatever it was that stopped us
just short of reclaiming our country's government
for We the People. For now, let us take some time
to grieve, as the events of the day before yesterday
were not unlike the death of a dear relation or a
close friend. The sense of loss is just as acute, painful,
and heart-wrenching. And it is good to grieve;
grieving is a way of dealing with the flood of
such powerful, immobilizing emotions which
stop us cold where we stand, preventing us from
proceeding with the work in our lives. We must
take time to grieve. We must take time to soothe
our wounded emotions. We must take time to
bind our inner wounds.

Then, we must dry our tears, pick ourselves up,
straighten our backs, and get ready to KICK ASS,

Our work shall continue. It must! We have a nation to
save, and the sense of urgency has heightened with the
sad results of the very recent national election. Since
we failed to stop the Obama juggernaut, we can at
least slow it down. There's a mid-term election in 2014
which we should prepare for, as it will be our best
opportunity to achieve this objective. And all the while,
we conservatives must explore out talent pool to find
and recruit the best candidates for the House, the Senate,
and the White House. Come 2016, we should have a
stellar slate of candidates for these offices, especially the
presidency; let's face it, the GOP field of presidential
candidates left much to be desired. Your discerning
Peasant did not and would not endorse a candidate
before the Republican convention in Tampa, as I could
not find a strong, credible, conservative candidate in
the field, so I waited until just before the election to
make my endorsement of the eventual nominee, Gov.
Romney. Despite his flaws, and he sure has quite a few,
he would have been a vast improvement over the

In the meantime, let us take to heart the wise words of
one of the greatest statesmen and men of action that the
world has ever known, Sir Winston Churchill:

"Never give in! Never give in! Never, never, never,
never, never give in!"

As Britain's Prime Minister during WWII, Churchill and
Britain faced the full might of Hitler's war machine. London
was blitzed by Hitler's Luftwaffe. The country needed
supplies, weapons, planes, and ships to fight Germany.
But Churchill rallied the British people to courageously
stand their ground. They resisted, they fought back,
they broke the blitz, and together with the allied forces
they defeated Hitler and the axis powers. They made a
stand and dug in their heels. They would not give in,
they would not give up, they would not give any quarter.
And that, my fabulous readers, is exactly what we must
do at this critical time. We may have lost a battle two
days ago, but we can still win this war, the war for the
direction and the soul of our beloved United States of

Let's get to work!


Sunday, November 4, 2012

Our Choice is Clear

Friends, we are at the eleventh hour and the fifty-ninth minute
of this year's election season. Election Day is fast upon us, and
our choices are clearly marked and presented for us. We have
the opportunity to elect a leader who will work to restore our
prosperity, our liberty, and the respect and prestige that our
nation had enjoyed in the world before the ascendancy of the
current regime. We can choose a leader who will respect and
work to restore our religious liberty. We can pick a leader who
will make it possible for businesses to do business; for workers
to work --- without worrying about whether their jobs will
either be shipped overseas or die off, and without worrying
about unions coercing them to join their ranks; for individuals
and families to have affordable health care that will not force
them to go to a doctor not of their choosing or to ration them
out of vital medical treatment --- and force everyone to pay
via ever-increasingly exorbitant taxes to prop up such a system;
who will provide protection when requested by our ambassadors
and their staffers in our embassies and consuls without delay,
and will give our military the support they need to do their job
as well as to give them the medical and other support that they
need upon returning home without bureaucratic game-playing.

We can stand with a leader who will not give "politically correct"
labels to horrible events such as the shooting of our soldiers
on one of our military bases here at home by a radical Muslim
"fifth columnist", and the murder of one of our ambassadors
and some of his staff by radical Muslims in a distant land, but
rather would condemn these atrocities for what they are.

We can install a leader who will respect life, and do all that he
can to protect and preserve life for the unborn as well as for
the aged and infirm, as well as for all in between. We can
select a leader who does not just give lip service to respecting
women, but actually does so and has done so in his business
as well as in his political administration, and does not talk down
to women --- including in his campaign advertisements.

We can vote in a leader who will spend more time with us
"regular folk", and listen to our ideas and our concerns, instead
of spending more time schmoozing with show-biz celebrities
at glitzy, astronomically expensive fundraising parties. We can
bring in a leader who will be fiscally prudent; who will not
continue to tax and spend us into oblivion, and ignore our cries
to STOP! We can get behind a leader who will be respectful
of the Constitution instead of being scornful of it. We can ---
and we must --- back a leader who gives more than a tinker's
damn about our country and we, her people, and the generations
to come.

Or we can re-elect the leader that we currently have.

The choice, my wonderful readers, is ours ---  and ours alone
--- to make. We must make that choice on Tuesday,
November 6. The Peasant endorses Mitt Romney unabashedly,
unequivocally, and unapologetically. Come join me in the final
push to put Mitt Romney into the White House. Our country,
and the future generations of Americans, depend on it.


Arlen Specter, R.I.P.

Former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter,
the Keystone State's longest serving senator, died after
a long battle with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a form of
cancer. He was 82.

A liberal, Specter first ran for public office as a Democrat
in Philadelphia in the early 1960s, running for the office of
District Attorney after having made a name for himself as
an assistant D.A. by sending six Teamster union officials
to prison on charges of corruption.

A native of Kansas, he came to Pennsylvania
to attend the University of Pennsylvania, then
settled in the state after graduation, getting involved in
politics. After switching parties, he won his first term in
the U.S. Senate, benefiting from Ronald Reagan's long
and broad coattails along with many other Republican
office seekers nationwide.

In the thirty years Specter was in the senate he voted
many times with Democrats on various bills, often incur-
ring the wrath of the Republican leadership and the
consternation of GOP Presidents Reagan, Bush 1 and
Bush 2. Although he had switched parties, he didn't
switch ideologies. He became a legislative ally of Big
Labor, despite his prosecutorial past in Philadelphia.
Specter also helped "Bork" Judge Robert H. Bork,
denying him a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court when
he was put forward by President George H.W. Bush.
But he made up for that particular action by grilling
Anita Hill mercilessly when she attempted to disgrace
then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas with
allegations of sexual harassment, accusations which
held no water where the truth was concerned. Liberals
were enraged by Specter as a result.

In the 1990s Specter helped defeat President Bill Clinton's
bid to establish a national health care plan. A few
years later he ran for President but dropped out of the
race for the GOP nomination before the first primary
due to a lack of funding for his campaign and low poll

In 2010 Specter returned to the Democrat Party, thinking
he had a better chance of getting into the general election
that way, as he was far behind the eventual GOP nominee
(and senator-elect) Pat Toomey, a candidate he narrowly
beat out for the GOP nod six years earlier, in the polls. 
He lost in the Democrat's primary to Joe Sestak, who went
on to lose to Toomey in the general election.

Specter could be quite arrogant with those whom he
disagreed with on political matters; your connected Peasant
heard him be condescending to conservative radio talk show
host Laura Ingraham on her show, taking offense at her
direct and probing questions in an interview with the
liberal Republican senator. He shot back at her with
"Now listen, young lady ... " as if he were addressing a
10-year-old girl railing against not being allowed to go
to the local mall with her friends. He could also be
stroppy with colleagues and constituents who would
fail to agree with him on the issues. But sometimes he
could, as I have mentioned a few paragraphs earlier,
cooperate with the Republican leadership and assist
in achieving a legislative or other political goal, whether
he did so because he saw the light on the matter or
he felt the heat from his colleagues and/or his consti-

He was a fairly interesting character; he could be a pain
in the backside, he could make one throw up one's hands
in despair, he could make one ask "What's he doing in
the Republican Party with his Democrat views?" But in
the end, he proved to be too liberal for one party and
too conservative for the other. He died a man without
a political home. So ends an interesting life filled with
many twists, turns, and not a few ironies. May he enjoy
peaceful repose.


Friday, November 2, 2012

The Thompson-Baldwin Senate Race Comes Down to the Wire

Your swamped Peasant has been remiss in not giving
time and attention to one of the most important U.S.
Senate races in the country, a race taking place in my
home state of Wisconsin: the race between former
Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson (R) and U.S.
Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D). Here at the eleventh hour,
I shall make amends.

Also, I must confess that I have seen only one of the
debated between the contestants. However, there were
plenty of fireworks from the battling pair which I have
seen and have seen accounts of more of the same in their
two other debates. There is much contrast and little love
between the ex-governor and the congresswoman, to be

Here's the contrast: Democrat Baldwin has been ranked
as Most Liberal member of Congress in 2010 and 2011
by the National Journal. The periodical and some other
sources say that Baldwin is to the left of former House
Speaker and current House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi --- and Pelosi's liberalism is hard-core and
miles deep! She loves taxation like a drunkard loves
booze; Baldwin even co-sponsored the Buffet Rule
Legislation, named for multi-millionaire and investor
Warren Buffet, who believes that wealthy people
can and should pay more in taxes and believes that
they should be happy to do so. Big talk from one who
has had a running battle with the IRS over his own tax
bills and payments dating back ten years. Now, I must
point out that not everyone who has drawn-out disagree-
ments with the IRS have necessarily done anything
wrong regarding their taxes, but many wealthy liberals
take deductions or place money into certain tax
shelters which the IRS deems questionable, if not
illegal, and then the limo libs find out that the same
tax laws that the "little people" have to obey also
applies to them as well. And the lesson is learned
not without a little chagrin and a lot of pain.

Baldwin also is foursquare behind Obamacare, the
legislation championed by President Obama which
gives the federal government control over one-sixth
of our economy in almost completely taking over our
health care industry. The congresswoman from Madison
avers that she was initially in favor of a more sweeping
national health care system, a la Canada's single-payer
system in which the government would have absolute
control, but decided to back Obama's plan as a step
in that direction. This must be Baldwin's "moderate"
stance on the issue, taking the "middle ground" (your
bemused Peasant sarcastically states).

In addition, the extremist congresswoman supports
federal gun control legislation, gaining her an "F"
from the National Rifle Association. She also favors
all provisions of TARP and the Stimulus sham.
The US Chamber of Commerce rates her at 23%
for her votes on economic legislation.She also wants
to keep the Estate Tax and the "Marriage Penalty",
the latter taxing the earnings of both spouses combined.
No rest for those wicked ol' taxpayers in Baldwin's

On abortion, Baldwin has a 100% rating from NARAL
and Emily's List, two big abortion advocacy organizations.
She even supports the Partial Birth method of abortion,
a method so grisly that more than a few pro-choice
folks draw the line at that procedure. Here, Baldwin
stands with President Obama; these pols apparently
never came across an abortion that they didn't like.
I could go on, but you get the point about Baldwin and
her raw leftism. One bit of good news: Baldwin was
able to get passage for only three of the 105 bills that
she sponsored in Congress.

Republican Thompson, on the other hand, takes the
opposite stands on each of these issues and related
legislation. While governor of Wisconsin Thompson
cut taxes an astonishing total of 91 times; this includes
both income and property taxes. He implemented the
historic Welfare Reform legislation in the Badger State
which added work requirements and shrank welfare
participation by an astounding 93%. Furthermore,
he got eliminated Wisconsin's inheritance tax.

Thompson created the nation's first private school
voucher system, winning the support of some
Democrats in the legislature to get it passed and
implemented. This law gives children from
economically disadvantaged families an escape
from the inefficient, ineffective, and financially
wasteful public school system by making it possible
to attend private schools, including religious schools,
for a better education. This system became the model
for the rest of the country to emulate.

Thompson wants to repeal Obamacare and replace it
with market-based reforms; opposes gun control
legislation; supports pro-life legislation. He
beileves that human babies have a right to live,
as without the right to life, all other rights are

Furthermroe, the ex-governor opposes UN inter-
ference with our sovereignty via measures such as their
Agenda 21 proposals. Thompson wants to preserve
our self-rule, thus keeping our country sovereign
and free.

On abortion, Thompson is 100% pro-life, in perfect
contrast and opposition to Baldwin's gung-ho stance
on the subject. The former governor is a friend to
working people, businesspeople, taxpayers, students,
the unborn, and people who want to be able to defend
themselves, their families, their homes and businesses
without undue and unfair restrictions on firearms;
apparently the lefty congresswoman has no regard
for any of these folks.

Most importantly, electing Tommy Thompson would
help in taking back the Senate from the Democrats and
give the Republicans control of both chambers of
Congress in six years. And in electing Mitt Romney
as our new president we would be giving him a
Congress that he could work with, thus assisting him
in ridding us of Obamacare and the rest of Obama's
statist legislation and easing our tax burden, our
regulatory burden, and other noxious burdens foisted
upon us since Obama took office. For these reasons,
your favorite Peasant endorses Tommy Thompson
for the U.S. Senate.

My fellow Wisconsinites, the choice couldn't be more


Wednesday, October 31, 2012

George McGovern, R.I.P.

U.S. Senator George McGovern, prominent Democrat from
South Dakota, the Democrat's presidential nominee in 1972,
and the political figure many cite as the man who reshaped
his party and was the champion of modern liberalism, passed
away after being in frail health for some time. He was 90
years of age.

Known for promoting the Food For Peace program in the 1960s,
as well as his steadfast opposition to the Vietnam War, the
senator was to the liberal wing of the Democrats' party what
Sen. Barry Goldwater was to the conservative wing of the
Republican Party. Both men, while failing to win the presi-
dency, instead influenced their respective parties into moving
further leftward and rightward in both policy making and
governance. They were in effect lightening rods for their
strong brands of politics in a time when most of their
colleagues were clinging to the political middle ground.

Your politically active Peasant never met the senator,
but was aware that he had formed and maintained collegial
relations with Republican senators, even stoutly conservative
senators with whom he rarely agreed with in regards to the
issues of the day. McGovern even had a long and warm friend-
ship with William F. Buckley, the de facto spiritual leader of
conservatism in the United States and founder of National
Review magazine, a leading periodical to this day of conser-
vative thought. Sen. McGovern could strongly disagree with
someone -- a fellow senator, a constituent, a pundit --- but
still be on friendly terms with that person; he did not and
would not look down his nose at anyone with whom he held
differing political opinions. This is a rare thing in today's
political climate, where politics in America has all but
become a blood sport. Another rarity: McGovern could
change his mind on a political topic and be quite open about
sharing his new opinion and the reasons for doing so.
Staunchly liberal he was; stubbornly ideological he was

Although your staunchly conservative Peasant found little
political common ground with the South Dakota senator, I
have nothing but great respect and regard for the man. May
he enjoy eternal comfort in heaven.


Tuesday, October 30, 2012

A Dash Through the News

Like I said in my previous post, there's a lot of items to go over
and only a little time to do it in, so let's get started.

ABC News recently changed its polling criteria re: the presidential
election which is now upon us. What they did was change their
polling percentages by increasing minority participation by 20%,
thus giving President Obama's approval numbers a bump upwards.
The fishy thing about all this is that most polling organizations
change their criteria in off years, or at least in the summer months 
in election years. ABC, however, made their switch just five weeks
before this most crucial election in many years, maybe ever.
Coincidence? Your skeptical Peasant thinks not. After all, several
polls have been seen to have oversampled Democrat voters,
and I would venture not accidentally. ABC has, like the other
networks in the lamesteam media has long been "in the tank"
for Obama in their reporting on this president; it would not be
a stretch for them to play cute with their polling concerning the
presidential race.

The Weekly Standard reported on union bullying of their rank-
and-file members in the Senate race in Massachusetts between
incumbent Scott Brown (R) and Elizabeth Warren (D). Interviews
with union members who had attended a recent debate between
the candidates revealed that they were threatened with $150 fines
if they refused to come to the debate. In 2021, when Brown ran for
this very seat upon the passing of Sen. Ted Kennedy, union mem-
bers said that their unions paid them $50 each to wear shirts sup-
orting Brown's opponent. A fine example of the best grassroots 
support that money can buy!

Although your favorite Peasant is not a fan of Ann Coulter, I do
commend her for her witty and astute observation re: the New 
York Times editorial page. Coulter remarked, "The New York 
Times editorial page is like a Ouija board that has only three
answers, no matter what the question. The answers are: higher 
taxes, restrictions on political speech and stricter gun control."
Your amused Peasant would add that the Times editorial board
is like a broken record in that they repeat these tired, stale 
nostrums so often.

Badger state left-wingers are trying every way they can think of
to overturn Act 10, Gov. Scott Walker's legislative initiative to rein
in compensation costs regarding state employees. What galls  
them is the fact that they are having to pay their fair share of their
retirement and health coverage costs, and because the new law is
working, it is very popular with the taxpayers of Wisconsin --- 
thus the lefties taking their fight to the courts. According to the
latest actuarial studies, it has been discovered that by 2019
Milwaukee Public Schools non-pension benefit liabilities
will have been reduced from $4.9 billion to $1.8 billion (!). Credit
Act 10 for this remarkable turnaround. The public union bosses 
and their their pals have been shopping around for a judge who
will issue a stay on Act 10 to "review" the law. What they are
really attempting here is to find (or make)
an excuse to declare Act 10 unconstitutional according to the
state constitution so that they can throw it out and reinstate the
old system of funding pensions and health insurance for state
workers. And sadly, they found such a judge, right there in
Madison (that figures!). But the Walker administration is
challenging this gambit quite vigorously. Stay tuned as this
story unfolds.

More political news and commentary to come!


Monday, October 29, 2012

A Lot To Cover in a Short Amount of Time

Friends, your swamped Peasant is going to do something
unprecedented; I shall be posting several times this week,
over the weekend, and on the day before the election (Nov.
6). I am doing this because I have some stories that I wish
to share with you along with my thoughts on them, and I
want to share my thoughts on the election itself here at the
eleventh hour, as it were.

Now I normally post once a week, twice if I come across
something so big, so juicy that it can't wait until the following
week to post for you. But this is a hurried. harried time that
we now find ourselves in, and time is truly of the essence.

I shall post stories breaking here in my home state, Wisconsin,
as well as national stories accompanied by my observations
and thoughts on same. Some of the pieces will be rather brief,
others longer, all being vital to get out. And you will get to see,
read, and share them with your family, your friends, your
neighbors, your co-workers, your fellow church attendees,
your poker pals, your drinking buddies, your hunting/fishing
mates, anyone and everyone who is concerned about the
direction our country is going in and the consequences of the
election coming at us in a mere eight days from today. This is
ammo that you will need to have in order to make the best
choices in the ballot booths on that important day!

We shall finish our election season here at PWAP with a
bang! There shall be some bang-up stories and information
which will further inform and galvanize you for the big day.
The first of these posts will appear here tomorrow.

See you then!


Thursday, October 25, 2012

Thoughts on Obama-Romney Debate III

The final debate between the presidential candidates
showed a weaker contrast between President Obama
and Governor Mitt Romney, but not without some
distinguishing points to provide discernable difference.
To Obama's credit, he showed some more marked
improvement on his debating prowess against his
Republican foe. He seemed more steady and
willing to challenge Romney on some key issues
regarding foreign policy and defense matters, which
were the topics that this last debate focused on.
Romney, for his part, pulled his punches; he didn't
go after the president in the hell-bent-for-leather
way that he did in the first debate, nor was he as
stinging in his rebuttals as he was in the second .
Romney didn't highlight the stark differences
between Obama and himself on Afghanistan,
Pakistan, China, or the use of drones. And his
difference with his opponent on Iran was but a
matter of degree. Romney stated that he would have
advocated tougher sanctions sooner, and reiterated
his pledge to prevent Iran from building a nuclear
bomb, which the Iranians would then use to threaten
Israel, our biggest ally in that region. When Obama
was queried as to the possibility of an Iranian
attack drawing a U.S. strike, Obama said that he
would "stand with Israel" --- gosh, this would
astound Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
who has been frustrated in his efforts to get President
Obama to give him even the time of day, let alone
any promise of support. Obama seemed to have time
for so many other people; George Clooney and his
Hollywood pals at fundraisers, the ladies (your
sarcastic Peasant using this term here quite loosely)
on The View, and who knows who else, while
giving Netanyahu short shrift. Now this was a
fantastic opportunity for Romney to go after Obama
on Israel, but instead weakly concurred with him,
saying that he would also stand with Israel "not
just diplomatically" but "militarily". A missed

The question of the United States' global role gave
a little more contrast between the two men ---
emphasis on "a little". Obama jabbed Romney by
saying "I know you haven't been in a position to
execute foreign policy", belittling Romney and his
criticisms of the president's handling of foreign
policy. Obama went on to warn that arming Syrian
rebels was risking putting weapons into hands which
shouldn't have them in the first place, while Romney
punched back by saying that the crisis in Syria was an
opportunity to undermine Iran's strongest ally in the
region, a regime with as much animosity to Israel
as that in Iran, but did not advocate U.S. military
involvement in Syria. Romney could have upbraided
Obama on his view of our country's global role and
his actions taken in accordance with same, saying
that it would be too risky to give him another four
years of "on the job training". Another missed

Both candidates stated that the U.S. military forces
currently in Afghanistan would leave that country in
2014. Romney gave Obama a back-handed compliment
in congratulating him on successfully attacking and killing
Osama bin Laden and other terrorists, then adding "We
can't kill our way out of this." Romney's alternative
course of action was greater emphasis on education,
gender equality and other initiatives to urge the Muslim
world to eschew extremism of its own accord.

Even the discussion of the killings of four Americans in
Benghazi, Libya, one of whom was our ambassador to
that country, didn't reveal anything new from the pair,
as neither man went beyond tired, oft-repeated talking
points. Yet another blown opportunity for Romney!

In the final analysis, your observant Peasant gives the
debate series to challenger Mitt Romney by scoring
it the first two for Romney and the third and final
debate a draw. Romney missed a great opportunity to
blow away Obama on the issues in which the latter is
almost as weak as he is on the economy. But Romney
has been able to move the needle in terms of the polls
just two weeks out from the election with the perform-
ance he gave in the three presidential debates. Anyway,
as a whole the polls are understating the true amount
of support that Governor Romney has, and the resultant
large advantage over President Obama in terms of
support among likely voters. This series of debates
simply put the icing on the cake for the former
Massachusetts governor, as Romney pads his amount
of support. Barring any missteps, Romney and
those of us supporting him shall have a grand feast.
We can't stomach another four years of Obama's
unappetizing dish of "hope and change"; we're
ready for a brand new chef, and a brand new entree'.


Thursday, October 18, 2012

Thoughts on Obama-Romney Debate II

Well, my fantastic readers, the second presidential candidates'
debate showed a more prepared, sharper, feistier, and aggres-
sive President Obama than the one we saw in the first debate.
And he benefited from the help of the moderator Candy
Crowley, who interrupted Mitt Romney twenty-nine times in
the gabfest hosted by Hofstra University in Long Island, New
York. Basically, Crowley did for Obama what Martha Raddatz
did for Vice President Joe Biden in the Vice Presidential can-
didates' debate a few days earlier; step in to save the Dem
candidate's bacon when he was about to get fried by the GOP
candidate on an issue in which the latter had the better command
of the facts. But it still was not enough for Obama to gain a

In the minds of the many who were in attendance as well as those
who viewed the event on TV, the second debate was a either
a draw or a razor-thin victory for Gov. Romney. Those thinking
the latter result indicated that Romney scored big on the topics
of the Economy, Jobs, and the Deficit, therefore earning the nod.
And many of these folks were turned off by moderator Crowley's
apparent bias. Crowley, it must be pointed out, and Raddatz too,
are both CNN talking heads, and as such they talk with a left-wing
accent when they talk about the political news stories of the day,
so this is all that we can expect from these magpies. Anything to
patch up President Obama's waning re-election chances is the
liberal establishment media's mission.

Also, there was the topic of Libya, in which Romney charged that
Obama had taken 14 days to call the assault on the U.S. Consulate
in that country in which our ambassador and four staffers were
horribly murdered a terrorist act. Although Romney was inaccurate
on this count (Obama had in fact referred to the assault as an act
of terrorism on September 12, the very day following the attack),
some in Obama's administration stated for several days running
their belief that there were merely protests over an American-
made video ridiculing Islam. Finally, after over a month admin-
istration officials admitted that there were no such protests.
Romney was quite correct in arguing that the administration had
yet to explain why it took so long for the correction to be made
regarding the incident or why it had believed that the attack was
thought to have sprung from a demonstration. While both candi-
dates were erroneous in some of their statements, Obama came
away looking the worse.

On the matter of war, Obama advocated taking the money being
spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and shifting it to tending
to our country's infrastructure and our schools. Very noble idea.
However, the president neglected to mention that all of the money
spent on the two wars was borrowed. Our government, in fact,
borrows 40 cents per each dollar it spends! Therefore, using
that money being spent on wars to build and maintain schools,
roads, and bridges would necessitate even more borrowing
(as our national coffers are empty), adding to both the federal
deficit and debt.

Regarding energy, Romney stated that U.S. oil production is down
14% this year on federal land, with gas production down 9%
for the same period, because the president had cut in half the
number of licenses and permits for drilling on federal lands and
public waters. Obama came back with stating that his administra-
tion had in fact opened up public lands and even had more drilling
on these lands than the previous administration, one headed
by an oilman (George W. Bush). Both statements have the element
of truth, as far as they go, but according to an Energy Department
study published in the spring of this year, sales of oil from federal
lands and waters fell 14% between 2010 and 2011 while the sales
of natural gas fell 9%, giving credence to Romney's point. According
to the same report, however, oil production has increased 13% since
Obama took office despite last year's drop, and oil analysts believe
that oil production in the Gulf of Mexico will rise. Natural gas
production from federal grounds has been in decline for several
years due to drillers finding huge reserves of the gas in formations
under several states that are cheaper to access than most federal

Concerning jobs, Obama stated that he wants to build on the
5 million jobs that he claims his administration had created over the
past 30 months in just the private sector. Obama had in fact cherry-
picked numbers to bolster his empty boast, and this is not the first
time he has done this. He ignores the fact that public-sector job
losses have pulled down overall job creation, and Obama mentions
only the past 30 months, thus ignoring job losses during his term
up to that point. According to Labor Department figures, approx-
imately 4.5 million jobs were created over the 30-month time frame.
However, those same figures also state that approximately 4.3
million jobs disappeared in the earlier months of Obama's time
in office. Obama therefore appears to be, only marginally, a job
creator. (Note: Your skeptical Peasant believed that these figures
are too optimistic, and that there has been a net job loss for the
whole time Obama has been president).

Romney hammered Obama on the rise in gas prices, shooting up
from $1.86/gallon upon Obama taking office to $4/gallon at the
present time. He stated that this is proof that Obama's oil and
energy strategy has failed.

And Romney let the president have it over taxes, stating that he
would cut taxes for most Americans and pay for the cuts with
reducing or eliminating tax deductions, exemptions, and credits,
therefore not having to add to the deficit or shift the tax burden
from the wealthy to the middle class. Romney told the audience
that he would bring tax rates across the board down, but would
limit deductions and exemptions and credits, especially for
the highest income earners. He would also get end the estate tax
and the alternative minimum tax. Romney also fired this salvo:
"A recent study has shown that people in the middle class will
see $4,000 a year in higher taxes as a result of the spending and
borrowing of this (Obama's) administration."

In the end, both candidates were assertive and at times aggressive,
Obama with Romney and Romney with both Obama and Crowley.
Both candidates, despite this, still could have called out each other
on several more points on the issues than they in fact did.
Both candidates made good points, but both made some points that
were not substantiated by facts. This debate, though, showed more
fireworks than the first, with the stiff verbal jabs and sweeping
roundhouses for driving points and criticisms home. And, like the
Vice Presidential candidates' debate, the Republican was at a
two-to-one disadvantage but still overcame everything to emerge
victorious, although by a much narrower margin this time around.

The third and final presidential debate will be held on Monday,
October 22. Your faithful Peasant shall once again tune in for the
proceedings. I hope you, my wonderful readers, will join me.


Saturday, October 13, 2012

Thoughts on the Biden-Ryan Debate

Your eager Peasant just couldn't wait to share commentary
on the Vice Presidential candidates' debate which took
place just the day before yesterday. What a study in
contrasts! We had a candidate who was polished, polite
and professional in demeanor and presentation face off
against a candidate who behaved like an arrogant,
condescending ass and an absolute buffoon. Your bemused
but studious Peasant gives his nod to Republican Vice-
Presidential candidate Paul Ryan for his having command
of the facts regarding the issues discussed, as well as
not getting ruffled by and rising to the bait of Vice
President Joe Biden, who showed incredible belligerence
and contempt toward his opponent. But then, Biden,
like the Obama administration as a whole, has little
time and even less use for anyone who disagrees with
and actively opposes their stands on the issues facing
our country, be they Republican politicians or We the

Now, the current veep didn't behave so boorishly toward
GOP Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin four years
earlier in their debate; in fact, to his credit, Biden was
quite the gentleman. He made sure not to give any hint of
treating the first female Republican Vice Presidential
nominee as a less than worthy opponent. So why did
Joe act like a schmo toward the first GOP nominee in
fifty years that even the most partisan members of the
VP's own party acknowledge as a serious, intelligent,
and formidable person?

During the very smooth, very polished performance by
U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, the incumbent Vice President
showed a disconnect between his derisive laughter
at, along with his many interruptions of, his foe and
what Ryan actually said. And Biden was not stopped,
nor even warned by the moderator who looked so
much like she was trying to help Biden get an undue
and unfair advantage; she cut off Ryan herself,
depriving the GOP candidate of the opportunity to
respond to Biden's wild criticisms of Ryan's points,
at one point even switching the topic as if to spare
Ol' Joe from a possible skewering by Ryan. As the
debate progressed, it looked more and more like
Rep. Ryan was facing not one but two opponents
working as a veritable tag team. But if all this was
a stratagem it failed miserably, as the Wisconsin
congressman was not the least bit fazed nor rattled
by either Biden's antics nor the moderator's actions.

The debate was quite uncomfortable to watch for
many people, both those supporting the GOP ticket
and those backing the incumbent team. An acquain-
tance who is planning to vote for the Obama-Biden
duo watched the proceedings and told me that she
was yelling at her TV "Joe, quit the crazy laughter!
Quit cutting Ryan off!". Indeed, Biden looked so
immature, even adolescent next to his 27-years-
younger opponent.

In post-debate interviews with audience members,
one of the women there remarked that the Vice
President reminded her of her abusive ex-spouse
with the way that he railed against Rep. Ryan.
Another woman concurred, stating that just prior
to the event, she had left an abusive relationship
and that Biden gave her "the creeps" in the same
way that her ex-boyfriend's snickering, derisive
laughter, and constantly talking over her always
made her feel inferior. Now, these ladies viewed
the debate from a conservative perspective and
would not have voted for Obama and Biden
regardless. But Biden's antics likely put off
many other female voters who otherwise would
have voted for the Dem ticket, and for the same
reasons. So much for the Dems' hoping to
capture enough of the women's vote to squeak
by to a victory on November 6.

Joe Biden certainly performed as many, including
your favorite Peasant, expected. And on the heels
of President Obama's butt-kicking by Mitt Romney
it is apparent that the pair at the top of the Demo-
crats' ticket is doing an exceedingly poor job of
selling the electorate on the notion of granting them
another term. There are two debates remaining for
the presidential candidates, but barring an absolute
miracle Obama and Biden will find their shared fate
sealed with their dismissal from their bosses, We
the People. Your buoyant Peasant is looking forward
to delivering these elitist pigs their pink slips!


Thursday, October 11, 2012

Thoughts on Obama-Romney Debate I

President Barack Obama and presidential challenger
Mitt Romney had the first of three scheduled debates
last week, discussing the issues of the economy, taxes
and health care. The debate looked in some ways like
one of the many boxing matches that George Foreman,
a legendary ex-champion known for his incredible
punching power which made it possible to end most
of his bouts quickly, had back in the day. The former
governor of Massachusetts gave a Foremanesque
performance in rocking the incumbent president
by verbally knocking him all about the place. It was,
in the minds of many seasoned political debate
observers, the strongest debate performance given
by Gov. Romney in this campaign season to date.
Your astonished but grateful Peasant caught the
debate on the radio and was both surprised and
delighted in the way that Romney took the fight to
Obama, staying on offense and never letting up on
him. A man known for giving tepid performances in
debates throughout his political career (Romney
blew a debate with the late U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy
when he challenged Kennedy for the senate seat from
the Bay State which the latter held for many years; it
was a debate which many thought Romney should
have won with ease, as Kennedy's communication
skills by then had noticeably faded. That poor
showing was pivotal in Romney losing the election to
the scion of Camelot), the GOP challenger performed
as a man on fire. It was a treat to see for those of us
who want so badly to send Obama packing!

Alex Castellanos, a Republican strategist and CNN
contributor, said that Romney "rose to the moment"
and seemed to have been made sharp by the 22
primary debates he had been in on the way to the
Republican nomination. James Carville, Democrat
strategist and a CNN contributor himself, stated
"It looked like Romney wanted to be there and
President Obama didn't want to be there," adding
"The president didn't bring his 'A' game." That's
stating it politely. Obama at times during the veritable
massacre sounded peeved, annoyed, and frustrated,
even criticizing moderator Jim Lehrer for allegedly
not giving Obama enough time to get his points across
at one juncture. The prez that the young, hip contingent
among his flock of supporters hold to be the epitome
of "cool", of being the "coolest" president that our
country has ever had, nearly had a meltdown when
Mitt Romney brought the heat. The president need
not have worried as to his allotted time to speak;
moderator Lehrer failed to keep the pair within
time limits for responses, with Obama getting the
best of the deal --- he ended up speaking for four
minutes longer than Romney all totalled.

Romney's best moments came in stating that the
nation's high unemployment rate and lagging economic
recovery proved that the president's policies have
failed. At another point, Romney noted how $90
billion spent om programs to develop alternative
energy sources could have been devoted to hiring
teachers, which would have been helpful in reducing
unemployment. Obama, for his part, argued that his
policies were helping to bring the country back from
the financial and economic crisis he inherited (his
fallback position: when poor economic figures are
brought up, just blame "Dubya"!). Obama also
trotted out his stale class warfare phraseology,
claiming that Romney was interested only in cutting
the taxes of the rich and that this would not help
the country to economically recover. Romney
deftly countered with stating that his tax plan would
not add to the deficit, and he socked Obama for
his proposal to allow tax rates on income over
$250,000 for families and over $200,000 for
individuals to rise back up to the higher rates of
the 1990s.

Obama's best salvo was when he said that Romney
lacked the important leadership quality to be able to
say "no" when necessary; this is rich, coming from
a president who never uttered that word when asked
for political and economic goodies by his major cash
donors, items which the rest of us would never have
gotten and which few, if any of us would have dared
ask for. You may recall Solyndra, for one example.
Romney hammered Obama on the health care reform
bill, saying "I just don't know how the president could
have come into office, facing 23 million people out of
work, rising unemployment, an economic crisis at the
... kitchen table, and spend his energy and passion
for two years fighting for Obamacare instead of fighting
for jobs for the American people," and when you
consider that most of the American people have been
strongly opposed to the plan from the start, it shows
Obama in a very negative light; a leader focused only
on what he wants rather than what the people want,
ignoring their repeated objections to his attempts to
pass and implement a program which they want no
part of. In many places in this world, such a leader
is called a "dictator" (these additional remarks from
your favorite Peasant).

There are two more debates scheduled for the candidates
for the presidency. The vice presidential candidates are
set to have at each other tonight at 8:00 PM EST. Obama
was supposed to be the strong half of the Democrats' ticket.
But after Obama's exceedingly poor performance in his first
debate, the Dems now are in the unenviable position of
having to rely on Vice President (and Gaffe Master General)
Joe Biden to make up for the president's tough night in his
own debate with Romney's running mate U.S. Rep. Paul
Ryan. And the prez will have to, in any event, improve on
his debating acumen and bone up on the social and defense
issues, which will be the subjects on tap for the remaining
two debates he'll have with Gov. Romney. The Dems'
ticket is in a deep hole which it may not be able to dig its
way out of. And this will bode ill for them, but will bode
well for those of us who want to have real hope and
change, as we hope to elect a team which will change
our method of governance back to one grounded in our
constitution. Your optimistic Peasant is certain that we
shall be successful!


Wednesday, October 3, 2012

In Case Anyone STILL Needs A Reason to Vote Against Obama

Your always-researching Peasant found a great article
in the September 10 issue of National Review which
gives some humor-coated reasons for denying
President Barack Obama a second term in the White
House. Titled "689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama",
NR gives some serious points as to why Obama is
not deserving of another four years as President in
the magazine's signature piercingly humorous style.

You can also find this delightful article at National
Review Online. The link:
In the meantime, here are some choice excerpts from
the piece for your enjoyment. The featured reasons
for voting out Obama are numbered as given by NR.

1) Because he was not the one we were waiting for.
(Peasant's comment: NR lead off with what I felt
was their best --- and wittiest reason --- to vote
against him!)

4) Because lots of people fail at their first real job.

5) Because "Winning the Future" was not a very
good slogan back in 2005 when it was Newt's.

9) Joe Biden.

11) Because he didn't quite get the message in 2010.

12) For claiming that he would cut the deficit in half.

13) And then adding more than $5 trillion in new debt.

14) To remind him that debt used to be, IN HIS OWN
WORDS (emphasis mine), "unpatriotic".

16) For blaming President Bush.

22) Because he listened to the Reverend Wright's
crackpot racist diatribes for years and then gave us
a lecture on racism.

24) Because of an $800 billion stimulus bill.

25) "Shovel-ready" projects.

26) The non-existence of shovel-ready projects.

27) For joking about the non-existence of shovel-
ready projects.

28) Because "jobs created or saved" is Enron

37) "The private sector is doing fine."

54) Revising his tune on the economy in December 2011,
he said: "It's going to take more than two years. It's
going to take more than one term. It probably takes
more than one president." We agree with that last part.

76) Because he values Joe Biden's advice.

91) Because he didn't let a crisis go to waste.

110) MSNBC could use the ratings help.

113) For Obamacare.

115) For passing it to see what's in it.

125) It's racist to say "Obamacare".

126) Except when he says it.

208) Dodd.

209) Frank.

210) Dodd-Frank.

230) Arguing that Bain Capital is the problem
with America.

231) While taking Bain Capital's campaign

285) Joe Biden.

296) Joe Biden.

320) "Big f***ing deal."

325) Biden was asked by the manager of a
custard shop outside of Milwaukee if he was
going to lower taxes. He called the man a

331) "The war on women".

497) "Cash for Clunkers".

500) Gas prices up 100 percent since Inauguration

586) The czars.

587) The fundraisers.

593) Telling the SEIU: "We look after each other!"
True enough.

596) Janeane Garofalo is adorable when she weeps.

602) Have we mentioned Joe Biden?

689) Because you built that.

See the rest of the 689 reasons in NR in print or
online! Enjoy!

NOTE: Your perpetually-in-motion Peasant
is posting this piece a day before Thursday of this
week, as I am facing a rather uncertain day tomor-
row in terms of my schedule, and am not sure if I
shall have time to be online then. And, this item I
am sharing is much too good to hold for another
couple of days, let alone longer! I wanted SO much
to share this with you, my fantastic readers, at
the earliest opportunity. Thanks all!


Thursday, September 27, 2012

Andy Williams, R.I.P.

Your sorrowful Peasant is breaking the sad news to you,
my wonderful readers, regarding one of America's
most beloved entertainers of all time, Andy Williams.
After a year-long battle with cancer of the bladder,
the crooner, who is known for his beautiful treatment
of "Moon River" and perennial Christmas favorite
"The Most Wonderful Time of the Year" passed to a 
higher stage this week. Williams was 84.

I wanted to post this obituary and tribute to Williams
as soon as I heard the sad news, so this is a rare
occasion of your dependable Peasant posting twice
in one day.

Hugely popular in the 1960s, with a long-running TV
show, 18 gold records and 3 platinum records, Williams
was the veritable king of easy listening music.
Born in Wall Lake, Iowa, Williams sang in his family's
church choir along with his brothers Bob, Dick, and Don
--- as adults they would achieve renown as a singing
group, and would sometimes sing together on Andy's
show, and their experience gained singing in their church
would serve as fine training for their professional
singing endeavors. After WWII, the brothers joined
entertainer Kay Thompson in her sophisticated
nightclub act, and were coached by Thompson herself.

Williams won an Oscar for his rendition of "Moon River",
the hit song from the celebrated 1961 film "Breakfast at
Tiffany's". The song became his TV show's theme song
and for many fans became Williams' own theme song as
well. He would get his TV show in 1962, a show which
would air until 1971.

The Wall Lake singing sensation would go on to host the
Grammys and the Golden Globes over the years, and
would host Christmas specials in which Williams would 
wear his distinguished trademark red cardigan sweater,
becoming an annual presence in many American homes.

Williams was survived by his wife Debbie, his three
children Robert, Noelle and Christian, and his his
ex-wife, French-born dancer Claudine Longet. His
birthplace is a tourist attraction, and in the 1990s he
opened the Moon River Theater in Branson, Missouri,
having named it for the song that he made so famous
three decades earlier.

Andy Williams was a great favorite in my family, 
and my parents and I always made it a point to watch
him on TV at every opportunity. They don't make
entertainers like Andy Williams anymore, and that is
to our detriment.

Godspeed, Andy. Thanks for all the fun.


An Avoidable Obituary

Your favorite Peasant received a rather shocking
essay from a friend and fellow conservative just
this week, but the piece has great value in that
it serves as a wake-up call for those Americans
who are either still undecided as to which presi-
dential candidate to vote for in November, are
thinking that Obama is not as radical as many
accounts have him pegged and are not keen
on Romney, or perhaps are dead-set against
Obama but can't warm up to Romney and are
thinking of voting Libertarian or some other
third-party that leans right --- or, worst of all,
are considering staying home on the day of
the most important election our country faces
in many years, maybe ever.

I'll just post it here for your perusal, my grand
readers, and let you make of it what you will.
But as for your beloved Peasant, I find the item
a sobering and most timely call to action for
those of us who want our country to remain
free and prosperous for our generation and
for the generations to come. Here it is:


In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history
professor at the University of Edinburgh, had
this to say about the fall of the Athenian
Republic some 2,000 years prior:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature;
it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of
government. A democracy will continue to exist
up until that time that voters discover that they
can vote themselves generous gifts from the
public treasury, with the result that every demo-
cracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy,
(which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civili-
zations from the beginning of history has been
about 200 years. During those 200 years, these
nations always progressed through the following

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage"

The Obituary follows:

Born 1776  Died 2012

It doesn't hurt to read this several times.

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline
University Law School in Saint Paul,
Minnesota, points out some interesting
facts concerning the last presidential

Number of states won by:
Obama  19
McCain  29
Square miles won by:
Obama  580,000
McCain  2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Obama  127 million
McCain  143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents
in counties won by:
Obama  13.2
McCain   2.1

Professor Olson adds:
"In aggregate, the map of the territory
McCain won was mostly the land owned
by taxpaying citizens of the country.
Obama territory mostly encompasses
those citizens living in low income
tenements and living off various forms
of government welfare ... "

Olson believes the United States is now
somewhere between the "complacency
and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's
definition of democracy, with some forty
per cent of the nation's population already
having reached the "governmental
dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship
to twenty million criminal invaders called
illegals --- and they vote --- then we can
say goodbye to the USA in fewer then five

If you are in favor of this, then by all means,
delete this message.

If you are not, then pass this along to help
everyone realize just how much is at stake,
knowing that apathy is the greatest danger
to our freedom.

This is truly scary.