Life Wins at the Supreme Court!

On Friday, June 24, a remarkable event occurred at the SCOTUS:

A majority of the Supreme Court justices ruled to strike down 

Roe vs. Wade! The landmark ruling in the 1973 case, which 

established abortion as a constitutionally protected right of a 

pregnant woman to choose to terminate her pregnancy, thereby

superseding the many state laws stating otherwise, was struck 

down by the Supremes when they stated in  Dobbs vs. Jackson 

Women's Health Organization that the U.S. Constitution makes

no reference to abortion. So the legal status of abortion is once

again what it was prior to Roe; it is up to the states to decide 

individually whether or not to allow legal abortion and if so to regulate 

it according to their own specifics. Although abortion has not been 

banned, as many pro-abortion activists and politicians claim, 

there shall be a resultant decrease in abortions in the United States.

Pro-lifers and other like-minded people are absolutely

overjoyed at seeing this 49-year-old travesty, this SCOTUS- 

mandated assault on the right to life, to be born, to exist within

the framework of life itself be tossed onto the dung heap of history

to rot alongside other gross injustices such as slavery. So the battle

now will be fought at the state level, fighting for the right to life 

for the unborn. 

As your faithful Peasant types this article, half of all of the 

states in the country, including my home state of Wisconsin,

has abortion curbs or bans in place ready to implement. Planned

Parenthood has prepared for these measures by closing their 

abortion clinics in these states while they frantically huddle 

with their allies in the state legislatures and in Congress to decide 

on what they should do next. Meantime there will be many less 

innocent unborn babies torn to pieces or chemically burned 

then removed from the wombs they had occupied while waiting

to be born. More dear little babies will see the light of day and 

draw a breath of air outside of their mothers' wombs. And they

shall grow up to live their lives and make for themselves 

wonderful life paths --- have families, fulfilling careers, 

many of the things which the rest of us have and many of 

whom take for granted. Furthermore, respect and reverence 

for life will be reflected more and more in our laws, especially

as more and more states adopt laws curbing abortions with 

exceptions for rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother.

By the by, these instances are statistically rare; the Alan Guttmacher

Institute, which once was the research arm of Planned Parenthood

and now is an independent research organization which focuses on

abortion and abortion-related matters, has discovered this in their 

abortion research. 

Another falsehood from the pro-aborts is that the Justices in the

Dobbs majority lied about their judicial philosophies during

confirmation hearings. The biggest lie was that these Justices 

asserted that Roe vs. Wade was a precedent which could not be

overturned. These accusations are industrial-strength blarney 

for these two reasons: One, that in the first rule of judging you 

cannot pre-judge a case. Bad form, you see. Judges are limited 

under Article III of the Constitution to hearing cases, and that

means ruling on facts and law that are relevant to these cases. 

Judges have to be impartial, as they owe this to both the plaintiffs 

and defendants in the cases the judges adjudicate; if they cannot 

be impartial for whatever the reason, then they must recuse 

themselves. This is simple but unassailable ethics.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was one of the majority in Dobbs, 

said at his confirmation hearing "Roe vs. Wade, ... is a precedent

of the Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. ... So a good judge 

will consider it a precedent of the United States Supreme Court

worthy as treatment of precedent as any other." 

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, another member of the majority, said

the following at his hearing: "Roe vs. Wade is an important precedent

of the Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed many times. It was 

reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (which was also struck

down by the Court along with Roe in Dobbs) in 1992. ... So that 

precedent on precedent is quite important as you think about Stare 

Decisis (The decision stands) in this context."

The accusations of deceit are especially unfair and very tarnishing 

because they suggest that the Court is not at all different from the 

political branches of government, the legislature and the executive

branches. Would the Democrats and other lefties in general be happy 

with the Republicans and conservatives if the shoe were on the other 

foot? Your skeptical Peasant rather doubts it.

The Dems and the lefties are cheesed off not just over recent rulings 

by the Court but rather that they are not in control of a branch of 

government which they could utilize as a vehicle for achieving

political goals that they couldn't win through the legislature 

(Congress). The cultural successes they have enjoyed will now 

be able to come about only by the difficult and arduous work of 

persuading voters. With the anger the electorate presently feel 

toward Congress and President Biden all your bemused Peasant 

can say is good luck with that!

Getting back to the majority on the Court that voted to strike down 

the poorly reasoned and ill-gotten Roe vs. Wade ruling, they did not

break any promises to respect and affirm precedents, as they never

broke any such promises to begin with. These Justices saw the flaws

in Roe and Casey, and recognized the flaws in these rulings when 

examining the facts in Dobbs, so they saw that the both logical and fair

way to rule was in ruling the way in which they ruled. They stayed

faithfully within the boundaries set forth by Article III, and while also

recognizing and acknowledging the precedents, they never stated

whether they would uphold or strike them down.

Life for the unborn had its day in court, and had won a momentous 

victory. Although it was just one battle, it was a battle won which

will be instrumental in winning many more and at last the war itself.

The so-called "choice" side has lost the momentum; it now resides 

with the side of life.

MEM 

The DOD Looks Spaceward

An offbeat but noteworthy story has come to your favorite

Peasant's attention, and I shall share it with you. 

for the first time in about 50 years, the Pentagon has 

publicly briefed a House committee re: sightings of 

UAPs (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena; the term of 

many years, UFO, Unidentified Flying Object, 

has been retired by the pertinent departments of our

government). The hearings were for the purpose of 

explaining the operations of a new sub-department 

of sorts within the Department of Defense created 

to find out what's out there; to see what there is to 

see. No harm in that. We should see what is out on

the frontiers of space, especially if something is 

coming our way, i.e. an asteroid, a comet, a space-

ship, etc. It is simply smart security measures for 

our safety. Although there were no admissions that 

anything of the sort is suspected, some questions 

regarding same should, and likely would, be reserved 

for a closed session. Given the government's longtime

unwillingness to even casually discuss this phenomena,

and its threatening to severely punish people, especially

our military personnel, for continuing to press on with such 

questions, this is certainly a major step forward in

delving into the matter and giving it the attention it

so greatly deserves and to bring any and all relevant 

information before the public, thereby respecting 

and serving our right to know. 

After all, our government works for us --- even though 

it often thinks and behaves as if it doesn't. 

MEM

Progressives Progressively Lose Ground

A startling political phenomenon has occurred, and it has 

begun in places where one would not expect such a thing 

to happen, even in a million years. 

People living in major American cities, all citadels of left-

wing politics, have gotten rather tired of being preyed upon

by criminals and nothing being done about the rising crime 

rates in their cities. If anything, the crime fighting (HA!) policies 

in these cities have touched off the soaring rise in crime that

they are suffering. District attorneys who look for excuses

to not prosecute crime suspects, municipal and county judges

who give ridiculously light sentences (or sometimes none at all)

to same, and they are joined by mayors in decrying the 

proliferation of guns in their locales and how gun control 

would stem their spread (Stop the proliferation of crime instead?

See what goes on in the minds of the criminals, especially 

juvenile thugs, to figure out what makes them behave 

reprehensively? Are you some kind of right-wing nut?). 

Many people have moved away from these cities in recent years:

Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, and Saint Louis

are but a few. They moved because they cared about their safety

more than did the officials in charge of their cities. 

But in San Francisco, the people there did something else.

San Franciscans recalled and voted out their criminal-loving

DA Chesa Boudin. Having elected him on his promise to reform 

the way that criminals are prosecuted in that city, they found out

to their sorrow that Boudin meant that he'd treat them with kid 

gloves and spit on their victims and the law abiding people in

the City by the Bay. It wasn't even close; Boudin was given his 

walking papers with a 60% vote in favor of firing him. 

The electorate of San Francisco prefer "broken windows policing"

to the virtually no-policing that Boudin wanted the city's police to

implement as well as to skip prosecuting minor crimes, i.e. shop-

lifting. But the failure to prosecute these lesser crimes only brought

about a more lawlessness because the criminals thought that the 

city was going soft altogether on enforcing the law. Broken 

windows policing has done wonders where it has been tried, most

notably in New York, but after crime rates dropped because of 

this strategy left-wing politicians became dismissive of it. 

Boudin blamed his defeat on "right-wing billionaires", not even

having a clue as to why he was turned out of office, and having 

been elected with the help of left-wing billionaire George Soros.

Seems that the view from the Ivory Tower is not all that clear and

sharp. But when you consider that the number of drug dealing 

convictions in San Francisco have fallen from over 90 in 2018 

to a microscopic three (!) in 2021 while deaths from drug overdoses 

tallied over 1,300 in the last two years, and Boudin mostly prosecuted

drug dealers with kid gloves by reducing the charge down to the 

lesser offense of "accessory" to a crime (!!) all the while, then 

you can see that Boudin should instead blame the person he sees 

every morning in the mirror instead of blaming super-wealthy 

straw men.

Meanwhile, voters in Los Angeles elevated real estate developer 

Rick Caruso to the run-off election in the mayoral race there in

November, placing him AHEAD of heavy favorite and redoubtable

progressive state representative Karen Bass by about five percentage

points. Caruso's strategy? Promising to be more aggressive on crime

and to clean up LA's multiplying homeless camps. Oh, the progressive

gang of public unions, environmental radicals, and trial lawyers will

do their damnedest to defeat Caruso in the run-off come November. 

But they will face stiff resistance from the people of Los Angeles who 

have had all the lawlessness and disorder that they can stand. They 

have come to realize that their only recourse in taking back their city 

from the forces of social and physical destruction is their votes. 

This rebellion will likely catch on in the other cities I have mentioned.

Would that this would soon happen in Milwaukee as well.

MEM

"Look Ma, No Plan!"

With inflation making a comeback, with a vengeance I might add,

it's no wonder that many Americans have become anxious and 

apprehensive about our economy. Inflation has not been a problem

since the late 1970s and early 1980s, as it has hovered around 2 - 3%

from then until just President Biden's first 1 1/2 years in office (!).

What happened to cause this economic calamity? Biden and Congres-

sional Democrats sent federal spending on a rocket ride, flooding the

economy with so many dollars that we came to the point of what many

economists described as "too many dollars chasing too few goods". 

The supply of many goods was adversely affected when supply chain

difficulties arose, what with the dramatic increase in oil and gas prices

making transportation to market more costly. Biden blocked the oil 

pipeline which would have connected the United States with the 

Canadian oil fields, which we would have relied on in the face of

Biden clamping down on oil drilling in the U.S., a move which ---

along with the building of the oil pipeline with Canada --- pleased

his radical environmentalist supporters no end. Demand for gas

has been steadily on the rise since the loosening of the Coronavirus

regulations, with people getting out more to go to work and to go

out for leisurely pursuits. So, when demand surpasses supply,

inflation results. Add to that a low unemployment rate and you

have people having more disposable income. This is the type of

inflation called "demand-pull inflation", and it is the type which

we now have in no small part due to Biden's spending programs

(can you imagine what our economy would be like if Biden was

able to get his so-called "Build Back Better" plan passed in 

Congress? $570 billion for green energy, $752 billion for child

care and universal pre-K, and $8 billion for elder care?) So how

does Clueless Joe explain his spending as being good for tamping

down inflation? He has no inflation-fighting plan, and this 

emperor has no clothes. 

Biden's Treasury Secretary admitted that in June 2021 inflation 

could reach 3% . Biden called it "temporary", and that "One month

does not make a trend." But by December, inflation was streaking

at 6.8%, a 40-year high. And in order to pay for all of his wild 

spending Biden wants to raise taxes on U.S. taxes, which would 

take away their advantage over their overseas competition, and 

would really be paid for by the consumers who buy their products

because the companies will just pass the taxes along to them by 

raising their prices for their goods. Furthermore, Biden also wants 

to raise taxes on billionaires, but even his progressive backers

admit that there are only 664 of them. Biden would have to raise

taxes on millionaires, then the upper-middle class, then ... where 

would he stop? 

President Biden's support would stop, to be sure. Those voters who 

though him to be a safer bet than President Trump would have a 

rethink and decide not to give Biden another term in the White House.

And trying to further BS the people by writing a bunch of op-ed

pieces in newspapers around the country into believing that things

are not as bad as they seem but instead are improving won't even give

the prez "three yards and a cloud of dust" in terms of ground gained 

with the electorate.  

Your anticipatory Peasant is ready for 2024. How about you?

MEM

On Selective Choice

The Department of Health and Human Services seeks to 

get rid of a rule enacted by President Trump designed to 

uphold freedom of conscience for medical professionals,

i.e. have the freedom of choice to not perform nor partici-

pate in abortions, sterilizations, and "sex reassignment"

surgeries if they have any moral or religious qualms.

The rule, sadly, has never been implemented because of 

lawsuits. 

So Congressional Democrats, having failed to pass the 

Equality Act, which would have made declining to perform 

these acts a violation of civil-rights laws, shall go to their

Plan B: utilizing the administrative state to back up hospitals

by making it easier for them to force medical employees to

either knuckle under and perform the aforementioned acts, 

their consciences be damned, or be fired. 

Gee, it's odd that a political party that claims to be in support 

of choice forbids it on many things, especially in cases of 

people choosing not to wear protective masks during the 

Coronavirus pandemic because the masks were discovered not

to be terribly effective in keeping away the virus, or cases of

someone's exercising their moral convictions, but guarantees

a patient having the right to the choice of whether to terminate

a pregnancy or to switch sexual equipment, and bullies doctors,

nurses, and such into assisting a patient in obtaining these 

services. Funny how that works. We should get the Democrats 

to explain their logic behind this unusual dichotomy; your 

curious Peasant awaits with baited breath.

MEM