When Intolerance Isn't Intolerance

Beto O'Rourke, the former Texas Congressman, almost-

U.S. Senator, and for a time one of the gaggle of candidates

to be the Democrats' 2020 presidential nominee was trying

mightily to get that party's progressives (which by now is 

almost the entire party) to consider him presidential material.

Among his plays was calling for a mandatory gun buyback

and supporting an expansion of so-called abortion rights.

His last gambit was to force churches to sing from the progressive

hymnal, that is, to adopt the progressive cultural strictures 

in place of Scriptural teaching. Thank God (yes, pun intended!) 
his campaign never took off.  

How would O'Rourke have done this? Removal of the tax-exempt

status of these houses of worship. He said as much at a 

CNN town hall, stating "There can be no reward, no benefit, no 

tax break for anyone or any institution ... that denies the full human

rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us ... We are

going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of

our fellow Americans." His remarks drew thunderous applause

from the very partisan live audience. Your quizzical Peasant wants

to ask here, but what about the separation of church and state?

The left-wingers are always so terrified that the former would 

become politically powerful enough under conservative governance

that it would dictate to the latter as to how it would then govern;

O'Rourke would have the latter become strong enough that it

would dictate to the former how they would preach from the pulpit,

and no progressives (that is, far far FAR-lefties) have ever expressed 

any concerns over that. By the by, O'Rourke currently not in elected

public office, nor is he in an appointed governmental position. 

However, he does plan to run for governor in Texas at the time of

this posting. Let's hope he falls flat once again!

It seems to your faithful Peasant (again, pun intended) that ol' Beto

makes the same mistake that his comrades have long made and 

clung to, that said separation is enshrined in the Constitution by

virtue of its First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting

an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise 

thereof ...". Beto and friends always harp on the first part while 

ignoring the second. This amendment was designed to preserve our

right to freedom of expression and of worship, and forbids the 

establishment of an official church or religion of our nation by 

our government, i.e. there can never be a Church of America,

like there is a Church of England (the Anglican Church), nor

can there ever be a temple, mosque, coven, or whatever religious

house of America. By the same token, this amendment forbids

and prohibits the government from mandating that our many houses

of worship preach, if you will, a gospel of state nostrums of faith.

But the Progs and many others on the Left worship, first and foremost,

power. They want to regulate, micromanage, mandate, dictate to, 

and just plain dominate us, We the People, in each and every area

of our lives, and this is but one method that they hope to implement.

The idea of a separation of church and state came from a letter 

written by President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist 

Association of Danbury, Virginia on January 1, 1802. Jefferson 

wrote: "Believing with you that religion is a matter that lies solely

between a man and his God, that he owes no account to no other 

for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government 

reaches action only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign

reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that 

their legislature should 'make no law establishing the establishment

of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' " thus building

a wall of separation between Church and State." This is where this 

idea is found, NOT in the Constitution. And Jefferson's idea of

such a wall of separation was meant to restrain the reach of 

government --- the state --- into the highly personal area of 

worship and practicing one's faith, never to restrain how one is

to worship and practice his faith. And absolutely never to 

dictate to houses of worship as to how they should worship

and such.

Until recent years, most Democrats (including Uber-lefty President

Barack Obama) opposed same-sex marriage. But after Oberkfell v.

Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court decision which declared same-sex

marriage a constitutional right, the Left has become the culture cops,

with fascistic overtones: Just ask Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker 

who was raked over the coals by the Colorado Civil Rights Division

for having the temerity to politely decline to bake a wedding cake 

for a gay couple. SCOTUS rightly tossed out this case against Phillips,

telling the CCRD in so many words to get with constitutional reality.

But if elected president, Beto O'Rourke would not only have made a 

bid to reverse this ruling, he would have appointed to the high court 

left-wingers to be justices who would certainly make the reversal.
And if this were to happen, we'd all need to start praying! A point
of irony here: opinion polls have shown an INCREASE in support
for same-sex marriage in recent years; I guess that the government
thought that said increase was not growing fast enough to suit it.

Tax exemption for houses of worship are not, and were never meant to

be rewards for towing the establishment line as determined by the 

state. It is meant to spare religious institutions from the burden of 

taxation, the reasoning rooted in the belief that religious activity 

encourages virtues that benefit the nation's entire society --- 

charity, industry, responsibility, honesty, and generally morally

upright behavior. Given the way the government carries on, would

we really want it to encourage something that it has little, if any,

of? And what gives government the notion that it should regulate 

the practicing of our respective religious faiths? 

So Beto O'Rourke plans to run for Texas' governorship?

He should instead run for the border! 

MEM

The Latest Turn in the Convoy Saga

The latest from Canada: the truckers used their rigs 

on Monday to block the Ambassador Bridge which

connects Windsor, Ontario and Detroit, the busiest

international land-border crossing on the continent.

The Ambassador Bridge, which enables over $320 

million in goods each day in cross-border trade,

reopened last Tuesday, but the truckers are carrying 

on with their protest in Ottawa. Unfortunately, while 

carrying on their campaign they temporarily halted

at least some of this trade. Your supportive Peasant

has mixed emotions about that. At least their point 

was driven home to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau,

and the opposition to the Covid-19 overreach has

spread over much of the world. 

However, the PM has a trick or two up one of his

fancy sleeves; he invoked an emergency law which

gives local police federal powers to confiscate

the truckers' rigs and enables Canada's federal government

to freeze the truckers' bank accounts and whatever funds

and accounts that supporters established for them so

that no one can send any money to help them buy gas,

food, and other needed supplies. 

But the truckers are undaunted and unintimidated.

As the Omicron variant of the Covid-19 starts to run

out of steam, after showing itself  to be less deadly

and less people contracting the virus, the truckers are 

letting the governments of Canada and the United

States know that the pandemic restrictions and related 

rules must stop. The Canadian left-wingers have called

the truckers and their supporters "right-wing fanatics"

and "Trumpists", along with far worse names too foul

to relate here. But even the Canadians who don't support 

the protests do favor lifting restrictions, some of which

PM Trudeau foolishly doubled down on. Negative test

requirement and mask mandates have been discontinued

in several provinces. Even some Liberal Party (Trudeau's

party) members of Canada's Parliament have criticized

Trudeau and his recent actions.

Canada's people are very polite, respectful, and obedient

of their government at all levels, and rarely make a fuss.

But they have had their fill of pandemic fearmongering 

and overbearing, domineering government, the latter like

we Americans. Prime Minister Trudeau had better heed 

the angry mood of his fellow Canadians or else risk their

wrath when they express it with their votes.

Stay tuned. There's going to be lots more action as this 

scenario, like the truckers, rolls along.

MEM

Freedom Keeps on Truckin'

A convoy going from Vancouver to Ottawa in protest

of yet another Covid rule has electrified and galvanized

Canada, while capturing the attention and the support

of many here in the United States. 

Canada's uber-lefty prime minister Justin Trudeau has

imposed or supported many Covid-19 mandates on

the Canadian people, certainly including cross-border 

truckers. But the most recent one, which he rammed 

through on January 15, was the straw that broke the 

camel's back. Prior to this imposition truck drivers and 

other workers which were deemed "essential" were
exempt from Canada's two-week quarantine for 

unvaccinated travelers coming over by land from the

U.S. The convoy was started as a reaction to this

measure.

The purpose of the convoy was to protest mandatory

vaccines for the truckers. At first, a small convoy started 

in or near Prince Rupert, British Columbia, on January 22.

Other convoys came to rendezvous and join that convoy

at various points along the way to Canada's capital city.

They, in time, formed a huge convoy.

Estimates of its size were anywhere from 500 to 1,150

vehicles; most of which were cars rather than trucks.

A GoFundMe campaign, relying on modest donations,

took in over $5 million Canadian dollars (around $4 million

U.S.) by January 25. Three days later, the total was C$7.5

million. Hoping to raise C$9 million, the convoy's campaign

raised that and more on January 30. One problem: Turns out 

that the GoFundMe people gave the money that was raised for

the truckers to some other causes and respective events --- 

all being of the left-wing variety. GFM is a lefty-established

organization, and although they don't forbid conservatives 

from using their web site to raise funds for their own causes,

GFM likes to make some mischief with their conservative

clientele. More on this in due course.

When the convoy reached Parliament Hill in Ottawa, roads 

were jammed beyond belief. Truck horns blared joyfully,

yet announcing an important mission. Thousands showed up,

either to watch the event unfold or to protest on either side 

of the issue. Most of the protests were peaceful, and most of 

the protesters backed the convoy.

Prime Minister Trudeau tried to smear the convoy as a "fringe

minority" with "unacceptable views". Just what was this 

ding-a-ling going to do, round them all up and arrest them

for expressing a point of view opposed to that of the Canadian

government? Some nutty elements admittedly were in the 

crowd, including someone with a flag bearing a swastika.

Some local statues were desecrated. But most of the protesters

were peaceful, respectable, everyday Canadians. Former

Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer gave a speech in 

support of the truckers, and some members of his party were 

in attendance. The convoy also attracted support from the 

United States and Australia, the latter country chafing from 

Covid restrictions even harsher than Canada's. Former 

President Donald Trump gave a speech at the  rally, telling 

them "We're with you truckers all the way!". 

The restlessness, which has turned into frustration, which next 

turned into anger so that the Canadian people, cheered on by the

Americans, begat this convoy and the accompanying protests

nearby Canada's legislature. What better way to grab their 

national government's attention than to drive to their senate

en masse? 

After two years the Canadians and Americans have had more

than enough of their respective governments hemming them 

them in with myriad restrictions purportedly to stop the spread

of Covid-19, even after an increasing number of scientists and

doctors have found that these measures actually do very little 

or nothing of the sort. What might well have begun as legitimate

health safety and preservation measures have now become means 

of exercising raw power over the people of these countries,

and other countries elsewhere. And the people have caught on

and aren't having any more of it. 

Roll, Canadian truckers, roll!

MEM

Another Dispatch From the Front in the Fight for $15

The latest news from the front in the ongoing war
that the libs call The Fight for $15 (a minimum wage 
of $15 per hour):  

A recent study from the National Bureau of Economic
Research revealed that as the federal minimum wage
rose from 1989-2013, small businesses in states which
set their state minimum wages at higher levels than
the federal level suffered "lower bank credit, higher
loan defaults, lower employment, a lower entry (rate)
and a higher exit rate." The analysis by three professors
at the Georgia Institute of Technology shows that many
states (now over half of them) have so set their minimums,
making for a fine control group for this study carried out
to answer the question "When the U.S. minimum wage
goes up, how do the states where it applies fare in  
comparison?"  

It began with data on one million loans, averaging 
approximately $100,000, made through the Small Business
Administration. For each $1 increase in the minimum
wage, the authors estimated that loan amounts fell 9% more
in the affected states. The risk of default was 12% higher
there. The average credit score for small businesses in those
states showed "a sharp decline". Business entries fell 4%
in the year the minimum wage rose; a year later, business
exits climbed 5%. While controlling for local economic
conditions, the results held up well throughout various
statistical analyses. In businesses such as restaurants and
retail, which depend on low-skilled labor, the effects
proved stronger. Smaller and younger businesses were
also more adversely affected. And there is no cost-of-
living adjustment involved; a $15 per hour minimum wage
would apply equally to a swanky Hollywood, California 
restaurant as it would to a family eatery in Hollywood, Florida. 

Relative Democrat moderates, including newly-declared
presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg, support raising
the minimum wage to the progressive's desired $15.
The difficulties of many small businesses across the country
struggling to make payroll and grow at the same time mean
nothing to them. Bloomberg began his career in the world of
investments and high finance and built his media firm,
Bloomberg LP, with the massive amount of money he made
from his earlier endeavors, so he cannot possibly understand,
let alone identify with the small business entrepreneurs
straining to build their businesses; the other Democrats
wear ideological eyeshades which keep the shining light of
the facts of the matter from their beady eyes which know only
the dark recesses and boundaries of their political dogma.

And they know of the struggles of the paltry-skilled and unskilled
workers not from hunger, but starvation. But as you, my ever-alert
and aware readers know, the lefties scrupulously avoid confusing
the issues with the facts. They find that their avoidance makes 
things so much easier for them to deal with. 


MEM