Hating a Group in Order to Designate it as a Hate Group

Back in the days of the struggle for civil rights in the south,

the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) was prominent in 

aiding impoverished black Americans to overcome their 

poverty and the racially biased laws and general treatment

emanating from those laws in the southern states. The SPLC

was an honorable organization with a noble purpose. 

Fast forward to today, and one can see that this outfit has had

its mission, its core values, and whatever noble purpose it 

once possessed turned upside down and inside out by radical

elements that entered its ranks over time, turning it into a 

far-left wing pack of bullies.

One example of this sad state of affairs is the recent releasing 

by the SPLC of its annual "hate map", which lists organizations

not just in the south but throughout the United States that are 

a mix of conservative groups along with extremist groups 

such as neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. Among the former 

are Moms for Liberty, Parents Defending Education, Parents

Involved in Education, and the Alliance Defending Freedom

to name but a few. All this is an example of the maxim stating

that all looks yellow to the jaundiced eye.

Their "evidence" of these organizations' supposed bigotry was 

their protesting drag shows aimed at very young audiences (try

pre-teen all the way down to kindergarten age!). SPLC's 

president Margaret Huang explained that her organization's 

decision to include these aforementioned groups claimed 

Moms for Liberty has "anti-government principles" and acted 

on them by attempts to "censor school discussions around 

race, discrimination, and LGBTQ+ identities." All that the 

Moms and these other groups have done and are doing is 

dissenting against the decisions by some schools and school 

districts to impose a curriculum unsuited for classes of students 

too young and impressionable to safely process the subject 

material of these classes. Besides, one of the many rights we 

have as Americans, as guaranteed by the Constitution, is 

the right to dissent, especially to do so against the government

at any level, and any function (in this case, education). And 

this includes parents who want to be "at the table", so to speak,

when decisions concerning curriculum for their school-age 

children are made and their impact on the values that the parents

want to imbue their children with, as part of raising them 

according to the parents' wishes. Children do, after all,

belong to their parents, despite catchy slogans created by the 

far left-wingers ("It takes a village to raise a child!"). 

But the SPLC, being I suppose an indispensable cog in the 

Liberal Establishment machine, can't countenance this at all.

They, like much of the establishment, want the peasants to

sit down, shut up, and obediently acquiesce to whatever  

it wants to force upon the peasantry. And the latter better vote

for more of it at election time too, because it won't do them a 

bit of good to vote for conservative things and candidates; 

electoral chicanery will shut them down and disenfranchise 

them. It reminds me of the old saying "You can't beat City Hall";

it is an elitist maxim whose message is that the occupants of the 

halls of power are in charge, not the people. And that is not how

our government, including our school boards, are supposed to 

function! SPLC, take note and take heed. And tell your pals 

in the education wing of the establishment to do likewise.

For to ignore these facts will be at your and their political peril.

And one thing more for the SPLC: Just because you hate 

a group of people who stand for something different than

what you stand for does not make them a hate group; it simply

makes you the hate group, for you are the ones doing the hating.

MEM

Update on Daniel Penny, or The Worth of Justice

On May 17 your favorite Peasant wrote about the unusual case

of Daniel Penny, the good Samaritan who stopped a black, 

mentally ill vagrant with multiple prior arrests who was 

indisputably behaving in a threatening manner toward train 

passengers in New York City. Penny has been made out to be

the bad guy in the story by the left-wing media and now has

been charged with manslaughter. The DA bringing about the 

charges is a progressive, super-far-left-wing official, one

Alvin Bragg, who has a distaste and therefore a disinclination

to bring criminals to court, especially if they are black, and if 

he must, make details like bail and criminal charges as light 

as possible; the hallmarks of a progressive prosecutor these days.

To refresh your memory, my grand readers, Penny put the 

deranged man, Jordan Neely, into a choke hold in order to stop

Neely from menacing anyone else. Penny has appeared to have 

taken action in lawful self-defense, assisted by a fellow passenger

who happened to be black. This, however, meant nothing to those 

who believe that Penny is guilty of racially motivated "murder"

and want to see him receive the maximum sentence. It also, one

surmises, that this means nothing to District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

It will be determined by a jury of twelve as to whether or not Penny

used excessive force to subdue and restrain Neely. The twelve jurors 

are Manhattanites, and politically Manhattanites are a strongly 

left-of-center lot, and DA Bragg knows this well. Bragg thus has

achieved what he set out to do: bringing about a case which will 

strengthen his ties with his political base. Bragg has given his base

red meat to chew on, and this will endear him to his base greatly

come election time. At the time of this posting by your dedicated 

Peasant, Penny has been released on bail. Next, the grand jury will

decide whether formal charges will be filed. The Peasant's bet is that,

given the information in this paragraph, the charges will be 

forthcoming.

The worth of justice these days. Sigh.  

MEM

Nigel Lawson, R.I.P.

Nigel Lawson was a strong, tough, unapologetic conservative

in British politics at a time when Great Britain's Conservative

Party had soft-spined compromisers and Nervous Nellies in

great numbers among its members in Parliament. As Prime

Minister Margaret Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer 

(and in earlier roles in government) he shared Thatcher's 

concern that Britain was hurt by the post-war social-demo-

cratic political preference by the British people and those

serving in Parliament, and that the Tories (Conservatives)

needed to return to free market, small-government principles.

The systemic economic crisis Britain faced in the 1970s 

convinced enough Conservative MPs to embrace these ideas

and implement them. In 1979 the electorate, tired of economic

malaise, back then led by Thatcher, the nod to try them out.

Lawson was a tireless advocate for the proposed deregulation,

tax-cutting, and the repair and restoration of public finances,

all of which made possible an enterprise culture for Britain.

Compare Lawson's record to that of nearly any Tory MP

in government today!

Lawson was a champion of limited government and a foe of 

consensus, which he saw as the key factor in the making of

Great Britain's wimpy governance and resultant wimpy 

economy. Throughout the rest of his years he fought for

Brexit and against Climate Policy and its attendant 

pitfalls, always touting the Tories and conservatism, Thatcher

& Lawson style. On April 3, Nigel Lawson went to join 

the Iron Lady at the age of 91. Good job, Mr. Lawson.

Requiescat in Pace.

MEM  

Life (and Crime) in the Big City

The urban landscape has seen a multitude of crimes of many kinds

proliferate beyond historical highs and historical ranges in recent

years. This negative phenomenon is due to many factors, including

DAs who won't prosecute certain crimes nor certain criminals,

slashing police budgets, and spineless mayors. Retail theft may not  

be as juicy a crime as, say, murder, rioting, and car theft complete

with police squad cars chasing the stolen cars, but it has had a 

devastating impact on cities and their economies. This type of crime 

has sucked much of the economic vitality out of Los Angeles and 

San Francisco, and is now doing the same in the Midwest and on

the East Coast, especially New York. Drugstores in the Big Apple 

now lock small items behind plastic shields so that they can be seen 

but not touched. Business owners hoped for positive changes coming 

about from plans from New York's still-new Mayor Eric Adams;

the best among them is a proposal to establish a registry of repeat 

offenders, for last year 327 committed over 6,000 thefts (!).

This table of information will shine light on the likeliest suspects

are, which will be the first step toward catching the perps. 

A silly idea was also in the mayor's mix; a proposal to have kiosks 

in stores which would allow would-be first-time thieves to contact 

social services whenever they feel the urge to pilfer something.

Isn't that lovely? A tempted would-be thief could just get word to

a social worker to say that he is deciding whether or not to make off

with some merchandise. What would happen next, will someone or

something talk him out of the theft? 

But what would make a positive difference is the New York State 

Legislature allowing judges to set bail on repeat offenders. Those 

disposed to stealing more than once from a store would have reason

to think twice before acting on their urge to steal, and those that don't 

would certainly end up in a jail cell, made to stay there before their 

trials unless they scraped together bail. 

Meanwhile, many retailers are picking up, packing up, and moving out.

Even major department stores are leaving these theft-ridden cities; 

Nordstrom's is leaving San Francisco. Walgreens is shuttering lots of

stores in San Francisco and Los Angeles. The Peasant has recently 

heard that they are soon to close many of their stores in New York

as well.

This is the way to handle prolific pilferers. What excuses would a city

have for not instituting this common-sensical practice? Let the judges 

set bail! Let's clamp down on the continuation of crimes committed by

repeat criminals! This will start to make many city streets markedly

safer.

MEM