The Cubans' Quest for Freedom

Recently there have been protests, quite large ones,

in Cuba put on by the Cuban people against Cuba's

communist government. Although the regime there

had faced protesters and their protests before, they

have never countenanced anything this massive 

and so spontaneously; it expanded across the island 

like a mighty wave. Messages announcing it all 

were spread on social media before the regime had 

a chance to block it from further spreading. 

The social media, you see, is dangerous to the 

iron-fisted rulers of Cuba, as it allows the Cuban

people to share their displeasure and to feel that

they are not alone in their frustrations and anger

toward their dominators. 

What caused these protests and why did they pick 

up such steam? They weren't planned nor were they 

organized. They were the product of the anger at the 

country's totalitarian masters touched off by economic

fallout from the Coronovirus, which has been grossly

mismanaged. Widespread food and medicine shortages 

became the order of the day, accompanied by daily

electrical blackouts. No wonder the Cuban people 

are cheesed off.

Considering that Fidel Castro is dead and his brother 

Raul is now for all intents and purposed retired (he 

no longer holds an official government position),

and that the head of the regime is now one Miguel

Diaz-Canel, who has no legitimacy reaching beyond

the military and intelligence services which prop him

up, the Cuban people have more of a chance to finally

oust the communist cabal which had been running and

ruining Cuba for over sixty years. They are willing to 

risk arrest by filling the streets because they have lost 

so much that they feel they have noting left to lose.

This makes for a dangerous enemy, the Cuban 

comrades should note. 

Apparently Diaz-Canel has done just that, and is 

therefore leaving nothing to chance; he has mobilized

the military and intelligence to go after the

protesters. Surprisingly, our ever-left-leaning president

has issued a statement of support for the protesters and

their quest. President Biden did well in doing this but

now must back up his encouraging words with real

support for the Cuban people. Cuba's regime is now

much more vulnerable after President Trump's restoring 

of some of the sanctions the U.S. has held against 

said regime, and Cuba has few allies, especially ones 

which can assist effectively against American initiatives.

Sadly, the Congressional Democrats are busy

having a bit of a confab about what the most

appropriate reaction of the United States government 

should be (?!?!?!?!). When you consider that two  

of those involved in this sorry decision-making process

are Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (Ind-VT), and followed by more

lefty members of Congress, one has to worry about 

the Cuban people's chances of any material help

or moral support; Ultra Dummy and Ultra Radical

leading the Don't-do-a-damn-thing-to-help-the-Cuban

-people contingent on Capitol Hill. These socialists

and their chums just might be able to ensure that,

indeed, nothing will be done.

The odds on an outright revolution, particularly one 

which would prove successful are long and daunting.

But for the Cuban people to be made to see that the

United States is on their side materially as well as

rhetorically will give their morale and confidence 

a mighty boost. It looks, though, that they'll have to

wait until after next year's elections when we'll very

likely have given back both the House and the Senate

to the Republicans with large enough margins to stuff

Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders & Company. As for their ability 

to hold out, it's a roll of the dice. Stay tuned, and for 

goodness sake call your representatives and senators 

to demand that they make a public and irrevocable stand 

for the Cuban people!

MEM

The Peasant Takes On Twitter

Just the other day I was online, visiting my social media sites  

which include Twitter. As you, my fantastic readers know, 

your favorite Peasant posts when I have a new blog piece

ready to go. Well, when I went to Twitter and tried to sign 

in, I saw this message instead of my Twitter page:

"Enter your mobile phone number to receive a text message 

with a confirmation code. You'll use the code to verify this 

is really your number."

I clicked the Help option to investigate this. I saw another

message, this one saying that my account "has been locked

for security purposes". The page with the message went on 

to say that "If you are logged into your account and see that

(it) has been locked ..." and gave the reasons for their locking

down my Twitter account. Among them are "suspicious 

behavior" and your account "... may have been compromised".

Now, there's a lot of malicious mischief online from hackers.

However, the message page also said that perhaps my account

has been locked because of "violation of Twitter rules", which

encompasses "Twitter's abusive behavior policy" that lists

"guidelines for our hateful conduct policy". In the past few 

years we have seen these rules of Twitter's to be used to shut

up and shut out conservative voices, including that of a 

recent president. To many lefties, conservatism is hatred

and advocating for conservative principles in government

is hate speech. It's their way of quashing dissent, an essential

freedom covered by our Constitution's First Amendment

protecting free speech, so that they can form a totalitarian

state in which this freedom will be curtailed or eliminated

altogether. 

Is this what is happening with my Twitter account? Or was 

there a legitimate threat to the security of my account, and

Twitter moved to counter it? Time and further investigation 

by your pursuing Peasant will reveal the truth. In the meantime

I shall be without my Twitter page for a while. My advice

for my readers who are also on Twitter is to keep up with

the Peasant on Facebook and MeWe; there you shall see my

announcements of my latest blog pieces to enjoy. We'll 

still get together every week, don't fret! 

Oh, these are troublesome times we are facing, with the threats

to our constitutionally guaranteed and protected freedoms

increasing every day. Let us be and remain vigilant, especially

concerning our social media site accounts.

MEM

Big Brother's Internet Interference

In 1924 Commerce Secretary (later President of the United States)

Herbert Hoover, a Republican, warned against the concentration of

corporate power in Radio, which at the time was a fledgling medium

and a new industry: "We cannot allow any single person or group to

place themselves in a position where they can censor the material

which shall be broadcasted to the public." Here in 2021, this very

danger Hoover warned about and inveighed against has come to pass.

The Tech companies in California's Silicon Valley  have become the

censors for the government. The medium in which this horror is 

taking place is not radio but the Internet. Now, it is a fact that the

First Amendment ordinarily applies to the government rather than 

private companies. But the tech giants' censorship, the blocking of 

conservatives and their posts, denying them use of the tech firms' 

platforms, claiming that the conservatives were engaged in "hate

speech" of racist or other varieties have convinced attorneys 

representing their aggrieved clients that the tech giants should be

treated as state actors and are in violation of the First Amendment,

having engaged in selective political censorship. Since the govern-

ment granted them immunity from legal liability, these tech big

shots have been able to bully those parties which posted thoughts 

and statements which the tech titans vehemently disagree with and

strenuously oppose with impunity.

The Supreme Court has several times held that federal immunity 

pre-empting state law "can transform a private party's conduct into

state action, therefore making said conduct subject to state action 

subject to constitutional scrutiny," stated Vivek Ramaswamy in

a recent guest editorial piece in the Wall Street Journal on this

legal matter. Ramaswary, the author of "Woke, Inc.: Inside 

Corporate America's Social Justice Scam" has been researching 

these actions for quite some time, and is quite knowledgeable on

the legal ramifications. So the government, with the Democrats 

in charge of both chambers of Congress and holding the White

House, does not have to censor political opposition online; 

they don't have to. All they need do is rely on their slavish 

devotees in Silicon Valley, who also write them gargantuan 

checks each election season. Social-media companies are privately

owned, therefore are solidly in the private sector, but when they 

team up with officials to squelch content which makes them 

uncomfortable they are thus serving as the government's censors

and therefore answerable to the First Amendment. Big Tech has

immense power to restrict speech, make no mistake. Twitter has

even banned President Trump, closing his account! No American

company has so silenced elected officials, let alone the topmost 

official, or prevented them from freely communicating with 

citizens. 

This sort of thing has, in some form or another, occurred in Russia,

China, North Korea, Eastern Europe, Cuba, and Venezuela to name 

but a few countries taken over by totalitarian regimes. If our United 

States fails to stop this from taking place here, then the Constitution

beginning with the First Amendment will become meaningless and 

our country will become another totalitarian wasteland like the 

aforementioned countries. 

MEM

Ranked Choice is a Bad Choice

New York City recently held their mayoral primary elections,

employing a new method of counting votes --- and it is a 

can of worms.

Known as "Ranked-choice voting", this idea isn't new; it has 

been discussed and favored by many of the left-wingers.

There is no neutral method devised which simply reflects 

the people's will without manipulating it one way or another.

However, ranked-choice voting has its own little tricks and

will only make elections worse for all concerned. 

So how is it that this idea is so awful? One, by ranking choices 

a voter is required to divide his vote between his favored 

candidate and some merely (at best) acceptable candidates.

The first choice is the what the voter finds suits his needs 

best. What happens is that if the voter's chosen candidate gains

much fewer votes than most or all of the rest of the field,

then that candidate's votes are rolled over to one that is 

more "in the hunt" than the candidate that the voter voted for.

Ranked-choice suffuses the spirit of electoral systems where 

political parties compete to build coalitions after the votes 

are cast. In the United States, the parties compete to gain 

majorities through the voting at election time rather than

through secret, back room negotiations after the election.

Our two major parties, Republicans and Democrats, strive

to assemble coalitions: the former tries to reconcile the 

interests of evangelical Christians and libertarians; the 

latter attempts the same with the radical progressives and

moderates. Come presidential election time, the Electoral 

College produces a majority which recognizes the importance 

of the states, sometimes differing from a popular majority

(such as the 2016 presidential election). But it is, after

the shouting, a coalition majority.

Voters in a coalition must make note that while they may not 

have gotten what they wanted, the at least avoided that which 

they disliked. The goal must be a first choice willed as a 

compromise rather than to have that choice abandoned for

a compromise. This distinction points out considerable contrast

in common trust and the way in which we Americans think 

politically. 

Two, ranked-choice voting is made so that it offers a bit of 

success to as many varieties of opinion as possible. However,

the Constitution's creators intended for elections to find 

competent governors (elected representatives chosen to form

and operate a competent, dependable government). 

Three, ranked-choice voting rewards extremism in the electorate

(no wonder so many lefties are so keen on it!). Voters who cast 

their votes for extremist candidates should be excluded from

the majority. Ranked-choice voting rescues them from such a 

fate. One could, if one wanted to vote for an politically extreme

candidate, vote once for Bernie Sanders and once for Joe Biden.

So if one of their radical candidates falters, the other could end

up going to the general election and possibly win.

In summation, ranked-choice voting, although it tries mightily to

pass itself off at compromise (a noble goal), it instead gives 

compromise a bad name. It is nothing but a sham. New Yorkers

must reject this bad idea, and the rest of the country should take

heed. 

MEM