Thank You, My Wonderful Readers! Thirteen Fantastic Years!

Thirteen years of publishing PWAP, poring over and examining 

the political and economic news of the day, commending the 

commendable and condemning the condemnable among the 

newsmakers and their actions, and simply enjoying each other's

company on this blog, an oasis of critical thought and common

sense. And you, my wonderful readers, have made it all possible!

Thank you all for our time together, and may we have another 

thirteen years together, followed by another thirteen years, and 

many more years after that!

I apologize for not posting my thanks and praise to you for our 

thirteen years of our get-togethers on the day, but there was a crush of 

things to mention here, along with things off-blog that demanded your 

encumbered Peasant's attention. But here I am, and here we are!

The Peasant wishes all of you every single one of God's blessings!

MEM

Queen Elizabeth II, Great Britain, R.I.P.

Although our country broke away from this monarch's country,

fighting a protracted, devastating war to gain our freedom, 

to never again take orders as to how to conduct our affairs, 

and to never again bow before a king or queen, we are saying

our goodbyes to a monarch who had been a friend to us, as 

well as to the world. A queen, a magnificent woman who had

no desires of conquest and control but only of friendship and good 

will, who had bid a hearty farewell and good fortune to the former

colonial holdings of her country, which was once the hub of an

empire which stretched across the globe. A great lady who 

could keep a "stiff upper lip" in her people's inimitable way

but also had tenderness and compassion which she had shown 

not on rare occasions. A lady who exhibited grace while dealing

with people who had none, who displayed great diplomacy 

without suffering fools yet never making them suffer her

displeasure. A mother who raised her children, one of whom 

has now succeeded her as the reigning monarch of their 

country to be, like herself, sterling representatives of their

royal family and of their nation and their people. A person 

whom we can all emulate, even though most of us are not in

the least of royalty, and therefore can smooth the rough edges 

of our society and our world. 

Your Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, House of Windsor, 

Great Britain, United Kingdom, God rest you and love you.

Requiescat in pace. 

MEM

Wokeness Flunks Out

Wokeness, with its confining, extremist philosophy, politics,

and social rules, has taken root and devoured much of our 

country's society; sports, science, education, even business 

has been caught in the net of this movement. On the education

front many schools, especially state (public) schools have become

veritable indoctrination centers for making wokeness the 

order of the day, replacing free and critical thinking along with

academic rigor. George Washington University's law school

came under attack for its continued relationship with Justice

Clarence Thomas, as the Supreme Court member delivers a 

lecture on campus annually. Thomas is, of course, a conservative

and a black man, double trouble for lefties --- especially those of

the very far-left woke variety. 

So GWU explained in a letter, "Because we steadfastly support the

robust exchange of ideas and deliberation, and because debate is

an essential part of our university's academic and educational 

mission to train future leaders who are prepared to address the 

world's most urgent problems, the university will neither terminate 

Justice Thomas' employment nor cancel his class in response to 

his legal opinions." The university went on to state to its students

"It is not the proper role of the university to attempt to shield 

individuals within or outside the university from ideas and opinions 

they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or deeply offensive."

In other words, GWU's message to their woke objectors is,

quite simply, "Suck it up, buttercups!" The Peasant's message to 

the university is "Bravo!"

MEM     

 

Affirmative Action Gets Involved in Criminal Law

A news story out of Pierce County, Washington: a police officer 

spotted a man sitting in a car, parked in a high-crime area. 

Suspecting theft, the cop asked for his name and date of birth.

After returning to his squad car to check the information, 

which by the way was false, the man drove away as fast as

he could and a chase ensued, ending with a crash. 

The case went to court where the driver, Palla Sum, asked to

have the charge of making a false statement to the police 

dropped since the officer allegedly seized him illegally,

without any cause, before asking for his name. The police

objected, saying that Sum had not been seized, but rather 

had merely been asked a question, to which he voluntarily

answered. However, the court ruled unanimously that Sum

had in fact been seized, and therefore must be released,

since he was Asian and the police have "a long history 

of implicit and explicit bias against people of color," 

so Sum had reason to assume it was indeed a seizure.

The law, according to the court, must make up for past

injustices and therefore go very lightly and softly on 

criminals, especially if they are classified as members of

a minority group. On reporting the story, the National Review

commented that it should be considered "affirmative action

for lawbreakers." 

Just another day in America's (woke) justice system. 

MEM        

Profanity, Workers, Management, and the First Amendment

American Labor Law seems, at least in the eyes of some,
to be the protectors of the First Amendment rights of union
workers, stretching those rights for them to a farther extent
than the aforementioned amendment's protections of free
speech for everyone else is concerned. Case in point: in 2012  
some picketing tire workers at Cooper Tire's Ohio plant
shouted racial epithets at several replacement workers who
happened to be black. One such slur was "Go back to Africa,  
you bunch of f*****g losers!"  

Cooper Tire fired one of the abusive strikers, who then sued  
the company claiming that it trampled on his First Amendment  
rights in terminating his employment over the incident.
An administrative judge overturned the decision of the tire
maker, Cooper Tire, which appealed to the National Labor Relations  
Board (NLRB), which upheld the ruling four years later.
Employers say that this ruling and others like it place them
into untenable positions between their workplace standards
with their company rules which uphold them, and labor law
--- possibly joined by antidiscrimination law --- if workers
are to guaranteed the right to make such racist catcalls.
This could lead to employers having no real say in what
transpires in their workplaces if they then have to ask the
NLRB's permission to enforce their companies' codes
of conduct every time even the slightest squabble between          
employees breaks out.   

Fast-forward just a few years, and the NLRB, with some
members appointed by President Donald Trump
having replaced some members that were appointed by
Trump's predecessor Barack Obama, reconsidered these
rulings. A case involving a General Motors employee in
Kansas City was disciplined for being verbally abusive
while acting "in his capacity as a union representative,"
with the said employee having told someone to shove
something up their backside (Your thoughtful Peasant
cleaned up the exact quote). In a second, unrelated incident,
this same employee, having been asked to lower his voice,
reportedly replied in a mocking tone: "Yes, master, sir. 
Is this what you look for, master sir?"

The administrative judge on this case, applying a four-factor
test, held in 2018 that the worker's first profane spewing
was protected. The second, however, was not. The judge
ruled that by repeatedly "using slave vernacular, the worker
"diverted from his union representational purpose" to launch
"a more personal attack".

So, according to these precedents, if an employee angrily uses
slave dialect or resorts to deploying the "F-bomb", the boss
first has to analyze the offending comment(s) with a four-
factor legal test, assisted by a labor lawyer or two before
taking any disciplinary action? GM, for its part, argues that
the administrative judge made several errors in his ruling.
One example was that the automaker said that the judge
"refused to acknowledge" three witnesses who testified that
they thought the first incident "was about to get physical."
The NLRB's precedents, GM continues, "are wholly at odds
with the modern workplace," and "put employers at risk of
losing control of their employees and their employee's safety."

There's more than just red tape that meets the eye here.

In September 2019 the NLRB asked for comment on just what
circumstances should place "profane language or sexually
or racially offensive speech" outside the protection of labor law.
It went so far as to ask whether the standards described in the
Cooper Tire case and similar cases should be modified or
abandoned. This question is still awaiting being settled as
your faithful Peasant writes this post. But the NLRB under
President Obama opened the door too wide to all of this
bedlam, and since then this same board has been straightened
up with some new members with a fresh and sensible
perspective, courtesy of then-President Trump. But now,

with another Democrat in the White House (President Obama's

vice president yet!), what will happen regarding this matter? 


MEM        

Well-Deserved Just Desserts

In an October 2019 post, your faithful Peasant discussed the fierce 

rivalry between moderate pro-life Democrat U.S. Rep. Dan Lipinski

and far-left pro-abortion Democrat primary challenger Marie Newman

for the seat representing their Chicago-vicinity House district. 

Newman was drafted by the abortion lobby and eagerly backed for the 

nomination by the district Democrat party, losing narrowly to Lipinski 

in 2018 and winning just as narrowly in 2020. Winning the Democrat

primary is de facto winning the general election as well, as the GOP 

has a faint, minimal presence in that district and may as well not even

put up even token opposition. So Newman, who came into office 

on what was basically a single-issue campaign (and a terrible issue

at that!), had a very easy November that year.

Now fast-forward to the present: Once in Congress, Newman found 

herself the target of an ethics investigation. Apparently, in a 

clear violation of campaign-finance law, she promised another 

potential candidate in the primary a job in her office if that person

promised not to run. There is even a contract bearing Newman's 

signature which says precisely that. Ah, but a twist to the story 

develops: An Office of Congressional Ethics report produced a

truckload of documentary evidence that contradicted claims by 

Rep. Newman had made to investigators regarding the incident.

Due to Illinois losing a U.S. House seat after the 2020 census,

thanks to the state's increasing outflow of residents fleeing the 

high taxes and high crime there with the Dems in charge of just

about everything, Newman wound up in the same district as 

fellow Democrat Representative Sean Casten, who went on to 

destroy her in the 2022 Democrat primary with 68% to her 29% (!).

Although Casten is substantially not much different than Newman 

on the issues, it is good to see the back of ex-Rep. Newman as

her time in Congress is now up. Good riddance to bad rubbish!

A similar fate befell a Republican House member in Wyoming's 

recent primary. As representation in the House pf Representatives is 

based on population, and Wyoming has the second-fewest 

population among the fifty states and their scant population is

spread throughout the expanse of the large in terms of square miles

state, Wyoming is its own, one and only congressional House district.

A strongly Republican state, Rep. Liz Cheney, who happens to be the 

daughter of retired Vice President Dick Cheney, has been the state's 

lone representative in the House of Representatives serving as

Wyoming's Representative-at-large. An long-time conservative,

she became vehemently opposed to then-President Donald Trump

over the course of his term in the White House, taking issue not so

much with his programs and ideas but for surface issues, i.e. his

personality and his ability to get his programs passed and signed 

into law, oftentimes not going by the general and generally accepted

way of doing things in Washington D.C. This has been, unlike the 

Democrats' and the left-wing's opposition to Trump's ideas, initiatives

and programs an opposition to the style rather than the substance 

of the former president yet still lacking anything solid and substantive

in its reasoning. What capped off Cheney's opposition to Trump was

her belief that he had instigated the riot at the Capitol on January 6,

2021 in which some supporters of President Trump broke into the 

Capitol and raised hell in protestation of the 2020 election results 

which had Trump losing to current President Joe Biden. This is an

accusation which has never been proved, yet House Democrats and

anti-Trump Republicans such as Cheney tried to impeach him on

these grounds all the same. Some other GOP House members either

were defeated by pro-Trump candidates in their party primaries like

Cheney had been or decided to retire and leave Congress of their own 

accord rather than be thrown out by the GOP electorate in their 

home districts. 

Rep. Cheney lost in a landslide to her primary opponent, Harriet 

Hageman, by a whopping 37 points. The people of Wyoming were

quite happy with President Trump's performance as president,

cutting taxes, eliminating lots of red tape affecting businesses,

and facilitating the creation of more jobs, all that for a start;

Cheney and her fellow effete cocktail partiers couldn't stand the fact

that this brusque, direct, hang-the-subtleties and nicey-nice and 

just get the job done outsider who had never held a government

office before at any level accomplished more god in much shorter

 time than had many presidents from either party before him. 

And the people liked him. The people loved him! Over 74 million

votes were cast for Trump when he ran for re-election, which was

more votes than any other presidential candidate ever amassed 

except for Biden, and we'll discuss the controversies over his 

ballot totals another time, don't you worry. But the main thing

to bear in mind is the fact that the Republican incumbents in

the House had been taken to the woodshed by their GOP

supporting voters because Trump accomplished just what the

voters wanted to see done for the longest time but were denied 

by many Republican predecessors who didn't have the knowhow

or the guts to get things done. Trump certainly ruffled some 

feathers of some in the Republican party but those stuffed shirts 

deserved their feather ruffling. Trump offended some people in

the GOP but those who were offended both needed and deserved

to be offended. They, like the Democrats, have forgotten that they 

were elected to serve the people, not themselves nor their political

pals. It's like conservatives have two parties to do battle with!

But We the People need to clean house (the House and the Senate),

including the White House, and we shall accomplish the former 

this November and the latter in 2024. In the meantime we'll get

the drags on our progress out of the way in both the Republican 

primaries and the general elections. Those in the GOP must take 

heed from what happened to Liz Cheney, and the far-left "progs"

need to be mindful of what happened to Marie Newman, and 

realize that while they are certainly free to pitch their ideas for

governance to the people along with the candidates who would 

work for same and enact if elected, they must always, ALWAYS 

remember to listen to the people and hear what they want done

and whom they want to do that which they want done; that the 

people and their interests are to be served, rather than the people

be forced to serve the interests of self-serving politicians. The

politicians' failure to do so will be at their own peril.

MEM

 

MEM