Skip to content


THE PETER FUSCO SHOW FOR APRIL 22,2015

Peter discusses everything.

Share

Posted in Fusco Imports, Politics, The Nation.

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


THE PETER FUSCO PROGRAM FOR APRIL 21, 2015

Pizza By Patriots – Giving Vets the opportunity to earn their own slice of the American pie.

Polling – the greatest modern farce since global warming and climate change.

Peter goes off on Republicans – “I hate the Republican party, my party!”

The Loretta Lynch nomination – Just another Eric Holder making the Justice Department an arm of the NAACP.

Why Hillary doesn’t stand a chance.

What’s old stays old.

Share

Posted in Business, Politics, The Nation.

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


THE PETER FUSCO PROGRAM FOR APRIL 16, 2015

Pizza By Patriots – The plan to give veterans a piece of the American pie.

The most disgusting Senator in American history.

And so much more…

Share

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

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


THE PETER FUSCO PROGRAM FOR APRIL 15, 2015

It’s the big announcement day: PIZZA BY PATRIOTS!

Share

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

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


THE PETER FUSCO PROGRAM FOR APRIL 14, 2015

The battle of the sexes…Peter says no.

Ben Carson…Peter says no.

A woman president…Peter says yes, but not Hillary.

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation.


THE PETER FUSCO PROGRAM FOR APRIL 13, 2015

And you thought incisive political commentary and entertainment were mutually exclusive!

Peter discusses flowers, politics and himself. (But he does it so charmingly.)

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation, The World.

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


THE PETER FUSCO PROGRAM FOR APRIL 12, 2015

The Republican candidates.

Why John Kasich may be the best hope for Republicans.

The Ohio Flower…not what you might think.

The coming big announcement on helping veterans, especially our wounded warriors gain a piece of the American dream.

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation.

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


THE PETER FUSCO PROGRAM FOR APRIL 11, 2015

Here he goes again…

Why Republicans should embrace Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

The astounding project for veterans that Peter and partners are about to launch.

The drought hoax in California and Governor Moonbeam’s channeling of Barack Hussein 666.

With more cynicism than a radical Islamic terrorist.

Share

Posted in Business, Politics, The Nation, The World.

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


THE FOX NEWS PROBLEM

Last night’s (April 8, 2015) “Kelly File” had Megyn Kelly purposely badgering Rand Paul, making every attempt to goad him into an argument just to prove how irascible he can be when challenged, especially by a woman. It was an unbecoming few minutes, not worthy of the time spent. Like eggplant, the segment had no nutritional value whatsoever. Paul didn’t get to express himself and Kelly showed herself to be a colossal bitch.

While not a big fan of Rand Paul, PJFOTN believes all the Republican candidates should be able to offer their perspectives while answering tough questions. The trend in talking over each other has precluded that possibility however. At times, watching FOX’s prime time personalities, while certainly better than being spoon-fed ultra-liberal pap by the other news channels, is like watching couples in divorce proceedings, it’s actually painful.

Bill O’Reilly is perhaps the worst offender, but Megyn Kelly is like his protégé except she uses her obvious charms for the jab while saving her right for the hook. It’s not only annoying, it is, as the British say, off-putting and tiring.

If television news has become more of an entertainment concoction, one would hope for repartee instead of the clash of titans. At least a witty exchange would be more civilized and far easier to understand. Last night’s car crash wasn’t informative, entertaining or even understandable. It was a nice looking blonde girl arguing with a headstrong man who would have been justified in being less than genteel by telling her off.

The FOX News Channel is very much like the Republican establishment in that its success is not so much due to the great programming as much as it is the only game in town. In the beginning, FOX was a breath of fresh air. Now, it is a stage for actors and actresses pretending to be newscasters. Like preening birds, they show-prep in the makeup room, substance is a secondary issue.

It is the mistake of the ages, people in the public eye thinking they are more important than their work. It is why Rush Limbaugh is so successful. He knows, and he is not above admitting it openly, his success is entirely due to his audience. The Rush Limbaugh Show is all about the audience even though Limbaugh slyly, but always self-deprecatingly boasts about himself on the air, e.g. “Talent on loan from God”, “half my brain tied behind my back” etc. Not only is he unscripted, he is as generous with his curiosity as anyone in the media. That is to say, he makes an effort to understand his callers. He wants to know what they think. There’s nothing fake about the back and forth in spite of the constrictions of time. If he cuts a caller off, it’s because he must take a break for an “obscene profit center”. That’s business of course.

And FOX is good business. Today’s Hollywood Reporter cites Roger Ailes, CEO and President of FOX News as the most powerful person in New York (meaning the world) media. FOX “will earn $2.18 billion this year” as a result of his vision and leadership. Which begs the question, what exactly is his vision and leadership style? Does Ailes approve of the talk over everybody style of so-called journalism among his ranks or is it a matter of if it’s not broken, don’t fix it?

The alternatives to FOX are not even close. The Hollywood Reporter states that CNN and MSNBC will earn $1.16 billion and a paltry $509 million respectively this year. FOX makes more than both combined, the difference being more than MSNBC makes totally. The reason for the discrepancy has been made clear not just in this column on myriad occasions, but by virtually every other outlet with the least bit of interest in the matter. When there is a choice, liberal media is crushed.

It has also been stated on this site that if either MSNBC or CNN changed their format to compete with FOX as a strictly conservative outlet without the charade of being “fair and balanced”, the latter’s audience would bolt for the former.

Assuming an audience is loyal when you’re the only outlet of a particular genre is foolish. Assuming viewers will remain loyal when a reasonable alternative sans the talking over each other is presented makes even less sense.

Debating is an art. All art should be enjoyable. Debate infused with good sense, solid facts and wit in an atmosphere of give and take is far more enjoyable than the grinding gotcha, infuriating interruptions and overbearing oafishness that seems to be the late fare on FOX. Is it that way all the time? No.

“The Five” comes as close to being good news television discussion as anything out there, primarily because the women are smart and charming while at the same time commanding. Kimberly Guilfoyle is schooled in the law and makes no bones about her conservative viewpoints while Dana Perino knows politics from the inside at the highest levels and is not afraid to look at various sides of sundry issues. Greg Gutfeld is nothing short of witty to sometimes an annoying, but smartly entertaining degree while Eric Bolling lends a genteel, albeit somewhat libertarian maleness to the whole. The various liberals who occupy the sole chair are less than noteworthy with the exception of the ailing Bob Beckel who is more often wrong than right, but at least makes us laugh. Juan Williams whines his way through routines of inanity, but comes off as a friendly, if hopeless liberal.

If Miss Megyn’s journalistic tryst with Rand Paul turned into an evening of broken promises is emblematic of FNC’s evolution, it’s a problem. She looked and sounded like a shrew while Rand Paul looked and sounded like a man who would much rather be somewhere else than home with a woman at her time of the month.

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation.

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


A DEFINITIVE CRITIQUE OF “KILLING JESUS” THE MOVIE

Aside from Kelsey Grammar, the cast of Bill O’Reilly’s “Killing Jesus” which aired last night (March 29, 2015), turned in terrible performances not because they’re bad actors, but because they worked off a terrible script. Moreover, whoever had charge of makeup should be drawn and quartered as well. The hair and beards those overly Semitic people sported looked like they were purchased at a Halloween party store.

O’Reilly’s intensely zealous attempt to portray the life and death of Jesus in the context of a historical overview falls off the rails for its injection of conclusions based on interpretations of the historical record, some of which are so fantastic they are caricatures of it.

The fiasco that is “Killing Jesus” the movie should have been expected. it was written by Walon Green, a 78 year old documentary film director. Green did what he does, present a documentary, another one in a long line of them which try to tell a story that cannot be told as a documentary. The Son of God was no more a political threat to the Roman Empire than his mother.

Selling a million copies of a book doesn’t necessarily validate its conclusions. This is especially true when writing about Jesus Christ’s life. To jam the idea that Jesus was a political person intent on making a political statement is to totally ignore the Gospels which are, for all intents and purposes, the only historical records we have of Christ’s life, death and resurrection. The whole purpose of Christ in the first place was to foment a spiritual revolution, not a political one. There is no evidence whatsoever aside from his commenting on Roman taxes that Jesus had an interest in generating conflict with the Roman Empire. On the contrary, God picked precisely the right moment in history to send His son to earth. The Roman Empire made it such that Christ could preach in an atmosphere of relative order. To intentionally disturb that order would have interfered in his mission. To suggest otherwise even if your angle is a historical one only, flies in the face of the reality that Jesus was the Son of God and he knew it.

It isn’t history to avoid the known sources only to present what you think should have happened and why. In the scene where Jesus meets John the Baptist at the Jordan, somehow O’Reilly and Green concluded that Jesus had no idea who he himself was, that John had to actually convince him he was the Messiah. How O’Reilly and Green came up with that scene and make the claim it is historically accurate defies credibility. Indeed, John recognized Jesus immediately and declined to baptize Christ, but Christ overrode him and insisted they fulfill all righteousness which included Jesus submitting to being baptized as a signal he was not only the Son of God, but a human being as well. It isn’t clear what Gospel O’Reilly and Green used as their source, perhaps one of the unknown ones, like the Gospel of Randy or something.

Of course Jesus knew he was the Son of God from when he was a boy. We know this from the Gospel of Luke, Chapter 2, verses 41 to 50 where the boy Jesus remained behind in Jerusalem after a Jewish festival. After three days missing, Mary and Joseph found him in the Temple engaged in a question and answer session with “the doctors”, i.e. the most learned Jewish men.

And seeing him, they wondered. And his mother said to him: ‘Son, why hast thou done so to us? Behold thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.’ And he said to them: ‘How is it that you sought me? Did you not know, that I must be about my father’s business?’” (Luke 2, 47:48) How did O’Reilly miss this?

Others have tried, none have succeeded in presenting the “historical Jesus”. It cannot be done as a dry documentary chronicling the life of a man in the first century whose impact has withstood the test of time for over 2,000 years. Surely there must be more to that man’s story than the conclusion he was a political agitator who threatened the Roman Empire, another conclusion entirely without merit.

By Pilate’s own admission he never heard of Jesus before Caiaphas and his minions brought charges against him. How O’Reilly arrived at Pilate’s being concerned about an itinerant Jewish preacher prior to Jesus’ appearance before him is anyone’s guess, but it isn’t through history. More to the point, Pilate’s response to Caiaphas’ complaint is basic Roman, there was a rule of law in place, Roman law. A man must be judged before he can be convicted, but once convicted, Roman punishment was extremely severe to show others who might consider similar infractions that it would not be worth the transgression.

Pilate’s hesitation to convict Jesus is also firmly within the historical record. We know that Pilate was in disfavor at Tiberius’ court because of his brutal approach to things which tended to end badly for everyone. In a particularly volatile area like Israel at the time, that approach was to be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Slaughtering Jews en masse was what created instability, not Jesus’ preaching. Pilate was in a tight spot regarding Jesus however. He was being subtly threatened by the Jewish leaders, if he didn’t have Jesus crucified, he knew they would incite a riot themselves. So he did the expedient thing while publicly washing his hands of responsibility.

As far as the Romans were concerned, Jesus wasn’t even on their radar until the Jewish leaders brought him to their attention. Clearly then, the contemporary effort to portray Jesus as a political lightning rod is specious.

O’Reilly and others who have attempted “documentaries” on the historical Jesus like to justify their “history” of Jesus by removing the religious aspect from his life. That’s like removing Mona Lisa’s smile. He tries desperately to support Jesus’ enormous popularity by saying it was the man’s message that attracted the thousands of people who came to him. It’s truly a ridiculous approach. There were plenty of men before and after Jesus who had “messages” and followers, none as successful as Jesus. The reason is so obvious that to exclude it from the historical Jesus is tantamount to intellectual dishonesty and academic malfeasance.

It was Jesus’ ability to create miracles that separated him from the all others claiming connection to God. They are what made him so popular. The miracles brought thousands upon thousands of people to him, the vehicles by which he could preach to the largest numbers in an age of little or no communication other than word of mouth. It made sense on both the human and spiritual levels. Failure to acknowledge the absolute importance of Jesus’ miracles in generating such enormous crowds is a willful attempt to mislead and yet O’Reilly scrupulously avoids them as if to say, they were ancillary to Jesus’ story, of no real importance.

As if to underscore his disdain for the importance of Christ’s miracles, the one he does include in the movie is entirely inaccurate. He has the mother of a boy seeking out Jesus to help her demon possessed son. In the first place, Mark writes in Chapter 9, 15:28 that it was the boy’s father who asked for Jesus’ help. The importance of the story however did not center around Jesus’ exorcising the demon to show his miraculous abilities and power over them, it was to show how faith in Jesus and his message can overcome all adversity. Mark writes that the father asked Jesus to help “if you can”. Jesus essentially rebuked him by saying, “If I can?” Then he proceeded to call out the demon and order it never to enter the boy again.

O’Reilly’s Jesus never says a word to the demon, presumably because a demon isn’t historically real in O’Reilly’s estimation. We are left with O’Reilly’s Jesus simply holding the boy as if to say all we need is love. John Lennon said that. He was wrong too. Jesus showed power as well as love, the power of faith. St. Paul clarified the foundational character of Christ’s message of faith when he wrote to the Romans, first you have to have faith, then the love of Christ will pour out on you.

Finally, and O’Reilly isn’t the only one to make the mistake although in his case like others it seems to be intentional for purposes of political correctness, the Romans were not responsible for killing Jesus, the Jewish leadership was. In fact, there is evidence to suggest the troops used to crucify Jesus were not Roman regulars, they were most likely auxiliaries pulled from the indigenous population. The closest Roman legion was the XII Fulminata stationed in Raphanae, Syria some hundred plus miles away. It is true Pilate had a contingent with him of about 4,000 at all times, but it is questionable, knowing how volatile the situation would be during Jewish feast days in Jerusalem, that he would march all 4,000 into the city.

In the end, “Killing Jesus” was neither enlightening nor entertaining. In truth, it was just another reworking of Christ’s story from a secular angle which while purporting to be historically accurate leaves out the most essential history so as to make it look like Bill O’Reilly, someone in the middle not taking one side or the other, is being impartial enough to please the harshest skeptics.

Bill O’Reilly is a good man, there should be no doubt about that, but he is also a classic huckster with a giant ego and happy to be that.

One final note to O’Reilly:

The difference between your other “Killing” books and “Killing Jesus” is that you rightfully humanized Lincoln, Kennedy and Patton because they were men, but you failed with Jesus in an attempt to humanize God.

 

Share

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

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




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