Playing Political Football With The Family

So many things, too many things these days have become
politicized in the ongoing and escalating political war
over what direction our country should take in establishing
and maintaining a manner of governance. Thus it should
come as no surprise that the family, the bedrock of
American life and society, is now considered to be fair
game for the politicizers, especially those on the Left.
A new poll shows that a paltry 33% of liberals "agree
that marriage is needed to create strong families,"
according to the Institute for Family Studies.
The numbers, by the way, for conservatives are 80%
in agreement and 55% of moderates.

Here, the conservatives hit the bullseye. Children get both
emotional and material security, and indeed a loving
household with a mother who shows lots of sensitivity and
empathy and a father who is engaged and protective.
Now, children who are raised by same-sex parents, or by a
single mother or by other nontraditional arrangements
can be emotionally healthy and well adjusted. That being
said, children need a balance of secure attachment and
healthy separation, which the two-parent family model
certainly provides. Mothers are best at nurturing, while
fathers instruct their children to control their aggression
and become independent, learning to assume responsibility
for their words and actions.

Children of single parents, because of the family makeup
and environment in which they were raised, miss out
on being able to observe a loving relationship between two
adults, and this can pose difficulties for them when they
grow up and form relationships which could lead to starting
families. Adults, especially in families, are models which
the children emulate, as they are the children's immediate
point of reference.

Traditional family structures have made possible a division
of labor in which the father is the breadwinner and the mother
is the caretaker for the children. This setup has become more
challenging for such families, especially in challenging
financial times, i.e a recession, but single parents have it
even harder. They are more likely to experience poverty
and the children are more likely to have emotional and
behavioral problems which can disrupt their education
(dropping out of school) and therefore not getting the basis
for a profitable career, making them more susceptible to
longer-lasting poverty, which could last them the rest of their
lives. Some of them even get involved in criminal activity.

The liberals' denial of some family structures being less than
ideal has lead to government policies which have made for
more nontraditional-model families and less of the traditional
-model ones, with all the attendant troubles in the former,
including more dependence upon the government for basic
needs and subsistence. Perhaps now is the best time to
re-channel governmental efforts toward encouraging the
formation and maintenance of the traditional family
structure for single parent families. These families will
benefit by having more stability and more wherewithal
to meet their needs, and taxpayers will have a consider-
ably reduced burden. The only ones who will not be
among the winners in this scenario will be the so-called
anti-poverty advocates who try to get as many impoverished
families as possible onto the welfare rolls and think that is
all that is needed to help them. Such help these families
can do without, the taxpayers can certainly do without
the onerous tax burden, and we all can do without the social
burdens which accompany the present arrangement.


MEM

Need Just a Bit of Time

Friends, once again I am having one of those occasions
where I am caught short on time to create a post for your
enjoyment, and I do apologize; this has been an incredibly
hectic week! But don't fret, your faithful Peasant shall be
with you next week with an article so good that you'll find
it worth waiting an extra week for!

In the meantime, know that you, my grand and wonderful
readers, are always on my mind. We'll have a grand time
when I return!

Thanks for your continued friendship, readership, and support!


MEM

What Happened to the Moderate Democrats?

Since the Reagan presidency, which marked the ascendancy
of the conservatives in the Republican party and in American
politics, liberal pundits have lamented the decline of both the
numbers and the influence of the moderate/liberal Republicans
in both. George Romney, Nelson Rockefeller, John Anderson
(who later left the Republican party to run for the Presidency
against Republican nominee and eventual election winner
Ronald Reagan, and incumbent Democrat President
Jimmy Carter in 1980), and modern era example William
Weld all come to mind when this species of political animal
comes up in conversation. Not adverse to a large and growing
government, very soft and conciliatory on the social issues
i.e. abortion, welfare, and such, and voting in Congress with
the Democrats at least as often as with their own party, these
Republicans (now derisively labeled "RINOS" --- an acronym
meaning Republicans in Name Only) have lost much ground
to their conservative intraparty party foes and much support
from both the party faithful and the general electorate over
recent years.

Meanwhile, there is an ongoing political purge on the Democrats'
side of the aisle in which the Dems are doing all they can to make
their moderates unwelcome; conservative Democrats? They've
either gone over to the GOP, went independent, or just plain faded
away. This, by the way, includes both office seekers and voters.
One such purge effort is currently taking place in Illinois, where
incumbent moderate and pro-life Democrat Rep. Dan Lipinski is
facing another bruising re-election bid, again being challenged by
progressive hopeful Marie Newman who unsuccessfully ran against
Rep. Lipinski in their party's 2018 primary despite receiving
considerable funding and publicity from like-minded 3rd District
activists and their organizations, including Planned Parenthood's
PAC. And now they all are waging a second battle to unseat a
Democrat who won't bow to their party's political orthodoxy
and embrace unfettered rights to abortion, among other out-of-
the-mainstream planks in its rickety platform. Lipinski, by the by,
is the last pro-life Democrat presently in the House.

Lipinski edged to victory against Newman in 2018 by 2%, translating
to an approximately 2,000 vote margin in Illinois' 3rd District Dem
primary, but district progressives and some political observers have
suggested that the district has shifted just a bit to the Left, just enough
so that Lipinski could lose this time around. The district, by the by,
is solidly Democratic, so there is no realistic chance of a GOP
nominee winning the seat in the general election. As far as your
observant Peasant is aware, the Republicans therefore are not
planning to field a candidate for that seat.

That said, there are many voters in the Illinois Third that find Rep.
Lipinski too moderate for their tastes; some even say he's a conser-
vative. Well, next to their political leanings I'm sure that Lipinski
looks quite Reaganesque. Of course this is why the Newman bid is
part of the Democrat Party's plan to sweep itself clean of incumbents
and office seekers, as well as party officials who are not sufficiently
left wing, with their stands on abortion being a key litmus test.
And Dan Lipinski, even with his legitimate liberal bona fides,
is right in their crosshairs. He's only moderately liberal, if that,
by today's Democrat Party standards, so he just won't do.

As far as Lipinski's record on other issues of great importance to
the Democrats, there is even more evidence to sufficiently condemn
him as far as the ever-leftward lurching party is concerned; he had
the audacity to vote against Obamacare while supporting the pairing
of religious liberty protections with a big anti-discrimination bill,
the Equality Act (George Orwell, call your office!). Now, Lipinski
in fact supports Obamacare as a compromise alternative to the
Medicare for All scheme which Newman supports, stating that
the latter would "hurt Third District residents by taking away private
health insurance from 170 million Americans and eliminating
Medicare for seniors," while sending most people's taxes on a rocket
ride. Lipinski votes almost entirely with his party in the House, and
has voted only 5% of the time with the wishes of President Trump,
the bane of the far-left contingent which has overtaken the Democrat
Party. But to these raving extremists this is nowhere near good enough,
so Dan Lipinski must go. And did I mention that Rep. Lipinski came
out in opposition to the so-called Green New Deal, a brainchild of
the most radical members of Congress, one of which is a certain
congresswoman from New York City who has been getting a truck
load of press for her unabashedly socialist brand of politics and the
resultant ideas from same, the Green New Deal being but one.
Among the things it is purported to do is to drastically reduce
carbon emissions over the next few decades, resorting to (no blarney!)
doing away with air travel. That's right, the airlines would be put out
of business, leaving buses, trains, and at least for the present cars
as options for long distance travel. I wonder what this radical rep,
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has planned for ocean liners? What
would she have people do if they needed to travel to, say, Europe,
Asia, or some other place across an ocean or two? Another black
mark against the veteran Illinois congressman, making another
reason for his radicalized party to purge him from their ranks.
And no lamentation from the aforementioned liberal pundits
re: the decline of the moderate/conservative Democrats.

Oh, and progressive Dem darlings Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and
Sen. Bernie Sanders (technically an independent but votes nearly all
of the time with the Democrats), both presidential candidates, have
endorsed Marie Newman for the party's 3rd District nomination.
Some big guns are trained on Dan Lipinski, who explains his views
and votes thus: "Look, I'm a Democrat because I believe the govern-
ment needs to help people who are in need some way, ... and to me,
protecting the unborn is part of that." And for this noble sentiment
his party wants to send him packing. Let us hope, my great and big-
hearted readers, that the people of Dan Lipinski's district will once
again him to Congress, because he has truly shown the humanity
which the farther-left types in the Democrat Party boast having but
not possessing. This veteran House member has truly demonstrated
his concern and care for the smallest and weakest among us; trying
to make government responsive and of service to all, be they already
born or waiting to be born.

This is what liberals used to be like. Dan Lipinski is a member of a
dying breed, soon to become extinct if the more extreme elements
currently in charge of the Democrat Party get their way. They have
already primaried many members of Congress like Dan Lipinski,
replacing them with substantially more left-leaning candidates
like Ocasio-Cortez. And the result of all this is the loss of one of
the country's two major political parties to extremism, following
its flirtation with totalitarianism. If past presidents Franklin D.
Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy were to come back to life today
and see their party the way it now is, they would suffer from
something far worse than culture shock; they would weep for
their Democrat Party and for the country over its embrace of
ideas and positions most Americans would never so do. And
their party's present leaders along with the present rank-and-filers
would tell them to get their right-wing selves out and don't get
hit by the door as they exit.

The price of extremism is frighteningly high. And in tacking
farther leftward every day, jettisoning sensible, more mainstream
reliables such as Rep. Dan Lipinski from their ranks, the
Democrats are digging their political grave. With their radical
blinders over their eyes, they are unable to see what they are
doing to themselves. But the people see, and they shall respond
at election time by turning their backs on the Democrats for
their infatuation with ideas alien to the American ethos while
turning their backs on the people, along with a deaf ear on their
wishes and concerns. Some Americans may desire a robust,
active government, but most want no part of a government so big
that its activity encroaches upon their liberty and prosperity.
This is something that the Democrats have thus far failed to
grasp, and it shall prove to be their undoing.


MEM

Gratitude for and Celebration of Ten Magnificent Years!

My dear, loyal, wonderful readers, today we have reached
a momentous milestone; we have been meeting here at this
online site for ten years to absorb, examine, and discuss
the political and economic news of the day, to discern
the heroes, the heels, those who made things happen,
those who watched things happen, and those who wondered
what the hell happened. The good, the bad, and the ugly
(apologies to Clint Eastwood), the innocent and the guilty.
The effects of the actions taken by the players in the political
arena and the good (or bad) they have wrought. Recognizing
the stars in the conservative movement, both those established
in our firmament and those on the rise. Bidding farewell to
those who left the arena and the world, having helped to
make both better for their having been in them. And certainly
taking time to count our blessings from living in the most
free, the most prosperous, the most welcoming, the most
opportunity affording, the most wonderful country on the
face of the earth --- the United States of America.

When your faithful Peasant began this blog on September 23,
2009, it was for these purposes: to draw attention to stories
from the realms of politics and economics which the lamestream
media either gave little space or air time to, or ignored altogether,
and to rally conservatives around to this blog so as to give them
a place to visit to see these stories presented, and to be done in
a way which doesn't pussyfoot about playing at diplomacy and
niceties, rather getting straight to the heart of the matter and
calling a spade a spade. Your favorite Peasant has endeavored to
state some things in a way that many of you would state yourselves
and do when you are discussing these stories at your dining room
tables, in your local barber shops, at your golf courses, in your
offices, or in your backyards while hosting cookouts. These are
my personal objectives in publishing this very blog, as well as
to give you, my fellow conservatives comfort, succor, humor,
and good cheer, especially at times when we seem to see our
political fortunes slipping away, or at least stymied and stalled.
Always bear in mind, my friends: A war is made up of many
battles, some will be won, some lost. But as long as we do not
tire from the efforts to secure victory, do not lose faith in our-
selves nor our confidence in our ability to keep the pressure
on the enemy, and stay true to our bedrock values which
are the base for our beliefs, we shall gain the victory.

And now we gear up for another ten years (and hopefully many
more after that!) of our vitally important work of defending our
country and our way of life, meeting here each week to study
the relevant topics of the moment and figure out the best way
forward, and having a little levity to lighten our spirits and
indulge in laughter now and then. Think of this blog as being
akin to a USO canteen for weary soldiers, sailors, marines
and airmen; for we are the very warriors who without pause
are fighting to preserve everything we have, cherish and enjoy
as Americans, and to pass it forward to the coming generations.

Your grateful Peasant wishes you, my grand readers and friends,
God's blessings on you and your families. Thank you for your
steadfast support and your wonderful company. And God bless
America!


MEM

Some Positive Bipartisanship?

Recently, U.S. Senators Bill Cassidy (R, La.) and Kyrsten Sinema
(D, Az.) coauthored the first bipartisan plan to create a federal
paid-parental leave program. Its features include a proviso for
new parents to obtain an advance of up to $5,000 on their child
tax credit to lighten the costs in the first year of having a child,
including adopting a child. The bill would offset the expense
by reducing the parents' credit for the next ten years.

The Democrats have a plan of their own, which in true Democrat
fashion is a much more expansive paid-leave program.
The aforementioned bipartisan plan, along with two bills drafted
and sponsored by Republican lawmakers, are creative ways of
repurposing existing funds to facilitate parents' efforts to support
new arrivals, again either by birth or adoption. In addition, this
legislation will force the Democrats to determine and state their
priority: either making family leave easier or, as is their pleasure,
raising taxes. If they choose the former, they will certainly be
helping to effect and promote the bipartisan cooperation and
compromise that they are forever claiming they desire. If they
go with the latter, the Dems will have to go before the public
and defend their decision to impose a further economic burden
on the taxpayers. Oh, the schadenfreude!


MEM

Carol Buckley, R.I.P.

William and Aloise Steiner Buckley had a remarkable family;
ten children, each of whom possessed a powerful intellect, an
unquenchable thirst for knowledge, a love of and undying
fidelity to the Catholic faith, and belief in and support of the
rights of the individual over the encroachment of an insatiable
government with an unquenchable thirst for power. Their
staunchly conservative parents taught them very well.

This brood, which included the late founder of National Review
magazine, William F. Buckley Jr., also numbered Carol Buckley
as its youngest member. The last to be born and the next to last
to depart (James L. Buckley, former U.S. Senator and retired
Senior Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit will have that distinction), Carol Buckley
was a part-time editor and writer, oftentimes a contributor to
her brother Bill's renown journal of conservative political
ideas, as well as an addiction counselor. She wrote one book,
At The Still Point (Simon and Schuster, 1996) in which she
detailed her life as the youngest member of the Buckley
family.

Inheriting the family trait of possession of a lightening-quick
wit, kind-hearted and generous, always willing to assist people
less fortunate than she, Carol Buckley is survived by five
children (one predeceased her) and several grandchildren.
The octogenarian was also an energetic advocate for the
welfare of pets, having been involved with the charity,
Sweet Paws Rescue of Essex, Massachusetts, and has
requested that donations be made to this organization
in lieu of flowers. If any of you, my wonderful readers,
would like to make a donation contact them thus:

Sweet Paws Rescue
P.O. Box 752
Essex, MA  01929

If you prefer to contact and contribute to them online:

https://www.sweetpawsrescue.org/donate

As has her siblings, Carol Buckley made an indelible mark
on literature, journalism, politics, and humanity. She had
done the Buckley family proud. Well done, Madam.
Requeiscat in Pace.


MEM

Gratitude and Applause!

Yesterday, on one of Milwaukee's local conservative talk shows,
U.S. Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, my representative in the House,
after a 44 year career in public service, first serving in the Wisconsin
Assembly and the Senate before serving in Congress for 40 years,
announced that he would not seek re-election next year. At 76,
Rep. Sensenbrenner will take life easy but shall still keep abreast
of the political realm in which he has served his Wisconsin 5th
Congressional District constituents long and faithfully.

Having signaled his planned departure on Mark Belling's show,
Sensenbrenner reputation is that of one of the most conservative
and most Constitution-minded members in either chamber of 
Congress. His knowledge of the Constitution has made him a
prime choice of his fellow congressional Republicans for
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, also having served
immediately prior to that post as Chairman of the House Science
Commitee in which he also performed superbly. His is an act
which will be a tough one to follow.

Sometimes genial, even affable, sometimes crusty, always speaking
plainly without worrying about whether he would offend any
politically correct snowflake types or the establishment press
but always focused laser-like on the needs of his constituents
and on constitutional provisions and strictures, making sure that
constitutional protections of their (and all Americans') rights,
freedom, and prosperity were observed and respected regardless
of which party held the House and regardless of who was in the
Oval Office, Jim Sensenbrenner will surely be missed but will
always be gratefully appreciated. The Peasant wishes you well
in your leisure, sir. Thank you for your many years of unwavering
service.


MEM