The Cubans' Quest for Freedom

Recently there have been protests, quite large ones,

in Cuba put on by the Cuban people against Cuba's

communist government. Although the regime there

had faced protesters and their protests before, they

have never countenanced anything this massive 

and so spontaneously; it expanded across the island 

like a mighty wave. Messages announcing it all 

were spread on social media before the regime had 

a chance to block it from further spreading. 

The social media, you see, is dangerous to the 

iron-fisted rulers of Cuba, as it allows the Cuban

people to share their displeasure and to feel that

they are not alone in their frustrations and anger

toward their dominators. 

What caused these protests and why did they pick 

up such steam? They weren't planned nor were they 

organized. They were the product of the anger at the 

country's totalitarian masters touched off by economic

fallout from the Coronovirus, which has been grossly

mismanaged. Widespread food and medicine shortages 

became the order of the day, accompanied by daily

electrical blackouts. No wonder the Cuban people 

are cheesed off.

Considering that Fidel Castro is dead and his brother 

Raul is now for all intents and purposed retired (he 

no longer holds an official government position),

and that the head of the regime is now one Miguel

Diaz-Canel, who has no legitimacy reaching beyond

the military and intelligence services which prop him

up, the Cuban people have more of a chance to finally

oust the communist cabal which had been running and

ruining Cuba for over sixty years. They are willing to 

risk arrest by filling the streets because they have lost 

so much that they feel they have noting left to lose.

This makes for a dangerous enemy, the Cuban 

comrades should note. 

Apparently Diaz-Canel has done just that, and is 

therefore leaving nothing to chance; he has mobilized

the military and intelligence to go after the

protesters. Surprisingly, our ever-left-leaning president

has issued a statement of support for the protesters and

their quest. President Biden did well in doing this but

now must back up his encouraging words with real

support for the Cuban people. Cuba's regime is now

much more vulnerable after President Trump's restoring 

of some of the sanctions the U.S. has held against 

said regime, and Cuba has few allies, especially ones 

which can assist effectively against American initiatives.

Sadly, the Congressional Democrats are busy

having a bit of a confab about what the most

appropriate reaction of the United States government 

should be (?!?!?!?!). When you consider that two  

of those involved in this sorry decision-making process

are Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (Ind-VT), and followed by more

lefty members of Congress, one has to worry about 

the Cuban people's chances of any material help

or moral support; Ultra Dummy and Ultra Radical

leading the Don't-do-a-damn-thing-to-help-the-Cuban

-people contingent on Capitol Hill. These socialists

and their chums just might be able to ensure that,

indeed, nothing will be done.

The odds on an outright revolution, particularly one 

which would prove successful are long and daunting.

But for the Cuban people to be made to see that the

United States is on their side materially as well as

rhetorically will give their morale and confidence 

a mighty boost. It looks, though, that they'll have to

wait until after next year's elections when we'll very

likely have given back both the House and the Senate

to the Republicans with large enough margins to stuff

Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders & Company. As for their ability 

to hold out, it's a roll of the dice. Stay tuned, and for 

goodness sake call your representatives and senators 

to demand that they make a public and irrevocable stand 

for the Cuban people!

MEM

The Peasant Takes On Twitter

Just the other day I was online, visiting my social media sites  

which include Twitter. As you, my fantastic readers know, 

your favorite Peasant posts when I have a new blog piece

ready to go. Well, when I went to Twitter and tried to sign 

in, I saw this message instead of my Twitter page:

"Enter your mobile phone number to receive a text message 

with a confirmation code. You'll use the code to verify this 

is really your number."

I clicked the Help option to investigate this. I saw another

message, this one saying that my account "has been locked

for security purposes". The page with the message went on 

to say that "If you are logged into your account and see that

(it) has been locked ..." and gave the reasons for their locking

down my Twitter account. Among them are "suspicious 

behavior" and your account "... may have been compromised".

Now, there's a lot of malicious mischief online from hackers.

However, the message page also said that perhaps my account

has been locked because of "violation of Twitter rules", which

encompasses "Twitter's abusive behavior policy" that lists

"guidelines for our hateful conduct policy". In the past few 

years we have seen these rules of Twitter's to be used to shut

up and shut out conservative voices, including that of a 

recent president. To many lefties, conservatism is hatred

and advocating for conservative principles in government

is hate speech. It's their way of quashing dissent, an essential

freedom covered by our Constitution's First Amendment

protecting free speech, so that they can form a totalitarian

state in which this freedom will be curtailed or eliminated

altogether. 

Is this what is happening with my Twitter account? Or was 

there a legitimate threat to the security of my account, and

Twitter moved to counter it? Time and further investigation 

by your pursuing Peasant will reveal the truth. In the meantime

I shall be without my Twitter page for a while. My advice

for my readers who are also on Twitter is to keep up with

the Peasant on Facebook and MeWe; there you shall see my

announcements of my latest blog pieces to enjoy. We'll 

still get together every week, don't fret! 

Oh, these are troublesome times we are facing, with the threats

to our constitutionally guaranteed and protected freedoms

increasing every day. Let us be and remain vigilant, especially

concerning our social media site accounts.

MEM

Big Brother's Internet Interference

In 1924 Commerce Secretary (later President of the United States)

Herbert Hoover, a Republican, warned against the concentration of

corporate power in Radio, which at the time was a fledgling medium

and a new industry: "We cannot allow any single person or group to

place themselves in a position where they can censor the material

which shall be broadcasted to the public." Here in 2021, this very

danger Hoover warned about and inveighed against has come to pass.

The Tech companies in California's Silicon Valley  have become the

censors for the government. The medium in which this horror is 

taking place is not radio but the Internet. Now, it is a fact that the

First Amendment ordinarily applies to the government rather than 

private companies. But the tech giants' censorship, the blocking of 

conservatives and their posts, denying them use of the tech firms' 

platforms, claiming that the conservatives were engaged in "hate

speech" of racist or other varieties have convinced attorneys 

representing their aggrieved clients that the tech giants should be

treated as state actors and are in violation of the First Amendment,

having engaged in selective political censorship. Since the govern-

ment granted them immunity from legal liability, these tech big

shots have been able to bully those parties which posted thoughts 

and statements which the tech titans vehemently disagree with and

strenuously oppose with impunity.

The Supreme Court has several times held that federal immunity 

pre-empting state law "can transform a private party's conduct into

state action, therefore making said conduct subject to state action 

subject to constitutional scrutiny," stated Vivek Ramaswamy in

a recent guest editorial piece in the Wall Street Journal on this

legal matter. Ramaswary, the author of "Woke, Inc.: Inside 

Corporate America's Social Justice Scam" has been researching 

these actions for quite some time, and is quite knowledgeable on

the legal ramifications. So the government, with the Democrats 

in charge of both chambers of Congress and holding the White

House, does not have to censor political opposition online; 

they don't have to. All they need do is rely on their slavish 

devotees in Silicon Valley, who also write them gargantuan 

checks each election season. Social-media companies are privately

owned, therefore are solidly in the private sector, but when they 

team up with officials to squelch content which makes them 

uncomfortable they are thus serving as the government's censors

and therefore answerable to the First Amendment. Big Tech has

immense power to restrict speech, make no mistake. Twitter has

even banned President Trump, closing his account! No American

company has so silenced elected officials, let alone the topmost 

official, or prevented them from freely communicating with 

citizens. 

This sort of thing has, in some form or another, occurred in Russia,

China, North Korea, Eastern Europe, Cuba, and Venezuela to name 

but a few countries taken over by totalitarian regimes. If our United 

States fails to stop this from taking place here, then the Constitution

beginning with the First Amendment will become meaningless and 

our country will become another totalitarian wasteland like the 

aforementioned countries. 

MEM

Ranked Choice is a Bad Choice

New York City recently held their mayoral primary elections,

employing a new method of counting votes --- and it is a 

can of worms.

Known as "Ranked-choice voting", this idea isn't new; it has 

been discussed and favored by many of the left-wingers.

There is no neutral method devised which simply reflects 

the people's will without manipulating it one way or another.

However, ranked-choice voting has its own little tricks and

will only make elections worse for all concerned. 

So how is it that this idea is so awful? One, by ranking choices 

a voter is required to divide his vote between his favored 

candidate and some merely (at best) acceptable candidates.

The first choice is the what the voter finds suits his needs 

best. What happens is that if the voter's chosen candidate gains

much fewer votes than most or all of the rest of the field,

then that candidate's votes are rolled over to one that is 

more "in the hunt" than the candidate that the voter voted for.

Ranked-choice suffuses the spirit of electoral systems where 

political parties compete to build coalitions after the votes 

are cast. In the United States, the parties compete to gain 

majorities through the voting at election time rather than

through secret, back room negotiations after the election.

Our two major parties, Republicans and Democrats, strive

to assemble coalitions: the former tries to reconcile the 

interests of evangelical Christians and libertarians; the 

latter attempts the same with the radical progressives and

moderates. Come presidential election time, the Electoral 

College produces a majority which recognizes the importance 

of the states, sometimes differing from a popular majority

(such as the 2016 presidential election). But it is, after

the shouting, a coalition majority.

Voters in a coalition must make note that while they may not 

have gotten what they wanted, the at least avoided that which 

they disliked. The goal must be a first choice willed as a 

compromise rather than to have that choice abandoned for

a compromise. This distinction points out considerable contrast

in common trust and the way in which we Americans think 

politically. 

Two, ranked-choice voting is made so that it offers a bit of 

success to as many varieties of opinion as possible. However,

the Constitution's creators intended for elections to find 

competent governors (elected representatives chosen to form

and operate a competent, dependable government). 

Three, ranked-choice voting rewards extremism in the electorate

(no wonder so many lefties are so keen on it!). Voters who cast 

their votes for extremist candidates should be excluded from

the majority. Ranked-choice voting rescues them from such a 

fate. One could, if one wanted to vote for an politically extreme

candidate, vote once for Bernie Sanders and once for Joe Biden.

So if one of their radical candidates falters, the other could end

up going to the general election and possibly win.

In summation, ranked-choice voting, although it tries mightily to

pass itself off at compromise (a noble goal), it instead gives 

compromise a bad name. It is nothing but a sham. New Yorkers

must reject this bad idea, and the rest of the country should take

heed. 

MEM

Independence Day: How Far We Have Come, Where We Are Now

After over two hundred forty years, having established a country

with a government truly "of, by, and for the people", granting 

liberty and personal freedoms the likes not seen, let alone 

experienced by other nations, having fought a long and 

bloody war against our parent nation to be able to create

a nation and a life unparalleled at that point in world history,

is now in danger of losing what we sacrificed so much to gain.

The Far Left has made unprecedented progress in taking 

control of our federal and local governments and in pressing 

their agenda upon us. A president undoing the work of his 

predecessor in slowing illegal immigration at our southern

border, resulting in a dramatic increase in people coming

from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, South America,

and farther afield, including the Middle East. Governors

leaving mask mandates, lockdowns and partial restrictions

on peoples' movement in the face of the waning Coronavirus 

pandemic because they have gotten drunk on the power that

they amassed and are loathe to give up or even loosen up

their reins of power. Mayors who hamper the efforts of the

police in their cities to tamp down on violent crime, and 

tell the victims of these crimes and their families in so many

words that they and their suffering don't matter, that it is unjust

to lock up people of color who engage in criminal activity.

Many cities have turned into veritable war zones with riots

or robberies, as well as attacks on police and their police

headquarters. Black-on-black crime? Unless it is a white

person which attacks or steals from a black person these 

lefty government officials couldn't care less.

And now we are faced with something called "Critical Race

Theory". It is an ideology which, in the name of eliminating

racism would actually increase it, by dividing Americans

into racial categories of "oppressor" and "oppressed" and 

"abolishment of whiteness". In classrooms, critical race

theory-grounded indoctrination have often begat race-based 

struggle sessions, with public school forcing children to 

rank themselves according to a racial hierarchy while 

forcing white teachers to enroll in "antiracist therapy"

and encouraging white parents to become "white traitors".

Parents and others along with their state legislators have

been pushing back hard against this attempt to take the 

country into racial retrograde, turning back the clock 

on the progress we have made in forming better racial 

understanding and peaceful coexistence. In the past few 

months, lawmakers in 24 states have introduced, and six

have enacted, laws prohibiting public schools from 

promoting CRT (the shorthand name for this ideology)

and its core concepts, including but not at all limited to

race essentialism, racial superiority, and collective guilt.

Recent polls have shown that among those Americans 

who have heard of CRT, 58% have an unfavorable view

of it, including 72% of independents. And isn't it the 

votes of the independents which are necessary to win 

elections, so some political pundits claim?

Some things about CRT which must be understood:

one, it is not an exercise in fostering racial sensitivity 

or understanding our country's history vis-a-vis race

relations. It's a radical left-wing ideology that uses race

as a tool for fomenting moral, social, and political 

revolution, and also tries to brand the United States as

a hopelessly irredeemably racist nation, its racism under-

pinned by the Constitution and its principles of freedom

and equality, which to the far-lefties are lies and 

empty promises. Second, the grassroots movement 

against CRT is nonpartisan, multicultural, and mainstream;

black people, Hispanic people, women, Asian-Americans,

Democrats, Republicans, Third-party voters and independents

have all been protesting vehemently against the 

implementation and spread of CRT, even in liberal cities such

as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Denver.

Third, state legislation about CRT bans a specific set of

pedagogies, according to Christopher F. Rufo, who is a 

contributing editor with City Journal. Lefty media 

mouthpieces have tried to con people into believing

that such bills in states such as Oklahoma, Tennessee,

Texas and Idaho would prohibit teachers from discussing

racism in the classroom. This is false on its ugly face.

All this legislation does is prohibit teachers from 

getting their students to believe that one race is "inheritantly

superior to another" and that one race is "inherently racist, 

sexist, or oppressive," also claiming that "(one) bears 

responsibility for actions committed in the past by 

others of the same race." This last notion is what fuels the

reparation movement in which radical race hustlers and 

like-minded extremists demand that government pay

significant sums of money to black people to make it

up to them for their ancestors having been (or likely

having been) enslaved in the early years of our nation.

Furthermore, CRT has taken root in some private as well

as public schools, from elementary to high school to 

college. Parents, conservative and moderate legislators

and true journalists should band together to combat this

totalitarian scourge. This, by the way, is similar to what 

transpired in countries which were taken over by 

socialists and communists. It's time to gird ourselves

with the truth about our magnificent history so we can

destroy the lies of our enemies within. Otherwise, the

Fourth of July will no longer have any meaning but just

be another day in Amerika.

MEM

Catholic Democrats vs. The Catholic Church

It is not exactly a news flash that Catholic Democrats and 

assorted Catholic leftists have habitually expressed their 

vehement disagreement with Catholic teaching, especially

on certain issues, i.e. abortion. But the latest to do so has 

been at this for quite some years, and in her recent escapade 

she has been showing a lot more chutzpah than she had before.

U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, an ardent Democrat who also happens

to be Catholic (so she constantly announces), led a group of 59 

Democrats who also identify as Catholics in issuing a "Statement

of Principles", which chastises the U.S. Catholic bishops for 

addressing the issue of Catholic politicians who disagree with 

and eschew Catholic moral teachings. Recently, 73% of the 

bishops voted to consider a document on the suitability of these

self-identifying Catholics to receive Holy Communion. 

This is not DeLauro's first "Statement of Principles" aimed at 

the bishops. In 2006 she put forth one which claimed that one 

can be a Catholic in good standing and support abortion rights.

The next year DeLauro was one of 18 such Catholics to criticize

Pope Benedict XVI on abortion. In 2015, she led a contingent

of 93 like-minded Catholics telling Pope Francis what issues he

should address when visiting the United States; Right to life 

was conspicuous by its absence from the list while climate change

figured prominently. 

So in this "Statement" DeLauro and her bunch claimed to be proud

to be part of the Catholic tradition that "expresses a consistent moral

framework for life," and that they "agree with the Catholic Church

about the value of human life." I did mention chutzpah three 

paragraphs ago, so as to cushion this shock --- nearly all the 

signatories have pro-abortion voting records. DeLauro herself 

sports a 100% rating from NARAL; gee, she sure values human 

life, eh?

DeLauro and her cohorts added one more exhibition of hubris when 

they called the bishops hypocritical for focusing on abortion rather

than the death penalty (both of which the Catholic Church opposes).

A statistical tidbit for you: It is estimated that between 1973 and

2019, over 61 million innocent, harmless unborn babies were 

killed in their mothers' wombs. The number of convicted criminals

who were executed during these years? 1,512. The latter's much 

lower number is due to, among many factors, some individual 

states abolishing capital punishment and a ban on executions for

federal crimes by the U.S. Government (since reinstated).

I doubt Rep. DeLauro and her chums are aware of these figures.

As a Catholic, the Peasant is opposed to both abortion and capital

punishment, and am also not adverse to denying DeLauro and

her fellow pro-abortion Catholics communion for their defiance of

Catholic moral teaching along with their double-talk on the faith and

abortion. If they are bucking for some memberships in the Catholic

Magisterium, they will be very much out of luck. They are fooling

no one, they have become a big bore, and should pack it all in. 

MEM

A Renegade in Republican Circles

The Democrat Party certainly has many nutty people in its 

ranks but they do not have a monopoly on nuts and nuttiness.

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has been in the 

headlines for many off the wall utterances and activities,

including getting chummy with QAnon, a truly off the wall

political group whose members believe, among other 

wacky things, that a cabal of Satanic, cannibalistic pedo-

philes operate a worldwide child sex trafficking ring

which has also conspired against President Trump while

he was in office. You read all that right, my grand readers;

as Robert Ripley of Believe It or Not! fame said, "Truth is 

stranger than fiction". The truth here is that this group 

actually believes and spreads this horrible nonsense,

and Rep. Greene is a sympathizer. 

Greene's own deranged comments on whatever include

her statement in an interview with Christian Broadcasting 

Network's David Brody in which she likened House Speaker

Nancy Pelosi's decision to have House members continue to

wear protective masks on the chamber floor to the Nazi's

treatment of the Jews during the Holocaust (?!?!?!?!?!).

This is not only evil, but insane to openly claim. Your favorite

Peasant is no fan of Pelosi, but to the best of my knowledge 

she has never sent Jews, nor anyone else, to any gas chambers.

What Greene said about Pelosi was so far beyond slanderous

and malicious that I have no appropriate adjective for 

Greene's horrible verbal attack.

House Minority leader Kevin McCarthy responded to these 

vile, inflammatory words thus: "Let me be clear: the House 

Republican Conference condemns this language." 

A good reaction, but hopefully a suitable punishment such

as censure will be a follow-up, especially if any more such

garbage spews from Greene. 

Folks, people like Rep. Greene we don't need, and surely don't

want, in the Republican Party nor anywhere in the conservative

movement. She adds nothing positive, nothing helpful in the least.

It would be positive and helpful if she would simply resign her 

seat in the House and find other, different work, and without 

delay.

If we are going to retake the House and Senate next year, and the 

White House in 2024, we must show a responsible and united front

for the people to rally with. We cannot let lunatics speak nor act 

for us. Your forthright Peasant can't put it more plainly. We can't

draw a positive contrast with the Democrats if we allow people 

like Rep. Greene to spew their bile.

MEM