Skip to content


The Supreme Court has spoken. Presumably we are all supposed to assume that it’s game over, we went as far as we could defending the traditional and righteous institution of marriage being defined as that state of being between a man and a woman. Five people decided that a few thousand years of human history should be discarded for a couple of decades of human aberration. It’s done, they’ve spoken. What are those of us on the losing side of this decision supposed to do now?

Most Americans would say, “Accept it, that’s the system and for better or worse it worked.”

I say, do not accept it. I say, fight it. I ask, who the hell are these five people in Washington to tell me what I must accept as moral and righteous? I say those of us who find homosexuality and lesbianism wrong should stand up and be counted. We should fight back by refusing to acknowledge that which the majority of the Supreme Court has said we must.

I don’t and will never recognize homosexual and lesbian marriage. I will never participate in a marriage ceremony for them. I will never cater to them in any way at any price not because I hate them, but because I believe what they do is wrong and nothing the Supreme Court forces on me will make me think or act differently. And I am most certainly not alone.

It is time for wholesale civil disobedience in this country. Nothing else will work. Clearly, voting for the other guy turned out to be the same as voting for the guy who brought us to the point of wanting to vote for the other guy expecting the other guy would do what we wanted him to do. But the other guy turned out to be just as bad. Worse, he bald faced lied to us and now we’re stuck with him until the next go around which will produce the same kind of garbage we have in office now.

We have a narcissistic nincompoop man-child in the White House surrounded by sycophants, deviants and Communists. On top of that we have a Congress led by another petulant youngster in the House who takes bullies and takes revenge on anyone who disagrees with him. Over in the Senate we have a curmudgeonly old man who refuses to leave the 1960s for the 21st century in terms of the way business is done in that chamber.

Neither man recognizes, or if they do, they refuse to acknowledge the danger that is the Democrat party and the ultra liberal left working against the United States of America. Instead of fighting like there is no tomorrow (which is very nearly the case), they talk and talk, wring their hands and then howl over their impotence. “Just give us the White House”, they say, “then we’ll show you what we can do. Then we’ll repeal Obamacare, then we’ll do something about the IRS and the tax code, then we’ll fight Isis, radical Islam and prevent Iran from getting the bomb and then we’ll really show you how America can come back from the brink it’s on now…just give us more time, more money and more votes.”

If you need any more proof than looking at the entire governmental structure of our country from the federal to your town or village (don’t kid yourselves, how about your school boards) that we are all alone in this fight then you are living in a fantasy world where proof is a pint of ice cream to soothe your sugar craving and solve all your problems.

Until those of us who believe in the traditional America we once knew, the one that afforded people the dignity of making it on their own in their own way without the government telling some of us what we must believe while sanctioning the activities of others whose lifestyles we know to be aberrant, then we will get the government we deserve, but not the one our children and grandchildren do.

Civil disobedience means simply not obeying the laws we know are wrong or those we know violate the principles on which all free societies rely, the freedom to choose between right and wrong, real right and wrong.

Imagine masses of Americans simply refusing to acknowledge the Supreme Court’s decisions(s) or our respective legislatures’ laws? Imagine if we refused to bake a cake for gay people or take pictures of their weddings and then refused to acknowledge the lawsuit or government reaction to our choices. What would be the logical outcome of such massive disobedience be? The government would either have to change to suit us, or we would go to war with it…and win.


Posted in American Culture (Or Lack Thereof), Politics, The Nation.

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


confederate flagThe Stars and Bars or the Confederate States of America flag may be an offensive symbol to some, but it is a part of American history nonetheless, a proud part when you consider the number of men who fought and died to preserve their homes and culture.

Yes, slavery was a part of that culture as it was throughout most of human history. We do not discount the contribution of Rome to civilization based on the fact it existed in large part because slaves were bought, kept, sold, killed and worked like animals. Slavery was and remains a heinous part of the human story. Slavery in America is but a very small part of that history.

It should be noted, slavery was not of Confederate origin, nor was it a Southern problem particularly. It was and is a global scourge that haunts us still and yet we see more politically correct poof, more feints of outrage, more posturing, bloviating, yapping and fake philosophizing over a flag than any action to save those being enslaved today.

The Confederate flag is also a symbol of the American spirit. Against all the odds, the South was poised to win the Civil War. It fielded far superior military leaders who came literally within yards of complete victory. It wasn’t superior generalship that won the day for the Union at Gettysburg, considered the turning point of the war, it was blind luck. And it wasn’t General Grant who outsmarted General Lee in the final days to bring the war to an end, it was sheer numbers and Grant’s willingness to sacrifice them wholesale against his adversary who could not, some say would not do the same.

If anything, the South’s tale of the Civil War is far more noble in the fighting than is the Union’s. The Southern warrior spirit, that element of the American character which drove those men to fight so hard for their homelands (as separate state entities) is not only laudable, but glorious especially in light of the overwhelming odds against them. It was the same spirit that brought relief to the Allies in WW I and total victory to the world in WW II.

The Confederate flag represents far more of what was good about America at the time. Most importantly it represents the original intent of the Founders, states’ rights as opposed to what we presently have, what they feared more than democracy itself and what they desperately tried to prevent with the Constitution, an all powerful, all reaching, totally invasive central government.

The motives behind secession were therefore not simply the preservation of slavery, but a rebellion against creeping tyrannical federalism, a system which though excellently illustrated by Publius seventy-two years before was even then becoming merely a function of the more populous states imposing their wills on the less populous. It is amazing that as a country, we do not review that lesson in the context of how we are being tyrannized today by metropolitan liberals who dominate the most populous states with the exception of Texas.

The Confederacy might have won handily had it not been as poorly led politically as it was magnificently led militarily and that is perhaps the reason for its downfall. It would be good for all Americans to realize Lincoln himself was more than happy to renegotiate the status of slaves in the South and elsewhere if only to keep the states united. And though the South had very different ideas about such negotiations, had Jefferson Davis and the leaders in the several states been more inclined to a negotiated settlement rather than the final option of war, the Stars and Bars might very well be flying in those states today. Then again, Southern leaders were justifiably wary of their Northern counterparts, especially the abolitionists. Southerners were under no misconception that any negotiation would be at best temporary, at worst a death sentence for the South as a singularly distinct and politically independent entity.

Wrapped in the idiom of that “peculiar institution”, the Confederate flag indeed represents a perverse culture, but the minority of that culture. Southern folkways and mores were far beyond the mere necessity for slaves to work its plantations and cotton fields. The vast majority of Southerners didn’t own slaves, nor did they control gigantic tracts of land churning out the cotton so much in demand. Most were simple farmers living an agrarian lifestyle if not unique to the South, at minimum it was typically Southern by that time and comfortable, in keeping with a less bustling routine than their brethren in the industrial metropolises of the North.

There is evidence the average Southerner did not like the institution of slavery, but he understood it. That isn’t to say the institution wouldn’t have lasted much longer had the Civil War not occurred. Rather, it speaks to the individual Southerner who lived in his or her own small world making the attempt to prosper as best as possible without being bothered by anyone else’s issues, problems or interference. The Southern “me” attitude, unlike the North’s more urban “we” attitude emphasized individuality, a freedom that recognized and appreciated neighbors, but not to the extent of relying on them for an identity.

The Southern man of the antebellum South and the modern man of post-industrial America may have more in common than is readily observable. With the ever increasing intrusion of the federal government into our lives, there is that undercurrent of rebellion which may find expression in an uprising of some nature in the very near future by one segment of society versus another.

The Stars and Bars flag actually means more in terms of the true American spirit than does the Stars and Stripes. It is a reminder of a time when gentility had a place, when women were exalted rather than being rammed into false equality. It was a time of gentlemen going off to war not to defend slavery as much as to defend their right to be left alone to fend for themselves, to conduct their own business without sticking their noses into someone else’s.

As a matter of history, the Stars and Bars flag should be flown proudly from the pinnacles of every state capitol in the original Confederacy as a reminder of what and where we were once, what and where we are now. While black people are no longer slaves and no one responsible for that peculiar institution is alive, it would be good to remember they were in fact freed at enormous cost and that is enough. Furthermore, the flag of the Confederate States of America should be a reminder that though it is popular myth to believe the Civil War was fought to end slavery, it was actually fought to prevent secession, a matter that has not been settled as so many might think for there could always be another if government becomes too oppressive to endure by enslaving us all.


Posted in American Culture (Or Lack Thereof), The Nation.

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


Is the shooting of parishioners at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina a tragedy? Perhaps, but only because that may not be the most accurate term to describe what happened. In some respects it is more, in others it is a manifestation of life in any country where 330,000,000 people have been told “diversity is good, unity is bad.” As a tragic event in the history of those people, it qualifies, but as an anomaly under the present cultural circumstances, it doesn’t. To expect that it won’t happen if we eliminate guns, inculcate generations with the ideals of racial harmony and legislate love is not only unrealistic, it is doomed to abject failure.

Wholesale murder is a fact of human existence. Every ethnic and racial group has participated at one time or another on a variety of scales. Anthropologists still debate whether humans wiped out Neanderthals 40,000 years ago (blame the white man of course). The Old Testament discusses the wholesale killing of the Amelekites and the Midianites among others. We have the testament of ancient eyewitnesses who proudly chronicled the slaughter of thousands by their military leaders. There are songs and poems lifting killing, war and genocide to art. In almost every case, the mere threat of wholesale killing is enough to subdue the most numerous and unruly people. If there was any need to prove the point, all one has to do is read his or her Roman history. If you need a more contemporary set of illustrations, look at modern China then turn your gaze on Islam as the mass murdering movement du jour.

Exposed to this over all human history, is it any wonder why it exists today and worse perhaps why it is of fleeting interest to the average human being? We are not newly immune from such horror as a result of an evolutionary leap. On the contrary, we’ve been conditioned to accept death on a monumental scale throughout our existence. We are after all, by our nature violent creatures. Whether we ever will evolve from that state is impossible to say, we haven’t so far and there is no indication based on the latest human developments that we will anytime soon.

Humanity’s innate character suggests the vast majority of human beings are content to be docile as long as the pact between and among themselves is not broken. Peace is to be welcomed, but it is not to be expected and it is always tenuous and impermanent.

We are a warrior species at our core. When threatened, most of us will protect ourselves and our blood relatives. Oftentimes, if given the opportunity to advance our positions in life, we will take advantage, in some cases by killing to the point of making war. Still, our preference is to live and let live as long as letting the other person live doesn’t threaten our own present and future conditions.

Racism is a misnomer for what this is, but if people are comfortable calling it what it isn’t, so be it. This then is the nature of racism and it is as much, if not more of a problem for black people than it is for all others since as a minority, black people are seen as the oppressed, but that distinction apparently hasn’t made a difference nor is it likely to make one. Now the oppressed appear to be the oppressors as minority rights supersede majority rule not by a mutually agreed upon social contract, but by fiat from above forcing the majority to accept the minority though their cultures clash so ferociously.

To say Dylan Roof committed his crime as a result of racism is to say those who destroyed Ferguson and rioted in Baltimore did what they did for the same reason. But it doesn’t matter, in either case the deeds were done, lives lost, property destroyed because one segment of the population simply hates the other.

Mutual hatred is not an anomaly among human beings, it is the norm. Yet it is imperative we understand the real reasons for our hatreds. For the most part, whites don’t hate black people for being black and it is a certainty blacks don’t hate whites for simply being white. We hate each other for being who we are in relation to one another. It isn’t racism, it’s a clash of cultures which are distinguished by the color of someone’s skin. It’s like enemies in different uniforms, we don’t hate the uniforms, just those who wear them.

Is it evil to hate another race of people? If you believe all hate is evil, then it is. But if you are in the position of believing one race is bent on having a negative effect or even destroying the other, then hatred is justified as a function of self-preservation. It will not be eradicated by hope, legislation or a combination of the two. It will not be eradicated at all, ever.

The word “racism” and all its derivatives are actually meaningless. No amount of its use will change the way people think about each other, not when they perceive the other side as their enemy. The opposite will occur.

Karen Attiah, identified as a “Deputy opinions editor” for the Washington Post is a black woman. In an article she wrote yesterday (June 18, 2015) she cites “studies” but only identifies one done by the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center which concluded “millennials are just about as racist as previous generations…” But what she really means is that white people hate black people as much today as they did yesterday. She conveniently avoids, as do ninety percent of all people with venues to speak from, mentioning the fact that had a study been done asking black people what they thought of white people the results would be incredibly similar, not because blacks hate whites any more than whites hate blacks, but because they hate each other equally as a function of being human beings, nothing more.

The point is, it doesn’t matter.

Yes, we are racist, all of us. We are human. We have our likes and dislikes, our loves and hatreds. We cannot be expected to think and feel about another race the way we are told, especially when what we are being told amounts to ignoring that which we may understand from our own observations and dealings with one another.

Instead of hammering and yammering on about racism, we should be admitting to ourselves that human nature dictates the need for a level of civility such that if a society is going to work, that is, if people are going to live within proximity of each other in safety and confidence, we must control our hatreds because we will never love each other.

It also means that if we choose not to live near someone we hate, regardless of their color or any other factor, we have a right to do so as they have a right to keep us from living near or among them. It amounts to a realization that the social pact between and among us, if it is going to be honored, must be viewed in the stark light of reality. Some of us are going to hate others for whatever reasons we may harbor. The reality is expected and therefore acceptable as part of the human condition. In that context, to think that somehow murder on a wholesale scale for reasons of hatred can be avoided is delusional. To think of it as a violation of the pact we have as a society makes far more sense. To deal with it harshly as a violation of our pact is our duty.

What should we do with Dylan Roof? Execute him of course, but not for hating black people, for violating the communal pact, that’s what is called law and it is or should be entirely colorblind while admitting it cannot control the thinking, feeling and actions of human beings, but exists to outline our societal expectations of one another and to punish violators after the fact. It is the best we can do.


Posted in American Culture (Or Lack Thereof), The Nation.

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


Irish Saint Malachy was a 12th century bishop of Armagh. He is credited with having made some rather stunning predictions especially regarding the Roman Catholicism’s popes. None are so interesting as that which suggests Pope Francis will be the last. What comes after is not all that clear except to say Malachy predicted the subsequent ending of the world. Thus we are left hoping Francis either lives forever or Malachy was wrong. In any case, perhaps no more popes is not a bad thing, especially when considering this pope, his agenda and the prospects of a College of Cardinals packed with men of similar philosophies like a Supreme Court Franklin D. Roosevelt could only dream about.

Francis is not acting like the spiritual leader of 1.2 billion Roman Catholics, rather he is acting like a potentate injecting himself in political matters at the same time he is in conflict with the word of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the incarnation of whom this pope is supposed to be.

The Evangelist Mark wrote in chapter 7, verse 8 that once when Christ was sitting with his disciples eating a contingent of scribes and Pharisees approached to scold him about his and the disciples’ apparent disregard for ritual purification. “Why do your disciples not follow the tradition of the elders but instead eat a meal with unclean hands?”

Christ quoted Isaiah who articulated the word of God, “This people honor’s me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.”

Then Christ told them, “You disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition.”

Properly explained Christ was saying the so-called leaders were constantly establishing rules and regulations which they themselves concocted for purposes of controlling the people. They effectively reduced God’s word to a lesser status, a sin in and of itself far greater than not washing one’s hands before eating.

Pope Francis is doing exactly the same thing. Instead of preaching the word of Christ, the resurrection, the forgiveness of sins as a result of Jesus’ sacrifice, he spends his time seeking the glory of men, for John told us in chapter 12, verses 42 – 43 about those who put human issues before God’s word when he wrote, “For they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God.”

Pope Francis’ continual demands for some kind of economic revolution to redistribute wealth in all nations and his linking of “climate change” to that call is bad enough, but when he attaches political philosophy to the teachings of Jesus Christ as if were Jesus here he would wholeheartedly be on board, it is sacrilege.

Who is the Pope to declare science complete? Where does he get his authority to call an end to debate especially in the face of extant data underscoring how wrong is the conclusion he and other climate change zealots have made? Where does he get the right to wrap it all in condemnation of some people merely because they are wealthy while exalting others because they are poor? While he struts about in the lap of luxury irrespective of his preference for simpler surroundings than the Papal palace, he harangues those who have actually worked for their wealth and have a God-given right to enjoy the fruits of their labors without guilt.

Matthew tells us in Chapter 6, verses 25-34 that Jesus eschewed the economics of life completely when he taught, “So do not worry and say, ‘What are we to drink?’ or ‘What are we to wear?’ All these things the pagans seek. Your heavenly father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you besides. Do not worry about tomorrow, tomorrow will take care of itself. Sufficient for a day is its own evil.”

Why is not Pope Francis quoting this scripture instead of investing in the dialectics of Marx and Engels? It is because his history is steeped in political dogma rather than Catholic and he sees his role as a political revolutionary not a leader of the faithful.

Pope Francis is a secular man. He is a poor vicar of Christ. His concepts of right and wrong are constructs of human deliberations developed in the confines of university corners where the rights of man have infinitely more weight than the safety of the soul.

For literally millennia, Catholicism has been forged in the crucible of obedience to the Popes as representatives of Christ, but during that time we have been shamed by many, inspired by too few. Those who questioned papal dominance were as certainly excommunicated and condemned, often to death. Are we not supposed to question that which assaults our own consciences? Isn’t that what Catholicism is all about?

Contrarians to this indictment of Pope Francis will point to the political activities of Pope John Paul II, but the comparison falls flat. Pope John Paul fought for the liberation of people under oppressive Communist rule so that they could not only be free to live, but be free to worship God. His was not a gospel of social justice as much as it was the gospel of repentance in the surety of forgiveness for our sins once the freedom to do so had been won.

Not once do we hear from Francis about humankind’s sins, only about part of humankind’s sins as if those who have worked hard, earned their livings, made good on the promises of freedom and liberty and who have given back more than their fair shares to those in need are undeserving and evil. His is a political gospel of socialism, a system as devastating to mankind as the junk science that breeds stubbornly wrong conclusions which keep the poor in poverty.

Pope Francis is a divider who routinely lambastes the producers in society while painting a Dickensian picture of the poor’s intrinsic quality and value as if none refuse to win their bread themselves and all are morally and spiritually superior. His vision is as perverted as are his conclusions.

I am a Roman Catholic! I studied my religion from the time I could read. I was schooled in our faith. I believe in the holy Church, the resurrection of Jesus Christ who is the Son of the Living God. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the forgiveness of sins and the life to come. I believe the God of us all sent me to be what I am, no more and no less than that other man, regardless of his vestments and position in the hierarchy of my faith. And I believe he is wrong though he may speak ex cathedra, from the very chair of St. Peter on matters he can know as little about as all the scientists in the world who sit and scare for a living.

There is no such thing as man-made climate change just as there is no value in human stewardship of our planet beyond handing it down to our descendants in proper fashion for their use. It is not the planet that has a soul, it is we humans who inhabit and own it who do. We need saving far more than mother earth.

Francis may be the last pope, and a good thing if succeeding popes are to follow his example and be shepherd’s of the planet rather than its people.


Posted in Politics, The Nation, The World.

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


Glenn Beck is, I assume, a decent guy. I applaud his various efforts on behalf of myriad causes which cannot offend although some people will find something offensive in even the most righteous acts. Now for the “but” because in this kind of essay there is always one.

Mr. Beck and his colleagues on his radio program are at times hilariously funny, at others woefully intolerant of other political viewpoints, sometimes to the extent they go way overboard in their attempts to mock while slathering it all in a syrup made from unsweetened “comedy”.

Whatever their reasons, they do not like Mike Huckabee, nor do they think very much of Jeb Bush (I agree) and several others who may or may not be running for the Presidency. They save their most poisonous vitriol however for Donald Trump.

Today, Mr. Trump announced his candidacy. In his speech he made several statements that while Beck and others may find fault in them, I do not and I am certainly not alone.

Mr. Trump complained about the swarm of illegal immigrants coming across our southern border. His intent is to stop that from happening by building an impenetrable barrier. I believe him when he says he can do it. No other Republican candidates have offered any alternative solutions aside from methods of legitimizing the illegals who are already here after securing the border which none of them say how they will accomplish.

He complained about unfair trade practices and singled out China as the greatest offender, but he assigned blame to the United States government for allowing it. He’s right. The rest of the world makes fools out of us when it comes to trade and we let it happen out of some guilt that because we’re the richest, most powerful nation in the world we can afford to be taken to the cleaners every now and then. Mr. Trump explained emphatically that we can no longer look at ourselves that way, we are broke, in his words, “we are dying.”

He talked about the nation’s infrastructure and said he would act to repair roads and bridges and would do it at or under budget for a third what the nation would be expected to outlay under political class administrations. I believe that too. After all, the guy is at his foundation a builder. He has built more on one street in New York City than every other candidate on both sides has built in their collective lifetimes including those governors who may have been at the helm of building programs financed by their taxpayers.

The difference between Donald Trump and the rest of the field is that he does while they talk. You never walk away from Donald Trump in a cloud of parsed words and phrases or a haze of truth mixed with fabrications for the purposes of passing a politically correct smell test.

In years past, the idea was to have someone from the business world become president because, it was rightly thought, that person knew how to get the most out of every dollar spent. Why? Because every dollar he spent either came out of his own pocket or was a dollar he had to justify spending to a board of directors and shareholders who expected the expense to generate a profit.

Now, there is debate about having someone in the presidency who “knows how to govern” which is code for someone from the political class. It would be a monumental mistake for the people of the United States to elect someone who has spent an entire career sucking the taxpayer nipple. That is why I support Donald Trump.

As for Glenn Beck and crew, I take offense at a bunch of guys who believe themselves to be the arbiters of all that is righteous in the political, private and especially spiritual worlds. I don’t impugn their motives, I do question their judgment and veracity. On the one hand, Beck touts his libertarian viewpoint which assumes all is legal except what directly harms another. Yet, almost in the same breath he chastises anyone who may follow his or her conscience on political and oftentimes spiritual matters which disagree with his viewpoint especially when he and his crew speak from ignorance. I have written here about an occasion when Beck ridiculed the Pope for saying in a sermon, “They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God.” Beck’s ignorance was fully on display since he and all his colleagues on the show laughed uproariously while under the impression the Pope was speaking extemporaneously. They did not recognize the phrase was a direct quote from the Gospel of John, 16:2.

One of the intros to his show exclaims it is premised on the “infusion of entertainment and enlightenment.” Entertainment is subjective, but enlightenment assumes gaining knowledge one did not have and knowledge is truth. Most of us are keenly aware our paucity of knowledge is but a reflection of God’s infiniteness, that the old adage is true, “The more you know, the more you know you don’t know.” It is that which makes life worth living in many respects, it is that which keeps us humble to the extent we learn before we scorn.

Beck should find some humility, he does not wear hubris well.



Posted in Politics, The Nation.

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


Several predictions have been made on these pages over the last nine years, some have come true, others were flawed from the beginning as more hope than actual possibilities. Aside from them however, our commentaries in many cases have been ahead of the curve, some so much so they presaged the pundits by years. One of the predictions herein has been and remains, Hillary Clinton will never be President of the United States.

Now more than ever that prediction has substance. It is supported by pieces of evidence which seem to crop up around Clinton no matter what she does, where she goes or what she says (or doesn’t say). Oftentimes, the items of interest are mentioned by observers, pundits and writers in passing or as anecdotal subscripts, but they are nonetheless important and one doesn’t need a magnifying glass much less a microscope to see their value.

Clinton’s latest relaunch of her campaign on Saturday, June 13, 2015 at Roosevelt Island marks the second, if not third attempt at generating momentum. It won’t work, two items of interest support the conclusion. One is a description of the crowd made by several observers. It wasn’t middle American, nor was it a representation of working class voters charged up about what a Clinton presidency might mean for them. The attendees were the usual suspects, gays, lesbians, feminists and hard core New York City Democrats. It was worse than that if you are a Hillary operative. The overwhelming majority of the 5,000 (Clinton’s campaign estimate) people making up the crowd were the collective incarnation of Satan as far as Democrats and liberals are concerned, older white people.

White people, lots of them. How could this be? Did her staff fail to hire black attendees as well? Is her campaign in financial trouble (read The Guardian’s story on her use of unpaid interns)? What does it mean? Could it be black people are finally waking up to the decades of empty Democrat promises? Is there a sense in the black community that something’s got to change? Probably not, but there was more, actually less if we are to be fastidious in our accuracy than met the cameras at Clinton’s relaunch.

Not only was the crowd made up of primarily older white people, but there were far fewer of them than we are supposed to believe. The Washington Post’s Philip Blunt wrote, “The official Hillary Clinton campaign launch (or re-launch) was not as big as you might think it was. That’s meant literally: packed into the southern tip of Roosevelt Island, itself maybe 50 yards wide, the area allotted for the audience was orchestrated to ensure that it appeared to be packed.”

Breitbart showed pictures of empty spaces which were originally set aside to accommodate the expected crowds. Even so, the usually anti-liberal thus anti-Hillary Breitbart said the turnout was “large” which drew considerable scorn from those who commented on the article. One mentioned there are “More people in line at Starbucks in the morning at Grand Central Station.” In any case, 5,000 people at a major Hillary rally in New York City is paltry.

It appeared at least Clinton knew her crowd. She tried channeling Ronald Reagan’s famous, “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience” line when stating, “I may not be the youngest person running for president. But I will be the youngest woman president…And the first grandmother as well.”

All well and good except it’s 2015, not 1984. The point is, as has been oft-repeated here, she is yesterday’s news. Marco Rubio is tomorrow. Ted Cruz is tomorrow. Scott Walker is tomorrow and so are Carly Fiorina, Bobby Jindal, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Ben Carson and many others who are far closer in age to the working electorate than Clinton.

The entire Clinton era is a forgotten one. Those born when Bill Clinton took office are now well into their twenties. They have no frame of reference for another Clinton presidency, but they do have one for their economic woes and their disappointment in Barack Hussein Obama, the worst president America has ever elected. Sold on the “first black president” idea as pacifier-sucking first time voters eight years ago, these out-of-work, living-with-my-parents young people are not so naïve anymore. The “first woman president” is appealing when there are jobs and the world isn’t in flames, not so much in the cold light of reality and certainly not so much when the “first woman” is also the oldest.

This is not to say the next president will win in a Republican landslide. As we are all too aware, Republicans have snatching defeat from the jaws of victory down to a science when it comes to nominating the wrong candidate. But it is a fairly sure bet Clinton will run a lackluster campaign, one that fails to energize and motivate voters whose concerns for a strong, economically superior America will trump Clinton’s narrow vision which assaults normal Americans by homing in on nothing but fringe issues like gay marriage and gender equality. Those were yesterday’s problems. Everyone knows that.

In a May poll, Gallup ranked gay rights issues 28th out of 35 in importance. Gender issues weren’t represented at all. “Dissatisfaction with government” however ranked first among Americans’ concerns when it comes to non-economic problems. This isn’t just a commentary on government effectiveness, it is a commentary on there being too much government. Clinton’s relaunch speech on Roosevelt Island displayed remarkable tone-deafness on that point. Government solutions are not what’s wanted, government, as Ronald Reagan observed, is the problem according to the poll.

The question for all voters becomes, who can be trusted to remove so much government from American lives and free us from its intervention in everything we do so that the great engine of American economic enterprise can be restarted and lives fulfilled by the realization of its promise? It certainly isn’t a Democrat and especially not Hillary Clinton.

If Clinton’s people are relying on nostalgia, they forget the attention span of modern Americans is down to a nanosecond. Fleeting memories of good times are a hazy recollection at best for most Clinton supporters, an old, tired boring tale for the young. Nostalgia is for the succor of old age when the spirit is willing, but the flesh is so happy to let it all go. It’s a funny thing how it often garners sympathy, but should not be counted on for votes.


This clip really says it all. If you can come away from it without asking yourself what was just said, there is something very, very wrong with you:


Posted in Politics, The Nation.

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


McDonald’s recently hired Robert Gibbs, the erstwhile Press Secretary for Barack Hussein Obama, as their head of global communications. Immediate response from the media ran the gamut. Forbes called the pairing, “incongruous” for Gibbs’ relationship to a president whose wife is the scourge of school lunch rooms all over the country. They quoted someone from a professional “communications” company who commented, “After all, what does Robert Gibbs know about the seismic shift in America’s eating/nutrition habits, pro-active marketing communications (vs. reactive positioning), and consumer product brand building…?” Whatever the hell that all means.

But there you have it. Gibbs is hired to…I don’t know, communicate? Communicate what? That McDonald’s churns out food that is good for you and your kids? How can that be if for all intents and purposes, Gibbs was in lockstep with the Obamas about how rotten fast food is for Americans, especially their poor fat children?

Gibbs is a left-wing political hack, a well known left wing political hack. For McDonald’s to hire him in the midst of that company’s dramatic decline must be a sign of sorts. Either the management of McDonald’s somehow believes Gibbs can message around the realities (which is precisely what he and his successors at the White House did and are doing to this day) or they have intentions of capitulating to the politically correct crowd and are about to serve kale instead of burgers as their main offering with Gibbs leading the charge. It doesn’t matter really, both reasons are woefully insufficient to justify Mr. Gibbs’ hiring in any scenario.

Many, most in fact will not care that Robert Gibbs has any part in the McDonald’s organization, but there are those of us, and we probably number in the millions, who are aware of his hiring and are none too pleased about it. One would think, in this era of diametrically opposed political philosophies and the hatreds bred out of such opposition a more prudent choice would have been Sam or Jenny Jones, or some other innocuous nobody with a fantastic resume who would be taken from the ranks of a successful career turning companies like McDonald’s around. Instead, they hired Gibbs, a professional at obfuscation and outright lying. Right, that’s who I want commanding my global communications force and touting my bill of fare.

This is what happens when CEOs become part of the “beautiful people” crowd, or at least when they are trying to become part of the in crowd. Like girls and nerds in high school who so desperately wanted to be in the clique, that group which seemed to float through adolescence sans all the angst and anxiety while enjoying the fruits of youth without even trying, McDonald’s CEO Steve Easterbrook will apparently do anything including aligning himself with a toxic left wing political guttersnipe to make himself and McDonald’s look good to the left wing nutcases hell bent on killing the American hamburger. He should be so dedicated rebuilding the brand and doing more business in the process. It’s a cinch he didn’t run this hire by the shareholders.

McDonald’s investment in a man so deft at constructing messages out of smoke and mirrors will go down in history as one of those giant errors in corporate judgment. Instead of looking at the bottom line and rearranging business practices to meet the challenges of a constantly changing marketplace, the management decided to go the easy way, or what appeared to be the easy way, they chose a self-proclaimed authority with no relevant background whatsoever in selling hamburgers. It’s one of those comments on modern American life that the fantasy, that desperate desire to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear no matter how impossible the task or unreal the approach, can be realized by making irrational decisions based on wishing it will all work out.

The result is predictable in this case. Gibbs will do nothing for McDonald’s bottom line, nor will he enhance their menu. He’ll simply take their money, blow smoke up the shareholders’ keisters and laugh all the way to the People’s Republic Bank. As for the rest of us, the reasonable, those of us who know exactly what we want, when we want it and how often it is prudent to eat it, we’ll go for those flame-broiled Burger King Whoppers, maybe Wendy’s Hot ‘N Juicy Triples, or…oh yeah, Carl’s Jr.’s Double Western Bacon Cheeseburger with the foxy broad who sports ketchup dripping from her mouth…you keep Gibbs the clown.


Posted in Business, The Nation.

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


There are several gauges of America’s cultural decline, none so dramatic or desperate than Craigslist’s “Women Seeking Men” personals. Discounting the scams and the prostitutes, the balance is a smattering of fat women, young ugly women, old ugly women, black women looking for sugar daddies or white biker trash looking for love. They are without question the dregs and scum of humanity but with broken hearts, broken dreams and no hope whatsoever. In short, Craigslist is the last resort for women, actually men as well, who are broke, unhappy and just plain desperate for anything resembling a relationship.

Yet, testament to the unreality Americans live in, a world brought to them not so much in living color, but with every personal scar, scab, tattoo and piercing imaginable stuck in their faces by others in the same desperate straits, the pleas for partnership from these, the lowest of low creatures, are tainted with caveats and provisos only Marilyn Monroe would have legitimacy demanding.

So woven into the filthy fabric of American life, there exists a Craigslist language all its own, a kind of code in acronyms which allows the worst of the worst entré into a world to which they would never have access in reality. For example, out of the Albany, New York Craigslist “Women Seeking Men” listings, this invitation is typical: (Note: all errors in all citations are sic)

Headline: “Hey;) – ww4m – 26 (Albany, NY)

I’m gonna get to the point! Im a BBW and proud of it;) I’m not about games so please dont come my way with it. I’m looking for someone who’s loving, caring, honest and loyal. Someone who’s not judgmental and is about their business!

In other words, she’s a fat girl who desires a man, but on her terms as if she has a choice. The immediate question becomes, “If you’re that good, why the hell are you on Craigslist searching for someone?” There’s also the issue of beggars not being choosers, an issue this fat girl appears to have consciously avoided or ignored altogether.

The Craigslist language also contains the latest references to what is acceptable to the poster and what isn’t. In the above example, the fat girl also wants the reader to know she is “Disease Free and 420 friendly!! (sic)” That she has to announce the fact she does not carry a bag full of chlamydia, gonorrhea or syphilis is, one supposes, admirable, but the reference to “420” means she smokes pot as well. Just the kind of girl one would love to bring home to Mom.

Then there are the older women. Their desperation is always sad except when they make the attempt to seem more than what they actually are in real life, then it becomes irritating for its presumptuousness. After reading a few of these one wants to ask what happened to aging gracefully which assumes some vestige of dignity.

Consider this woman’s come-on:

Headline: “Mona Lisa Smile- Beautiful & Intelligent with Style – 63 (Albany NY)”

She describes herself as having an “average” body, being 5’6” tall and “single”.

Then she expands on herself. “Beautiful and exotic with the touch of class and grace. Interested in people and the surrounding world. Drawn to beauty in nature, art, theater, music, and dance and the richness of New York. Delights in communication of ideas and other things. Looks very youthful, Accomplished Artist/Educator.

It is one thing to admire yourself, to love yourself, to think of yourself as highly as possible, but it seems a little odd a sixty-three year old woman searching for a man on Craigslist would put herself out there as being “beautiful and exotic” without some kind of evidence especially when she ends her post with a request for proof the potential suitor doesn’t resemble a gargoyle. Not to mention, isn’t beauty in the eyes of the beholder, or has that maxim gone the way of decorum and dignity in America as well?

The abundance of women who simply want sex, but feel it necessary to convert their desire into the Craigslist language is stunning. Take “Sick of games (Troy)” who is “Just looking for physical intimacy. I’m sick of the emotional and the mental games. Fairly attractive, job, car…blah blah…looking for age 26-45…I’m 35. Please respect my time and yours by providing a picture. Please do not contact me if you do not have a job, a car or a place of your own. I am real and looking for no fuss fwb. We are having crazy weather and today would have been great indoors, snuggling 😉

For the uninitiated, “fwb” is of course “friends with benefits” which is another way of saying she is looking for a “fb” which is modern American code for “f__k buddy.” How nice.

And then there’s this: “There has to be one good man left…. – 35 (Amherst)”

What more is there to say? She describes herself as “curvy”…of course, which means she’s fat. Most of the women seeking men on Craigslist describe themselves similarly. They’re fat, but instead of looking in the mirror and declaring their determination to lose weight and then look for a man, they expect Prince Charming to storm their door, sweep them away and live happily ever after.

It is disgusting, not the plaintive outreach for some kind of closeness by ugly, fat women, but the expectation that a good looking, virile, svelte man with a job, a nice car and home, one who is single and carefree is looking for them. It is the height of desperation but with the added burden of total unreality, of being in some fantasy world created by the Internet for just such desperate and unhappy people. It goes hand in hand with the myriad pleas for “support” in all its flavors.

This one says it all: “young jack-of-all-trades artist seeks Patron – 27 (albany ny)”

She’s 5’ 11” tall, describes her personality as “nerdy”, is a “student”, is “curvy” (fat) and she “smokes.” What she wants is someone who is “older, established, stable. May or may not be married/unfulfilled or just single/divorced and lonely. Must have an appreciation for museums, weird poetry, crazy adventures…. wanting to feel young again is a HUGE bonus.

In other words, this fat, nerdy “artist” is willing to ruin someone else’s marriage while having the man pay her for being a fat, nerdy artist in return for which she will provide sexual favors, but only on her terms. They always want everything on their own terms.

In the end, it is probably best for men to review the Craigslist “Women Seeking Men” section if for no other reason than to reaffirm appreciation for their spouses or, if single, to reaffirm the beauty of bachelorhood. In the boneyard of broken dreams that is Craigslist personals you will only find decay, depression and oftentimes dementia.



Posted in American Culture (Or Lack Thereof), The Nation.

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


The truth is, not all cops are bad. In fact, very few of them can be labeled “bad”. Yet, it depends on your definition of “bad” if we are going to determine whether blacks have a right to complain about America’s police.

The best definition of “bad” when referring to cops is one of degrees. Most cops don’t violate the law to the extent they are as bad as real criminals. Then again, some do. Most cops don’t participate in actions against people who break the law in ways that can be considered unusually violent to the point of cruelty though some do.

The big issue about American cops is their view of themselves that separates them from the rest of us, a view which is oftentimes arrogant, abusive and goes completely unchecked.

If you were ever stopped by a cop for something as trivial as a speeding ticket, what were you always told in preparation for the event? “Be respectful, to a fault almost.” How about the cop? How often do you get the feeling that the cop expects you to be respectful, but doesn’t feel the need to return that respect?

If you know cops, you know they run by a completely different set of rules than the rest of us. They almost admit it. The cop clique is so tight, it allows no others in, many times not even spouses. They see themselves as the last bastion of civil order and within that view is the inherent justification for bending the rules of civil respect for the rest of us. In other words, it is understandable if the cop is rude or offensive, he’s got a tough job.

A few weeks ago there was a domestic disturbance in my building. The mother of a daughter with a young child (the grandmother therefore) was banging at the door trying to get in to collect her grandson to take him to school. The daughter, shacked up with her boyfriend had been carousing, smoking pot all night in front of the child. The boyfriend was threatening the grandmother. The cops were called. A young cop showed up. Instead of taking the boyfriend away he berated the grandmother using the “f” word during the conversation. Implicit in this discussion was the warning for the rest of us to shut up, say nothing or risk the cop arresting one of us for defending the grandmother.

Multiply that experience by a thousand and you get the frustration of innocent black people who are routinely treated like criminals thought they may be as law-abiding as the rest of us.

I am not defending the thugs, hoodlums and trash who loot and pillage, or those who commit crimes with such regularity they should be put out of our misery. I’m complaining about the cop attitude, a most pervasive and pernicious mindset that begins the minute a cop receives a badge.

When in graduate school for a Master’s in Public Administration, I was awarded an assistantship with the New York State Department of Correctional Services Training Academy. I was actually assigned to the office of the Superintendent. As an ex-teacher myself, I was given the task of evaluating the Corrections Officer training curriculum in terms of its saliency on a course by course basis. Most courses I found were indeed germane to the overall idea of preparing recruits for their positions. But, since the program had been revamped as a result of the Attica uprising some years before, courses like “Transactional Analysis” had been introduced.

For part of my report, I prepared a questionnaire which all recruits had to answer. One of the questions asked for a definition of “Transactional Analysis”. Not one respondent answered the same as another, and the questionnaire was issued after the course was taught. In short, no one knew what TA was, nor did they understand why it was part of the curriculum. Yet, everyone passed the course.

When I showed the results of my report, including the questionnaire, to the Academy’s hierarchy, I was taken aside by the Superintendent and given in an hour an education in the operations of police-centered bureaucracies that took doctoral candidates years to learn and yet fail to grasp in their academic clouds. The Superintendent told me the candidates for Corrections Officer and for New York State Trooper and for most, if not all police departments in the United States are determined by a very specific kind of test. It is designed to weed out the very brightest and for a good reason, the brightest might have a tendency to see the ridiculousness of a certain law or its application and while in the field make a judgment call rather than simply applying the letter of the law. In other words, according to the Superintendent (who had also done a similar stint at the NYS Trooper Academy), cops aren’t the brightest people in the world and that’s the way the powers-that-be want it.

No system is foolproof however. While making sure cops are only modestly intelligent and therefore more likely to avoid being judge and jury in the field, they very often display a tendency toward using their badges to compensate for those insecurities. The badge is the great equalizer between civilians who are obviously more intelligent and successful. Even then, there are limits. For example, cops are intimidated by attorneys. Why? Because their paucity of legal knowledge in comparison to the average attorney means they can and often are made fools of in courts of law if it comes to it. It’s best to leave an attorney alone unless the infraction is obvious and grave.

Doctors and medical professionals are extended the same “courtesies”. The last thing a cop wants is to hinder a medical professional from doing his or her thing on behalf of a patient in need.

The point is, the rest of us are stuck with cops who see themselves as above those who pay their salaries. They are no different than arrogant bureaucrats only they have the power to entangle citizens in a legal system that at best will require access to legal help at a cost that many times is ruinous. It’s bad enough for white people of limited means, imagine black people with no means whatsoever and a system that takes the cop’s word for everything because there is no one there to defend the defendant.

Again, I am not defending the animals who riot, loot, burn, destroy and hurt other people in the process. I’m of the mind they should all be hauled off and dealt with so severely an example would be laid out for all those who may be so inclined. What I am saying is that cops need to understand, they work for us, legitimate taxpayers who offer them the respect they deserve, but no more than the respect they show in return. They are there to protect and SERVE. Cops generally have forgotten that last part of the mantra.

The media, especially the conservative media is awash with excuses and cover for cops as if they are a breed in need of such protection. Yes, in communities run by Democrats, especially black Democrats, cops are under siege. I am on their side when it comes to work-to-rule or something less in order to protect themselves. If the political structure of a community refuses to support law and order because they are more interested in playing black victim politics, then let the chips fall where they may since it’s black people killing other black people by and large.

In a way it’s like the argument about wars in the Middle East. Some say, “Let them kill each other, who cares?” If blacks don’t care about killing each other, why should the rest of us, especially the cops? But when cops overstep their bounds and begin seeing lording themselves over the population as their duty, that’s when things get a little dicey and people start thinking, they asked for it.

Police all over the country should be a bit more introspective. The badge doesn’t make you anything more than a person with a job. You are not lords and masters, you are servants for the community good. Try and understand that, the rest may fall into place faster and easier than you thought possible.


Posted in American Culture (Or Lack Thereof), Politics, The Nation.

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


Pizza By Patriots, Inc. the company built around U.S. Military Veterans and their spouses has linked up with the world’s leading food truck manufacturer, Prestige Food Trucks out of Orlando, Florida.

Here is the email form Ian Smith, Director of Sales and Markeitng:


Nice speaking with you today.

To recap our phone call. Yes, we are on board to build food trucks for these veterans and be around the $100k price tag. I’ve attached our logo to this email and a link below to our youtube videos. Feel free to grab any images or files from our website that you will need to help spread the word about us building trucks for these veterans.

Warm Regards,
Ian Smith
Director of Sales & Marketing

Watch the video below to see what goes into purchasing and operating a successful pizza truck.


Posted in Business, Fusco Imports, The Nation.

Tagged with , , , , .

© 2006-2015 P. J. Fusco & Co. All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright