Skip to content


Rachel Havrelock
Associate Professor
Department of English, University of Illinois at Chicago

Dear Ms. Havrelock:

Last night the Hero’s channel or whatever it is called now, ran a rerun of “Who Was Jesus?” You were of course prominent in the program. I have no doubt you and the producers have heard from many of us with an entirely different take on the subject not to mention the “documentary” in its entirety. After seeing it, I thought to read a little about you and while you are undoubtedly accomplished, there are issues on which your conclusions relative to Jesus and Christianity should be considered more opinion than fact based on historical evidence you seem to reinterpret or misinterpret and information which the Discovery people intentionally left out of this rather “as seen on TV” production. This is not to criticize your opinion as much as it is setting the stage for another based on the program and your interview with Jennifer Viegas of Discovery News on April 3, 2009.

First, the portrayal of Jesus as a human being interested in the downtrodden as a function of the economic disparities of the time relegates him to the status of an instigator with a bone to pick. For two thousand years we have been debating the distinction between the human Jesus and the Godhead. Only lately have we begun to identify him as a political person with a somewhat leftist agenda. That attempt to humanize Jesus by making him a rebel with a cause is specious at best. To understand Jesus is to understand he had no such ambitions. Of course he pointed to the predicament of the poor, but it was to set in contrast the hypocrisy of the Jewish elite. He scolds the aristocratic Jews for their foppery and their shallowness, not for purposes of declaring the existence of social injustice, everyone already knew there was social injustice. Indeed, the society was built on the premise of social injustice. It would have been ridiculous for the Son of God to come to earth with the intention of changing the entire sociopolitical structure so as to urge egalitarianism. The purpose for Jesus’ existence is evidenced by his sermons. He appealed to the heart of man in man’s relationship with God. That was the totality of his mission.

In your interview with Ms. Viegas you conclude that 2,000 years of New Testament scholarship has missed the point, that John, “a lesser figure” baptized Jesus to make a political statement in line with Jesus’ “radical social idea”. It is patently absurd to make such a statement without your tongue being firmly embedded in your cheek. John’s baptizing Jesus had everything to do with the core of Jesus’ message, humility and subjection to the will of his Father. It is beyond belief that you and other scholars would or could so purposely misinterpret what is so obvious unless you had an agenda of your own, a conclusion I’ve come to after reading the interview with Ms. Viegas.

You mention “idealized notions of a Messiah” without explaining what they might be. While Jewish tradition identified the Messiah as a king with the rudest interpretation implying a new David, Zechariah’s declaration seems the starkest clarification of who he would be: “Behold, your king is coming to you; He is just and endowed with salvation, Humble, and mounted on a donkey…”

A warrior king, however understandable, is mankind’s vision. Jesus’ life, ministry, death and resurrection are the manifestation God’s will if you choose to believe. It is laughable to offer a human vision or “notion” however “idealized” which supersedes God’s will. Is it not the mystery of faith in a Supreme Being that we cannot know his mind? How presumptuous, arrogant and illogical would we be to assume we can?

You would be correct if you said the Old Testament in places reflects a mistaken notion of Israel’s new king, but Jesus definitively corrects it in the New Testament when he responded to Pilate’s inquiry, “My kingdom is not of this world”. Those are not the words of some common revolutionary or someone in rebellion against the Roman authorities as you and your Discovery colleagues argue. To conclude otherwise is to completely ignore Jesus’ response to the Pharisees when shown a Roman coin, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” And it also flies in the face of St. Paul’s admonition to his followers, “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.”

To extrapolate from Jesus’ words and deeds that he disagreed with Paul is to egregiously rewrite history so that a political agenda can be ascribed to him thus making the Messiah more man than God, more revolutionary than savior.

Jesus was not a political being. To suggest otherwise is another attempt to humanize him into being a first century Karl Marx, something Christians find not only reprehensible and blasphemous, but typical of what comes from modern academia and the mainstream media whenever the subject of Jesus comes up.

In a strictly historical sense, the documentary was factually inaccurate on several levels including the rank omissions which skew the story of Jesus such that it may as well be the story of a minor figure of no real significance. Take for example, the effort to show that the Romans, specifically Pontius Pilate were viciously determined to crucify Jesus when in fact it was the Jewish elite led by Joseph Caiaphas who not only brought Jesus to him, but subtly threatened riots if Jesus was not ordered crucified.

The fact is Pilate feared the Jewish leaders would whip up the mob to a riotous frenzy and as such was hesitant in putting someone as popular as Jesus to death over what appeared to be a disagreement over Jewish religious beliefs, involvement in which the Romans, especially Pilate desired to avoid. Your producers and researchers failed to make mention of the fact that prior to Pilate’s assignment to the region he was warned by Tiberius it would be his last if he failed to maintain order in Palestine. You know and so did your producers that Pilate did not want to put Jesus to death, that in Matthew’s account even Pilate’s wife, Claudia Procula became involved as she begged him to avoid condemning Jesus. All four evangelists imply that Pilate hesitated condemning Jesus going so far as to engage him in conversation in hopes Jesus would defend himself and thereby give Pilate reason to set him free. Such an intentional omission is tantamount to academic dishonesty. It is expected of the media, but not historians.

Finally, they were not Roman soldiers who crucified Jesus, but indigenous auxiliaries. This is evidenced by extant Roman records they scrupulously kept of their legions, where they were at any given time, their strength, even their names for purposes of payroll, testament to Roman military efficiency not to mention the regard in which the Emperor held his troops.

Note there were no legions stationed in and around Jerusalem at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion for several reasons, not the least being the relationship between Tiberius and the tetrarchs which was if not friendly, tolerable to the extent Tiberius honored his predecessor Augustus’ allowance of some Jewish autonomy. But Tiberius also required peace in the region, something he guaranteed with the threat of Roman troops. Those Roman troops were not stationed in or even near Jerusalem however. The closest Roman legion was Legio XII Fulminata in Raphanae, Syria some 135 miles away, a distance not likely to be undertaken by a commander for purposes of policing a series of Jewish festivals when there was real trouble on the eastern border with the Parthians.

Moreover, the Romans rarely detached soldiers from a legion and they most certainly would not have detached any to serve with Pilate for both political and practical reasons. Assigning regular Roman troops to Pilate’s command would have been a gauntlet to the Jews and a signal to Pilate that Rome would approve of his using them. It is far more likely that auxiliaries were attached to Pontius Pilate making them if not agreeable to the Jewish people at least less of a stick in their eye. As you know, auxiliaries were used extensively by the Romans in that region. Service was a means of becoming a Roman citizen, something highly coveted as can be attested to by St. Paul’s pride in being born one.

In the final analysis, history be damned when it comes to the historical Jesus, it must be. After all, the only substantive material we have relating to Jesus aside from the Gospels is scant mention by Josephus and Tacitus. St. Paul, perhaps the greatest apologist for Christianity tells us it’s all a matter of faith, that without it, there can be no belief in Christ as God or God himself which makes the entire historicity discussion about as useful as a discussion on the varieties of infinity. Against that background, whenever I read or see various offerings which purport to “reveal” something new about Jesus, I am not only suspect, but greatly amused since it seems to me a little like the argument concerning the origins of the universe. If you believe it was a big bang, then you are invariably left with the uncomfortable follow-up question, “Where did the big bang come from?” If you believe in Jesus as the Son of God, wonderful. If you don’t, you are left with a nagging question as to what all the fuss is about.

And by the way, I surely wish I had teachers that looked like you when I was a student.

Best regards,


Peter J. Fusco


Posted in Politics, The Nation, The World.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


The Constitution’s remedy for errant officials is impeachment. Why it is not being firmly considered in the wake of Barack Obama’s incessant flouting of its provisions is a question many people are asking. It goes to the heart of what Democrats are so fond of purveying, fairness. Were you or I caught in the act of violating our laws, we would be charged, judged and jailed. But Barack Obama and most if not all of the political class are able to defy with impunity the same laws the rest of us are forced to obey. That is not democracy in action, that is tyranny at the hands of oligarchs especially the chief oligarch, Barack Hussein Obama.

Mr. Obama has violated not only the law, but his oath of office, which is tantamount to treason. As such, there is no need to plunge ourselves in a legal quagmire meant only to obfuscate and draw out interminably that which the Founders meant to be a simple and straightforward, albeit profound process.

The Constitution mentions impeachment only five times. Article 1, Section 2 says the House of Representatives has the sole power to bring impeachment proceedings. Section 3 of the same Article bestows sole power of trial and conviction in impeachment proceedings on the Senate. It also states that when the President is impeached, the trial shall be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and that in order to convict the President, there must be a two-thirds majority vote of the Senators. After impeachment and conviction, the punishment provided in the Constitution is specified in Article 2, Section 4, the convicted will be removed from office. Article 1, Section 3 also provides for subsequent punishment resulting from criminal activity if such was the reason for impeachment. In other words, the President could be subjected to criminal “Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment according to Law (caps sic)”.

That’s it. The Constitution says little more on the subject. The Heritage Foundation explains in their “Standards for Impeachment” the reason for so succinct a “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” bar at which impeachment would be used. It is in part a protection against the treachery of legal technicalities, something we find ourselves dealing with in this matter nonetheless. But Heritage goes on to say, “Because ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ was a term of art used in English impeachments, a plausible reading supported by many scholars is that the grounds for impeachment can be not only the defined crimes of treason and bribery, but also other criminal or even noncriminal behavior amounting to a serious dereliction of duty.”

If Barack Obama’s actions fit within the criteria established by such a reading of the Constitution’s provisions for impeachment, then why isn’t The House of Representatives making the case? Political fear can be the only reason, but it is entirely insufficient in view of the fact there is no question Barack Obama has indeed violated the law. He has exercised a power not granted him by the Constitution. That is a crime and it is provable in a trial. We the people deserve that trial and a conviction if the Constitution is to matter at all. Not using its provisions when the very reason for them is so evident is itself a crime being committed by our representatives.

By his own admission on several occasions, Barack Obama does not have the power to make laws regarding illegal immigrants. On the contrary, he is commanded by the Constitution to carry out the laws that have been enacted by Congress. In some circles, to not do so has been declared within the purview of the Executive as a discretionary power, i.e. his ability to selectively enforce and prosecute some laws and people. But the outright refusal to enforce a law critical to the integrity of our very system of government goes far beyond the bounds of some ephemeral reading of precedent which itself has no basis in the Constitution. For nowhere in that document is there the admonition to the people and their Congress that if the President doesn’t feel like it, he doesn’t have to obey or enforce the laws of the land. Therefore, such abrogation of his duties renders him outlaw and a legitimate target for impeachment, conviction and removal from office.

Impeachment is an extreme solution by any standard, but it is the remedy when the actions of a president so clearly violate the same laws we have enacted and which exist as a contract between us all governing our behavior within the society created by our founders, the one we have guaranteed to each other we will maintain with sober equanimity. More to the point, if you and I are subject to the laws of the land and we are all equal under them, logic if not morality dictates so should Barack Obama. Impeach him, for not doing so makes those responsible for instituting the proceedings as guilty as he is for malfeasance in office, violation of law and abuse of the nation and its people.


Posted in Politics, The Nation.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


Today’s New York Post online features a screen-filling image of Hillary Clinton’s face in sunglasses, lips attempting to smile, but pursed in what can only be described as a naturally occurring arrogant assuredness. The headline however belies the look. “Is Iowa already sick of Hillary Clinton?” it says. Authored by Lee Rood, the piece suggests there are rumblings within the Hawkeye state’s Democrat party regarding Hillary, and they’re negative. He cites Jerry Crawford who is head of the Ready For Hillary campaign effort as suggesting “Clinton could easily stumble out of the gate if sometimes contrarian Iowans believe they are being force-fed an unlikeable candidate.”

Unlikeable she is regardless of what her toadies would have the American people believe. There is nothing warm and fuzzy about her, nothing to suggest she touches voters across party lines, nothing to hint at a politician who would be any different than the present disaster holding the office, someone with high ambitions and no real ability to govern much less lead. Don’t take this writer’s word for it, but do give thought to Iowans in the know.

According to Rood, Jack Hatch, the Democrat challenger to Iowa Governor Terry Branstad (R) in the 2014 elections flatly expressed his discomfort with Hillary Clinton. “She triangulates,” he said, “and Iowans don’t like that.” Triangulation is a vague political term thought to be invented by Clintonites in the 1990s. It is simply a method of appearing to be in the middle on some issues and the far left on others. The idea being to satisfy the base while at the same time appealing to the opposition. In Iowa, according to Hatch, it is more or less pulling the wool over diehard Democrats’ eyes, i.e. lying, something for which the Clintons and the Democrats in general are noted. In the wake of Jonathan Gruber’s admissions on how Obamacare was designed and sold to America, triangulation has been transmogrified into Gruberization. What with Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, Iowans, including Democrat stalwarts are in no mood for another liar.

Compounding the problem for Mrs. Clinton is the view of Iowans that she is “too calculating” according to pollster J. Ann Selzer who’s firm “conducts polls for The Des Moines Register in partnership with Bloomberg News.” That’s a nice way of saying, “They don’t trust her.”

Why is Iowa so important for Mrs. Clinton? If she decides to run, Iowa holds the first in the nation caucuses, their rather peculiar way of selecting a candidate as opposed to a primary. Should she be challenged by and lose to someone like Elizabeth Warren as she lost in 2008 to Barack Obama, her brand is finished.

Still, we have long stated on this site that a Hillary Clinton candidacy is the best thing that could happen to the Republicans with the exception of adding to their majorities in Congress in addition to winning the White House. The Clinton magic is gone, not because of anything Bill and Hillary did, but because they are old in so many ways. Old in age, old in outlook, old in policies, old in everything. They are so yesterday it is almost embarrassing to think she will make an attempt when so much is against her including massive disaffection with the Democrat party in general and the foul taste Barack Obama is leaving in the country’s mouth minute by minute. A Hillary Clinton presidency would be as marred by gridlock and discord as much if not more so than Barack Obama’s. No one wants that, especially not Iowans who, in spite of what Jonathan Gruber believes in his nasty, arrogant little heart, are not stupid.


Posted in Politics, The Nation.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


The word “impeachment” has been bandied about and around Barack Hussein Obama for as long as he’s been president. Nevertheless, if ever there was a president who deserved to be impeached, it is him. But Congress, especially Republicans have refused to consider the solution to this rogue president for the same political reasons they refuse to go to the ropes concerning Continuing Resolutions to fund the government. They are frightened to political death.

But it may not be the Republicans who will force the impeachment issue. It may be the Democrats themselves who, for reasons of survival will sacrifice their leader in spite of the fact it will bring Joe Biden to the White House, a man who has recently been described by a senior GOP House staffer as being “two floppy shoes short of a complete clown” according to the UK’s Daily Mail. Obama’s ouster and replacement with the greatest gaffe machine in history will be an act of desperation for sure, but it will also be the very thing that saves the Democrat party from extinction.

The latest poll numbers regarding the Democrat brand are indicative of the country’s restiveness when it comes to Obama’s, Reid’s and Pelosi’s, read Democrat policies. At an approval rate of 36%, they cannot be under any misconception they are in deep trouble. There is nothing so desperate as a bunch of politicians who are in fear of being thrown from the gravy train.

When Barack Obama issues his entirely unconstitutional order granting amnesty to over five million illegal aliens, he will have thrown down a gauntlet even Democrats will have to take up. The mood of the country is such that the vast majority of voters will react in precisely the way they did in the 2014 midterms even to the point of wholesale rebellion over a madman’s assault on the law of the land. When the 2016 elections roll around, the Democrat party, long a bastion of an ultra-left philosophy alien to the roots of American culture will be repudiated forever. To put a finer point on it, if sensible Democrats do not wake up and deal with the monster they helped to create, their nominee in 2016 will be Elizabeth Warren who will go down in a defeat reminiscent of Walter Mondale’s in 1984.

Those Democrats who live in the real world will balk at allowing such suicide, their instinct is to stay politically alive no matter the cost especially if the cost will be borne by a leader who has become reviled. On the other hand, there will be those who remain in the fantasy world like Elizabeth Warren and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, but they will be outnumbered and deserted. It is at that moment, when Democrats see their party sinking like a stone that they will toss Obama and their members on the far left overboard. The harbinger will be whispers for impeachment from within their own ranks the outright rebellion.

The process of impeaching the president involves an indictment originating in the House of Representatives by a majority vote after which a trial is held in the Senate. Two-thirds or 67 Senators must vote to convict Barack Obama. Republicans will have 54 seats as a result of the 2014 elections. The 13 additional votes may in fact come from Democrat senators like Joe Manchin from West Virginia who rumor has it will switch to the Republican party after the new senate is sworn in and others who were in nail-biters like Jean Shaheen from New Hampshire and perhaps Mark Warner who won his race by less than one point. Thirteen votes is not an unimaginable possibility.

The prospects of losing the 2016 presidential election and their own seats are very real for Democrats right now and they know it. They are also very aware that the Clintons have lost their mojo seeing as both Hillary and her husband campaigned heavily for losers. Moreover, it is becoming clearer by the day, Hillary Clinton is a terrible, gaff prone candidate who runs the risk of becoming the butt of late-night jokes. The only possible Democrat candidates left will be Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren, both of whom are certain to be defeated.

Obama is clearly a pariah, but Democrats have few choices regarding him. Politicians are not known for sacrificing themselves for anything or anyone, much less a leader who is absolutely indifferent to their welfare. The calls for his impeachment will therefore come from Democrats first and they will be loud enough for Republicans to safely hear and oblige. If Democrats do nothing, they will not only lose the 2016 presidential election, there is a very good chance they will lose even more House and Senate seats. It will be extremely difficult to come back from such a massive loss. The Democrat party as we have come to know it will be destroyed quite possibly splitting into two parties, both horribly liberal, both of little interest to the majority of Americans for being such total failures in governance.

As Obama hoists himself on his own petards and takes the entire Democrat party with him by offering wholesale amnesty to foreigners who illegally came to this country, Republicans should stand firm by countering with a blanket statement that come 2017, they and the new Republican president will rescind all such amnesty and those who were granted it will be in the same position they were before it was illegally granted them by a rogue president. Then, when the new president is sworn in, he should make that promise the first to be fulfilled.


Posted in Politics, The Nation.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


The 2014 elections may have signaled more than a political shift in America, they may have stated emphatically, “We’ve had enough.” Not just of liberalism, but what liberalism has spawned over the last fifty years. The best illustration to support this contention is the reaction to Eminem’s foul language performance last night at the Concert For Valor on the National Mall in honor of America’s military veterans. There is no need to repeat his words here, but if you are that curious, go here to see for yourself. Suffice it to say only a punk spawned by liberalism’s tolerance and America’s passivism in the face of that tolerance could get away with what he did.

In the middle of this of course is HBO which for almost its entire existence has made a living off the foulest of programming, e.g. Bill Mahr. But this performance stepped over the line big time, especially since it was supposed to be in honor of our military veterans on Veterans’ Day. There may be some, but it is a good bet they are in a tiny minority of military people who thought Marshall Bruce Mathers III’s act was anything but an ironic commentary on why the men and women of our military services go off to fight and die. For this man’s freedoms? They are hardly worth a scratch on a soldier’s helmet much less the ultimate sacrifice.

The Twitter responses to this loathsome creature’s public display of idiocy tells the story far better than can be told here or anywhere else for that matter. Mathers was universally castigated, his act panned for it being an all-to-familiar vehicle for has-beens to worm their way back into the spotlight. Americans are fed up with all of it and there are those in the media who are at last bringing it up. The culture is sick. It must be cleansed before it can be cured.

O’Reilly is on the tube proclaiming the truth about the almost total destruction of the black family and its consequences down the line. Hollywood is almost irrelevant, its garbage returning little on the investments to produce it. Actors and actresses are equally irrelevant, their hypocrisy on display so blatantly even the great unwashed see through them. Porn on the Internet is so foul it defies belief. Our schools are no more than state-sanctioned and supported depots of leftist indoctrination. The mainstream media is a farce, their ratings and what little remains of newspaper readership proving the point. Worst of all, our government is entirely out of control.

Americans are done with it all. They’re angry over the fact they’ve been lied to and bullied by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. They’re sick to death that our country is being overrun by illegal immigrants who arrogantly tell America they are here to stay and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. And America is not about to admit it is in decline. That’s what the election was about.

What we are shown on the television, what we read in magazines and newspapers, what we glean from the Internet and hear on the radio, all of it is suspect, but nothing is more distrusted than the federal government. On November 4th, 2014, Americans made it clear they are done with the status quo. The do indeed want change and they’ve entrusted their hope to Republicans who have promised the kind of real change Americans have been longing for these past fifty years.

Buried by a media that has inundated them with the false premise of liberalism’s utopian inevitability, Americans, young and old have finally seen the truth. It doesn’t work. What does work is a simpler, more decent, more profitable therefore prosperous way of living through the freedom to pursue individual enterprise. And while individual success is the product of personal enterprise which itself is a function of freedom, it cannot be achieved if we are a nation divided into self-serving groups. Diversity serves no one but those who are in the business of making sure we remain differentiated. Without unity, America dies.

The elections of 2014 may have been an indication of America finally turning that corner, finally finding its way again, finally getting back on the track that made the United States of America the single greatest country in the history of the world. The elections also may have stated the one thing liberals fear most, that most of us are proud to be Americans, we love our country and we are not about to give it up to people who don’t.



Posted in Politics, The Nation.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


There are several results from the midterm elections which act as outliers, but are nonetheless important as bellwethers for the 2016 presidential race. After fifty years or more, the race-baiting, war on women, politically correct view of America mantras are old, tired and more than ready for retirement. The American people are not only sick to death of hearing them, they no longer believe the accusations are true. In fact, with the election of Tim Scott from South Carolina and Mia Love from Utah to Congress, not to mention the various people from other ethnic and racial backgrounds, the charges of racism and misogyny against Republicans are taken as seriously as a Josh Earnest claim the Democrats were not beaten this round.

More than the above, the most loyal supporters of the progressive liberal Democrat party are themselves growing older and less relevant, especially those hailing from Hollywood. Most of all, Hillary Clinton is slowly, but surely being politically denuded as not only an ancient blast from the past, but a terrible candidate as well. Her shrill delivery masks a dull, washed out, “I don’t have anything to offer but my last name and some old memories” campaign that will only get worse no matter how much money Hollywood Katzenbergs and liberal super PACS throw at it. If Hillary is the best Democrats can do, then Republicans have their best shot at the Presidency since 1980.

The turn of America’s political tide didn’t happen on election day 2014. It happened on March 23rd, 2010 when Obamacare was signed into law. It happened when Nancy Pelosi said, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” It happened when Eric Holder refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers. It happened when the IRS was caught targeting conservative groups. It happened when the public found out about Fast and Furious and it certainly happened when four Americans were slaughtered in Benghazi. But the American reaction, as usual, was slow, the Republican reaction not only slower, but confused.

In the background however, Republicans after being beaten again in 2012, quickly came up to speed on how the thing election thing works. This is evidenced by the success of the their recent midterm efforts which were aided by $2 billion dollars, but determined by the lessons learned in past elections. Those lessons taught Republicans the reason campaigns are successful are oddly enough, no different today than the reasons candidates have won elections throughout history, a solid person to person ground game utilizing whatever means are available.

There has never been any question that conservative principles are far more in line with what Americans believe than those ascribed to liberalism. The problem for conservatives isn’t and never was their message, it’s the delivery of their message, not the delivery itself however, but the vehicle(s) for that delivery. Up until this age, the only means of delivering the conservative message of real hope through freedom and the independence of personal enterprise has been through a media staunchly opposed to it. That has changed. Like the American auto industry before Japanese imports, you got what GM, Ford and Chrysler sold you no matter how lousy their products. Once the Japanese with their superior products began to compete, American automakers had to ante up. It took almost forty years, three bankruptcies and two government bailouts to frighten them sufficiently, but here we are. There are literally hundreds of choices for American consumers now.

The same applies to modern methods of receiving information, themselves testaments to the success of capitalism when unshackled. The three networks no longer own the airwaves. Newspapers are effectively irrelevant, few read them, and when they do it’s with a jaundiced eye. No one in his or her right mind believes the mass media isn’t entirely polluted with leftists who make every attempt to shape the information they deliver so as to protect or advance an agenda Americans don’t want.

The importance of talk radio cannot be overstated as well. The left has no one to thank more for its success than themselves. That every effort on their part to compete with conservative talk radio has failed should have been the first sign their philosophy was in big trouble. But Americans are slow to the pick-up. They are busy with their own lives and content to leave the politics to the politicians, that is until they cannot avoid the impact of reality, one routinely brought home to them through the most popular and important vehicle in human history, the Internet. The mass media didn’t see it coming, if they did they treated it like some fad, a hula hoop which would die a similarly quick and forgettable way. They believed it would be a toy for nerds, a passing thing only geeks would master and use. They are presently reaping the fruits of their arrogance, the last blast of which was Barack Hussein Obama.

History will long remember Obama. He will be a feature in America’s past as the first black president, but ironically, he will also be seen as the president who actually did bring fundamental change to the American experience, only in precisely the opposite way he intended. Obama will be viewed as the ultra-liberal who woke America up. He will be the one remembered for his attempt to fundamentally reshape the country by almost destroying it, but in the process his plans, like all those of a disturbed, self-absorbed and entirely incapable individual, went terribly awry. Not only didn’t he change America in the way he dreamed, he sufficiently unnerved Americans they fundamentally repudiated him and his agenda effectively stopping him in his tracks. And though Americans didn’t fight back quite soon enough, Providence had its say by allowing the most incompetent individual in American history to occupy the White House. Instead of a successful war on America’s traditions and values, Barack Obama’s gang who couldn’t shoot straight kept shooting off its own toes one by one.

The cynicism and distrust of government growing out of liberalism’s lock on it for fifty years wasn’t in the Saul Alinsky playbook. Americans were supposed to have total faith in government as their benefactor. Instead, Americans see it as their enemy, exactly what the Founders wanted and what liberals didn’t. The media, a willing participant in the Goebbels-like effort is now like the wicked witch on whom water has been poured. They stand there flailing, writhing and screaming in their dismay, totally unable to counter a movement they helped to create. Too much sugar makes you sick as surely as too much salt. Americans have been gagging on the mainstream media’s fare for so long they are essentially dropping it cold-turkey. When a cable news outlet like FOX News is considered by the public to be the most trusted source for accurate information and when it crushes even the broadcast outlets in viewership on election night, something dramatic has happened, a radical shift in American sensibilities. The great silent majority is awake and paying attention.

Finally, this latest turn of the political screw is as much a harbinger of potential failure for Republicans as it is additional reversals of fortune for Democrats. Like the overnight sensation, Republicans may not handle the impact of this new success all that well. They’ve been known for their almost uncanny ability to do more than shoot off their toes, they are adept at shooting of whole feet, sometimes entire legs. There is hope however that the new crop of Republicans have learned those lessons as well. Expect mistakes and missteps, but it will be different this time as the traditional mainstream media wanes and alternate means of information gathering and delivery waxes.

It is indeed a brave new world, one that can act as the springboard for a second American Revolution which throws off the tyranny of progressive liberalism. But though the midterm election is a battle won, there is still a war on, perhaps without end.


Posted in Politics, The Nation.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


Jack Welch, the erstwhile CEO of General Electric and one of the finest business minds in the world appeared on Fox News’ Your World with Neil Cavuto yesterday (November 5, 2014). He and Cavuto discussed the election and Obama’s response given just before Cavuto’s show in a rambling seventy-three minute press conference. Cavuto wanted to know, in the context of a necessary give and take between the newly elected Republican Legislature and the Democrat Executive, how Welch would approach solving the nation’s problems. He stated emphatically his successes as a businessman and negotiator were based on his knowledge of learning, cultivating and honing his ability to “get inside [the other guy’s] head”.

Understandably, both Cavuto and Welch were assuming that particular skill was only effective if one is trying to get inside a sane person’s head. Obviously it wouldn’t have helped Neville Chamberlain to get inside Adolf Hitler’s head, then again, maybe he did and decided it was no place he wanted to be, so grab whatever was offered and get the hell out of there as quickly as possible.

The same applies to getting into Barack Obama’s head. If Mitch McConnell or any other Republican is under the impression they can get inside Obama’s head in order to come to terms with him on any of the problems facing America, they are sadly mistaken and in for a very rude awakening. Obama’s head is nowhere for any reasonable person to be. His head, heart and soul are filled with hatred. There is no reasoning with such a man.

There is a madness in there, it manifested itself during the press conference. Clearly, someone who in the aftermath of such a political bloodbath acts as if nothing went wrong conjures images of Hitler in his bunker at the very end. But Obama is still with us and his mad recklessness is possibly about to become the stuff of history.

A first year grad student in psychology could see it. Obama struggled to mask the seething disdain he has for his victorious enemies, a disdain framed in hatred, for him the two are synonymous. He is angry to the point of total disregard for anyone and anything. He is a man out of control, spiraling downward from the headiness of pillars and pyrotechnics. He feels maligned and betrayed and he’s going to get his revenge no matter what it takes.

What Barack Obama said and did at the press conference should not be misinterpreted thus misunderstood by anyone, especially not his fellow Democrats. He as much as said he will violate the law when it comes to amnesty for illegal immigrants, he will stonewall any effort to compromise with the Republicans on important issues facing the country and he will do so with absolute scorn for his legacy (something he cares nothing about), the future of his party and the country as a whole. He is seething, not just over the monumental Republican victory, but over what he considers the Democrats’ betrayal. He also hates the people of America who so decisively turned on him and everything he stands for. In other words, Barack Obama hates everything and everyone right now. Like an out of control delinquent he will pout for the next two years while purposely causing as much damage as possible just to show everyone he can and he doesn’t care who gets hurt or who he takes down with him.

But Barack Obama is and always will be just one person, albeit someone whose total self-absorption will make enemies out of his friends as surely as his wife did school children. In the end, even the most indulgent parents can get fed up with their errant child. Yet, though all the signs are there and Barack Obama knows he’s pushing the limits of the country’s patience, he’s going to do what he wants, the country be damned.

With reckless disregard for all legal and ethical constraints, Barack Obama is going to spend the next two years in the face of Republicans. He’s going to challenge them, goad them, dare them to come after him. He is going to spit in their eyes, get back at them in every way possible and in the process he may bring Democrats and perhaps the country down with him.

But before he goes too far, the enemies he creates in his own party will, for the sole purpose of self-preservation, turn on him with a vengeance. Before the Republicans get up the nerve, Democrats will call for Barack Obama’s impeachment. They will have to or suffer extinction. He will never resign, he is too far gone to do something so reasonable, so he will be impeached, tried and convicted becoming not only the first black president, but the first to be forced out of office through the impeachment process. Historical presidency indeed.

The country will be shell-shocked, but at least the Democrat party will survive. The last vestiges of American liberalism will wither and die however, a discredited, evil and pernicious philosophy carved out of Democrat ranks like a cancerous tumor. Joe Biden will be president, but he will be sufficiently chastened and frightened enough to fill out the remaining term then go into seclusion for the rest of his natural life. Hillary will once again be relegated to yesterday, a perennial loser always caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Democrats will have to do the kind of soul-searching only a near-death experience can force upon human beings. In order to survive, they will reassess their very reason for existence, ultimately abandoning a playbook based on division, wrapping themselves in a more rational philosophy.

Think this scenario is insane? Perhaps, but history is replete with insane scenarios and as everyone knows, insanity and history have a way of repeating themselves together.



Posted in Politics, The Nation.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


Lest the Republicans get away from themselves and begin thinking what we voted for was reconciliation between the parties, let us put you straight. We voted for war, not appeasement. We voted for a fight, not a cuddly kumbaya between the Congress of the United States and the President or between Republicans and Democrats. We want specific things and we want them now, not two or three years from now. We do not want to hear that there’s nothing you can do about anything because Barack Obama is standing in the way. If he is in the way, you must bring him to heel. Impeach him or starve him out. Dry up his funds. Do whatever is in the majority party’s power to stop the Executive branch of government from encroaching on not only the people’s rights, but the Congress’ constitutional authorities and responsibilities. How much damage can our nation sustain before it collapses by the hand of its own leaders? And if you can’t fulfill your Constitutional responsibilities, we’ll fire you and find people who will. No excuses.

The lesson every politician should take from yesterday’s election is a simple one: Americans will tolerate just so much. Our limits have been reached.

Think of it this way, you’ve been given a chance, one chance only, not to do what you think is right, but what we tell you to do. You are indeed our servants. You work at our pleasure or tolerance in many cases.

Therefore, here are your marching orders:

1.) Reduce the size and scope of government to a non-intrusive, manageable level. That is, start cutting departments and bureaus whose only reason for existence has evolved into making life miserable for the people of this country. You can begin with the IRS and EPA. We want a radically smaller government and you can start with those two Gestapoesque organizations.

2.) Immediately, and we are not talking tomorrow, we’re talking yesterday, secure our borders. Shut them down completely. And when the issue of immigration reform is brought up, we do not want you to define it as amnesty. Immigration reform must be synonymous with protecting our borders and limiting the number and national origin of immigrants to people who want to come here to be Americans, not simply expatriates from some third-world hellhole with inbred hatred for America and our institutions.

3.) Lower our taxes, especially corporate taxes and return our right to involve ourselves in enterprise, that is business, trade, profit, whatever it is we the people decide to do for ourselves to economically enrich our lives. The government was never intended to hamper our economic abilities, it was designed to stay the hell out of our affairs while we legitimately conduct them.

4.) Rein in the EPA or shut it down and return the responsibility of protecting the environment to the individual states. Using the dismantling of the EPA as a model, begin the wholesale shutting down of all overreaching and unnecessary departments, agencies and bureaus. Begin by removing the enormous powers administrative agencies have self-accrued over the years while you or your predecessors sat in silence or busied yourselves at cocktail parties.

5.) Start defending our right to display and practice our faiths whenever and wherever we please. Legislatively redefine the meaning of Church-State separation to reflect the original intention of the Founders that there be no state sponsored religion not no religion whatsoever. And while you’re at it, address the problem that is Islam. Do not allow political correctness to define it as a religion if at its core it is a terrorist organization masked as one.

6.) Do away with every regulation affecting the discovery and exploitation of fuel sources, especially coal. Put coal miners back to work and encourage fracking as well as other technologies to bring the cost of energy down commensurately such that it effectively raises wages for everyone as the price of energy comes down.

7.) Restore whatever funds have been taken away from our military through sequestration or by the Executive branch’s misguidedness. National defense is not just the president’s number one job, it’s yours as well, it cannot be accomplished by stripping the very manifestation of it to the bone.

8.) Obliterate Obamacare for the total failure it is. Open the health care system to private enterprise. Let the private sector come up with solutions to problems with the health care industry and its delivery systems. Competition will drive the costs down at the same time as raising the level of health care for all. It isn’t a mystery, nor is it as complex as we’ve been told. History is replete with examples of how private enterprise solves problems when allowed to solve them.

9.) Get out of our schools. Leave the education of our children to us. Encourage the rise of private schools through some form of voucher system to begin with and then force the public school systems in this country to compete with them. And by the way, get the hell out of our school cafeterias.

10.) There’s more, a great deal more, but in its essence, our charge to you is: LEAVE US ALONE!


Posted in Politics, The Nation.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


The importance of civil disobedience cannot be overstated. Consider the separation of church and state. The state, through the courts through actions brought by a minority group of faith haters, orders the people to remove religion, actually their faith, from all public view regardless of whether the people want to or not. The most amazing thing is the people lay down for such orders. They accept the state’s commands without putting up so much as an argument.

What is it about contemporary Americans that we allow ourselves to live under a system that commands us to do that which we do not want to do? It is understandable and agreed upon when society allows its government to command people not to murder, rape, steal etc. But when the state commands people to refrain from acting in a perfectly lawful way, the state needs to be defied.

Civil disobedience in this country dates back to its founding. In better days, an infringement on our most fundamental freedoms would have been a call to wage war against the entity stealing them from us, precisely what our forbears did during the Revolution. Civil disobedience is the beginning salvo in what may become a war, but sometimes it is the only way to take back the freedoms we’ve lost, or in this case, allowed to be taken from us.

This issue becomes all the more important when studied in the context of singular events such as the baptism of high school football players following practice right on the field. According to Billy Hallowell writing in The Blaze, Glenn Beck’s news site, the coach of a Russelville, Alabama high school “allowed players to be baptized on the field following a practice session earlier this month.” Then a “concerned citizen”, apparently enraged over so egregious a violation of his civil rights if not his sense of decencyfired off a letter to the school district’s administrators claiming the activity was “unconstitutional”. By the way, the citizen was not only concerned, he or she is a card carrying member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, an unabashed atheist group, in other words a faith hater.

The details are unimportant beyond the fact school district Superintendent Rex Mayfield tried defusing the issue by citing the atheist group’s inaccurate claim the football team has an official chaplain.

The point of the above is not that the Freedom From Religion Foundation is complaining and perhaps threatening to launch a lawsuit, it’s that the school district, presumably made up of people who send their children to the schools in the district and aren’t complaining about what goes on after football practice, is forced to comply with the atheists’ demands or else. Question then becomes, “Or else what?”

How about, “We’re going to continue baptizing our kids on the football field. We’re going to say prayers before, during and after every practice and game right on our field that we paid for with our taxes. We’re going to honor God because it’s our right and we’re going to disobey any and all orders coming from the state to the contrary.”

There’s a great video on YouTube of Dire Straits at Wembley Stadium performing “Walk Of Life” at the beginning of which Mark Knoplfer tells the audience that while Wembley does not allow them to stand up during the performance, “If you all do it there’s nothing they can do about it.” They did and Knopfler was right, the authorities did nothing because there was nothing they could do about it. In unity, there is strength.


Posted in The Nation.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


In the annals of history, no threat to the world has existed like that posed by Islam. Not politically correct “radical Islam”, but Islam itself. There is no way of reading the Koran that can possibly escape the root of the belief for it isn’t a religion, nor is it a faith, it is a cult of murder, a belief system which feeds off a lust for blood under the most blasphemous aegis, it serves God.

Yet also in the annals of history we find when a threat of such magnitude arises and becomes intolerable, even the most complacent realize it is time to act. That time has come. Muslims around the world should be more frightened of us than we are of them for the signs of the times are compelling for their troublesome. No one is any longer under the impression that Islam is “peaceful”. If it were, the vast majority of the over one billion adherents would be up in arms against those who have used it to wage war against the rest of humanity. They haven’t, and like most, if not all oppressions, the oppressed are coming to terms with the need to fight back.

Matthew 24:6 states, “And you shall hear of wars and rumours (sic – Douay-Rheims) of wars. See that ye be not troubled. For these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.” What the Lord did not say is that those wars and rumors of wars were to be ignored, only that they must happen before the end of times is upon us. So it is we must face up to the fact that while the end of times may not be upon us, war, its harbinger is. We can either fight the good fight or become part of the worldwide caliphate. There are no other choices.

One cannot reason with Muslims, it is not in their belief system to be reasoned with since reason may sway them from the path of Islam. We are talking belief here, not political philosophy. There is some form of reason which can be debated behind every political philosophy. There is no reason in any religion, irrespective of whether it is a real religion or it is perceived to be. You cannot talk to people who are doing what they believe God wants them to do. You cannot say, “Abandon your designs, there is a better way.” Their answer would necessarily be, “To what?”

No one on earth can offer Muslims a better anything. To them, as to the rest of humanity who believe in a life after death, there is no reward in this life that is better than the one promised in the next. To stop these people from believing in what they’ve been taught is impossible, but to kill them in sufficient numbers that their belief system is seen as one that offers them and their families nothing but death in this world is not only a surefire deterrent to their present activities, but a means of reducing them to insignificance for the benefit of mankind.

The choices before us are very clear, none of them good. Any attempt at containing the threat of Islam is fantasy which fits precisely in Barack Obama’s world view. Expect nothing from him in that regard. But there is more to his view than mere fantasy. It should be considered that in his most formative years, he was being brought up with Muslims. They were his closest boyhood friends in Indonesia. It does not take a child psychologist to understand that the character and mentality of a boy is firmly established by the time he is a teenager. By then he is who he will always be. Barack Obama may be a Christian in name, but in reality he is areligious, he is nothing. In truth, Barack Obama is sympathetic to Muslims, he cannot help himself, it is part of his psyche, part of his character and a part of the thought process developed in his formative years and carried forward to adulthood like every other male in the world.

All this seeks to explain what we have before us, a threat of such magnitude world war is absolutely inevitable, a collective fear on the side of non-Muslims that they are the targets of unspeakable violence with only one alternative, believe or die, a weak and sympathetic President and a detached, dumbed-down America awash in a Kardashian cesspool. How is it out of this we will not only survive, but defeat Islam? Look at your history, the most successful uprisings, rebellions and revolutions come at the tip of the sword or the barrel of a gun. When people are pushed to their limits, they inevitably react violently. It is the way of mankind, it is the way of human survival, there is nothing more strong among all living species. Call it spirit or soul, we’ve surely been endowed by our Creator with the urge to live. It transcends all else, even faith.

Islam may appear to be on the march, but they will find, sooner or later, that the rest of the world will take just so much before the backlash begins. It will come swiftly, harshly, more violently and lethally than anything Islam can imagine. Why will it be so? It is in the nature of mankind to overreact when his life is threatened. More than violence for violence, mankind’s instinct is to eradicate the threat. As in all such conflicts, the objective becomes simple and clear, kill them before they kill you, kill them all. The irrational becomes rational, killing them all does away with the problem for good.

Were I an Imam, I would put down my Koran and begin reading my history. Upon doing so, I would be fearful. Islam is bringing about its own destruction, it is inevitable. Millions of Muslims, the vast majority innocent of any crime against humanity, will be slaughtered in the upcoming war. Islam will disappear from the earth as surely as the Aztecs and Mayans. When humanity has had enough of one part of itself, it does what no other species is capable of doing, it culls the herd purposely. That is Islam’s future and Muslims are inexorably moving forward into it.


Posted in The World.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

© 2006-2014 P. J. Fusco & Co. All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright