Skip to content


While my opinion of Bill O’Reilly rises and falls periodically, depending on whether I think he’s being, in his words, “a pinhead” on certain subjects, I don’t doubt his sincerity or his veracity. On the other hand, David Corn makes my skin crawl. His ability to justify the most outlandish and egregious failures of the liberal mindset is the stuff of legend. Take, for example his assaults on Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), the now Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment. The New American quotes Corn, a rabid global warming champion, as saying “(Inhofe) slithered in and out of the cavernous media filing center, ever at the ready to speak to reporters looking for the other side quotes denigrating the [Copenhagen] proceedings, claiming that climate change was no more than a hoax, and celebrating the summit’s failure to produce a binding and comprehensive treaty.” He goes on to say, “Inhofe enjoyed skunking up the party.” This in reference to Inhofe’s (and a great many others) insistence that the science is not only still out on the “climate change” debate, but has been discredited for the fraud it is all over the world.

Now Mr. Corn has his BB guns pointed at Bill O’Reilly writing that the latter has lied about covering events in Buenos Aires during the Falklands War. The details of Corn’s claims are unnecessary here as they are entirely false, but it bears stating, Corn and socialists like him are craven to an almost unbelievable degree. You will find them hunkered down in their offices hiding behind their computer monitors typing away at their keyboards whatever comes to mind that minute out of a rage they are too cowardly to display in any other way. There is nothing more hateful than a milksop who will only put his pen on the line for what he believes, never his fortune much less his life.

David Corn is a bombastic pantywaist with a modest vocabulary and a desperate need to be relevant. If he can’t be legitimately relevant, then he will be loud, obnoxious and outrageous. It is the hallmark of a child starved for attention. He stomps and kicks, yells and screams, falls to the floor, holds his breath until he’s blue and then says, “Mommy, you don’t love me!” For people like Corn, his temper tantrums always involve attacking others since he must have someone to scourge, it is his attention-getting device which serves a dual purpose.

If you are in any way like me and millions of other boys turned men on the streets, you have certainly met guys like David Corn. Other than his immediate ilk, he was the kid everyone else scorned for being a total a-hole. He’s the kid whose mother begged other mothers to have their sons befriend him, but it was useless. Try as you might have, invariably you wanted to choke him.

David Corn is the type of man who puts no stock whatsoever in friendship, loyalty and honor. He is the kind of guy who would think nothing about putting a move on your little sister and expecting you to not only understand, but consider it a favor from someone who is better than you and yours. David Corn is also the kid you felt no compunction about beating up just because he actually believed his own myth when he was in fact so low on the ladder of your consideration he couldn’t have been more meaningless except as an annoying cricket you peremptorily squashed. The saddest part of it all is he had no clue people looked at him that way and he grew up believing precisely the opposite.

In short, David Corn is the guy who vandalizes Wikipedia by writing his own biography and occasionally tweaking it in the Brian Williams tradition. He’s the guy who takes selfies and PhotoShops them to give himself lips. He is a man who would sell out America with glee if only someone would lend him a scintilla of credibility. He is truly an awful human being.

Why is David Corn with so obscure an outlet as Mother Jones? The answer is as obvious as Bill O’Reilly in a room of little people. No one else wants him. It is the story of his life.

This entire screed is not meant to defend Bill O’Reilly, he doesn’t need me to defend him. It is a venting, a street brawl on paper so to speak with an enemy as disgusting to truth as rats are to the human race.


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

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


Anti-Semitism is a noxious thought process which feeds off a stereotype, right? And all Italian-Americans are somehow, some way attached to La Cosa Nostra. All black people are thugs. All Hispanics/Latinos whatever, are illegal aliens. All men are serial rapists. All women are conniving bitches. You get the idea. The reality however is some Jews are precisely what anti-Semites say they are just as there are Italian-Americans in the mob, black thugs and illegal aliens of Hispanic/Latino whatever backgrounds.

How to define someone who is Jewish and fits the stereotype may be a little difficult, but allow a try from the standpoint of having grown up in the same atmosphere as most other ethnic Americans. That is, Italian-Americans are superior to everyone else. No one in my family said so, it was just understood. I suppose that is quite common in any ethnic household. It is therefore probably true in Jewish households. The stereotype regarding Jewish people is their condescension when it comes to non-Jews. That is the perception. In my era, the baby-boomer era, it was accepted that Jews thought they were better than everyone else, but those of us who weren’t Jewish, notably Italian-Americans, had the same view of ourselves. The difference was, we didn’t think of ourselves as the “chosen people”, we didn’t need to, we simply assumed it. Besides, there were far more of us than there were Jews and they rarely if ever associated with non-Jews so it didn’t matter what they thought of themselves or us much less us about them.

Stereotypes do have foundations in fact to a certain degree. As we age, we see that many times the stereotype not only fits, it describes people perfectly. And so it is when we take a balanced and objective look at Jewish people who occupy positions in the media. Take Jon Stewart for example. The darling of the left, he and many other Jews see no problem in offending Christians. It’s almost like black people demanding reparations for slavery. Jews in the media bashing or poking fun at Christians, Catholics especially, seem to believe it is their right, like payback for all that was done to them by Christians in the past, whatever case can be made to support or dismiss the conclusion. That’s the way a lot of us see things.

It isn’t a hatred for Jews that motivates anti-Semitism as much as it is having to put up with a vocal and truly distasteful subset of them who push the envelope in the name of some ragged philosophy, political viewpoint or comedy routine. Take a look at the movie “The Adventures of Ford Fairlane” starring Andrew Dice Clay aka Andrew Clay Silverstein and Gilbert Gottfried. In the one scene, Gottfried is dressed as a Catholic bishop and is the object of a dominatrix played by Priscilla Presley. He is on all fours while she stands near him with a whip.

Sarah Silverman has made a career out of blaspheming Jesus Christ and spewing vitriol about Christians in the name of comedy. It seems the modus operandi of Jewish comedians. Every disgusting comment about Christians is couched in it being comedy, satire, biting wit and of course, freedom of speech. But let a Christian blister Jews in the same way, he is immediately labeled a hater, an anti-Semite, an abuser of free speech.
Why is the former acceptable, but not the latter? Is it really a matter of free speech? So be it then. But when anti-Semitism rears its head, it may be a good idea for Jewish people to reflect on the truly offensive realities encouraging a sense of justifiable anger which when not given the liberty of expression turns into hatred for a whole people. Their free speech might not be so free. It may be costing them the societal conviviality they seem to want, but complain they never get.

Which brings us to Jon Stewart’s exit from whatever that show was, comedy masquerading as news or the other way around. In his February 15, 2015 article, Kyle Smith of the New York Post says “Jon Stewart was unabashedly and habitually dishonest.” He questions why Stewart was such a darling of the media and the left. The answer is clear, Stewart’s routine was built on ridicule. It’s the great shtick born of the Borscht-belt mentality which though far more subtle in days past has now blossomed into outright rage against anyone who doesn’t fall into lockstep with an ultra-liberal belief system countenancing everything most Christians find antithetical to their faith. No, Ms. Silverman, a woman’s body is not her own when she is carrying life. She becomes a vessel until that life is capable of living on his or her own. You may not believe that way, but millions of us do. That you use the stage to rip us apart for our beliefs will not make us disbelieve, all it will do is make us dislike you, perhaps hate you and when the time comes to help you, when you need us most, you will find our willingness withheld, a function of your own hatred turned back on you.

Jon Stewart’s distaste for Christians is watered down of necessity for the most part, being close friends with Stephen Colbert, a practicing Catholic of all things. But the attempts at disparaging Christianity’s adherents is hardly subtle and not all that funny either. “Yes,” he says with tongue-in-cheek, “the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely! In broad daylight! Openly wearing the symbols of their religion…perhaps around their necks? And maybe, dare I dream it, maybe one day there can be an openly Christian President. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively” (all sic including the bad grammar and punctuation).

This as it was published on some no-name blog with the postscript, “To the extent that there is animus against American Christianity, it is attributable to a disheartening blend of Christian presumption and Christian benightedness. Together, these traits have made Christianity its own worst enemy. You cannot be self-righteous, holier-than-thou bigots without blowback.”

The blogger is anonymous…of course, but his words are interesting nonetheless for one reason, they reflect precisely what ant-Semites think of Jews which just goes to show, bigotry and hatred are but musterions to the people who carry their general prejudices around, but in very deep pockets of their consciousnesses. Why do Jews hate Christians? Only they know. Why do anti-Semites hate Jews? Similarly, for reasons only they know. Or maybe it’s that no one really knows why they hate other people, they just do.

It’s the safest bet in the world that no set of people are any better than any other set in the sum total of their being people. Everyone is the same on an individual basis, but collect them into groups and the natural instinct is to see membership in that group as something more special than membership in another group especially if one has no choice in that membership. Thus, Italian-Americans are superior to every other ethnic and racial group in the world which is about as logical as Jews thinking they are God’s only chosen people.

The point is, like black people should look inward to better their race’s circumstances, Jews should begin a similar review of their sensibilities regarding non-Jews. A little respect wouldn’t be out of order. And Italian-Americans, well they don’t have to do anything, they’re perfect.


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

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


Oh, I get it, when Congress takes unilateral action it’s an outrage, but when Obama does, it’s within his power.

Clearly, Obama and his minions dislike Jews to the point of hatred.


Posted in Politics, The Nation, The World.

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


Peter J. Fusco, Sr. publishes new novel, The Eight-Block Rule.

ebr coverTom Sawyer and Huck Finn on steroids wrapped into one mid-twentieth century urban kid from the streets, Danny Manzi will win your heart and challenge your sense of right and wrong.

A boy with a philosopher’s soul and an intellect to match, Danny’s outlook on life is forged in a sterile relationship with his mother and the illicit love of a young novitiate.

This remarkable story, told from Danny’s point of view has been called “uncomfortable” and “disturbing” by some, but “hilarious” and “spot on” by others.

First in a trilogy, The Eight-Block Rule chronicles Danny’s life from the time he is eight until he is twelve.
Once you meet Danny Manzi, you will never look at boys quite the same way again.


Posted in Business, The Nation.

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


State of the Union (of course)

Who cares about the NFL’s balls?

Hollywood’s version of Affirmative Action

The CPAP Girl


Posted in Business, Fusco Imports, Politics, The Nation.

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


Peter discusses the events of the day including why “American Sniper” is such a success and how hypocritical Hollywood is as they laud “Taken 3″ but decry “American Sniper” as a movie about a killer.  Needless to say, Peter takes the hypocrites apart limb by limb…just to maintain the violence thing.


Posted in Politics, The Nation.

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


Eric Holder famously said we are a nation of cowards who refuse to openly and honestly discuss race relations. I took him to task on these pages for his statement, I won’t walk over that real estate again. The same charge however could be leveled at the general population with more credibility than Holder’s when it comes to lesbian/homosexual relations, not between or among themselves, but gays versus those who consider same sex relationships to be immoral.

That discussion forces the issue out of the bedroom and into the living room where children are introduced to a mindset and culture which not only denies such relationships are immoral, but actually attempts to make them more moral than heterosexual relationships. Gays, to simplify and congregate the more appropriate descriptions, will have us believe it is all about pure love between them while heterosexual relationships are portrayed as often being rather violent affairs of penetration. Gay relationships are beautiful while heterosexual relations are simply lustful, somewhat animalistic endeavors.

The hypocrisy is mind-numbing especially in light of some very real dialogue on the subject with a homosexual. It may not be the definitive word, but it is very real nonetheless. The conversation was reported here before, but not in the present context. The short version is a friend of a friend finally revealed himself to be homosexual. It wasn’t a matter of being sexually attracted to the friend, it was a cry for help that could not be offered for the futility of making it. He wasn’t going to change, he couldn’t. I’ll call him Bill who one day decided to tell Joe everything. They’d been friends since childhood. Bill was even married for a short time. But when he spilled his guts to Joe, it was an outpouring of grief over being trapped in a lifestyle he both hated and needed. Bill told Joe that his days were filled looking for men with whom to have sex. He said he was completely ruled by his genitals. He lost jobs because the urge was so overwhelming he could not concentrate on anything else. The bombshell came when Bill told Joe virtually all the homosexuals he knew were the same way. Moreover, the very idea of a monogamous relationship was completely antithetical to his realities. Again, Bill told Joe he believed most homosexuals felt the same way.

The debate I suppose rages on whether or not gays and lesbians are born the way they are or whether they acquire their proclivities over time, but it seems if Bill is right, and the general sense of lesbianism and homosexuality originates in the mind and is then concentrated below the equator, one can understand the need to justify their activities which in doing so would in theory make it easier to satisfy their cravings. When a product or in this case activity is roundly decried by society, the fanaticism necessary to foist it on the people who find it reprehensible and in most cases disgusting is almost religious. Like crazy Muslims, the gay and lesbian movement attempts to force the world into changing what it knows to be true and real, that homosexuality and lesbianism are inherently wrong just as are stealing, murder and a host of other immoral activities. For what is morality if not following a set of rules which we know to be correct?

It is legitimate to ask, “Who is anyone to determine what is right and wrong?” Certainly not men or women. History is replete with examples of how men and women have twisted and perverted the notion. If not men and women, then who? We can only conclude God is the creator of our societal system, the one that actually works if adhered to purposefully.

From the time of Moses we have lived pretty much within a system of ten rules which not only define our culture, but set the standard for all humanity. And if you’re not happy with the Ten Commandments you have natural law which tells us unequivocally there is the necessity for relations between the male and female of the species or the species dies. Are there aberrations and anomalies? Of course, but they are the exception to the rule, they cannot be otherwise for the same reason.

We have seen what happens to a people when the nuclear family is trivialized. It does not take a trained sociologist to observe the outcome on a society which treats marriage like a political tool to make a set of people who fervently want their lifestyle to be legitimized feel good about themselves. The equation doesn’t work, everyone, including gays and lesbians knows this. There is no way that square peg will ever be pounded into a triangular hole. All of society would be better served if those with a moral backbone stood straight and tall and said in unison, “No, no, marriage is not an institution for gays and lesbians, nor is the family unit. What works is a father, mother and children.” We all know this to be true, there is no real debate to be had.

This matter has now boiled over as a result of many states, at the behest of their citizens, banning same sex marriages. The Supreme Court will hear the matter on petitions brought to it as a result of lower court rulings, specifically a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth District which according to “upheld bans on marriage or marriage-recognition in Kentucky (Bourke v. Beshear), Michigan (DeBoer v. Snyder), Ohio (Obergefell v. Hodges), and Tennessee (Tanco v. Haslam).” In the end it may become a states’ rights issue for political and constitutional purposes, but it will be a signal as to what we as a society have become, a people of principles or a people of political correctness.

There is intrinsic value in morality, it must not be set aside to satisfy a political end or sexual urge.


Posted in Politics, The Nation.

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


The day’s events including the absurd Kerry to France trip, the all-white Academy Awards and the retirement of Marylin Tavvener.


Posted in Politics, The Nation, The World.

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


Peter crosses swords with the political class covering subjects like the military’s disapproval of Obama, John Boehner’s words being equal to his actions and Luis Guitierrez’s laughable threat to Republicans.


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

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


Growing up in Utica, New York, my brothers, friends and I learned two lessons very quickly, don’t believe anything you hear from anyone and if threatened, hit the other guy first, fast and hard. You may think such cynicism and reactive violence would not serve a boy growing into manhood very well, but you would be wrong. From that belief system sprung an element of respect for each other. One would not try to con another because one understood the other wouldn’t be conned as he assumed from the beginning the con was on, always on. The idea of threatening one another also fell flat, for to make threats invited a brutal reaction immediately. Besides, Italians don’t threaten, they come at you out of nowhere which engendered a kind of built-in wariness. It all worked out pretty well until someone decided to violate those very simple rules which garnered him both a bad reputation and innumerable beatings.

So it is with Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) who today threatened the Republican party that should they defund Barack Obama’s illegal immigration actions, the repercussions would be disastrous.

“Let me tell you something,” he said, “the fruits of your action today will cause only anger and outrage, and the mobilization of an immigrant community throughout this nation that will be the death knell to the future of your party as a national institution.”

Were he a kid growing up in Utica during my era, he would have been beaten to a pulp for threatening us. And so he should be today, politically that is. Mr. Gutierrez is clearly Hispanic first and American last. His interests are only for a segment of society which is here illegally, deserves nothing and should be packed up and sent back to their native lands, Gutierrez with them.

The Republicans should pull a Utica on him. They should blister him openly, hotly and immediately by stating the obvious, Gutierrez is a punk who shoots off his mouth recklessly in an attempt to con the nation into accepting millions of illegals, people who have flouted our laws and routinely spit in our faces by continuing to flood across our borders with impunity. Gutierrez’s goal is as obvious as he is, to fundamentally transform the country into one ruled by Hispanics. In that way his power and the power of his ethnic clones will be cemented. Finally, he, along with people like Barack Obama and Eric Holder will have their day punishing the white conquerors by enslaving them to a system they created themselves and allowed to be handed over to those who abused it for the purpose stated herein.

But America still has a chance to set things right by adhering to the Constitution and enforcing the immigration laws even if it means segmenting out those who are here illegally and sending them home, all 20 million of them. If we are not a nation of laws which everyone must abide by, then we are nothing. This isn’t a matter of humanitarianism, it is a matter of fundamental fairness, something all thinking Americans understand.

This is not a racial screed with an aim toward denying anyone the opportunity to come to America, work hard, better themselves and their families. It is a warning that if one part of society can get away with wholesale violations of its laws, then the rest of society will find a way to demand the same right. That attitude most assuredly will bring the United States to its knees and then no one will be safe, not whites, browns or blacks. Without law and adherence to the law, we have anarchy. If Gutierrez thinks his people will be safe once in control, he is dead wrong and awfully naïve. Once Americans, like any people would do, find themselves without law, they will be fighting with each other, taking by force from whoever has wealth, but not distributing it to those without, that isn’t human nature. They will do what all people do, keep whatever they steal for themselves. The strong, not any particular ethnic or racial group, will not only survive, they will thrive. And if Mr. Gutierrez has not noticed, history indicates quite clearly that the world has been dominated by those of Western European descent for thousands of years, they will not go quietly into darkness. In other words, you want a war? You will have one, a war you cannot win.

Do not threaten from a position of weakness, that is one of the first rules of the street. The “anger and outrage” Gutierrez says will come from the millions of illegals in this country will pale in comparison to the anger and outrage he is stirring up among the legitimate citizens who live here. Perhaps Mr. Gutierrez should play back the tape of Obama’s statement to Republicans just after he took office the first time, allow a paraphrase, “Elections have consequences, you lost, and you lost big.” Gutierrez and his party are in no position to threaten anyone especially since it appears the Democrat party is the one poised for an ignominious extinction.


Posted in Politics, The Nation.

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

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