Thursday, January 31, 2013

Hillary Clinton's Legacy

Hillary Clinton, former First Lady and former U.S. Senator,
is soon to step down as Secretary of State --- and none to soon.

Just days earlier, Clinton finally testified before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs
Committee about what she knew, or supposedly knew, regarding
the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September
11, 2012 by radical Islamics which resulted in the deaths of the
American Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other
Americans, and ten other Americans being injured. To recap,
let's take a look at what transpired to bring about this terrible

There had been some violent incidents at the consulate dating
back to April 2012. Two former security guards for the
consulate threw a homemade "fish bomb" IED over the fence
at the building; happily no casualties resulted from this action.

In May 2012 an affiliate of Al-Qaida claimed responsibility
for an attack on the International Red Cross office in Benghazi.
The Red Cross immediately closed their office there.

On June 10 British ambassador to Libya Dominic Asquith
survived an assassination attempt in Benghazi. The British
Foreign Office withdrew all of their consular staff before
the month's end.

On the day of the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission,
about 200 Islamic activists protested against the film,
"The Innocence of Muslims" in at the U.S. Embassy in
Cairo. After the attack, CNN reported that a Benghazi
security officer and a U.S. battalion commander met with
U.S. diplomats three days beforehand, warning them of
the deteriorating security in Benghazi, saying that the
situation "scared us". Ambassador Stevens had repeatedly
requested security enhancement in communiques to the
White House, but his plaintive requests were not heeded.
On September 11 (a terrible irony!), the ambassador and
three other Americans were brutally murdered by radical
Islamics that had attacked the compound. The string of
aforementioned events were an eloquent warning of trouble
ahead that Team Obama never picked up on.

Although the next day President Barack Obama issued a
statement condemning the attack. Secretary Clinton had
followed this up with a statement of her own that day,
describing the attackers as "heavily armed militants"
and reaffirmed the United States' "commitment to
religious tolerance" (the film in question supposedly
cast Islam in a negative light, at least where radical
Islamists were concerned). She and the president went
on to eulogize the slain Americans over the coming
days. The White House even called the attack a "terrorist
attack", with White House Press Secretary Jay Carney
using those exact words to describe the incident in a
press release. But when members of both the House and
the Senate tried to get more information on the attack,
they were rebuffed by President Obama. Beyond some
limited information given by Secretary Clinton in a
classified briefing, there were still things left to be
desired in the minds of more than a few congressional
members, but nothing more seemed to be forthcoming.
The administration announced that the attack was a spontaneous
response to a hateful video, but Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
countered that this was "patently false", and asked "What
did the president know? When did he know it? And
what did he do about it?" For Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI),
Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said
on September 13 that the attack looked to have the
hallmarks of the work of al-Qaeda and furthermore,
stated that he "(saw) no information that shows that there
was a protest going on ... It was clearly designed to be an
attack." Perhaps Rep. Rogers was able to discern some
evidence of forethought and planning in the attack.
Rep. Rogers and his colleagues on his committee
would most likely know, and had concluded that the
consulate should have been better secured before and
after the attack.

So when Secretary Clinton testified before Congress
and was pressed by some senators, especially Ron
Ron Johnson (R-WI) as to why the nation was misled
for weeks following the fateful attack, Secretary
Clinton angrily fired back with "What difference,
at this point, does it make?" Hillary, four of your
fellow Americans, including an ambassador in your
charge, were violently murdered by bloodthirsty
radical Islamists who attacked the American consulate
in a distant country, the ambassador having made
repeated plaintive requests for greater security which
you and the president didn't respond to --- which may
well have kept these four people alive and protected!
Does that not make a difference to you? Your outraged
Peasant shudders to think what Clinton's honest answer
to that question would be.

And all this, from an administration which its president
claimed would be a transparent administration. This
sorry lot has all the transparency of mud!

And it was Republican senators who pitched the hard
questions to Secretary Clinton, while the Democrat
senators lobbed the soft stuff to her. Predictable.

And the stonewalling continues. Team Obama refuses
to tell the truth about these events unless an irate,
indignant public pressures them into doing so.
And sadly, that indignation is not very evident; the
so-called mainstream media still is able to lull and
bamboozle many people into accepting the "official"
version of things, into not questioning anything, just
going along with the "narrative". This is but one way
in how come just enough of the American electorate
voted to give Obama and company a second term.

We must keep up the pressure to get Congress to
initiate and carry out a full investigation into this
avoidable tragedy. For this administration cares
little about the people, even their own foreign
policy team, and little about the truth. And Secretary
Clinton still entertains thoughts of making another
run for the White House when Obama's final term
runs out! Hillary Clinton is as big a liar and obfu-
scator as her husband, and she was therefore an
all-too-perfect tool for a president whose talent
and propensity for lying rivals, if not surpasses,
those of both Clintons. It is good that she will no
longer be our top diplomat, given the above; she
should not ever be our head of state, and for the
same reasons.


Tuesday, January 22, 2013

A Terrible Anniversary

My fantastic readers, your beloved Peasant has written
about many subjects in the political realm, including
those touching on economic matters. But this time I shall
talk about a topic that I have but briefly touched on in
past postings, and this point in time is both an important
and appropriate one to discuss this very topic. I am
referring to the fortieth anniversary of Roe vs. Wade,
the United States Supreme Court ruling which made
abortion legal in most cases, sweeping aside then-existing
state and federal restrictions. And I am posting this piece
today, even though today is a Tuesday and as you all
know I normally post on Thursdays, but today is the
very day of the aforementioned terrible anniversary;
it is therefore fitting that I post this, your grim-faced
Peasant's remarks on same, this very day.

On January 22, 1973 the Supreme Court ruled 7-2
that a right to privacy under the due process clause
of the 14th amendment extended to a woman's decision
to terminate her pregnancy, but that very right must be
balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in
regulating abortions: protection of prenatal life and
of women's health. However, the Court later rejected
Roe's framework, while affirming the ruling's central
holding that a woman has a right to abortion until
viability, this being defined as being "potentially able
to live outside the mother's womb", thereby broadening
the time frame for ending a pregnancy from just the
first trimester to the second. Viability has been stated
in the case as generally being at seven months, but
sometimes occurring as early as six months. Roe
struck down many state and federal restrictions on
abortion in the process, and had reconfigured national
politics as well; the country had been divided into
pro-life and pro-choice camps, each side having
strong grassroots activism promoting their respective

In the years since this fateful ruling, we taxpayers have
been put on the hook for funding many of these
killings of innocent, unborn human beings, who have
never done anyone a lick of harm (indeed, how can
they?), yet have been in effect sentenced to death
by their biological mothers with the approval 
of the Supreme Court. Since then, Congress
has presented us with the bill for these butcherings
with the approval of some subsequent presidents.
And many of the proponents of this barbarism has
accused those of us, the opponents of sane of
"forcing (our) morality" upon the pregnant women
lest they decide to do away with their unborn
children, while they force us to pay with our tax
monies for impoverished women to have the
damnable procedure. Who's fooling whom here?

Now, to save both time and space for this piece, The
Peasant shall discuss the background of the case,
that is, what brought this case about, and shall comment
on the legal reasoning behind it in a future edition of
this blog, but for now just wants to decry this decision
by the Court as an open season on defenseless human
life and a corresponding cheapening of all human life in our
country. This decision shall, we can only hope and pray,
be rendered defunct, irrelevant, and obsolete one day,
much like slavery was in the nineteenth century.
Let us create a "culture of life" in which we once again
place a high value on human life, starting with the tiniest,
most helpless, most vulnerable of us. In an age where
our society sanctions doing away with yet-to-be-born
people for a shocking array of reasons for doing so
--- ranging from a woman fearing that she'll have
Stretch marks and won't look good in a bathing suit
to wanting to remain sexually active without a ten-
month interruption (nine months for gestation then
about a month to recover after giving birth) to sex
selection (this especially cold-hearted reason for
having an abortion is an all-too-regular occurrence
in China and other countries where babies of one
gender are more greatly desired than those of the
other!) --- we have taken our "throwaway society"
to a frightening extreme. Aldous Huxley, the author
of "Brave New World", a book in which he warned
the world of what could happen if we shed ethics and
compromised morality in our quest to fashion a more
efficient, egalitarian, and smarter world, could not have
envisioned a more horrible happenstance.

But in the meantime, let us continue to press our
elected representatives in Congress and the
president (even though our current president
is enthusiastically in favor of the awful status quo)
to chip away at this grave injustice by crafting
laws that will at least mitigate the slaughter of
unborn human beings and to work to make
a constitutionally allowed check against this
Court ruling. If you are able to attend a pro-
life rally at your state capitol, or the one held
in Washington D.C. every year on this tragic anniver-
sary, do come out to speak up for those who are
unable to speak for themselves. Visiting, and of
course writing and calling your representatives is
helpful too. Joining a pro-life assembly from a church
to go to an abortion clinic to peacefully picket in
protest of what transpires inside its premises is
also a good activity. Do whatever you can to speak
up for those who cannot speak for themselves.

And for a follow-up, take up a collection of baby items,
i.e. cribs, blankets, diapers, bassinets, food, clothing,
and toys to give to financially struggling mothers so
that they can better tend to their soon-to-arrive children
as well as to their already-born babies. Anything to show
these women that someone cares about both them and
their babies. Talk to the pastors at your churches, and
your rabbis at your synagogues about these collection
ideas and what else you can do to help expectant
mothers in penury in order to make it both possible and
easier to give their little ones an opportunity at life.

And finally, let us work diligently to draft and elect pro-
life candidates to public office, especially at the national
level --- although we failed to unseat the present occu-
pant in the White House we can still elect a pro-life
Senate and send more pro-life candidates to the House.
This will make it more difficult for the president to push
for further pro-abortion initiatives, including eliminating
existing restrictions on abortion and increasing funding
for abortion providers, starting with Planned Parenthood.
We can toss abortion onto the trash heap of history,
having it rot along with the tragedies of slavery and Jim
Crow laws. But we must not let up in our efforts;
the other side isn't letting up in theirs.

And one day, we will no longer be observing the anniver-
sary of the day abortion was made legal, but rather will
celebrate the day that we have done away with this grisly
practice and will have restored not a small measure of
worth to human life and therefore human beings, both
born and unborn.


Thursday, January 17, 2013

Look Ma! No Principles!

Former Vice President Al Gore, the "Goreacle" on all
matters environmental whose eco-preachfest movie
"An Inconvenient Truth" won an Oscar while his
guruship won the Nobel Peace Prize, billionaire,
founder of liberal cable channel Current TV, and
big opponent of Big Oil while sermonizing on the
supposed merits of wind, solar, and alternative
sources of energy to make our planet "green",
recently sold Current TV to ... wait for it ... Al-
Jazeera, a pro-radical Islamic group funded
largely by the government of Qatar, a Middle
Eastern nation wealthy with oil. No blarney!
No leg-pulling! No fooling! Al-Jazeera met
Gore's price of $500 million, and presto, the
deal was done.

With this transaction Al the greenies' pal did two
things: he gave a cabal of some of our most
dangerous enemies an "in" to our country's
media market and airwaves to broadcast
their poisonous propaganda, and he went
against his supposed greenie principles by
accepting money from an entity funded almost
entirely by oil. Already a billionaire, Gore
would not seem to need the money very badly,
but since his media creation never did attract
an audience of an appreciable size --- 
Current TV currently has an audience of 42,000
viewers in prime time, and this is its average
figure by the way, that figure never having been
much higher --- The Environmeister figured
he'd better unload his underperforming turkey
while he could get even a half-way decent price
for it; he's at least that much of a capitalist.
And that Gore had sold his ailing outfit to
Al-Jazeera, he is also an unpatriotic and
unprincipled scoundrel.

The new owners of Current TV will, of course,
completely remake the organization; they will
change the name and the substance of the network.
This vignette will illustrate what I mean: In 2006,
Al-Jazeera talk show host Riz Khan was asked in
an interview conducted by CNN's Frank Sesno if
the terrorist group Hamas should be designated as
such; Khan replied "I'm not one to judge,". When
asked about Hezbollah, Khan reiterated what he
previously said. How oily!

Furthermore, during the so-called "Arab Spring"
in 2011, CBS correspondent Lara Logan was
set upon and sexually assaulted by 200 males
(Your outraged and sickened Peasant refuses to
dignify them by calling them "men"!) in Cairo's
Tahrir Square. Al-Jazeera English deliberately
ignored this monstrous act. When castigated by
Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart,
a publicist for Al-Jazeera English stated that the
network "believes as a general rule" that journalists
"are not the story." Especially when a female
journalist is sexually attacked by 200 radical
Islamic males, apparently. And at the time of this
barbaric incident, domestic and foreign journalists
assigned to Egypt were being increasingly besieged
during this so-called Springtime.

This sort of thing has been Al-Jazeera's mode of
operations is nothing terribly recent, as evidenced by
an instance in which Al-Jazeera paid homage
to Lebanese terrorist Samir Kuntar. In 1979,
Kuntar was imprisoned for shooting an Israeli
civilian in front of the civilian's four-year-old girl,
following that up with breaking the little girl's skull
with the butt of his rifle. In 2008, Al-Jazeera in Qatar
feted the bloodthirsty thug with a televised birthday
party, the dishonorable guest of honor fresh from
prison having been part of a prisoner exchange.
an Al-Jazeera interviewer gushed to Kuntar, "You
deserve even more than this!", then brought out a
birthday cake and sparklers. the cake was adorned
with pictures, one of which was of Hassan Nasrallah,
the kingpin of Hezbollah. Kuntar gushed that "the
most beautiful picture" on the cake was that very
picture. And despite all this, Al Gore could only
see good qualities in the buyer of his media organ.
In announcing the sale Gore put forth this shockingly
shameless statement proclaiming "Al-Jazeera, like
Current TV, believes that facts and truth lead to a
better understanding of the world around us."
Really, Al? Apparently you have either no knowledge
of facts and truth regarding radical Islamic terrorist
groups and their apologists and propagandists, or you
have no shame.

Moreover, Al-Jazeera was not the only party interested
in buying Current TV; conservative talk show host and
author Glenn Beck approached Gore with an offer, but
Gore turned Beck down flat, giving Beck the dubious
explanation "The legacy of who the network goes to is
important to us and we are sensitive to networks not
aligned with our point of view." So, employing logic,
we therefore are to conclude that Glenn Beck is not
aligned with Gore's point of view, but Al-Jazeera is.
This is most telling, and most disturbing. To think that
Gore came within a whisker of becoming our president!
And that he would have been president on 9/11! Our
government, through the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) routinely intervenes in business acquisitions to
break them up if there is a danger of violating anti-trust
laws lest there be a monoploy on particular goods or
services; similar measures should be taken in cases
such as this, where the sale of a media outlet to an
organization known to be an enemy of our nation is
made, thereby posing at the very least a possible
threat to national security. There are, and FBI data
bears this out, pro-terrorist individuals and  groups
in our country that would have greater and easier access
to information that they require to act against us.
Remember that radical Islamic cleric, Al-Awrlaki who
influenced an Islamic army major to go on a shooting 
spree at Fort Hood? A strong case in point.

While your open-minded Peasant thinks that diversity
of viewpoints in the media is a good thing, there is no
duty on anyone's part to give space and attention to
the views of those who wish us ill and would bring us
ill. And for someone who was a high-ranking member
of our government, literally a heartbeat away from its
highest office, to think only of his wallet and sell a media
entity to such a group is the lowest, rankest, vilest, most
unscrupulous, most self-serving, most snakelike vermin
imaginable. And your curious Peasant wonders what his
eco-pals think of him for taking oil money for his TV
network. Would they share a similar assessment of
our former Vice President? Their reaction to Gore's
business maneuver might prove quite interesting.

Al Gore is a snake in the grass. Anyone who loves and
is concerned for the security as well as the overall well-
being of our country should have nothing to do with him
or any enterprise that he is involved with.


Thursday, January 10, 2013

Is This What We Elected A Republican House of Representatives For?

President Obama and Congress have recently concluded
negotiations over how to avoid tumbling over the "Fiscal
Cliff", the term for the predicament that the U.S. government
would have faced at the end of last year, when the terms of
the Budget Control Act of 2011 was scheduled to take
effect. The changes that were set to occur at midnight on
December 31, 2012 included the end of certain tax breaks
for businesses, the end of 2012's temporary payroll tax cuts
which would have hiked workers' taxes by 2%, shifts in
the Alternative Minimum Tax resulting in a larger tax
burden for much of the middle class, and concluding the
"Bush tax cuts" from 2001-03, as well as the start of taxes
connected to Obamacare. Bedlam all around, to be sure.

Just three hours before the dreaded hour, the Senate agreed
to a deal to avoid falling over this cliff. The House joined
the Senate in approval of the measure 21 hours later. Strictly
speaking, Uncle Sam fell over the cliff due to the final details
not being settled until after the beginning of the new year; the
changes set into the deal, however, are backdated to
January 1, 2013.

Sadly, the Republican-led House have negotiated rather badly
for their part. Speaker John Boehner and his lieutenants gave
ground on core conservative principles in exchange for token
concessions from President Obama and the Democrats. The
GOP House team had misplaced their spinal columns on their
way to work that day! Their latest offer placed a $1 trillion
tax rise(!) on the table with minuscule cuts in spending. All that
conservatives can accomplish now is to pass a temporary
measure to avoid a fiscal doomsday of sorts until March 31.
Yes, it's kicking the can down the road, an all-too-routine
course of action (non-action, really) seen in Washington, but
it is preferable to jumping off the fiscal cliff, and far more
so than the current $1 trillion tax capitulation presented by
Speaker Boehner. Interestingly enough, Obama spurned this
giveaway; he gave a counteroffer consisting of an even bigger
tax boost and even fewer spending cuts! Your concerned
Peasant shudders to ask whether Boehner will follow Obama
down this treacherous path with even more spineless give-
aways hoping to please and appease the spendthrift president!
What is the House Speaker's endgame?

The Heritage Foundation, a renown conservative think tank and
policy analysis organization, stated just why Boehner's proposal
is poor policy:

1) Higher tax rates thwart efforts to create a stronger economy.
Businesses won't be able to expand to the point of creating a
sufficient number of jobs to even begin to whack a divot in the
unemployment rate.

2) Dollar-for-dollar tax hikes and spending cuts won't be as
effective as simply cutting spending. It's not that we are taking
in too little revenue; it's that we are spending far too much.

3) The Republicans have not given a clear plan as to how they
would cut spending.

4) Handing over control of the debt limit to Obama for a year
would eliminate one of the few means of leverage for the GOP.
This would be almost total capitulation to the most reckless
spender ever to occupy the White House, and it would put off
any real reform bringing palpable relief for that year.

So kicking the can down the road, while normally not a good
policy for anything, let alone the serious fiscal situation we are
now in, is far better than meekly giving in to an imperial taxer
and spender who is hell-bent on turning our country into a
socialist wasteland. And while we're on the subject, could it
be that Speaker Boehner and some of his GOP colleagues in
the House have forgotten who made it possible for them to
take control of that chamber of Congress? Or is it that they
believe that they can talk tough on taxes and spending when
they are home with their constituents, then be fiscally profligate
when they are in the clubby, cozy confines of our capitol and
that no one will be the wiser? And what is behind Boehner's
removal of some Tea Party-backed Republicans from some
key committees, such as Budget as well as Financial Services?
While being as meek as a mouse with Obama, Boehner has
been a bully boy with four principled conservative GOP
representatives who dared to criticize Boehner's offer to
Obama. Your inquiring Peasant will explore this sorry turn
of events in the days to come! In the meantime, let us remind
our Republican House members whom we have elected
why we elected them --- especially Speaker Boehner ---
and that they thumb their noses at us at their peril. We made
'em, and baby we can break 'em! They wouldn't be in the
majority in the House, and Boehner wouldn't be Speaker
if it wasn't for the electorate, with not a little help from the
Tea Party! Perhaps we should "Primary" these wayward
representatives in 2014, that is, draft true conservatives to
oppose them in the Republican Party primaries. And if they
are lucky enough to survive these challenges, they should take
the experience as a warning that they should keep their campaign
promises from when they were first elected, as they answer not
to the "good ol' boy (and girl) club" on Capitol Hill, or to the
liberal establishment press, and certainly not to a president
from that very establishment, but to we who elected them!

For if we have one political party that won't listen to us, and
another that abandons us, what are we to do?


Thursday, January 3, 2013

Poetic Justice?


Happy New Year everyone! Your joyful Peasant
is doubled over laughing at this great little story
that came to light the week of Christmas. We're
starting the new year off on a mirthful note!
Here's what's tickling your favorite Peasant silly;
come laugh along with me!

David Gregory, host of the longtime Washington
D.C.-based news show "Meet the Press" and
gun-control advocate, is being investigated by
the Washington Metropolitan Police for a potential
violation of our nation's capital's gun laws. You
read that right, my sharp-as-razors readers!
Gregory interviewed National Rifle Association
(NRA) CEO Wayne LaPierre on Gregory's show
in the aftermath of the mass shooting of 26 people,
20 of whom were children, at Sandy Hook Elemen-
tary School in Newtown, Connecticut on December
14. On this edition of his show, the host exhibited
a high-capacity rifle magazine, capable of carrying
30 rounds of ammunition --- and a big no-no to
possess in D.C. The tragedy in Newtown sparked
a campaign for new and tighter existing gun control
laws, including federal laws, with President Obama
taking the "point man" position in urging Congress
to pass bans on what gun control advocates term
"assault weapons" (really, there are no such fire-
arms specifically called such; any weapon, or
object that can be used as a weapon, can be
considered an "assault weapon" as the item in
question can indeed be used to assault someone).
Well, Gregory made the argument on his show
that day that if firearms could have their capacities
reduced to, say, fifteen rounds, or perhaps ten, then
there would be less carnage as had occurred at
Sandy Hook. LaPierre stated that this would not
necessarily follow, giving his reasoning to support
his gainsay of Gregory's argument.

Gregory wanted to make a dramatic point, no doubt,
by having this particular item on his show. His
gambit, however, blew up in his face when he 
learned that the D.C. cops wanted a word with him!
As your faithful Peasant types this, a petition to arrest
David Gregory for possession of this rifle magazine
has garnered almost 6,000 signatures by Christmas
Day, needing 19,000 more by January 22 to elicit
an official White House response.

Now, we all have heard of left-wing sorts, being 
gun control supporters to the hilt, owning firearms
and ammo despite their stands on the issue, claiming
that they would give up their guns and bullets when
sufficiently stringent firearms legislation would
finally be passed; remember the late columnist
Carl Rowan, who by the way lived and worked
in Washington D.C.? The fact is, like on so many
other issues, lefties believe in two rules: one for
them, the self-styled elite; another for the peasants,
i.e. the rest of us. And now we see one of their
ranks get put under the same scrutiny as any of
us, the "great unwashed" (in the eyes of the lefty
elite), and could possibly be punished with a
huge fine, plus confiscation of the item in
question, and perhaps even a stint behind bars.
Exquisite! Delicious! Classically ironic! And
falling down funny!

Let us hope that justice shall prevail, and that
David Gregory learns a vital lesson from all
this; that it should not be a crime for law abiding
citizens to have the means of defending themselves,
their families, and their homes and other property
from criminals who, by their very characteristics,
do not and would not obey any laws that restrict
firearms and their accessories. But boy, isn't it
a hoot to see Gregory in hot water over his own
possession of an item that he, and others of his
political bent, begrudge others to own?

Ah, the price of hypocrisy!