Skip to content


FRANK LUNTZ AND OTHER FRAUDS

The problem for conservatives in terms of getting their news is the single choice they have, FOX. But has FOX morphed into another cog in the mainstream media machine? We say, yes.

Roger Ailes, CEO of FOX News defended Megyn Kelly this week against Republican Presidential nominee, Donald Trump’s comments about her. The feud between Kelly and Trump exacerbated by his recent tweets including, “I liked The Kelly File much better without @megynkelly” and “Perhaps she could take another eleven day unscheduled vacation!” FOX states her vacation was scheduled several weeks in advance and had nothing to do with the debate debacle in which she pointedly asked Trump questions about his past references to women he disliked. Surprisingly, he was not only unharmed by his politically incorrect statements, on the contrary, his popularity increased much to FOX’s bewilderment if not consternation. Kelly cannot rise above the ongoing fray, she lost. According to Greta Van Susteren, FOX has been inundated with negative emails regarding Kelly’s performance during the debate.

Trump’s rise in the polls, not to mention his staying power in the race, has dumbfounded the political class as well, especially the pollsters and consultants on whom the rest of us depend for candidate presentation during election seasons. They can’t understand how it is someone who defies their logic, spits in the face of their advice, ignores their demand for parsing every position so as to fit in with the image of a candidate who can and will work with the other side remains in the leading position. There is an answer and it comes with the forest for the trees sense of what is real and what isn’t. Not only don’t they know the voters, like the political class itself, the purveyors of political knowledge have no capacity to know them. The political class and its minions live in a bubble so thick, nothing gets in and nothing of any value gets out. They have no interest in what is good for the people of the United States because they don’t know what the people of the United States want. The people know this which is why they’ve turned on the political class so completely and why Trump is leading everywhere.

This is a great surprise to people like Frank Luntz, FOX’s go-to pollster. It makes sense, Luntz is a total fraud. His focus groups are concocted, pieced together with people he hand picks for their views so that the results on camera appear to be spontaneous and representative. They are no such thing. Immediately after the August 6, 2015 GOP presidential debate hosted by FOX News, Luntz queried a focus group he assembled and asked them about Donald Trump’s performance. They were almost unanimously in agreement that he did poorly. The subsequent polls told a very different story. Clearly Luntz’s focus group was pandering to the network and audience in support of Megyn Kelly. And yet, Trump not only held his top position, he increased it.

The Atlantic said his performance was “poor”. The Fiscal Times stated his “performance should kill his candidacy”. The same analysis came from legions of other sources. They were all wrong. Ben Kamisar of The Hill is among those insiders scratching heads. “Pollsters dumbfounded by Trump” he declared today as an announcement, something the rest of America should know, but doesn’t. It is a testament to the political class’ ignorance regarding how Americans really feel and think. His first sentence supports the contention, “Polling experts agree on one thing when it comes to Donald Trump’s presidential run: They’ve never seen anything like it.” Where has Kamisar been for the last two months? The same place as the establishment Republican party, with their heads firmly entrenched in their posteriors.

And that is the point. Whether good or bad, Donald Trump’s candidacy is real, very real. It is symptomatic of an equally real anger among white people especially, but it is also a function of a culture that superimposes personality and celebrity over everything, especially character.

This is not to say anything disparaging about Trump. His character may be of the highest order, but it means nothing in the grand scheme. Blasted with information from an array of sources, much of it as phony as the source from which it comes, Americans believe what they see and hear, they have to, there is no way of making informed decisions on their own other than culling through the garbage to get to the truth, a painstaking and time consuming process few have the willingness or ability to pursue. One is left believing what one needs to believe based on what appears to be real. At the very minimum, perhaps because people have watched Donald Trump over the years, he represents a reality they can trust. One may not agree with his every stance, but it cannot be denied he speaks the language angry voters understand.

Pollsters like Frank Luntz who stand confused about Trump’s success do so because they are not so much nonpartisan researchers, but shills for particular political parties. When was Frank Luntz right? He predicted Romney would win. Realclearpolitics reported that the Luntz frocus group said Trump “crashed and burned” at the debate. FOX News Insider said Luntz’s focus group was “overwhelmingly turned off” by Trump and yet on Tuesday of this week (August 25th) Luntz interviewed of group of Trump supporters who made his legs shake for their fervor. Why would he need to interview a group of Trump’s supporters? The reason is, all the other pollsters were showing Trump ahead by large numbers. Luntz was in a singular minority showing Trump to be disliked. In other words, he looked like the fraud that he is and needed to change the perspective by showing the other side.

It isn’t Trump’s popularity which changed in two weeks, so it must be Luntz’s approach. “Dumbfounded” may therefore be a misnomer. It is more likely the pollsters, pundits and practitioners live in the same vacuum as the political class they serve and are intuitively, substantially and purposely ignorant of the people’s views.

It has been written here many times, Hillary Clinton will never be President of the United States, nor will Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. The next president will come from Republican ranks, but not because voters want a Republican, they don’t. Take a look around, rank and file Republicans intensely dislike their party and its leadership as much as they dislike Democrats. It is the very reason Donald Trump is on top. He dislikes the establishment as well. And while the other candidates may make a show of distancing themselves from the establishment GOP, they cannot in reality. Every GOP candidate aside from Trump needs the party and its money.

If the Republican establishment doesn’t understand that there is a palpable hatred for them as a result of people feeling they were conned in the 2014 election, they will most assuredly come to the realization in this and subsequent election seasons. To be clear, the people are coming for you. They’ve had it with both parties and the entire political class. Republicans of the establishment should, like Luntz, be shaking in their shoes. Not a one of them is safe. While pollsters and pundits might see it very differently and wrongly, voters will not forget what the politicians didn’t do.

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation.

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


O’REILLY GETS IT WRONG…AGAIN

On his program last night, August 19, 2015, Bill O’Reilly argued with Andrea Tantaros about a Supreme Court decision from 1985, INS v. Rios-Pineda. He vociferously claimed he was right and Ms. Tantaros was wrong (as was Donald Trump the previous night) about so-called anchor babies, children born in America to illegal aliens living here. O’Reilly said INS v. Rios-Pineda was the definitive and declarative issuance of the Supreme Court regarding the Fourteenth Amendment’s provision that people born in America are automatically American citizens. In fact, O’Reilly was and is wrong. The case had nothing whatsoever to do with the Fourteenth Amendment and anchor babies. It had to do with the Attorney General’s discretionary ability to deport people who are here illegally.

O’Reilly also stated that there would be no way the Supreme Court’s decision in the matter of anchor babies (their status which depends on his faulty interpretation of the above case and the Fourteenth Amendment’s provisions) could be overturned. There are numerous cases in which the Supreme Court has overturned itself.

But it is O’Reilly’s misrepresentation, whether by incompetence of his staff or a willful effort on his part to push his opinion on the status of anchor babies and the impossibility of sending them back to the native country of their parents with their parents in tow, that irks those of us who want precisely that.

O’Reilly purposely cut off Ms. Tantaros when she made the effort to clarify the Fourteenth Amendment’s original purpose. Without O’Reilly badgering us or breaking in, here is the contrary argument:

In a lengthy discussion of citizenship, “The Oxford Companion To The Supreme Court Of The United States” edited by Professor Kermit Hall of the University of Tulsa, asks, “What, then, would make a person a United States citizen?”1 The answer is constitutionally vague, but its foundation rests in the ancient prescription of jus soli or “right of land or ground”. As explained by Professor Hall, jus soli is as opposed to another means of deciding citizenship, one which Americans inherently find hateful and have rejected from our founding, jus sanquinis or the “right of blood”. Jus soli refers to the right of citizenship based on place of birth.

Hall points out, until 1868 and the Fourteenth Amendment, the Constitution was relatively silent on the subject of citizenship. “The Constitution referred to but did not define U.S. Citizenship”2. It merely addressed the necessity for citizenship when seeking public office and as citizenship affected people of one state vis a vis other states. The primary aspect of the Constitution’s referral to citizenship status was to guarantee, in a time of strict states’ rights, that a citizen of one state would not be discriminated against in another. “Not until the slavery crisis did the principle of jus soli (sic) become an explicit part of the Constitution – in spite of what the Supreme Court ruled (in Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857))”3 This conflicts with O’Reilly’s contention that the Supreme Court’s assertion of anchor babies’ status as citizens is somehow carved in stone and can never be reversed. That he could make such a claim in light of the Dred Scott decision and its effective rejection by the addition of the Fourteenth Amendment is astounding.

The point is, the Supreme Court is not the final decision in the matter of illegal immigration, anchor babies or any other matter of law. Laws have and will change regardless of the Supreme Court’s decisions. It is precisely why we have constitutional provisions for overturning the decisions made by the various branches of government.

O’Reilly was wrong in spite of his bullying Ms. Tantaros into silence. Had he listened to her or given her fair time, he would have learned what most people, including O’Reilly himself it appears, don’t understand about the Fourteenth Amendment’s origins. It was a direct assault on Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney’s infamous Dred Scott decision. Hall states, “Taney’s opinion…denied that a person of African descent could be a citizen of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment exploded this decision by declaring that ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.’”4

Hall goes on to state, “The Fourteenth Amendment did not settle the matter entirely in favor of birthright citizenship”.5 He cites Elk v. Wilkins (1884) as an example in which “Native Americans born in the United States were not automatically citizens.”6

Hall further explains, “Though the Supreme Court has had many cases requiring interpretation of these amendments (having to do with citizenship), the concept of citizenship per se has not been at the core of these disputes”.7

Finally, Professor Hall writes, “While the Court has upheld birthright citizenship and has erected high barriers to deprivation of citizenship, its equal protection decisions have tended to underscore the Constitution’s tendency toward a narrow conception of citizenship closely tied to voting and office holding.”8

Clearly therefore the possibility of reinterpreting the Fourteenth Amendment as it applies to anchor babies is not only possible, but in the present political climate, inevitable.

If O’Reilly needs any more clarification he might turn to University of Virginia Professor of Law, David M. O’Brien’s “Constitutional Law And Politics Volume 2” in which he discusses the Fourteenth Amendment as a means for the Court to extend economic protections to individuals regardless of their race or status as citizens of particular states. “The drafters of the amendment in the Thirty-ninth Congress thought that the privileges or immunities clause was the most important guarantee, because it expressly prohibited states from denying the privileges and immunities of being a citizen of the United States.”9

Again, the protections afforded to individuals by the Fourteenth Amendment were never intended to be extended beyond the rights of antebellum slaves and their descendants to be viewed as citizens of the United States. The protections were most certainly not for the benefit of illegal aliens and their children whether born here or not. More importantly, subsequent interpretations by the Supreme Court are more along the lines of restating the privileges and immunities clause which O’Brien writes, “simply forbids states from discriminating against citizens of other states.”10

The Fourteenth Amendment took on an even broader meaning regarding citizenship in Butchers’ Benevolent Association v. Crescent City Livestock Landing & Slaughterhouse Co. (1873) in which Justice Samuel Miller, “upholding a Louisiana law that created a monopoly on the operation of slaughterhouses…construed citizenship in the states and the United States to be distinct and separate and the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to national citizenship.”11 On behalf of his clients, the butchers in this case, attorney John Campbell argued the Fourteenth Amendment “had a grander purpose than just guaranteeing the rights of former slaves. Its due process clause guaranteed individual freedom, free enterprise, and laissez-faire individualism.”12 In other words, the Court has viewed the Fourteenth Amendment not as a vehicle to claim citizenship by birth, but as a guarantee of rights for erstwhile slaves and their descendants as well as a guarantee of personal freedoms for individuals and their pursuit of happiness.

The Bill O’Reilly interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment has merit in that the modern adaptation seems to favor citizenship for anyone born here, but it is not so very clear and a challenge might prove otherwise. The next President may in fact take the initiative to suspend such an interpretation and begin deporting children of illegals along with their law-breaking parents. Political correctness aside, the survival of the country depends on either a reinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s provisions for birthright citizenship or repeal of the amendment and replacement with one which guarantees the rights of people, but does not offer automatic citizenship to children born to people here illegally.

1Hall, Kermit. Editor-in-chief. The Oxford Companion To The Supreme Court Of The United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Hardcover book. Pages 146 – 147

2Ibid

3Ibid

4Ibid

5Ibid

6Ibid

7Ibid

8Ibid

9O’Brien, David M. Constitutional Law And Politics Volume 2. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1995. Softcover book.

10Ibid

11Ibid

12Ibid

Share

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

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


ANGER, FRUSTRATION AND HILLARY’S BAD TIMING

Visitors to this site have long known there was and is no fear of Hillary Clinton becoming President. Our reasons have not changed either. Not because of “Emailgate” will she fail, but something far more fundamental, something not even a Clinton can escape, the ravages of time. The scandals that surround her simply add weight to her sinking ship. She is and will remain yesterday’s news as far as voters are concerned. Her poll numbers are indicators of that truth. More significant is the total lack of anything remotely similar to excitement about her or her campaign.

Every other candidate, including Bernie Sanders, can boast an energetic following. Not so Hillary. Her people are as much yesterday’s news as she is. Small crowds of feminized males, but mostly worn out drab old women from the sixties and seventies on personal missions to stuff their bras in men’s faces. Look at them, ancient hippies, libbers and dusty divorcees devoted to the past, frightened to death of growing old and being forced to recognize their uselessness and the idiocy of their cause(s).

Hillary lovers will rightfully point out there are thousands of her supporters who certainly do not fit the above physical descriptions. They would be entirely correct except for one thing, those who don’t are those who are old and disgruntled in their souls. The soft support she receives otherwise comes from women who occupy temporary space in Watter’s World. Empty-headed know-nothings who haven’t a clue why they support Hillary Clinton, they just do. When it comes time to vote however, should it be fashionable to vote for Alice Kramden, they will…if they make it to the polls.

Many who read this will ask, “How do you know all this?” “Experience” would be the first response. Based on years steeped in the politics of the American system, having closely observed presidential elections starting with Kennedy’s, having studied the governmental system, written about it for over forty years, it may not be totally without some conjecture, but the opinions presented on this site are rooted in an understanding beyond the fundamental. That’s another way of saying it all amounts to an educated guess. The thoughts herein are no better or accurate and certainly no worse and inaccurate than any pundit’s out there. In short, like you, I’m a voter and therefore have an opinion.

Sometimes it comes down to instinct or a general sense of what is going on around you. The political winds seem to be carrying with them a scent of the country’s mood. This will be no ordinary election. No matter how it shakes out, the country will veer right as it always has when things have gone too far for American sensibilities. Unless you suffer from political analgesia, you are aware that Americans are in no mood to continue down the same road Obama has led it.

There is an unspoken undercurrent of a very real belief. Label it whatever one will, Americans know beyond a doubt it was a mistake to elect someone based solely on the fact he is black and it was time to give black people a turn at the helm. Clearly, race can no longer be a reason for putting people in places they do not belong. Whether by design or incompetence every evil concept, from abortion to drugs to coddling terrorists, kowtowing to tin pot potentates, openly violating the Constitution, lying, cheating and subverting the country’s laws, all have been the hallmarks of Obama’s presidency as reflected in the soul of the Democrat party. He, they and the media that supports them hate this country as does Hillary Clinton who hates it for electing a black man before a white woman. That grudge will not go away and yet Obama not only defeated her in 2008, he took from her the main reason she would have been elected this time around, her status as “first”.

The “first woman president” holds little sway with today’s voters. Barack Obama killed the concept. It’s not news nor is it considered a major historical achievement. The country is under no misconception, to elect someone just because she’s a woman is as bad as electing someone just because he’s black. Americans have been there, done that. They won’t do it again.

Americans will elect someone who makes them proud to be Americans again. They are sick and tired of being forced to bow to the rest of the world. We are not comfortable being second best. We are America and like it or not we own the world. It depends on us to be strong and in evil’s face. No other country can take on the enemies of freedom and peace except the United States. We will meet and embrace our destiny regardless of the nitwitted boobs who seek to destroy us from within through a perverted political system. Whether it be through the vote or a civil uprising, Americans will not be denied their rightful place in world history much less their freedom and liberty. We are not only angry, we are livid and any candidate who does not see and understand that is a damn fool and as such undeserving of the Presidency.

The time is here. It’s in the air. The sensation is palpable. Americans have four main ideas in mind, expand the economy, close the borders and make war on both their own government and Islam. The person who can convince voters he or she can do those things will be the next President of the United States.

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation.

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


ONLY FOOLS IGNORE THE OBVIOUS; TRUMP AND THE AMERICAN MOOD

In the book, “Running: How To Design and Execute A Winning Political Campaign” there is a piece of advice all presidential candidates should read and to which they should adhere. It has to do with the most preliminary assessment of their potential candidacy before the actual decision to run is made.

Every person intent on participating in the political process at the electoral level, whether it be village council or President must first ask himself or herself why they are considering running. Depending on the answer, the campaign will either thrive or die, all things being equal and fair including and especially the timing of their quest.

Obviously, the present slew of presidential candidates have already had that sit-down with themselves. They all must believe they are running to make the United States a better, safer, more prosperous place to live. On an individual level they must believe they can do the job better than any of the others.

Armed with their convictions, the candidates go forth to a place they are convinced will bring them the grand prize, the campaign. And that’s where the majority of this season’s crop fail so miserably. Virtually all the candidates, Clinton included, are politicians. They’ve come to power in their respective roles by a process that envelopes politicians and politicians only. As creatures of habit, Americans elected them without considering they are part of the now entrenched political class. Indeed, the term, “political class” like “gravitas” and “family values” has only surfaced in this cycle as a result of America’s great awakening. The electorate may be separated by ideology via habitual or familial party affiliation, but it has strangely coalesced around the frustration over blind and deaf politicians who absolutely refuse to do what they were sent to office to do.

It is the perfect storm for the political class. To be a politician in the political game at the presidential level (and the legislative level as will be seen in the 2016 election) is anathema to the electorate whether Democrat or Republican. Voters want a savior, and they want that savior to come from outside the political class. The Democrats have no such candidate, so they will throw their support behind that person who represents the most radical side of their party in lieu of one. But the Republicans have a sizable contingent of players, three of whom are not members of the political class.

This is not to say Trump, Fiorina and Carson provide the answers to what ails America, it is to say they are in the running for one reason, the worst reason, because they aren’t what the others are. Out of the three, Dr. Ben Carson would be the worst choice for President. He has no experience whatsoever at the helm of a large organization, brilliant though he might be. America has suffered under a similar level of incompetence from lack of experience and it is where it is on account of that paucity.

Fiorina and Trump have said experience, but so do many of the others on the roster, perhaps better experience in dealing with the political system. But it is Trump and to a lesser extent, Fiorina and Carson who have garnered the attention of the electorate. The reason goes back to another of the precepts laid down in “Running: How To Design and Execute A Winning Political Campaign”, if the candidate has answered the question, “Why do I want to run?” and believes the answer reflects his or her true core beliefs, then they have to prepare for battle and fight the fight. Most, if not all of the presidential candidates will tell you that is what they’re doing, but their fights are scripted and focus-grouped, their battle plans made by professional handlers who poll, put their fingers in the political wind and then direct operations on what they believe they have learned.

As any military leader with fighting experience will tell you, battles are won as much by instinct as by application of methods and tactics. As any street kid will attest, the fight is won as much by determination than it is any great ability. The common denominator in all battles, whether in war or politics is instinct and determination. Without the innate sense of the electorate’s concerns and determination to address them forcefully and genuinely no matter where, when or with whom, there can be no victory.

Donald Trump leads the pack of Republican candidates for a very good reason. He is not afraid to do battle…with everyone. Anyone who has the least knowledge of the American psyche knows Americans love a fighter, especially one who is willing to take on all comers no matter the consequences. They admire the person who lives the concept of do or die because it’s what they have to do regularly. Americans understand, today more than ever before, life in the United States has become an incessant war with the powers that be.

As the author of “Running: How To Design and Execute A Winning Political Campaign”, my advice to the Republican candidates pitted against Trump is to get angry, not with the Donald, but with every frustration the American people feel. Get and remain angry at a government so out of control it literally oppresses the governed. Be furious over what has happened to traditional values in this country, the moral collapse that is part and parcel of liberal ideology. Be incensed over the power grabbed by the Executive branch, the spinelessness of the Congress and the clear violation of the Supreme Court’s reason for existence. Do not be afraid to call a spade a spade even if it risks offending a loud segment of society which though backed by the media is unimportantly small in the electoral scheme.

The most important advice is this: Listen to the people, listen to them closely, your people, not the other side’s. Mitt Romney was right, 47% of the electorate will never vote for you no matter how you pander, but the other 53% will if you speak their language and address their concerns as your own. The 2016 voter does not want to hear what the candidates have planned for them, they want the candidates to follow the voters’ plans, do what the voters want.

Trump is cleaning the other candidates’ clocks because he does the above. He responds to precisely what voters are thinking and says what they would love to say themselves but have no power or venue to say it. There is no shame in copying the winning strategy, the other candidates should wake up and do so.

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation.

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


GLENN BECK, IN NEED OF A VACCINATION AGAINST PRIDE AND HYPOCRISY

In Friday, August 14, 2015’s edition of The Blaze.com, Oliver Darcy’s column, “Glenn Beck Has an ‘Honest Question’ for Hannity, Limbaugh and Coulter: ‘I Really Want to Understand’” suggests a premise that is not necessarily truthful. In addition, Beck’s display of hypocrisy is rather astonishing in light of his public persona as a fair and open minded person when it comes to real dialogue among competing philosophies and interests.

PJFOTN published an essay on June 16, 2015, the day Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President entitled, “Glenn Beck’s Shtick”. It stated plainly that when Beck and company don’t like someone, they shred him or her publicly under the guise of “entertainment”. Clearly they do not like Donald Trump, nor do they care for Jeb Bush or Mike Huckabee. But the idea that there is something wrong with other radio mega-stars and authors who don’t see it the same way as Beck does is egregiously egocentric and hypocritical to an unbelievable degree.

Beck asks, “Why?” assuming, wrongly as it turns out, Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter are actually in support of Donald Trump because they don’t routinely lambaste him as does Beck. Perhaps he doesn’t listen to Limbaugh or Hannity. If he does, he apparently fails to understand what most of their listeners do. Limbaugh and Hannity certainly don’t support Trump or anyone else yet, but they give him credit for accomplishing what he has so far. They don’t bash him because that’s not their job.

In the last essay we wrote about Beck, we questioned who made him and his crew the arbiters of all political sense, religious faith and patriotism. What hypocrites to be sitting there every day calling on people to join their various efforts on behalf of political freedom, Constitutional adherence, love and peace etc. while at the same time determining how we should bring those goals about and who among the political candidates is best able to lead us to success. Not suggesting mind you, or putting them out there as politically naked as possible, but telling us who we should consider. Isn’t that the same thing the elitists on the left do every day? And if it wasn’t enough telling us what we should think and do, Beck chastises those who don’t agree with him and ridicules candidates he doesn’t like who are in the fray making their bids. Some days, listening to Beck is like listening to a Dickensian shrew on a gin bender.

From all accounts Glenn Beck is the same person in private as he is in public, that alone speaks highly for him except for the fact he is not immune to the trap that is fame, he believes his own press. To routinely act like he knows better than anyone else who should be seriously considered for President and who should be discounted out of hand is the height of ego, the epitome of elitism, the very characteristics of those the rest of us are championing against. We therefore justifiably ask, “Who the hell are you to tell the rest of us what and how to think?” You’re not fooling us by couching it all in syllogisms which appear inarguable, it’s intellectually dishonest. While Limbaugh convinces us, Beck demands we go along. That is the difference between Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity.

The issue is not whether or not Donald Trump should be POTUS, he shouldn’t in our opinion for all the reasons Beck posits and more he fails to present. As stated on this site in the recent past, we already have an egomaniac as president, we do not need another even if he is ostensibly on our side. But we also don’t need anyone from the political class. They are the very same people who brought us to this point after a century of bastardizing the Constitution. Most of all however, we don’t need Glenn Beck telling us anything without disclaiming it as his opinion and without condemning everyone who does not fit his mold.

Rush Limbaugh is king of the radio for a very good reason. If Beck would listen closely he would understand Limbaugh never tells his audience what they should think and believe, he advises them based on his perceptions. Hannity, though different in his approach, not as subtle perhaps, also makes the attempt to present all sides. Their loyalty is to the cause, not to the candidates although it is often clear who they prefer. But Beck is in your face, “Like this guy or else!”

Glenn Beck needs a vaccination against pride. He is not the smartest guy in the room, regardless of his press and sycophants telling him so. He is a bright, dedicated guy who wants the best for the country, but as he sees the best. What he may not realize, although it is impossible to think he doesn’t, is that he could be wrong, not just about Trump, but about his own opinions generally.

In the end, Donald Trump is not the right person for the presidency, nor is Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush for that matter, IN OUR OPINION. We have our favorites, but so do millions of Americans who are absorbing the campaign(s) without Glenn Beck’s demand to consider only those he considers. Sometimes Glenn Beck is as much an egomaniac as the people he condemns and that is a person to be wary of, not one to be followed blindly.

Finally, if Glenn Beck thinks he has the solutions, then he should run for the Presidency himself. It is the most irksome thing in the world for a listener to programs like Beck’s knowing he does not have the guts to actually throw his hat in the ring, take his shot and make the difference he proposes others can or cannot make.

Share

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

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


THE HILLARY PROBLEM, NOT SO SIMPLE

Hillary Clinton is dismissing her email scandal as simply politics. Bill Clinton could have probably gotten away with such a claim. But Hillary is not Bill Clinton. In truth, she is nothing like him. He has been lauded as the ultimate politician, not an honor in today’s atmosphere, but a kind of begrudging acknowledgment of the respect he has for being what he is, much like a hound dog that is the best hound dog in the world. Hillary lacks that cachet, she is stiff, shifty and spoiled, a profoundly bad presidential candidate if all things were equal.

But all things are not equal. She is after all, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and that means something, or does it?

It has long been maintained on this site that the average American has a gnat’s attention span. It has also long been stated here that whether it be the fault of a failing education system, modern media, the Internet or a mix of them all, Americans are about as discerning when it comes to their political leadership as they are when it comes to a decision on which of the big three offers the best cheeseburger. That is to say, if one has grown up on McDonald’s, Burger King or Wendy’s, it is likely they will buy their burgs from the most familiar joint. That appears however to be Mrs. Clinton’s problem. People aren’t buying cheeseburgers from the old familiar places anymore.

Worse for Hillary, millennials did not grow up on the Clintons. They don’t remember the heady days of Al Gore inventing the Internet. The fall of the Soviet Union is such ancient history, it’s back there with the Hittites and Sanskrit. In short, Hillary is old news, very old news, old enough that when she uses the same old lame excuses her husband used in the 90s to escape his peccadilloes, they sound so disingenuous to the young, they’re laughable, and so old and moldy to the rest of us they’ve fallen on deaf ears.

Deaf ears are one thing, tin ears are another. Hillary has two and they serve her ill. Americans may be a short-sighted people with collective ADHD, but they have heard enough lies, half-lies, prevarications and distortions from the entire political class that Clinton sloughing off something which put General David Petraeus in the Justice Department’s crosshairs and got him convicted of a crime just plain smacks of total unfairness, and if Americans are anything, they are fair-minded.

It would be one thing if Hillary was likable, she’s not. No one who looks at and listens to her for any length of time comes away thinking that’s all there is, there’s nothing more to the person, she’s all out there with total sincerity and veracity, says what she means and means what she says. The polls say it all though her most loyal people discount them. Quinnipiac University’s “Tim Malloy said Hillary Clinton’s numbers on honesty and trustworthiness ‘border on abysmal.’” Several other polls say the same. Again, presumably, based on his history though it be a long, long time ago itself, Bill Clinton could have weathered the public’s assessment, but not so Hillary, she just doesn’t have the mojo.

More disturbing for her are the very real rumblings of discontent in the Democrat party, an organization which has drifted so far left under Obama they are anxious about Hillary’s political philosophy. She’s not left enough. And though being so left is a prescription for electoral disaster, that Clinton is perceived as outside the leftist mainstream counts against her among the faithful. Better the Democrats foist a Bernie Sanders or an Elizabeth Warren on the scene than a candidate who is not only legally tainted, but one whose uber-leftist credentials don’t measure up. It isn’t because of Bernie Sanders’ charms the old guy is packing them in.

It is truly ironic that the Democrat party finds itself in the same trap as did the Republicans in 1996 when they nominated Bob Dole simply because it was his turn. That kind of political routine is no longer a part of the landscape. Maybe in the halls of Congress seniority still rules, but out here in the real world, seniority, the political class, the old guard (regardless of party affiliation), they’re all anathema to the electorate. Americans have had enough and Hillary Clinton is the poster girl of that sentiment.

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation.

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


CARLY FIORINA, AMERICA’S IRON LADY

The bane of a writer’s existence is the cliché, the use of which should be so sparing as to be almost nonexistent. But when a cliché describes a condition, activity, person or thing so aptly as to make any other attempt akin to literary incontinence, the best people of the pen can and should do is submit. With that disclaimer, allow this observation regarding Hillary Clinton’s candidacy vis a vis Republican opponents: Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

Hoping that Clinton’s present woes force her out of the campaign is foolish. She has become the most beatable of all the potential Democrats. Should she drop out or be pushed out, the Democrats will most certainly raise up another candidate more radical than she. If it is Elizabeth Warren, Republicans may have a problem they do not want. Warren, the maven of progressive radicalism, will inject new life into a heretofore lackluster Democrat campaign that will present a very real alternative to the new blood on the Republican side.

This is not to say Republicans will lose, not at all. The country is ready for a return to its roots. There are few radical liberals who could carry the nation in an election except for that pointy item in the presidential basket, the Electoral College. And while the American electorate can surprise the world as it did in 1980, the times and the demographics have changed considerably. We are not the same country we were back then. We are dumber and more easily poisoned by the tainted honey of Utopian promises.

And yet, there are ways to use the political, cultural and moral bankruptcy which are the United States of America after the disaster that is the Obama presidency. Republicans can sell their candidates with promises just as Democrats do theirs. One may think this approach is underhanded. They would be right to a degree. To push the Republican candidate forward, up and over the top, there is the need for smoke and mirrors. If we’ve learned anything, it’s that the very worst among us can be sold as the best we have to offer.

The job is made far easier if we pick a candidate who has the mojo going into the charade, that is, the very best candidate, really. The job of selling a candidate to the American voter is much easier when the candidate is truly sincere. It isn’t that Americans can’t tell a phony from the real thing, they can, but their willingness to do so is diminished when they have to work at believing in one. Americans have the attention span of a gnat and they are inherently politically lazy. The smart money knows this and uses it to its advantage. The smart money knows it needs an edge, a hook. As it happens, the Republicans have several, but none so timely as Carly Fiorina. She’ll have to be sold, but she comes with all the bells and whistles making the job that much easier.

Ms. Fiorina is not only qualified for the job, but she removes the largest teeth from the tiger, the “war on women”. That specious claim would be so obviously ridiculous, the Democrats’ lone issue would be gone and over 50% of the potential vote would be, if not up for grabs, substantially in play.

Yogi Berra once quipped that he had a good team because “We have deep depth”. The same applies to the Republican field this election cycle. The bench is so deep with quality any one of the candidates, with some glaring exceptions as Brahmans of the political class, could win the presidency, so angry are the American people with Democrats, liberals and Barack Hussein Obama. But Ms. Fiorina would be a lock. She would not only win, but her election would establish the Republican party as the political affiliation of the future. History would show it was the first to advance civil rights, the one that defends America the best, the party of economic freedom and the one which killed off all vestiges of political ostracism based on gender. On top of all this, the United States would have our own “Iron Lady” at the helm.

Obama came into office promising “fundamental change”, but he failed. If we look into what has happened over his term, it becomes clear America has rejected the first black president, not because of his skin color, but his incompetence and arrogance. Americans are sick and tired of minority rule. Instead of the change he so desperately wanted, Obama has ushered in a wave of anger over his attempt. The change that is coming is going to be earth shattering. The president overseeing it will have to understand from whence it comes and will have to steel himself/herself against the tide of criticism that will inevitably come from the left and its media. Carly Fiorina is such a person. History is calling her.

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation.

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


JOURNALISM, THE SISYPHUS PURSUIT

Even they, the hated mongers of lies and opinions masquerading as truthful information, must look to their origins and admit they have strayed a universe in distance from the true purpose of their calling. The root word used to describe their “profession” itself is steeped in a connection to the ultimate truth, God, for the term “journal” is of late Middle English used to describe “a book listing the times of daily prayers.”1 From the French “jurnal” by way of the Latin, “diurnalis” meaning, “belonging to the day” the journalist is a descendant of a practice dating from the early 17th century when the term became associated with keeping a diary.2 The etymology of “journalist” as used to describe someone who reports the news of the day is hazy and rather late, but it should be noted the profession has been in disrepute for as long.

In David Gold’s “Studies in Etymology and Etiology”, he describes the link between the term “journalist” and the Yiddish expression, “shmok” (which we know as “shmuck”). It appears the term was used in a play to describe a particular journalist as an “utter fool”, an “utterly despicable person”. He adds the note that the German slang word, “schmock” refers to any journalist and the Yiddish expression extends the meaning to not only a fool and despicable person but to the word “penis” which in American slang is clearly derogatory unless used in an operating room by doctors who are ridiculing an anesthetized man on the table.

We are therefore left with a not too complementary description of people who believe themselves to be of a higher quality and calling than the rest of us. Sort of like believing you come from royalty when in fact your ancestors were serfs working the pigsties and considered of less value than the pigs.

How journalism became a profession is no secret. Those who reported the news wanted some respect, so they invented a new meaning for the term. It was easy. When one has the public’s ears or eyes, one is an automatic celebrity. And if anything is true in the United States of America, the great unwashed love their celebrities.

It therefore stands to reason, actors and actresses want you to believe theirs is a calling, an honorable pursuit which rises above the mundane work of the factory laborer and schoolteacher. They’re up there somewhere with doctors and lawyers. Journalists, in search of their own fame if not fortune, collectively expect you to be thankful they are of the faith and deign to daily rain upon you their manna of information which, should you question its authenticity, honesty and truth you are worthy of scorn, ridicule and banishment to the desert of ignorance.

But journalism, like acting, is not a profession if we define profession as a greater calling requiring enormous talent and dutiful studying over a long period of time. Journalism, like acting is now akin to the oldest profession. One is paid to fake being what one isn’t. A prostitute is not a lover, she is merely paid to act like one. Journalists are paid to act like purveyors of the truth when in fact what they do is push an agenda, usually their own.

The term, “journalist”, thus a misnomer of such magnitude it cannot and should not be used in the context it is being used, must be changed if the language is to serve as an accurate description of the world around us.

Take Megyn Kelly for example. When she calls herself a “journalist” one must determine how she arrived at the description. Trained as a lawyer she left the “profession” and became a local news reporter.

If time on the job is time spent being educated, then Kelly’s stint as a reporter from 2003 to 2004 when she was hired by FOX News represents a year’s worth of education in preparation for her new profession. What profession requires only a year’s education? Indeed, what profession requires a mere four years of study? None. But journalism degrees are handed out after only four years and only journalists would be jaded enough to label themselves “professionals” after so meager an education.

Ms. Kelly may call herself a journalist, but her stock in the trade is by all accounts low. She is not alone however. There are no journalists, they don’t exist. Those who are trained, then labeled “journalists” are no more than reporters who violate the principles of even that lowly grind as they purposely pervert the answers to who, what, why, when, where and how in order to satisfy a political agenda for personal acceptance.

Megyn Kelly is no different. A striking, vivacious blonde who plays to her audience for ratings. If she did otherwise, she would not be on the air. But journalist she is not.

As a strict capitalist, I see nothing wrong with what Ms. Kelly does for her living, I take exception to the hypocrisy and outright sham that is so-called journalism generally. Whether on the right, the left or “fair and balanced”, the contemporary brand of news and information presentation today is not meant to edify or throw light on the truth. It is meant to entertain even if the truth is a casualty in the effort.

The fact is, journalism has never been a profession, much less one with intrinsic honor. It has never served anyone but those who purvey the product and like any product it must be made tasty enough for the consuming public. The only people who believe journalism is an honorable profession are those who teach it, those who are taught it and those who assume its mantle. The rest of us know them for who and what they are, another class of individuals who believe they put their pants on differently than do we and often drop them to further their careers.

 

 

1Chantrell, Glynnis, Ed. The Oxford Dictionary Of Word Histories. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Print

2Ibid

Share

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

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


THE PETER FUSCO PROGRAM FOR AUGUST 10, 2015

Who should be the next president and why.

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation.

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


WHAT AMERICA NEEDS, ONE OF THESE THREE CANDIDATES

Presidents are usually successful at foreign policy or domestic policy, rarely both. Still more rare is a president who is a failure at both. On the one hand we have Ronald Reagan who was not only responsible for the largest and longest peacetime expansion of the economy (so strong it lasted through the next two presidential terms), but his policies killed the Soviet Union.

On the other hand, we have Barack Obama, without question the country’s worst president in American history. A miserable failure both domestically and in foreign policy, America is stumbling along in at best an anemic economy. As of this writing over 92 million able-bodied, willing to work Americans are no longer in the labor force for lack of jobs, the highest percentage not just in the last forty or fifty years, but ever. His policies directly impact an immigration influx so devastating some rightly consider it an invasion. Certainly not entirely his fault, but he has allowed and in some cases encouraged an out-of-control federal government so pervasive it affects nearly two-thirds of the entire population directly and 100% indirectly. He has overseen and the evidence suggests authorized corruption in the IRS for the purposes of perverting the electoral system. There are a record 50 million people on food stamps, people who are presumably unable to afford to feed themselves in his economy.

More to the point and reminiscent of the previous holder of “Worst President” title, Jimmy Carter, America is suffering a malaise which has infected the body politic such that the voters of the country feel absolutely powerless to stop the slide.

In foreign policy, this president has projected weakness on such a scale our allies have been outrightly alienated while out enemies have been encouraged by our weakness to begin planning and preparing for our demise. The Iranian nuclear deal exemplifies the disaster that is the Obama/Clinton foreign policy.

So what does America need? First off, we need to raise our heads as a people and fight back against over 100 years of progressivism and 50 years of radical liberalism. This can only be accomplished by electing people, especially a president who will, once in office, do the will of the people as determined by those who elected him or her. America must elect an American patriot, perhaps not like Ronald Reagan, but entirely unlike Barack Obama who may claim citizenship, but hates his own country. Do we need a leader with charisma? Not really, obviously charisma does not necessarily translate into competence, it only feeds ego. Certainly the country doesn’t need another egomaniac, no matter what side of the aisle he pretends to be on at the moment.

Next, the candidate(s) must see Washington and the federal government as an enemy to be destroyed such that its ability to regain power is constitutionally limited with the people’s power to recall politicians made far easier so as to become a weapon of fear to every politician in office.

Term limits must be enacted and enforced. The dissolution of the political class must start now. Politics and public office must no longer be careers in America.

America needs a humble patriot with a straight conservative philosophy, a strict interpreter of the Constitution guided by Judeo/Christian values and a firm belief in capitalism as the economic engine that drives the country’s economy.

Most of all, America needs a fighter, someone who has guts and fortitude, someone with courage sufficient to make war on liberalism and anything else which seeks to destroy the mores, folkways, laws and traditions which have made this country the greatest in the history of the world. We need no apologist, nor do we need someone who runs around the world kowtowing to tin pot dictators and Islamic potentates.

Why is it every time we see a fighter among the crowd of candidates, one who will not knuckle under the pressure of the prevailing minorities, one who refuses to cater to the media, he or she not only survives the cut, but surges in popularity? It is, as has been stated here many times, a sign of the anger in America’s soul. The candidate who successfully taps into that anger, righteous as must be the response to it, the one who takes liberalism, the Democrat party and Hillary Clinton to task with the truth, honesty and righteousness will not only win the election, but the hearts of Americans who will gladly follow his or her lead forward.

Only three Republican candidates have displayed such characters, convictions and competence, Carly Fiorina, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. All the rest should get out of the race.

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation.

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




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