A Promising New Year

Friends, with 2020 just two days away, your favorite Peasant
wants to wish you all a most happy, prosperous, healthy, and
magnificent new year! And remember: President Trump is up
for re-election in this bright and beautiful new year, so come
Election Day be prepared by making sure that you are regis-
tered to vote in your communities, and get yourselves to your
polling precincts (bring family, friends, neighbors, and
co-workers!) to support our fantastic and courageous president.
This is for not only our freedom, prosperity and well-being,
but for that of our children, their children, and the further
coming generations; we cannot have our national rebirth
and revamping interrupted by a Democrat victory!

The coming new year has a treasure of promise in it, let us
take hold of it and utilize it and its promise to make a
year of success on all fronts!

God bless you all and God bless America!


MEM

Merry Christmas Everybody!

The Peasant wants to wish you all, my grand and faithful readers,
a beautiful, blessed, joyful, abundant, loving, heavenly, magnificent
Merry Christmas! May you get to be with your families, friends,
and sweethearts; may you all have lots of embracing and kissing,
may you all exchange wonderful Christmas presents, may you all
enjoy listening to and singing all the beautiful Christmas carols
as well as the contemporary Christmas songs (The Christmas Song,
I'm Dreaming of a White Christmas, and so forth), may you
be uplifted and brightened by your church services and become
closer to He who is the reason for the season, and finally may you
all be renewed, refreshed, and ready for the New Year (and may
it be a truly happy one!).

God bless!


MEM

Bernie's Big Surprise

When it seems like the same old ground has been picked over and
trampled to dust, and all seems like the same old same old, business
as usual, the foregone conclusion, and of course the ubiquitous
conventional wisdom reigning supreme in the world of politics,
something completely unexpected, unforeseen, and seemingly
impossible happens to shake up a mundane scene. Such an occurrence
happened recently with socialist Senator Bernie Sanders.

Sanders, who is running for president again, was asked at a rally
in Iowa a few weeks ago whether he favors mandatory buybacks
for AR-15s and AK-47s, an idea favored by at least some of his
opponents for the Democrat Party's presidential nomination and
many Democrats at the state government level around the country.
His answer? First, my grand readers, sit down and draw a deep breath:
"A mandatory buyback is essentially confiscation, which I think is
unconstitutional. It means that I'm going to walk into your house and
take something whether you like it or not. I don't think that stands up
to constitutional scrutiny."

I know. Believe me, I know. I saw this story in the November 14 edition
of the Wall Street Journal, and I read, then re-read it (four times!) to
see if I was reading it right. Imagine that, the presidential candidate
from the Democrats' field of candidates considered by many to be
the most radical candidate in the pack openly opposing an almost
cherished brainchild in his political circles, and citing the Constitution
to back up his assertion! Perhaps the Milwaukee Brewers will go
to the World Series next year, and win it in a four-game sweep!
The Age of Miracles is truly in force!

May Bernie's brief but notable flight of factuality not prove to be a
rarity, a mere one-off, but a turning point for the senator from
Vermont in which he will discover the Constitution as an entire
document, one that is remarkably unique in the history of nations
and their governance by restricting not the people but their
government, thus guaranteeing the freedom of the former while
protecting them from the rapacious urges of the latter. Why,
ol' Bernie could feel a brand new "Bern", one which would guide
him to the joys of limited government and away from the looks-
good-on-paper-but-fails-in-practice ideology of socialism.
Perhaps his followers would join him on this voyage of political
and economic discovery?


MEM

A Dog That Has Her Day

President Trump honored the military dog which
was injured in the raid that killed Islamic State
leader Abu bakr al-Baghdadi.

The dog, a Belgian Malinois named Conan, was
feted in a Rose Garden ceremony, which was
attended by First Lady Melania Trump and
Vice President Mike Pence. President Trump
met with the soldiers involved in the successful
raid and also gave Conan an award, calling the
heroic dog "so brilliant, so smart."

Conan was sent into a tunnel to subdue Baghdadi
in the raid on a compound in Syria where Baghdadi
was hiding with some of his family. Hiding behind
three of his children, Baghdadi detonated a suicide
vest, killing himself and the children as well as
collapsing part of the tunnel, which injured Conan.
The soldiers rescued Conan and got the dog to medical
staff who treated her, and having since recovered has
returned to active duty.

Some have criticized giving Conan all this adulation,
thinking it frivolous to so honor a dog. Your grateful
Peasant says that since we honor police dogs when
they perform heroic tasks in the field, especially
when they are wounded or killed, giving them
rewards such as medals, why not do the same
for our military canines? They share the daunting
work and the inherent dangers with their military
handlers, so why not show them our gratitude like
we do for our human soldiers, marines, and sailors?
They are even regarded as soldiers and such by the
branches in which they serve; what's all the fuss?

This story illustrates well the loyalty that the animal
called "Man's best friend" has for his humans in whose
charge they are placed. They, without questioning or
hesitation, do whatever they are asked by their handlers
no matter the danger, without regard for their own safety.
This is regarded as bravery, a necessary trait for those
serving in the military, a trait valued and given awards for.
Especially in showing courage above and beyond duty's
call. Why can't we so honor our military animals?

Hats off to President Trump for his honoring and giving
laud to Conan, the army dog who served so gallantly
in battle. And a special salute to Conan.


MEM

A New Democrat Presidential Candidate (Could He Pass a Saliva Test?)

Former New York mayor and billionaire media magnate
Michael Bloomberg has recently declared himself a
candidate for the office of President of the United States,
having mulled over the option for more than a year.
What he would bring to the Dem's race for the party's
laurels is that, unlike U.S. Senators Bernie Sanders and
Elizabeth Warren he doesn't want to grab any of one's
monetary assets (a so-called "wealth tax"); and unlike
Beto O'Rourke does not want to grab anyone's guns, just
the sugary-sweet treats many people enjoy, the extra-ounces
"Big Gulp" soda pop drinks. Remember his edict to ban
the sale of large-size cups of soda in New York when he
was that city's mayor? He thought it would help improve
and enhance New Yorkers' health if they didn't ingest so
much sugar via their sweet fizzy drinks. Yes, I know,
nanny statism on tap care of "Nanny" Bloomberg.
At least he would leave people's investment and real
estate assets alone. By the by, Beto had to say bye-bye
when his already-floundering campaign was finally sunk
by his anti-gun scheme which turned off moderate
Democrats (there's still a few of them around, believe it
or not) and independents most likely to vote in the
Democrats' primaries and caucuses. Your bemused Peasant
can't think of how a pro-gun, pro-2nd Amendment state
like Texas could ever support such a candidate for president,
including one from their own state.

Bloomberg has other advantages as a candidate vis-a-vis
the rest of the Democrats' wacky field: Where Bloomberg
is coherent, clear, and smooth when he speaks, ex-Vice
President Joe Biden struggles to put a coherent sentence
together when he's on the stump, and "Uncle Joe" is
lumbered by Ukrainian baggage via his and his son Hunter's
ties to a Ukrainian energy holding firm, Burisma Holdings
and the growing scandal emanating from there. Sen. Elizabeth
Warren's ("I've got a plan for that!") plans for Medicare and
for the economy have even die-hard liberals in the Democrat
Party saying "Now just wait a minute, lady!". Sen. Bernie
Sanders, the far-left darling of the progressives four years
ago, recently had a heart attack while on the campaign trail,
causing many progs to reconsider their support of Bernie
in favor of the slightly younger Sen. Warren. Joe Biden
and his son, Hunter, are enmeshed in the Ukrainian
energy firm Burisma and its list of growing controversies,
along with the growing scandal emanating from there.
South Bend, Indiana's mayor Pete Buttigieg has at best
a mediocre record as that city's mayor, and many in his city
think he is willfully ignoring the plight of South Bend's
more run-down, racially diverse, economically depressed
neighborhoods. Sen. Kamala Harris, once well-regarded,
was shown to be the Empress With No Clothes after a fast
start with her campaign, only to be so exposed by some of
her rivals for the Dem's nomination as being woefully
unprepared. The rest of the field is just barely hanging in
there, and Bloomberg shouldn't have any trouble with
any of these tail-enders.

Being a highly successful businessman, and a billionaire
at that, would be a sore point with the many progressive
activists which dominate the Democrat Party, who hold
the vast wealth of such people against them (that's how
come ex-hedge fund manager and environmental gadfly
Tom Steyer never caught the breeze of momentum in
his sails, or should I say his windmills?), even if they hold
the same views as they on the issues of greatest concern
in their squalid party. Bloomberg will be best advised to
build a groundswell within the party to support him by
appealing to those Dems who think that their party has
gone too far leftward. There are some such Dems, enough
to make some noise along the road to their convention
in Milwaukee as well as at their bash. It could be rather
fun to watch.

But a word of caution to my fellow conservatives: whatever
qualms that you may have about President Trump, despite
his stellar performance in office, especially on the economy,
know that Michael Bloomberg is no conservative, nor even
a moderate; he merely looks like one of these next to the
Democrats' field of candidates. Bloomberg is, in fact,
a solidly staunch liberal who backs gun control (just short
of grabbing people's guns a' la Beto), abortion on demand,
and environmental regulations which would cripple some
industries and put at least one (coal) out of business.
Furthermore, Bloomberg LP, Bloomberg's media company,
announced through Bloomberg Editor in Chief John
Micklethwait "We will write about virtually all aspects
of this presidential contest," but "We will continue
our tradition of not investigating Mike (and his family
foundation) and we will extend the same policy to his
rivals in the Democratic primaries." Ah, but wait: said
in the same announcement they will "continue
to investigate the Trump administration, as the
government of the day." You see the ethical hole in the
road just ahead: What would happen if Bloomberg wins
the Democrats' nomination, and Trump the Republican's
blessing (and he is very likely to do so, as he has token
opposition who cannot possibly pose a serious challenge
for the GOP nod)? Micklethwait goes on to say that this
question will be reassessed if his boss is successful in
gaining the Democrats' nomination. Indeed.

Bloomberg's publication, while having a pro-market flavor
in its financial reporting, tacks left in its reporting on just
about everything else. What makes anyone think that this
would change, or at least be suspended in case of a Trump-
Bloomberg showdown next year? Especially given the
firm's passing on coverage of Bloomberg himself and
his fellow Democrat candidates? Very, very troubling,
and does not bode well for ethical journalism and its
proponents.

But all that being said, Bloomberg could still play a
role in educating people about the dangers of
so-called Medicare for All (which is really socialized
medicine by another name) the perniciousness of a
wealth tax, and the problems generated by raising the top
marginal tax rate to 70% (or more), and the dangers
to the middle class when the wealthy have been taxed to
the breaking point by a President Sanders or a President
Warren and they STILL would not have enough money
to pay for their socialist wet dream programs. And although
Bloomberg is 77, he is in markedly better health than
Sen. Sanders who recently suffered a heart attack while
campaigning, and Joe Biden who had bleeding in one eye
while giving a speech (a sign of dangerously high blood
pressure?); both of these men are in their 70s as well.

Personally, I don't see Michael Bloomberg winning the
Democrats' presidential nomination. But I do see him
making more than a few Democrat voters and, just
as importantly, more than a few Democrat delegates
in Milwaukee think long and hard about the issues and
the corresponding views held by the candidates.
And to compare them with those of Mayor Bloomberg's.

Could this trigger the return toward the political center
for the waywardly left-wing Democrat Party? This would
be an even more significant accomplishment for
Michael Bloomberg than winning that party's presidential
nomination, even winning the presidential election.

Bloomberg for spoiler, not for president.


MEM