Skip to content


As a student of government and its various systems, I am fascinated with the way others who have a similar interest look at the same subjects, especially our own. I never had a chance to communicate with professor Alfred de Grazia much less meet him, but I have read some of his work. It is at times lofty and almost always difficult. Consider his theory of “Quantavolution and Catastrophe” which states that everything, and I do mean everything past, present and in the future changes as a result of major shifts, quantum leaps forward if you will rather than the slow, dramatic evolutionary standard Darwin suggests. You can argue the point if you want, I much prefer professor de Grazia’s approach.

Professor de Grazia was a scientist in the purest form of the word, a Renaissance man with genius in several disciplines, but nowhere was his genius better displayed than in his work on governmental systems. Recently I was reading a piece he wrote and had some comments which I wanted to discuss with him, but when I went to find his email address I found to my dismay he had passed away in July of this year. What a shame, I thought selfishly.

It seems to me testament to a person’s brilliance when he or she can write things which not only stand the test of time for their accuracy, but for their predictive attributes. If you’re like me, you remember those bits and pieces of the things that really lured you into study, a book here, an article there or perhaps a statement someone makes that just makes sense and then as the years pass you realize whenever remembering the bit or piece that it remains true.

In 1966, the American Enterprise Institute published a book entitled “Congress, The First Branch of Government”. Professor de Grazia coordinated the material contained in it, writing the first of the twelve studies, “Toward A New Model Of Congress”.

The entire book should be mandatory reading for today’s House and Senate members for they have either forgotten their roles or as it was recognized 48 years ago, they have made themselves irrelevant by abdicating their duties to the executive and the bureaucracy. It was a warning back then, and Professor de Grazia saw it coming.

The following is taken from his contribution to “Congress, The First Branch of Government”. It was brilliant then and predictive, it remains both.

“Alternative to Congress

Few persons are heard to recommend outright the dissolution of Congress as a branch of government. Probably a good many more would be pleased if Congress would wither away of its own accord or at least be so completely subjected to the executive will that it might perform a mere ceremonial function. There is a good deal of comfortable hypocrisy in this position but the issue is too important to tolerate it. What, in fact, would American government be like if Congress were abolished or, what is practically the same thing, if it had no power except simply to subsist?

The President, at first elected, would in time cause (sic) himself to be elected. As with the Soviet government, he would be chosen from within the presidency. Since hereditary rule is not considered rational in modern times, a monarchy would be avoided. But the President would be emperor of the republic (as Napoleon I had himself titled). All the features of a monarchy that disgusted generations of Americans would appear, but would be Americanized and therefore be rendered palatable.

Every business, including the smallest shop, and every occupation would be vested with a public interest and regulated in detail by the central civil service. Big business would be readily convertible into agencies of big government.

The civil service and the military would be the most highly prestiged classes in the nation.

The states would be vestiges, inefficiently constructed administrative districts, tolerated out of sentiment. Governors and state legislators would be controlled out of national party headquarters. All important laws would be approved in advance by the national executive branch in order to insure their “desirability” and conformity to national policy.

The political parties would be very strong until such time as it became obvious that one party could do the job of two, since neither party could establish a true alternative to the then-existing political order without risking national disaster.

The press, the universities and the intellectuals would not be harshly suppressed. They would exist in a kind of kaiserdom, or early fascism or de Gaulism: free up to a point, said point being defined by the leaders of the central government.

The stimulus for practically all kinds of voluntary activity, including the performing arts and scientific research, would be provided by the central bureaucracy, under occasional prodding from the presidency.

Such would be some of the more important features of the American political landscape

with the Congress removed. The more independent, resourceful, and self-confident Congress is, the less likely is it that those conditions would come about. Good government is a function of an independent set of publics operating through a network of decentralized and autonomous institutions of governmental and non-governmental type, the node of which is the congressional system. The reform of Congress should therefore be guided by this proposition, and proposal for change evaluated in this light.

Contrary to the belief of many, history offers a favorable prognosis for the long run. Men aspiring to a cooperative and equal state will seek to be ruled in accord with their dignity. Such rule is rule by law and mutual consultation. A publicly controlled decision-making council – when free from major superstitions and magical interventions – is the highest form of government that men have yet devised. It can express itself in the family, in the school, in business, in the church, and in the state. So long as men wish a voice about their social destiny, they will seek to be ruled by congresses. They may change the system in many respects: practically no component need retain its particular form and manner. But in the end, it must be the congressional system in substance that will prevail among a self-respecting citizenry.”[1]

[1] De Grazia, Alfred et al. Congress, The First Branch of Government. Toward A New Model Of Congress. Washington: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1966. Print


Posted in Politics, The Nation.

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


“There Will Be Blood” is a movie starring Daniel Day-Lewis who plays Daniel Plainview, a ruthless, vengeful oil baron. Okay, we get it. There is no more of a hackneyed character than a ruthless, vengeful capitalist oil-baron with the exception of a ruthless, vengeful Italian mobster. Had Mr. Plainview been Mr. Pianuravista he would not be more believable as an American oil tycoon, but at least he would have had the dimension of a truly unforgiving creature, for no people on earth hold grudges longer, better or more bitterly than Italians. I know this first hand. Italians consider revenge to be sacrosanct, the vendetta a solemn undertaking. You never slight an Italian, you always cut him to the soul. He burns as white hot about being served lukewarm soup as he does about being stabbed. Their hatred for people who con and cheat them is the stuff of legend. We can learn a great deal from Italians when it comes to such art as it should be applied to the political class in this country.

The Republicans conned us into voting for them in November. Last night they cheated and stole from us in what can only be considered the most vile betrayal in the history of American politics. Special vengeance must be directed at the Republicans more than the others in that House of Shame. Thus the phrase, “there will be blood” fits perfectly the situation we are facing in America at this moment.

With last night’s passage of a $1.1 trillion dollar omnibus spending bill in the House of Representatives, Republicans made it clear they do not care what Americans want much less get the message we sent last month.

What is there to do? Clearly the enemy is not one party, it’s both parties, but at least the Democrats are in your face about stealing and cheating. It is a far greater crime to cheat and steal stealthily as did the Republicans.

We’ve been sold a bill of goods in which we were under the belief that our system provides a lever which we can pull to change our political circumstances. Either the lever is broken or pulling it is meaningless. The latter seems to be the present case since the lever worked in the past and the mechanism hasn’t changed much since our founding.

We have civil strife, racial hatred and a flood of illegal immigrants living among us at home, a mounting list of enemies abroad, an anemic economy, a jobless rate that in truth is frightening, an out-of-control President, a debt that is increasingly insurmountable and a Congress that will not respond to the demands of the voters. We voted, we won, but we lost. There will be blood, there has to be, we’ve tried everything else.

You’re shaking your head. “There must be something we can do besides spilling blood,” you’re saying. We’re talking political blood however.

There are consequences for elected officials who refuse to obey the voters’ commands. But the voters cannot have the attention spans of fleas if they are to pose a threat to politicians. It is incumbent on voters to remember what these people did to us when they had the opportunity to do precisely what we the voters wanted them to do. They cheated us. We sent them the message we wanted a fight, not cooperation with the White House, but they folded on the eve of battle. Cowards is too good a word. The House Republicans beginning with John Boehner are criminals, petty thieves who stole our votes.

Now it’s time to turn Italian. Never forget, always harbor a seething hatred for them and when the time is right strike them where they live and breathe.

Next election, it will be our turn again, but when the time does come, do not fall prey to the rationales, the excuses, the escapes they will try selling you on what they did and why. Be Italian. No matter what they tell you, even if it makes sense and is true, don’t listen. Take revenge so that the next politician fears you sufficiently he or she does precisely what he or she is told. That’s the Italian way. That should be the American way. Remember the truth and vote accordingly. Get rid of them and keep getting rid of them whenever they do not perform according to the will of the voters. Remember this: All politicians are the enemy all the time. They will never be there for us, they will always be there for them. Never forget that.


Posted in Politics, The Nation.

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


One of Metropolitan State University of Denver’s stated missions is to transform lives. It’s stated on their “About” page right under the school’s name. How this transformation is accomplished may have more to do with indoctrination than any academic exchange of information. Witness Professor Charles Angeletti’s compulsory requirement that students in his classes recite an aberrant rendition of the American Pledge of Allegiance:

“I pledge allegiance to and wrap myself in the flag of the United States Against Anything Un-American and to the Republicans for which it stands, two nations, under Jesus, rich against poor, with curtailed liberty and justice for all except blacks, homosexuals, women who want abortions, Communists, welfare queens, treehuggers, feminazis, illegal immigrants, children of illegal immigrants, and you if you don’t watch your step.”

What kind of mush-headed pupils would pay to hear such drivel from a man who acknowledges he is a Socialist, Communist and atheist? Are our students so weak and frightened of a bad grade they will sit and listen to such a disgraceful jab at the very country which gives Mr. Angeletti the freedom to say what he does?

Clearly the threat is real. Anyone who has attended college knows a professor or two who punished those displaying any kind of ability at intellectual swordsmanship which challenged the great mind’s ideology. But where is it written anywhere that the students who attend such institutions can be forced by the threat of a failing grade to recite something many may find reprehensible? Somewhere in the system of educating our children there must or should be a way for students to fight back and it must be entirely independent of the institution. Moreover the system should include punishments for teachers like Angeletti (who is a disgrace to the Italian-American community as well) who use their power and the threat of bad grades to force students to do anything. It amounts to raping students intellectually. Mr. Angeletti is a campus rapist of that order.

Still, you can’t simply blame Angeletti without blaming his employer. Below is a screenshot of the “Contact” page on the Metropolitan University website. Note the actual methods of contact include “900 # (if applicable)”. In what world of higher education except the sickest and most perverted would a method of contact be leaving a 900 number?metstuofdenver

You might think there is a legitimate reason for the school asking if you would like to leave a 900 number for someone to contact you, but we looked and found there are very limited uses for 900 numbers aside from the sexual, most of them no longer in existence. lists “12 (Non-Sexual) Uses for 900 Numbers”. In 1977 you could dial up President Carter on a 900 number to ask him a question such as, “Mr. President, why are you such an abject failure?” In the 1980s you could get in touch with NASA to see what was going on or vote to kill off Batman’s sidekick Robin by calling 900 numbers. And, if that wasn’t enough for you way back then, you could dial up Hulk Hogan with a 900 number just to say, “Hi Hulk.”

According to, 900 numbers are pretty much a past porno device presumably superseded by virtual reality gizmos offering a date with Belle Knox of Duke University. So, what’s going on at Metropolitan State University of Denver?

That a so-called professor can teach at a facility (MSU of Denver hardly qualifies as a respected institution of higher learning as their accreditation is with something called the Higher Learning Commission North Central Association) for fifty years and get away with tirades against the United States as viable learning experiences should not be tolerated. But when you consider the school doesn’t even take itself seriously, then it’s understandable if not agreeable. But seriously, how can the place think much of itself when its contact page suggests interested people leave a 900 number?

Perhaps the school’s Board of Trustees headed by Michelle M. Lucero sees its role as leading a giddy tongue-in-cheek sexually charged liberal intellectual orgy where students are encouraged to playfully interact with teachers and administrators who see education as a game of nude Twister. Professor Angeletti and his colleagues deserve each other, but the students deserve neither. They need an education not four years or more of inculcation.


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

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


A Letter to MIT President, L. Rafael Reif

Dear Mr. Reif:

Jonathan Gruber

You are aware of Jonathan Gruber’s testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today thus you are aware that his answers to the questions directed to him were at best evasive, at worst entirely dishonest,  Aside from the obvious legal implications of lying to a Congressional panel and being part of what is now in some circles being labeled a fraud perpetrated on the American citizenry, there is another I believe larger issue which should disturb anyone in academia.  Jonathan Gruber admitted several times that when he was “conjecturing” in his various speeches on the subject of the Affordable Care Act, he was doing so to make himself look “smarter” in other people’s eyes.  It is unnecessary to go into the psychology of someone who has such a need, especially since it was clearly a ruse designed by his attorney or whoever is handling the disaster that is Mr. Gruber’s career.  But beneath the surface of his statements there is an alarming paucity of intellectual honesty which should preclude anyone from taking the position as teacher, and if he is nothing else, he is a teacher at your institution.

How do you explain to students and parents that hiring and keeping a man who categorically debases the entire thinking world is proper?  He has disgraced all of us who cherish scholarship and research, who consider study an almost holy endeavor.  Mr. Gruber has given form to the idea that people who think are to be distrusted since their thinking is imbued with a political agenda.  And while that may be true in far too many circles, Jonathan Gruber has identified himself as one of its great partisans and in the process brought suspicion and shame on everyone else in the process.  He has made the profession of study a laughingstock, for if a man with an agenda like Gruber can be in control of a curriculum designed to enrich minds, surely he can be counted on to twist them without any regard for truth and the scientific method.

You are under no obligation to respond to me, nor are you under any obligation to take my advice, but I will offer it anyway.  Jonathan Gruber does no service to the history and tradition of excellence at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  On the contrary, he sullies them with his arrogance and disregard for its reputation.  You would be hard put to answer a parent’s request as to why he remains on your faculty after such a public display of his disdain for all that must be part of the academic world, one that eschews an agenda for truth no matter what it looks like, no matter what political notation it may make.

I urge you to make a statement not for MIT alone, but for all academia that such people as Jonathan Gruber are not welcome in its ranks.  Truth in learning should be the foremost driving factor, if it is discounted as a paltry means to a an end not of an agenda, those who purvey that which is left in its wake are no better than common brigands.  Fire him sir, fire that man.


Peter J. Fusco



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

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


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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

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