Skip to content




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

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


The original name for this web site was “The Conservative Gentleman”. That was so many years ago I can’t quite remember the date of its origin nor do I want to spend the time plowing through the archives to pinpoint it. Ostensibly the site was created to publicize the eponymously titled book I was writing which itself metamorphosed and went unpublished for some years and is now, “A Father’s Guide To Raising Conservative Gentlemen (And Saving America At The Same Time)”.

After awhile, the nature of my writing for the site became rather disassociated with conservative gentility in favor of commentary on the news of the day from a conservative point of view. Even that changed over time however until now what is written here reflects my personal take on things from a Peter J. Fusco point of view based on my own philosophy as it has evolved. I don’t think you can pigeonhole much of it as conservative or libertarian. Maybe it could be defined as liberationist. I don’t know and I don’t care that much anymore since I no longer believe in political labels of any kind.

It seems to me, defining a liberal is easy, but what really is a conservative? I don’t think the term can be defined by those who claim it as their political philosophy. John Boehner is most certainly not a conservative although he would like you to think he is. Nor are Eric Cantor and the Republican elite in general. They besmirch the term as I understand it which is why I am no longer willing to be labeled a conservative. I think I’m much more.

Stuck as we are with the term, it has lately been posited in some corners that what conservatism lacks is coolness. The Democrats have their cool in the media, Hollywood and the secular society where being bad is good. Conservatives have nothing like that. There is no way Mitt Romney can be seen as cool since there isn’t a bad bone in his body. With the exception of a claim he bullied a gay student while in high school, a claim for which he was excoriated by the uber-gay tolerant media, Mitt Romney’s worst coolness offense may have been his total competence as a businessman and leader.

Cool is a function of perception, nothing more. Liberals are seen as cool because they do all the wrong things, then say they’re sorry and go into rehab. They’re the “bad” people as in bad boys. Mindless boobs like bad people very much. They emulate bad people because, well, it’s cool to be bad. Hip-hop and the hordes following that wretched deference to black people as art is proof enough.

It’s cool to party so heavily your nipples slip out of your dress or you’re caught with the wife of an associate. It’s even cooler to have a sex tape or exhibition of nude selfies find their way into the public domain. On the political side of things, it’s cool to demand the world address global warming when it is clear they who are demanding care nothing at all for the facts and fly around in their own carbon-gushing 737s to prove the point they are the world’s greatest hypocrites.

But conservatives can be cool too by being genteel in a very tough way. It may start with fashion. Too much skin showing…uncool since you can get better stuff on a million porn sites if you’re inclined in that direction. Conservative women can exude cool best by being what they are, smart, witty, beautiful and sexy. It’s pretty hard not to be smitten by a Laura Ingraham, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Megyn Kelly and yes, Ann Coulter if you’re a man with any kind of self-confidence. Their kind of cool requires a man equal to their level of intellect. I just don’t see how a liberal man would be up to the challenge of bedding any one of them. What line could he possibly use? “I think we should all pay more taxes and just trust President Obama.” Not likely to work. Nor I expect would talking politics at all. It looks to me like if you want to have a relationship with a conservative woman, you’ll have to ring her chimes in a hundred other ways than politically. Conservative women, that’s real womanhood. They are cool because they seem cold. What is more sexy than being cold in public, but hot as fire in private?

For men, aside from fashion in an elegant, somewhat formal way, being conservative cool means being in the faces of the opposition. No fear! When a liberal comes at you, being quietly genteel is not being genteel at all. A gentleman fights back. He becomes the quintessential bad boy by getting right up in a liberal’s face, but it’s qualified by his bearing, like a knight errant willing to take on anyone and proving it each time he is challenged. A man’s badness is directly proportional to the size of the pile-on set against him. And one more thing to all those conservative fops who believe talk has more value than action, women, and it doesn’t matter on what side of the aisle they are on, harbor a deep respect, if not lust for a real man, one who takes no crap when his righteous sensibilities are challenged or assaulted.

Under the umbrella of “The Conservative Gentleman” I see heroes, precisely the kind this country needs. We are American men and we are, or at least we used to be, the envy of other men all over the world. We were the baddest asses ever created and when we went toe to toe with an enemy it was out of a sense of righteousness. All the crap about imperialistic America is a scheme by the weakest part of our society to take revenge on those who are what they would love to be, but cannot. They prey on a hopelessness they know is the easiest means of controlling the masses. It is a putrid method used by failed societies throughout history, the antithesis of what America really is which is why it hasn’t worked and also why the resistance against it is growing.

My suggestion is that we bring back the cool to what is intrinsically coolest, the traditional American way of life. And I suggest we do it in precisely the same way the opposition does it, by building a media empire so powerful it drowns out the opposition’s.

Obviously there is an appetite for just that. Look at the numbers because they do not lie. Every movie with a theme of American courage and bravery, every one with a deeply religious theme, every television program that puts decency, goodness and even Christianity at the forefront is successful. Duck Dynasty comes to mind quickly, making for many a statement about real men and real women. Every one of the Robertson women is beautiful and they do not eschew a playful sexuality though it is always within the context of their marriages. Phil Robertson’s admission of a misspent youth only bolsters his persona as a rough and tough man who found Jesus, accepted His word and is willing to bring it to others both receptive and not. Miss Kay’s recent admission that she was pregnant before her marriage to Phil only underscores the idea that while we all make mistakes, there are lessons in courage and faith that go along with rectifying them. Even literature suggests the same with Bill O’Reilly’s series as well as Rush Limbaugh’s remarkable success with his Rush Revere books.

The left’s lock on the media is slipping, and they know it. But beware their cooption of righteousness for the secular left will stoop as low as it takes to undermine the message by slyly suggesting righteousness is another word for evil or by belittling it to the point of irrelevance.

Nevertheless, people are proving with their wallets how much they wish to be distinct from the images of typical America as imposed by the radical coasts. With movies like “God Is Not Dead” championing a strategy of counterpunching, the liberals who have long been in control of the mass media message are finding it more difficult to justify their kinds of undertakings to the suits and bean counters putting up the money to finance them.

The pendulum is swinging the other way, but it takes people with vision and the courage to push it along to make conservatism cool again. It is no time for compromise, it is time for war with one goal, victory. The left has stretched itself too thin, much of their message is considered old and repetitive. There is nothing that sounds the death knell louder for a particular way of life in America than a notion whose time has passed. The age of cool conservatism is upon us, it is the responsibility of a new generation to, as Captain Picard was fond of saying, “make it so.”


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

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


Cheryl Chumley of is today reporting that the United States Postal Service, a quasi-governmental agency, is soliciting bids to furnish it with “Assorted Small Arms Ammunition.”  Last year, the Social Security Administration requested 174,000 rounds of .357 ammo.  The Department of Agriculture requested 320,000 rounds.  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the government’s weathermen, wants 46,000 rounds.  But it’s the elephant in the room, the Department of Homeland Security and their request for 450,000,000 rounds that has raised eyebrows, concerns and theories.

The government, aided and abetted by the liberal power elite and the media scoff at any notion such requests from government agencies, ostensibly in benign service, are the least bit unusual.  With the possible exception of Homeland Security, there are legitimate questions as to why the people who watch the weather and deliver our mail need so much firepower.  Indeed, why do they need guns at all?

The answer usually is in the structure of the individual agency except they all seem to have one thing lately in common, their own enforcement divisions.  Cases could be and are made on behalf of those agencies, but they are mostly specious since the federal government has a plethora of enforcement options which, if needed, can be shared by any and all of the agencies now claiming the need to arm themselves.

On this side of things, thinking individuals cannot help, in view of Ruby Ridge, Waco and now the Bundy matter, be concerned with what the federal government is doing surreptitiously if not right in front of us.  Liberals and the media ridicule us as “conspiracy theorists” addicted to a paranoia which makes the government our greatest enemy.  It is their way of shorting out what any sensible individual would see as a connection to the state’s slow but sure diminution of our rights.

It is a good and reasonable question:  Why do agencies of the federal government tasked with matters as peaceful as delivering the mail and predicting the weather need enforcement divisions armed with weapons meant solely to kill people?  If this question falls within the category of conspiracy theory, somewhere along the line the definition of the term has been transmogrified without the vernacular or any other linguistic assertion being taken into account.

Why are Bureau of Land Management officers armed?  Why do the Department of Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General and the Department of Education dispatch armed agents into the field?   What can happen within the purview of those and other agencies which could possibly warrant armed intervention?

Ms. Chumley further writes, “The Energy Department, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Commerce Department, and the U.S. Agency for International Development are a few of the federal entities that boast an armed division, tasked with investigating fraud and suspected criminal activities. As such, the agents get to carry guns.”

One is forced to ask, what exactly is the job of the Federal Bureau of Investigation?  Surely there is a degree of overlap that cannot in any way be justified except as a ramping up of police power for the sole purpose of exerting it domestically.  True to the bureaucratic mien, if the power is there, it must be used, if not it cannot be justified, and that is the greatest fear of a bureaucracy for disuse translates to less funding.

A theory, conspiracy or any other, is a guess based on incomplete evidence.  That definition does not apply here.  It is a fact these agencies are armed.  It is a fact they have awesome power to wield.  It is a fact they do wield that power, many times arbitrarily, many times without legal authority, many times without any moral authority and many times in violation or outright ignorance of rights guaranteed by the supreme law of the land.

Clearly, the government of the United States of America has become the enemy of the people, an evolution expected by the Framers, thus the Second Amendment to the Constitution regardless of its interpretation by statists.  The federal government is the bully in the schoolyard and like any bully must be confronted.

The great question for America at this time in its history is whether or not the coming rebellion will be bloodless or bloody.  Will armed agents from all those federal agencies recognize they are part of an illegitimate government doing not the will of the people, but the will of a few elite statists, members of the political class?  Will they find themselves in the position of firing on their fellow countrymen, perhaps friends and relatives among them for the sole purpose of suppressing their rights under some notion of the rule of law?  Or will they turn on the government that sent them realizing to do what that government has assigned will be nothing short of treason supported by murder?

As they say, the die is cast, or so it seems.  The best case scenario is also the most far-fetched, although there is always hope.  A bloodless rebellion can only be undertaken with the people electing representatives who will swear to begin the task of paring the government down to a degree it can never threaten the people again.  Those representatives must be of one mind when it comes to breaking the power of the federal government and especially its bureaucracies.  It will also take a president of such will, determination, statesmanship, patriotism and destiny to diminish his own power while he does the same to the government he heads.  If the people do not elect such representatives, America will split into factions at war with not only the central government, but each other.  That’s this writer’s theory and prediction.


Posted in Politics, The Nation.

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


Normally, my love for Laura Ingraham knows no bounds.  I’m one of those guys smitten not only with her looks, but her intellect.  You have to admire a woman…you have to admire anyone who takes a stand and articulates her position with such clarity not to mention continuity.  All that gushing out of the way, my opinion of Ms. Laura fell slightly when on Friday, April 11, 2014, while substituting for Bill O’Reilly on the Factor, she was arguing her position on illegal immigrants with attorney Francisco Hernandez who specializes in the field.

As her debate premise, Ms. Ingraham stated the oft-cited “America is a nation of laws.”  By extension then, illegal immigrants are considered illegal because they broke our laws by entering the country illegally.  Therefore, according to Ms. Laura, they should not be rewarded with citizenship, but punished for violating our laws.  She is, of course, absolutely correct, or at least she would be if we were in fact a nation of laws, or put more precisely, a nation in which no one is above the laws of the land.  And that, my fellow Americans, is where Laura Ingraham’s argument falls apart.

We are no more a nation of laws than was the Soviet Union during its heyday.  At best, America is a somewhat benign oligarchy ruled by an autocracy made up of a select power elite best defined as the “political class” who create thousands upon thousands of laws, rules and regulations for the rest of us, laws, rules and regulations from which they either exempt themselves, openly flaunt or are excused before the fact for violating.  It is a cruel joke then for Ms. Ingraham or anyone having a forum like hers to suggest we are a nation of laws.  We are no such thing.

In our American culture, the system under which we live can only be defined as completely corrupt and tyrannical.  It has become precisely what the Founders and Colonial patriots fought to destroy.  We are being forced to live in a country whose system of justice only applies to some depending on your political status.  When the chief law enforcement officer of the United States can blatantly ignore the very Constitution he is sworn to uphold, when he can violate the law of the land with absolute impunity, it is hardly reasonable to expect illegal immigrants flooding over our borders to obey the laws restricting their admission.  And when that same political officer not only refuses to enforce the laws concerning illegal immigration, but wantonly ignores them, indeed invites their violation, his doing so can only be considered criminal for if one of us were in his position doing the same thing, we would suffer the consequences of an imperial justice system immediately.  And yet, Eric Holder can and does violate the law, refuses to comply with a legitimate demand from the Congress of the United States, is cited for contempt, suffers no consequences as a result and yet maintains his position enforcing the laws only he and Barack Obama see fit to enforce.

How can this be a nation of laws when the President of the United States routinely violates them as he issues illegitimate Executive Orders or changes existing statute without obedience to the Constitutional system he swore to defend, the same system under which the rest of us must live or pay the penalty for violating?

When Barack Obama can refuse to enforce the laws of the land as they apply to illegal immigrants, voter fraud, domestic spying, gun running, drug enforcement etc. it is laughable anyone can say America is a nation of laws.  But worst of all, when the Congress of the United States abdicates its role as the legislative branch, a co-equal partner representing most closely the people by arbitrarily handing over its authority to an unconstitutional, therefore illegitimate bureaucracy with police powers, the notion we are a nation of laws enters the realm of cynicism.

The political class in the United States regularly violates laws the people are forced to obey.  Through onerous rules and regulations, the freedom from laws, as important as those enacted for the benefit of society, is made by that political class to seem contrary to the precepts of the Constitution rather than antithetical to its guarantees.  In short, the people of the United States are harassed by their own government through armed police agencies who use domestic spying and taxing to oppress the governed.  Our government and the people running it are our enemies.

Americans are routinely hauled before magistrates for J-walking, ticketed for vehicular infractions on the evidence of cameras in clear violation of their Fourth and Ninth Amendment rights, taxed without recourse, forced to pay fines and fees, restricted from using their own property, required to hand over their personal effects, pressed into living their lives as dictated by an all-powerful seemingly benevolent aristocracy while the elites act as puppeteers withal.  But if one is a member of that political class, especially the liberal elite, one can claim all manner of privileges including “Executive” or otherwise hide behind some obscure rule put into place by the very same class in order to insulate themselves from the effects of laws the rest of us are forced to endure.

This is in no way a nation of laws, it is a nation of smoke and mirrors, a place for the few to lord themselves over the many, a place turned upside down by a political class bent on preserving its power.  In such a place, there is only one method of throwing off the shackles that enslave people who have allowed their political power, their very human rights to be eroded to the point they have neither, rebellion.  And the first signs of that rebellion are in the offing.

The small and ironically labeled Bunkerville, Nevada may be the Concord of America’s second revolution.  Here, over the last few days (although the controversy extends back some decades), armed Federal Bureau of Land Management agents, supported by the Nevada State Police faced a growing assembly of citizens, some who were armed and angry.  The reason:  A gross misuse of federal authority which extended to confiscating Cliven Bundy’s cattle because he has been grazing them on restricted federal land set aside for a desert turtle.  This in addition to the government’s claim that Mr. Bundy has not paid the necessary fees to graze his cattle on federal lands, fees they claim are in arrearage to the tune of $1,000,000.  The standoff lasted two days with the Bureau of Land Management finally backing off, but the message is becoming more clear as the hours pass.  Americans have had enough of their government and if the politicians don’t act to rein it and themselves in, the people will do it.

If we are a nation of laws, then they should apply to all, not to some.  And when those laws become so intrusive, so onerous and so oppressive as to limit the very freedoms we have been endowed with by our Creator and guaranteed by our Constitutional compact with each other, then it is time for rebellion and revolution.  No country can exist long with a set of unwritten laws for the few who make and enforce the laws applicable to the many.  This is the issue of our times and it will not go away.

Members of law enforcement and the military, take heed, when the revolution does come, it will be in your hands to either support the effort or to shed the blood of your fellow countrymen as they assume your roles and fight for not only their freedom, but yours.


Posted in The Nation.

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


Kimberly Hefling and apparently Jesse Holland (the web site strangely alternates between bylines whenever the page is refreshed) of the Associated Press penned an article entitled “Black preschoolers more likely to face suspension”.  It’s a matter-of-fact title, one that elicits two emotions depending on your point of view.  As a liberal who believes racism is defined by the mere suggestion American blacks have an endemic cultural problem only they can solve, the title simply reinforces the idea that black children are suspended from school because they are black.

But ask a teacher or an administrator, especially those who initiate suspensions, why black kids are “suspended and expelled at a rate that’s three times higher than that of white children” and you will receive an entirely different answer.

The reason black kids are suspended and expelled so much more often than white kids is that they deserve it.  The same can be said of the reason so many black men are in prison.  It isn’t institutional racism, it’s because they commit most of the crimes.  Admitting that fact is not racist, it’s dealing with the realities.

Pundits across the spectrum are coming to grips with the necessity to discuss the cultural and moral dissipation of the American black community.  It’s not as if Bill O’Reilly brought up something new when he began mentioning the truth that is the total destruction of the black nuclear family or the concomitant rise in the out-of-wedlock birth rate among American black girls and women.  Like the commercial says, “Everyone knows that” though not too many want to admit it.  By extension, Americans, especially conservative black leaders, know the black community in the United States is reeling from fifty plus years of government insinuation and cultural self-neglect.

If there is anything new to be said it’s that we as a nation are coming to the point where minorities are going to have to face being on their own.  The country cannot afford to take care of them any longer.  Whether it be a slow, determined effort on the part of real black leaders to change the culture or a wholesale revolt on the part of the majority who are being economically strangled by an out-of-control government which takes, in one form or another, the bulk of their earnings and redistributes it to the undeserving, the change is coming.

Americans generally are awakening to the fact that charity indeed begins at home.  They’ve given enough.  They’ve allowed the left to use minorities to dictate the rules for a very long time and not only hasn’t it served the minorities, it has very nearly impoverished the rest of the population.  It will stop because it has to stop.

The truth is, the reason black kids are suspended or expelled from school so much and so often is plainly, sometimes painfully clear to educators who deal with them on a day to day basis.  They are completely devoid of discipline and respect.  They come to school entirely untrained in the social skills necessary for effective participation in the educational process.  They are tossed out because they are incorrigible.  That it happens to children as young as preschool age should not be surprising.  Look into their home life and it will edify completely.  What life there is cannot be defined as the least bit wholesome in terms of the discipline and respect necessary for children to interact with authority figures.  In most cases, if there is a parent involved at all, she is as undisciplined and disrespectful as the children.

The problem is exacerbated by its generational aspects.  If one generation has no clue when it comes to fundamental discipline and respect, how is it possible to teach the succeeding generations?  And when disciplining is then left to outsiders, its degree, regardless of how little, is seen as harsh.  Consider the frustrating lack of logic in this reality:  My child is undisciplined, he/she needs discipline, I do not discipline him/her, I am leaving that aspect of their upbringing to you, but when you do discipline my child, I will defend him/her and decry your racism and injustice.

Lawsuit-shy teachers and administrators therefore either ignore the need or throw the miscreant out of school.  In both cases, discipline is still non-existent in the child’s life.  Without discipline there can be no respect.  Without respect, educational interaction cannot happen.  Without educational interaction, children remain ignorant.  They never learn how to learn.

How can I write such things without some kind of proof?  One can when one has been there and done that.  As a teacher many years ago in a federally targeted urban high school I faced the same situation.  Black kids were tossed out of school far more than white kids because the black kids were so disruptive, the job of teaching became impossible to effectively perform.  Teachers and administrators had no choice but to get rid of the troublemakers just to make it fair for those kids who wanted to learn.

It hasn’t changed much in thirty plus years except that we’ve institutionalized treating the worst of pupils better than the best of students.  This rejection of the realities is precisely why we have a destructive educational system.  And yet, the status quo has its staunch defenders.

Read Hefling/Holland’s article and you will come away with the nagging suspicion that they are apologists, if not advocates for the liberal position that somehow it’s someone else’s fault black kids are the way they are and that only the federal government armed with taxpayer money can solve the problem by forcing teachers and administrators to not only accept the behavior, but assume the responsibilities of parents by dealing with it.  That argument is rapidly falling not on just deaf ears, but angry ones.

The number of “authorities” both governmental and non-governmental making excuses for the incorrigibles is as astounding as their reasons for why the problem exists.  Citing another report which indicated similar findings, Attorney General Eric Holder ignored the underlying reasons for black kids being suspended or expelled at such rates and blamed racism for the problem.

Holder said, “This critical report shows that racial disparities in school discipline policies are not only well documented among older students, but actually begin during preschool.  Every data point represents a life impacted and a future potentially diverted or derailed.  This administration is moving aggressively to disrupt the school-to-prison pipeline in order to ensure that all of our young people have equal educational opportunities.”  What he and Obama are advocating is a policy that forces schools to keep the worst kids  no matter what they do, if they are black that is.  Administrators are free to throw out all the other kids as much and as often as they please.

Obama and Holder are certainly not alone when it comes to dealing with the epidemic.  Hefling and Holland cite Reggie Felton, interim associate executive director at the National School Boards Association, as saying the rates of suspension and expulsion are “unacceptable.”   They quote Felton who argues, the answer is to train teachers more so that they “are aware of the importance of keeping students in school.”  In other words, it’s the teachers who are at fault.

There are several other examples of so-called authorities taking flights of fancy regarding the problem of black culture spawning generations of lost children and then blaming it all on something that simply doesn’t exist or at least fails to acknowledge the extant realities.

A society, like an addict or alcoholic, cannot begin to solve its problems without first admitting there is a problem and that the problem is self-induced rather than inflicted by outside forces, which may be a very uncomfortable admission.  The next thing is to recognize it isn’t everyone’s problem to solve, it is the black community’s problem and only the black community’s problem.  They have to fix it.  Chanting the mantra of it taking a village is all the more unrealistic and idiotic in the face of the approach being a total failure for almost fifty years. It is not only counterproductive, it’s enabling.  It’s like saying, “You’re an alcoholic, here’s a bottle of whiskey, that should solve your problem.”

There can be no more excuses made for undisciplined, recalcitrant children and young adults regardless of their skin color.  They are the problem and there is no time left to deal exclusively with bringing them up to standards of conduct.  It is time to give those kids who are desirous of an education unfettered access to one without them having to stand on the sidelines waiting while the worst among their age groups are coddled.  If people wish to discuss what is unfair in American society, let us begin there.


Posted in The Nation.

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


Guinness, the Irish maker of a brownish slag that is neither tasty nor refreshing as beer should be, announced in time for St. Patrick’s Day it would be pulling out of parade sponsorship, at least New York’s parade.  On Sunday, the company issued the following statement: “Guinness has a strong history of supporting diversity and being an advocate for equality for all.  We were hopeful that the policy of exclusion would be reversed for this year’s parade. As this has not come to pass, Guinness has withdrawn its participation.”

Presumably, this decision was made by the Irish company’s corporate leadership.  Someone up there said, “If we sponsor this parade, we will lose customers.”  No one in their right mind, with the exception of the lethally naïve, assumes there is a vestige of morality in the decision.  That would indeed be stupid.  No, it’s an economic one to be sure, but a decision so cockeyed and off the mark it makes heterosexuals, who make up perhaps 99% of Guinness’ business, wonder why the company would be so in the pocket of gays and lesbians in the first place.  What is there to gain?

The short answer is nothing.  The longer version is the same with an addition:  Any company who is invested in the PC of yesteryear will see that time and judgment lapse in its revenues.  Modern business is always behind the cultural curve and Guinness’ decision underscores that fact perfectly.

America, if not the world, is turning away from its diet of political correctness having gorged themselves on enough of it to make them all sick to death.  We are sick of being told right is wrong, abnormal is normal fiction and fiction is fact or vice versa respectively.  Most of all we’re tired of being told our beliefs and opinions have roots in racism, homophobia, anti-diversity, anti-Obama and every other anti in the left’s quiver.

The giant F-YOU is coming to liberalism.  It will usher in a liberation more fundamental than freedom from slavery.  Minds will be set free from the lies.

The desire for unvarnished truth is becoming powerful and more so as Americans look in the mirror and see the rot inflicted on them while they were asleep for the last fifty years.  They are recognizing the lies that are racism, the gay lifestyle, casual meaningless sex and issues of gender.  Americans, especially young Americans are coming to terms with truths their parents violated in the name of sex, drugs and rock and roll.  They are seeing there is something better out there, something decent and righteous, something that gives them the power to raise their heads and look life straight in the eye.  They are cognizant of dealing with the realities, not as they’ve been taught them in their schools and colleges, but as their innate consciousness tells them.

No amount of media bias is going to stop the wave of truth that is coming.  Americans have had enough of something they knew existed for decades though it be denied by the same who perpetrate the lie that there is no such thing.  Even the great god of the left, global warming, or as it is now labeled, climate change, is being toppled from its altar.  People have awakened and they do not like what they see.

America is in decline, but it has been in decline before and come roaring back from the brink because its people, while sometimes foolish, are not fools.

Guinness will regret its decision as will all companies and organizations pushing the “diversity” and “equality” lines.  Regular people have had enough of minorities.  The reason why should be clearer to those minorities than to the majority.  Minorities, as victims, have been imposing on the rest of us for too long, the majority is now sick of them.  Soon, claiming minority status will be as politically incorrect as it has been acceptable, and it’s about time.

Victimhood is so yesterday it smells.  Companies like Guinness who do not recognize that fact are doomed to suffer for their refusal.  Like Hillary Clinton running for president, the polls may have her ahead now, but it is simply a matter of nostalgia which, like liberal political correctness has a tendency to dissipate rapidly when people are awake enough to pay attention.


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

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


The theories are all over the place, but there is one that sticks out more than all the others.  The United States has become known for its spying lately.  It seems U.S. intelligence agencies know when someone in the jungles of South America heads for the high grass whenever nature calls.  It is therefore difficult to believe that the same intelligence agencies are unaware of what happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.

Such is the assessment of attorney, Ralph W. Fusco, a seasoned New York litigator and brother to PJFOTN publisher, Peter J. Fusco.  In a telephone interview this morning, Attorney Fusco stated his theory that not only do the American agencies know what happened to Flight 370, they know precisely where it is and are preparing a commando-type invasion to rescue the 239 passengers they believe are being held hostage.

“The problem is,” Fusco said, “the highjackers are apparently sophisticated people.  This was a well-planned exercise.  It may be they have already scattered the passengers to various locations which would make it almost impossible for there to be an effective raid to save them.”

Apparently, at least the Malaysian authorities agree the plane did not explode or experience some other kind of catastrophic failure then crash.  They are also convinced it was an act of terror and the plane has been landed somewhere within the seven hour range of its flight.

Well versed in aviation technology, Mr. Fusco said he believes the plane landed safely, but cannot take off from the same place.  “You can get away with far less runway to land, but taking off requires much more.  An airstrip large enough to accommodate a 777 would be noticeable somehow.”

Fusco indicated he would not be surprised to hear of a rescue attempt either as it happens or after its conclusion in the near future.


Posted in The Nation, The World.

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


David Wright apparently has had it with government bureaucracy, specifically the Department of Health and Human Services.  The erstwhile researcher said as much in his recent letter of resignation.  According to, Wright denounced HHS directly, the entire federal bureaucracy tangentially when he wrote, “I’m offended as an American taxpayer that the federal bureaucracy — at least the part I’ve labored in — is so profoundly dysfunctional.”

It isn’t clear he was surprised to learn a great part of his job was, in his words, to “make my bosses look good,” but if he thought it strange he is sadly naïve to an extraordinary degree.  Coming from the private sector as a consultant and as a professor in academia he was aghast over the urging of his superiors to “lower (his) expectations.”

Sloughing off the above as either the complaints of a disgruntled employee or the assessment of a man who believed in government as a solution to society’s problems will not do.  Though a tiny voice with a tinier story, what Mr. Wright is saying should incense all Americans, not just taxpayers, receivers of services as well as those who pay for them.  The federal government not only doesn’t work for America and Americans, it is counterproductive to a degree it is leading the entire country to the brink of ruin.

So much of our fiscal disaster is the fault of the federal bureaucracy, the case for eliminating several departments need not be made by any outsider for it has already been made by the bureaucracies themselves.

Is this to say HHS has no role?  Yes, it is.  The same applies to the Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Internal Revenue Service among others.  Dig into those departments and the innumerable bureaus within them.  In the overwhelming majority of cases, what they claim they are doing is not getting done.  Indeed it is already being done far more effectively, however inherently inefficiently by equivalent state bureaucracies.

Time after time PJFOTN has warned America about the growing power of the unelected bureaucratic state.  We cited fundamental principles of public administration, the first of which is that a bureaucracy is an organic enterprise whose first, most important goal is self-preservation.  The very nature of the bureaucracy is not to solve the problem for which it has been created, but to exacerbate it or at best maintain the status quo such that the bureaucracy is always “necessary” to deal with it.

When someone like Mr. Wright makes the observation that HHS cannot do its job or that it stifles attempts to accomplish the least of its goals, he joins the ranks of literally millions before him.  As far back in history as civilized man can go, wherever there existed a governmental bureaucracy, it has performed in exactly the same manner as all its descendants.  The term “Byzantine” has not come down to us for its exclamation of efficiency and effectiveness in bureaucratic machinations.  Precisely the opposite is true.  Byzantium, as a descendant of Roman civilization, became the poster child for how uncontrolled bureaucracies ultimately destroy their governmental hosts as well as the people who live under their strictures.

Albert Camus captures the essence of the bureaucratic nightmare in his novel, “The Plague”.  Not a political polemic by any means, Camus nevertheless attributes much of the devastation wreaked by the plague in his city to initial bureaucratic denial that a problem exists.  The irony is inescapable.  Bureaucracies are created ostensibly to solve societal problems, but the end result of their existence is to ministrate misery by doing everything within their power to continue functioning, to stay alive instead of solving problems within their purview.  Should the bureaucracy solve the problems for which it was created, it commits suicide.

The methodology for bureaucracies to gain the foothold they need for immortality is simple, straightforward and always effective:  Lay barrier after barrier in front of their threshold to make it more and more difficult for them to perform the tasks for which they were created.  Second, lay a foundation of regulation the goal of which is not to methodically approach the problem with a solution for which the bureaucracy was created, but to build in as much complexity as possible such that solving a problem, no matter how simple, is by necessity a laborious, tedious task requiring resources completely out of proportion to the problem itself.  In other words, a bureaucracy exists to make the problems it is supposed to solve impossible to solve.  It is like quicksand, designed so the more one tries to use the bureaucracy for its intended purpose, the more one is drawn into the process from which there is no escape.

The solution to out-of-control bureaucracies is to first strip them of their legislative and quasi-legislative authority.  Next, the legislation which creates a bureaucracy must contain within it a death sentence regardless of how successful or unsuccessful the bureaucracy is at its job.  Commonly referred to as a “sunset” provision, the law should grant a bureaucracy temporary status only and irrevocably.  If it is successful in its formative tasks, it will come to an end without fanfare, for it will have simply done its job. If it has not performed, it will also come to an end, but without substitution.  If society identifies a problem for which it requires a governmental agency to alleviate and a bureaucracy is created for the purpose, but fails after an ordinate amount of time, then it is incumbent on the representatives of the people to search for and find a more effective solution, not to continue awarding longevity to failure.

The American bureaucratic system is a flesh-eating disease.  In our past, with attention to the limited involvement of government in the routine of our lives, America could absorb some level of bureaucratic miscreancy.  Those days are gone.  America’s bureaucracy is far more dangerous than any domestic or foreign enemy we face.  It is bleeding the country dry while falsely claiming to be effective.  A wholesale dismantling of the federal government down to its essential elements is not only timely, it is absolutely necessary.  No country has or ever will continue to exist under the control of an out-of-control bureaucracy, the United States of America included.


Posted in Politics, The Nation.

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


It is not policy at PJFOTN to regularly comment on anything Hollywood-related, but an article by Allison Hope Weiner at requires a response.

The title of her piece is indicative of its inordinate length: “A Journalist’s Plea On 10th Anniversary Of ‘The Passion Of The Christ’: Hollywood, Take Mel Gibson Off Your Blacklist”.  In her almost 3,500 word argument on behalf of Mel Gibson, Ms. Weiner does what arrogant, self-absorbed lawyers turned writers do, make an argument that should not be made.  It’s no wonder she traded professions.  Only a terrible litigator would make an argument which opens the floodgates for a counterargument that makes more sense and crushes the premise of her own.

Weiner’s piece is an almost tearful call for an end to Mel Gibson’s ostracism by Hollywood bigwigs.  But who are these bigwigs and why would they blacklist Gibson in the first place?  The answers are simple, but oh, so politically incorrect and they speak to the hypocrisy which is Hollywood, the political left and Jewish culture in the entertainment industry.

The bigwigs are the people who make all the decisions regarding what Americans see in the movies.  They are, contrary to what people like Ms. Weiner would have us believe, mostly Jewish.  If you’ve made it this far reading, you are suffering the first pangs of a kneejerk reaction which is warning you to read no more as the rest will be ANTI-SEMITIC.  Avoid the reaction since this piece is not at all in that vein.

This piece is about honesty and truth.  It is not about a defense of Mel Gibson by a Jewish woman who has developed a relationship with him and has determined he’s been punished enough for making anti-Jewish statements.  First, who is Ms. Weiner to make that decision?  Second, I thought there was no such thing as a Hollywood blacklist in the place where freedom of expression reigns.  Weren’t we told no such cabal lived, breathed and controlled the film industry?  Wasn’t Marlon Brando assaulted by the same people who condemned Gibson for saying to Larry King in 1996 that “Hollywood is run by Jews?”

The truth is, people of Jewish extraction have been in the thick of the entertainment industry from the very beginning.  That statement of fact isn’t a statement of ire, it is simply history.  There is a television documentary devoted to its celebration.  Its truth lends credence to Brando’s follow-up comment that Hollywood “is owned by Jews, and they should have a greater sensibility of, of (sic) people who are suffering.”

Brando was not only roundly criticized for daring to say something about the Jewish influence in Hollywood, but he was treated much like Gibson in the aftermath, a pariah unable to find work for speaking what was essentially an uncomfortable truth.  Granted, Brando was in the winter of his years and there wasn’t an awful lot of work for him, but such has not been the case for Gibson.  He was struck in the prime of his movie life by people who had a right to be angry for what he said, but not so much so they actively deprived him of his ability to work.

The details of his struggle to have “The Passion Of The Christ” distributed are relevant here as a matter of supporting evidence in that there are always two sides to every story.  It is no secret Jewish leaders all over the country came down hard in an effort to shut the production down or at least prevent the film from being distributed.  The reason they gave is that it would incite people to blame the Jews for killing Jesus, thus ushering in a new wave of anti-Semitism.  It didn’t happen, but the wounds inflicted on Gibson personally were deep, they would not heal for a very long time, if ever.

Now let us turn to the way Christianity is routinely and savagely demeaned by Hollywood.  We can start with an obscure film noteworthy for little more than being a vehicle to promote Andrew Dice Clay’s aka Andrew Clay Silverstein’s comedy shtick.  The premise of 1990’s “The Adventures Of Ford Fairlane” is unimportant, but there is a scene involving Gilbert Gottfried and Priscilla Presley in which Gottfried’s character, dressed as a Catholic bishop, is being dominated by Presley’s character who is in black leather holding a whip while Gottfried crawls around on all fours acting like an animal in heat.  Where was the care for Christian sensibilities then?  Certainly Joel Silver, the film’s producer, hadn’t any regarding how the film might offend Catholics.

In “Jewish hostility to Christians: the prejudice no one ever writes about”, Damian Thompson of the UK Telegraph on July 29, 2010  wrote, “Christian anti-Semitism, Muslim anti-Semitism, Christian Islamophobia, Muslim persecution of Christians – all of these are acceptable topics of debate.  But not Jewish hostility to Christianity.”

He makes the point that “Sometimes Jewish antipathy to Christianity spills over into hostility towards Christians.”  That hostility is rarely violent although Thompson suggests in its subtlety Jewish disdain for Christians is nonetheless hurtful and effective in several ways, economics among them.  What happened to Brando and Gibson illustrate the point.

Jewish people are justifiably sensitive to anti-Semitism, after all, it is as much a part of humanity’s religious and cultural history as is carrying prejudices and hatreds from age to age.  In an interesting assessment of why there is hatred for Jews, Judaism Online’s lists what Jews have synthesized into the six most oft-cited reasons:

  1. Economic — “We hate Jews because they possess too much wealth and power.”
  2. Chosen People — “We hate Jews because they arrogantly claim that they are the chosen people.”
  3. Scapegoat — “Jews are a convenient group to single out and blame for our troubles.”
  4. Deicide — “We hate Jews because they killed Jesus.”
  5. Outsiders, — “We hate Jews because they are different than us.” (The dislike of the unlike.)
  6. Racial Theory — “We hate Jews because they are an inferior race.”

Three, five and six can be discounted out of hand.  Few people aside from Muslims and Arabs in general seriously ascribe their troubles to the Jews.  It makes so little sense that 13.3 million people can have so inordinate effect on over 6 billion, no one in their right mind can make that math work.

The case could be made for Jews being considered “outsiders”, but at whose behest?  Is it gentiles who consider Jews outsiders or Jews who prefer to set themselves apart?  It’s not unusual for a people to prefer such isolation.  The Amish certainly exemplify the concept.  But it is not uncommon to find Jews more inclined to socialize or do business with other Jews for the very same reasons people of other cultures, ethnicities and religions find it more comfortable to deal with their own.  For Jews to use “The dislike of the unlike” as a reason for being hated carries no more water than a bucket full of holes.

The “inferior race” argument is also groundless in view of reasons one and two.  How can people be hated for being superior when they are hated for being inferior?  The rationale behind the “Racial Theory” is little more than a reference to Hitler and the Nazis, a kind of reminder to the rest of the world that at one time the theory was pushed as fact by a fanatical group of madmen.

Mel Gibson should not have to apologize for something he feels and believes just as no one is demanding Gilbert Gottfried or Sarah Silverman apologize for their outright hatred of Christianity.  Why aren’t they blacklisted?  Why is it this dichotomy of warranted punishments doesn’t extend to Jews like Harvey Weinstein who have made a living off anti-Christian films like 2013’s “Philomena,” which eviscerates the Church for its views on homosexuality and premarital sex.   Then there was 2002’s “40 Days And 40 Nights” about a Catholic who gave up sex for Lent.  And in the same year they gave us, “The Magdalene Sisters” which painted a dishonest, filthy picture of nuns.  And who can forget, “Priest”, “Black Christmas,” “Dogma” and Sinead O’Connor as the Blessed Mother cursing and swearing in “The Butcher Boy.”

Where are the Jews who so generously offer to now “forgive” Mel Gibson when in fact they should be begging for forgiveness themselves?

The six reasons Judaism Online gives for people hating Jews miss the mark almost entirely.  People don’t hate Jews singularly for those reasons, they hate people generally who pour their hypocrisy over others and do so in the belief those people either agree with them or are too stupid to see and understand the truth.

Ms.  Weiner should balance her appeal for forgiveness with a note on what Gibson’s opponents in the Hollywood Jewish community did to him and what they do to Christians and Catholics regularly in the name of freedom of expression.  It is testament to the arrogance of the lot, including Ms. Weiner that they are ignorant of a wise admonishment contained in the New Testament:  “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?  You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”


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

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


A great many people have heard of the Ides of March.  Few know what it actually means.  The term itself would probably have been lost to any but the most ardent Roman scholars had it not been for Shakespeare’s play, “The Tragedy Of Julius Caesar” which was very likely first performed in 1599 and from there has been a staple in the study of drama ever since.  In Act 1, Scene 2, a Soothsayer twice warns Caesar to “Beware the Ides of March.”  But Caesar, at the prodding of Brutus, ignores the man and his advice.  Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of history knows what happened after that, Caesar was murdered by his friend Brutus, among others.

The Ides of March fall on the fifteenth of the month.  From what we know, the Romans not only acknowledged the Ides of March, they labeled the middle of several months with the same term respectively.  Ever practical, the Romans split the months in two so that the Ides were essentially a middle day, sometimes extended to two or three, when all accounts were settled, including disagreements adjudicated in their courts of law.  Thus the Soothsayer’s warning to Caesar that he should beware the day for all the accounts against him would be settled on it.

There is another aspect of the Ides, perhaps more esoteric than practical, but no less real as a warning.  The Ides have come down to us as a portent of misfortune, something evil coming our way, something over which we have little or no control, but something for which we should at least be somewhat prepared.

When the Soothsayer warns Caesar, it isn’t to frighten him, nor is it a matter of audience edification, for the warning comes with nothing more, no explanation, nothing.  Of course it wouldn’t have served Shakespeare’s purpose in any way to have added more material at that point.  The play would have suffered immeasurably had he suggested the subject of the warning.  Suspense after all is drama’s best friend.

In real life however, drama is to be excluded from the business and political affairs of men.  It is an impediment to the decision-making process since it has a tendency to become more important than the issue or problem to be addressed or solved.  Oftentimes, drama is employed to hide incompetence, the idea being to direct attention to the show instead of the substance.  This is especially true in the Obama administration.

At no time in American history, with the exception of the Clinton years perhaps, has there been an effort to obfuscate using drama to hide total incompetence as there has been with the Obama administration.  The sheer number of times Mr. Obama has had to claim he didn’t know about something tells all the tale one needs to hear.  “I didn’t know” is a dramatic excuse for total incompetence.

The problem with Obama and his people is that they believe drama is the solution.  Pass Obamacare, perhaps the worst piece of legislation in American history, but do it in circus style with Nancy Pelosi et. al. strutting their way to the White House, giant gavel in her hand.  Then show Barack Obama signing the legislation using a small black child as his prop to show how his healthcare insurance plan will help, well, small black children.  The symbolism is so obvious, even the drama smacks of incompetence.  Then when it comes time to roll out the program, no one knows how to do it because actually creating the program required no drama whatsoever, thus, no one cared.  But such incompetence inevitably runs up against the walls of reality.  Dealing with that reality, according to the Obama manual, requires a simple exercise in more drama, but not quite the kind Obama likes.  His answer, “I didn’t know” is beginning to feel a little hackneyed.  The more hackney, the less dramatic impact.

The IRS scandal, and it is indeed a scandal, provided its own drama.  Obama’s response  to the Gestapo-like activities of a bureaucracy under his aegis required more dramatic spin, but all he could come up with was another claim he didn’t know what was happening.  In spite of his ignorance, he would certainly do something about it now that he knew.  As time passed however and the need for drama subsided, when asked why nothing had been done he announced there was no need because no one did anything wrong.  This is when drama becomes an exercise in careless, indifferent cynicism.

But now we have a very different matter before us, something that cannot be handled with typical Obama drama.  The Ides of March are upon us all, not just because of Obama’s incompetence although it speaks directly to it, but also because of his naiveté and the weakness that is the hallmark of a man without substance much less character.  These are the days of accounting, the days when all other business is put on hold so as to clear up the outstanding issues which demand attention.  The problem is, there are far too many accounts to deal with effectively and no one of competence in authority to deal with them in any case.

Obama’s apologists are claiming there is nothing he can do about the Russian invasion of the Ukraine.  Many on the right, so completely emasculated by political correctness and the media, are of the same mind.  It’s none of our business, they say.  The same level of weakness and idiocy occupied the White House in 1938 when Hitler annexed the Sudetenland portion of Czechoslovakia under a similar pretext as the one Putin is using on the Crimean region of the Ukraine.  For those unfamiliar with the Ides of March, 1939 (March 16, 1939), Hitler’s Wehrmacht invaded and occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia until the end of World War II after which it fell under Soviet control for the next 70 years.

Obama’s feckless approach to almost every issue the United States has faced during his tenure is evidenced by his dramatic lack of success in almost everything he does.  And when it becomes clear the reality of his actions run in absolute counterpoint to his portrayal of them, he and his people turn to what they know and believe in, more drama.  While he aimlessly stumbles and fumbles about he even manages to mismanage his fundamental transformation of America.  Not only does he not deal with Republicans in the House of Representatives, his ignorance of how to deal with opposition is displayed in a childish petulance akin to locking himself in a closet and refusing to breathe until he gets his way.

The drama intended in Shakespeare’s Tragedy of Julius Caesar is meant to entertain and enlighten his audience.  Entertain for the obvious reason, enlighten in that the universality of his message is summed up in the Soothsayer’s warning to “Beware the Ides of March.”  But the difference between Shakespeare’s  Julius Caesar and the Barack Obama we are forced to endure is the former’s disregard for the inherent drama in the warning’s reality and the latter’s regard for drama to the total exclusion of reality.

In another of Shakespeare’s plays, Prince Hamlet exclaims, “…the play’s the thing.”  Often the line is misunderstood and misused, but as an illustration of how Barack Obama sees the world, it works well if slightly out of context from the purpose in the play.  The play is indeed the thing to Barack Obama, all we can hope for is the remaining acts of the Obama drama are short.


Posted in Politics, The Nation, The World.

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