Skip to content

THE GREAT HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE DEBATE THAT ISN’T

Overkill is the only word to describe the debate surrounding gay marriage, surrounding because whatever is passing for debate completely ignores the real issue, homosexuality is a human aberration, reason dictates it.

Reason, using the vehicle of logic in a progression to an end is usually the point of a debate.  One moves step by step to a conclusion that cannot be denied.  There are winners and losers in a debate.  There is no such thing as debate for debate’s sake.  Apparently, in this one we skipped over the entire subject of the debate and arrived at the ridiculous conclusion that homosexuality is normal.  Then we moved on using the word debate to mean endless discussion so as not to force a return to the real subject.

When did we legitimize homosexuality and lesbianism (former encompasses latter in the vernacular) in the first place?  Shouldn’t we be discussing whether or not the institution of homosexuality is compatible with the institution of normal human behavior before we discuss the legitimacy of homosexuality and the institution of marriage?

Today, as a result of political correctness, being frank is akin to being boorish, but frankness many times has not only clarity about it but sometimes its impact serves to force focus where there is a consistently blithe refusal to do so.  Therefore, allow this for both clarity and impact: homosexuality is nothing more or less than aberrant sexual behavior.  It exists for no other reason.  This is not my opinion, it is fact.

One brick does not a whole foundation make, but it does represent the foundation.  We’ll call him John.  He and I didn’t know each other that well when we were growing up, John was more a mutual friend of another friend I’ll call Tom.  I’d see John every so often in the neighborhood, we’d hang around with Tom and the other guys, play baseball at the playground, get in trouble, do what normal boys do in those formative years.  But somewhere within those years of shaping and developing, something happened to John.  I didn’t see it since we weren’t close enough I suppose, but Tom did, not an overt change, but an evolving difference in interests and outlooks enough to set John apart.

Years passed, John and I never saw each other again, but occasionally I’d ask Tom if he’d seen John, how was he doing etc. etc., you know how that goes.  I’d ask more or less for Tom’s benefit since I knew they still maintained a close friendly relationship.  As often happens between two men who literally grew up together, guys from the same neighborhood, the same streets, the same ethnic backgrounds, more like brothers than friends who spend an evening drinking wine and eating good food, the discussion went back and forth in staccato fashion, but without bit, harness or point until the subject of homosexuality came up, passed and went on to my occasional inquiry about John.  Tom stopped talking, something so unusual and unexpected I stopped drinking my wine, something more unusual and unexpected.

I inquired, Tom responded with a story I will do my best to tell without coloring it in any way whatsoever.

John was a homosexual living the life of a homosexual in a large city.  He was tortured by his homosexuality.  He didn’t hate being homosexual, he hated what homosexuality did to him.  Like a drug addict, he told Tom his need for sex with other men consumed him, it was all he thought about, all he spent his days searching for, all his body craved to the point of dissipation.  Tom said John was a shadow of the human being he once was, often homeless, looking much older than his years, aimless, at times jobless, but still driven by his need for sex with other men, a need which was becoming more and more dangerous with age.  Like a homosexual Gollum, John had become consumed by his “precious.”

To be perfectly frank, the story did not surprise me.  I’d heard it before, several times in fact, ignored it until one such story hit home.  It is unnecessary and potentially cruel to expand on how I knew the subject of the following.  Suffice it to say he was a truly wonderful human being.  I say, was because he is no longer alive.  His homosexuality killed him, not from AIDS, but from the need to satisfy an aberrant appetite which brought him in contact with human trash who put no value on life.  He was murdered in cold blood, not for being a homosexual, but because of it.  He was in the wrong place at the wrong time searching for the wrong thing.

The pictures we see of homosexuals are always very pretty.  They’re getting married, adopting or having children by some method other than intercourse, telling the world it’s all about love and decorating with good taste, but there is another reality, a very real reality which, if shown in the cold light of truth can be summed up in one declaration from John, a dissipated, demoralized, self-admitted wretch of a human being when describing his life to Tom, “I’m ruled by my genitalia.”

Can two people of the same sex love each other?  Of course they can.  I love my brother, my sons and grandsons more than life itself.  I love my best friend as I would any blood brother.  But when one uses the term, “love” to mean what is only sex, both heterosexually and homosexually, it is a perversion of the greatest human emotion as well as the greatest human act.

Is homosexuality wrong?  Yes, it is, but so is fornication outside of marriage, still, people do it.  Does marriage make sex legitimate?  No, it only provides a hope of love and a pledge of loyalty, but fewer and fewer of us take that commitment very seriously today.  Is marriage a right?  Of course not, it is a contract within an institution which was created by man and sanctioned by God.  If it is not a right, but a contractual obligation within a recognizable institution, why are we discussing homosexual marriage at all?  Make a contract with each other and live by it.  Why do you need our blessing?  To legitimize yourselves?  To force the rest of us to legitimize you?

This is what we’ve devolved to, avoiding the real issue of whether or not homosexuality is a natural state or a perversion.  Logically, there can only be one conclusion.  If homosexuality was a natural state and all people were homosexual, there would be no human race.  If the entire idea behind the human race, and big science tells us so, is procreation, how can homosexuality be anything other than a perversion of the natural order?  It cannot be otherwise.

Nevertheless, there are homosexuals and they are human beings.  We are, by our nature and codes, bound to treat them as we treat everyone else, but not better than others, not in a way such that our principles and morality are trampled on just to accommodate their perversions.  Go, be happy, do what you please, but do not impose it on the rest of us.  We will not be forced to recognize your perversion as normal.  This is not hatred, it isn’t evil, it’s not even a remonstrance, it’s a demand for our right to live in a society of morals commensurate with standards we have applied for centuries which have proven valuable as well as successful.  We choose to be ruled by our brains, not our genitalia.

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation, The World.

No comments

By Peter J. Fusco – March 28, 2013

THE AMERICAN EQUATION – FUNCTIONAL REALITY REDUX

I’ve avoided writing for some time, my feeling being, after the election, all that can be said has been said, is being said and will be said again in myriad ways by sundry people who are in the know or think they’re in the know.  The sense I get from the people with whom I speak on politics is, they’ve had it, given up.  Almost to a person they believe the country is doomed, that there is no coming back from the depths into which we’ve sunk.  They may be right, although while not an eternal optimist, I am one of those people who refuses to give up a fight.  That’s where I am right now, where you should be as well.

Allow an explanation coupled to a simple philosophy.

Ayn Rand had her philosophy of rational objectivism, i.e. the pursuit of individual happiness as the sole purpose of one’s life.  My apologies to all for so cavalier an oversimplification, but we’re not discussing Miss Rand’s philosophy, only juxtaposing it to a simpler, more truthful and I believe, more realistic therefore functional one:  There is no such thing as human equality.  It never existed and it never will.  We were not all born equal to each other, nor were we born with an equal chance at success sufficient to develop a method to pursue our own happiness, no edict, caveat or statute will make it otherwise.  There are some who have the intelligence and ability to know and understand what their happiness is as well as how to go about attaining it just as there are those who are so devoid of intelligence and ability they cannot know happiness since they are unable to understand what it might be much less develop a means to obtain it.  The former will pursue and produce while the latter are destined to live their lives in unhappiness, a result of ignorance due to inherent inabilities.  They are observers of life, not participants as are those who have the tools and use them to pursue happiness.

Observers, since they have no faculties sufficient to participate, spend the greater part of their physical lives in subsistence and their emotional lives in hatred and envy.  They cannot be more than they are, will not be more than they are and should not be more than they are.  Nature intends it this way and there is nothing mankind can do to change that fact of life.  But the lesser in life cannot bring themselves to admit this fact primarily because they are intellectually incapable.  If left alone, they would pursue life as they deserve it, but when they are told they deserve more because others have more, the lesser of society look upon what others have as ill-gotten at their expense, ergo hatred and envy.

The Founders knew this as well.  They codified this very philosophy in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.  They fully understood that some men were more equal than others.  It isn’t genius that dictates this observation, it is the purest form of common sense based on the most easily obtainable empirical evidence.  They looked around and saw for themselves that there were masses of lesser people and that if allowed to control society they would do what they could do, what they were capable of doing, what all masses throughout history had done when allowed to control society, make an inadequate effort at something which requires superior abilities and in the process destroying what their betters had created before them or preventing them from creating it.

My philosophy of functional reality is not based on prejudices of the heart, but faculties of the mind.  Jesus Christ articulated perhaps best this very truth when he said, “The poor you will always have with you…”  In other words, the war on poverty will never be won because it can’t be won.  The poor will always be with us, but the definition and identification of the poor must not be left to the poor or those who profit from having as many poor as possible in society.  When an entity is in the business of caring for the poor using the money of those who feel some responsibility, two things inevitably happen, the entity seeks to create as much poverty as possible while deftly replacing the sense of responsibility in those whose money they need with guilt, then law, thus making it not only a moral, but a civil crime to not care for those swelling hordes of poor.

Functional reality dictates that the ranks of the poor do not swell in a society of people who recognize their individual attributes and are free to exercise them to their individual limits.  As water seeks its own level, individuals, out of necessity or desire, find a way to not only survive, but prosper to the degree they are capable.  Recognition of abilities and limitations in individuals if not whole segments of humanity is not something to be swept under society’s rug, it is a functional reality to be embraced in the same way truth is, as a definite, unchanging matter of undeniable fact, one that can be relied upon from day to day, era to era, one that must be capitalized on so as to maximize human capabilities at every level.

As presently defined, the poor are a burden too large to bear.  Society must factually redefine the concept of poor and begin allowing the majority to start fending for themselves in sync with liberalism’s god, Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection.  It isn’t that we cannot help the poor as defined, it’s that we should not help them.  And we should not help them right now.

As presently defined, the poor in America are made up mostly of those who will not help themselves.  Whether it’s a result of their unwillingness or an inability to grasp any concept beyond the most basic, they are poor solely because of political determinations.  They may never be wealthy, but they need not be poor.  We are at the point in America when the poor, in collusion with liberal government are attempting to posit a false truism which, if accepted will keep them poor and a burden to the rest of society.  Liberals who have a stake in maintaining a majority of poor propose the completely illogical premise that the poor are poor because they are poor, yet they are equal.

To force false equality on society is to do battle with a force against which the hope of prevailing is ludicrous.  And yet that is precisely what America is all about now, the reason its demise is imminent unless better people take up their swords and fight for their right to be better and to reap the rewards of what their better efforts generate.

The problem with “better people” is their lack of fighting spirit and experience.  The reason lesser people get their way in this or any other society is fear of violence, a very real fear since historically there were more of them than their betters which is why they’re labeled, “the masses.”  The masses live without rules, their sense of morality dictated by indifference to the outcome of their actions until they are caught at which time they are incredulous over the existence of such rules and interpret the existence on a personal level such that they convince themselves the rules were arbitrarily enacted ex post facto for the sole purpose of segregating a lesser from his betters unjustly.  Since they recognize no body of rules and have no moral compass, any time they are caught violating the rights of others they believe they are victims of an unjust system which targets lesser people simply because it can.  As victims, they envy and hate their society of betters justifying both in the name of an equality they cannot legitimately claim.

Unjustified human guilt, that is, self-imposed guilt in the absence of a real reason for it, exacerbates the problem by lending credence to a perception rather than a fact, i.e. attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable.  In the absence of reason, reconciliation, i.e, guilt becomes a badge of honor with people wearing it like Pharisees did oversized phylacteries.  But in a gross perversion of the natural equation, those who revel in false guilt somehow expect that adding more will produce a net reduction, an expiation which cannot occur.

A functional reality view of guilt is that if blame for any of society’s perceived injustices or other maladies cannot be directly linked to the individual, he has no guilt nor responsibility to engage in a futile attempt to rectify society’s problems.  The most illustrative example would be the responsibility for slavery.  As of the last slave owner’s death, all guilt for the institution passed away as well.  Slavery has less business in the contemporary discussion than steam locomotives.  Functional reality dictates that individuals cannot be responsible for that in which they had no direct hand, society’s problems are not his, thus any sense of guilt is falsely imposed on him, it is irrational.

I am not my brother’s keeper, but I can be my brother’s helper.  If I am forced to be his keeper or helper, I then become my brother’s enemy.  To “keep” another human being is to enslave him, even if the term is defined as in keeping a mistress or otherwise paying the expenses for another’s existence.  The impossibility of the task is at the core of human individuality unless we interpret “keep” to mean subsidizing another human being’s existence willingly or by force which is precisely the situation we find ourselves in today, being forced to keep our brothers.  The impossibility of that task is becoming more evident each day.  The mathematics not only don’t work, the entire equation is corrupted and cannot be solved.  There will always be a war between those who produce and those who won’t.  At some point, those who do will either rebel or stop producing.  Ayn Rand’s vision of a John Galt led revolution with the producers relegating themselves to menial tasks in a lonely valley while accomplishing the same feats they would have in a just world is, as Whitaker Chambers observed, preposterous.  Producers will of necessity join the ranks of non-producers as a means of survival.

Recognizing that it is time for pure personal selfishness in order to survive as a nation, there is a need for better people to prepare for internecine war.  It must come because without it participatory society will slowly, but inevitably become observational society to the point where even Ayn Rand could not have predicted, when there will be nothing for which to fight nor even the prospect of pyrrhic victory since the purpose of fighting will have been lost.

Functional reality demands we cut off those presently defined as poor while we focus on that segment of society who cannot under any circumstances help themselves.  The terms society uses to identify those who cannot help themselves must change to reflect “poor” as a segment who simply haven’t as much material wealth as others, rather than remaining a term which defines a human condition when it is not.  The self-imposition of poverty is not society’s concern, it is the individual’s.  At some point in the relationship between that part of society which is productive and that which is not a struggle will break out, one non-productive observers cannot possibly win for the same reasons they are non-productive observers, their generally lower levels of intelligence and ability will prove to be their undoing.

It is not profitable to look at historical Europe or Asia to determine what our own uprising will look like.  Throughout history those masses did rise up under the emotive and at times philosophical whips of charismatic and intelligent leaders, but only insofar as they were indeed the masses while their betters numbered so very few autocrats, monarchs and other potentates.  Such is not the case in modern America however.  The masses do not necessarily number more than their betters.  In fact, the worst of them are collected into minority segments of society with disparate levels of intelligence, abilities and loyalties.  Unifying them to form a mass with one collective conscience and desire is a provocative thought but one without the potential of becoming a reality whereas their betters are in fact unified by fear if not philosophy.  Fear with power is a potent weapon.  Fear with purpose is more powerful.

It would be best to shed the poor in an orderly fashion, but there may be no time for such planning and execution.  It will happen, functional reality demands it whether by acquiescence or blood.  Intelligent, reasonable, rational people will not be slaves to anyone, especially those who are inferior in virtually every way.

I am tasked with caring for my own, not anyone else’s, this is the equation by which America was made.  It is the equation by which it will survive.

 

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation.

No comments

By Peter J. Fusco – March 25, 2013

SOMEONE EXPLAIN WHY THIS MAN DID NOT WIN THE SENATE RACE FOR WHICH HE WAS RUNNING

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation.

No comments

By editor – February 23, 2013

IF WE’D ELECTED MITT ROMNEY PRESIDENT

If we’d elected Mitt Romney, the budget deficit would be under serious study, we’d be looking for real solutions, both short and long term.  President Romney would be competently working hard at bringing the national debt under control as well, we would know this because he wouldn’t be on vacation golfing, he’d be in the Oval Office.

President Romney would have by now issued directives to open all federal lands where oil and gas deposits are accessible.  As a result of the pace with which private industry would be entering and exploring those fields, unemployment in every state where there is the remotest possibility of finding oil and gas would be falling, in some cases precipitously.  Ancillary and associated economic benefits would arise concomitantly and with them an explosion of enterprise creating wealth for peomitt romneyple at every level because they would at long last have work.  With the prospect of new oil entering the market on the immediate horizon, futures on the commodity would be falling followed by crude oil prices and the price at the pump.

If Mitt Romney was president Obamacare would be effectively stopped in its tracks by now.  Wanting legislation to fix the overall health care problem, President Romney would have delegitimized Obamacare by Executive Order making it an option, a very poor option for states on a temporary basis.  A President Romney would be encouraging and welcoming new legislation on the issue, but only after requiring in-depth study which took into account the private sector’s preeminent role and the prospects of cost relief for individuals and their families.  There would be no sleight of hand in the middle of the night which would produce a multi-thousand page document Americans would have to endure before knowing what they would have to endure.

By now, President Romney would not only have maintained the Bush era tax rates, he would be finding ways to further reduce the tax burden on all Americans at every level while simplifying the tax code, but requiring all people to have some share of the tax burden even if it is only a dollar.  In short, President Romney would be building an economy such that all citizens would become taxpayers, including the 49% who presently aren’t.

By this time, President Romney would have closed our borders, beefed up security and had several bipartisan meetings on immigration.  We would be looking at a rational approach to the problem while being secured from additional illegal immigrants flooding over our sovereign borders.

President Romney would be reducing the influence and size of federal bureaucracies such that a moratorium on new regulations would be authorized while a massive revisiting of old regulations was also underway.  His very first movement in that direction would have been the removal of all restrictions on the Keystone pipeline project, a symbolic gesture as well as a reasonable one signifying his agreement that the federal government has become too large and too intrusive.  President Romney would have then authorized the establishment of a commission to come up with a comprehensive plan of drastically reducing the number of federal departments, bureaus, agencies and personnel such that in his first four years, the federal government of the United States would be shrunk by 33% resulting in hundreds of billions of dollars in savings.

Were we smart enough to have elected Mitt Romney President of the United States, unemployment would be falling all over the country as businesspeople, those who create the jobs, became more confident in the prospect of profit rather than punishment.  People would be going back to work as jobs became more and more plentiful.  Wealth would begin returning to all Americans, not simply the favored few in liberal Democrat circles.

We would not be discussing sequestration if Mitt Romney had been elected, the problem would have been solved, not by jaw-jutting arrogance, but competent negotiating.

If we had elected Mitt Romney, an air of true civility would have blown through the White House, the first lady would not be telling us what to eat, but would be representing her husband as a graceful, dedicated wife and mother without an agenda of her own except to bring dignity back to the White House.

Finally, had we elected Mitt Romney President, Barack Hussein Obama would be little more than the bad dream he is, our long nightmare would be over.  But we didn’t elect Mitt Romney.

Share

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

No comments

By Peter J. Fusco – February 18, 2013

DOC CARSON GETS IT WRONG WHILE GETTING IT RIGHT

 

If you haven’t seen Dr. Ben Carson take Barack Obama to school at last week’s National Prayer Breakfast, here’s the clipben carson.  In his speech Dr. Carson touches on a wide ranging number of subjects, including issues at the forefront of the American political and social scenes, healthcare and taxes not being the least in any reasonable assessment of his half hour or so.  By no stretch is he an enormously intelligent and articulate man, an accomplished physician and God-fearing patriot in his own way.  He is not however, in any way, judging by his comments, an authority on Roman history.

Anyone who compares, as did Dr. Carson, the United States to the Roman Empire in any but the most rudimentary ways is truly ignorant of the historical facts.  The only real comparison between Rome and the United States is awesome, far-flung military power which brings sometimes massive cultural change to those under its aegis, more so with Rome as assimilation into the Roman system if not its core society was imposed.  When making his comparison, Carson erred in the most common and historically egregious way revealing a familiar ignorance that simplifies the fall of Rome (which took over 400 years) to a Hollywood rendition of Emperors in orgiastic excess and the general population’s decay into total amorality.  This conception is not only entirely wrong, it is unjust.  Rome fell, not from internal decay, but from the limitations of organization in a time of enormous distances and totally inadequate means of communication and therefore effective governance.  This in addition to the overwhelming cost of protecting its distant borders while at the same time fending off attacks on the peninsula itself led to the decline of the empire, but not its end.

To ascribe that old myth of decadence and decay to the demise of the world’s greatest empire is to reveal a common ignorance which is almost always overlooked.  But with someone of Dr. Carson’s intellect, one expects him to be reticent on subjects he knows nothing about.  A better comparison would have been with ancient China, a place rife with corruption and internecine war for hundreds of years ultimately leading to its collapse.  The best comparison however would be none at all since ours is a country so entirely different from those throughout history, no meaningful comparison can be made without purposely inviting error.

It is a mistake in any case to portray Rome at its height as a morally decrepit enterprise.  At the pinnacle of its power, Rome was Christian, and though at the top of Roman society there were those who considered themselves above any reproach, the average Roman lived by a very moral code.  The evidence is in the extant body of Roman law from which the West borrows so extensively it is considered the foundation of our own legal system.  More to the point, the history of Rome is replete with images of Stoicism, duty, honor, determination, discipline and a devotion to religion in whatever form it may have taken.  This was not a society with thousands of years of history previous to the age of Empire wherein the fundamentals of chivalry were established only to be discarded later on.

If a comparison does exist it is at the most common level.  The average Roman was little different than the average American in that he worked, supported a family and lived as best he could until he died whereupon he was buried just as most of us bury and will be buried today.  But this comparison is more universal than particular to Rome and The United States.

There is a case to be made for Rome’s dependence on slaves to do the day to day work as a causality for its decline.  If there is a slight comparison to be made for that culture’s ending up with more slaves than freemen, it would be well to consider how our own society views the necessity of labor on any number of levels, especially the personal.  The complaint that Americans will not do the work illegal immigrants are willing to do echoes, however faintly, a Roman inclination.  The difference is that Romans could not do the work of slaves, had they, the system would have collapsed far sooner.  The symbiosis between master and slave which arose as a function of Roman conquest became more dangerous than anyone could have predicted.  In its inexorability the problem of too many slaves and not enough work, indeed insufficient economic activity, to keep them occupied created the inevitability of instability at the foundation of Roman society.  It wasn’t the only problem by any means, but the slavery problem was part of the confluence of exigencies the Roman system, in fact any system at the time was incapable of handling.

Call it Rome’s welfare system, one of its greatest challenges became keeping all the slaves busy, for where there are idle hands there is brewing rebellion against those who feed you.  If we need to compare our two societies, let it be there.

The history of ancient Rome is not only far too vast to cover on any but the nanoscale here, it has not been fully decided.  We are learning new things about ancient Rome, its society, culture and government every day, but of one thing we can be sure, Rome was unique in the history of the world, no nation can compare and so is the United States of America unique, incomparable and far from its potential apex.  When history tells America’s story it will either tell of collapse as a result of very real moral decay or it will discuss the rebirth and resurgence of a nation and people who decided they would not go the way of Rome or any other empire.

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation, The World.

No comments

By Peter J. Fusco – February 12, 2013

FIDDLING IN THE ROCKIES WHILE AMERICA BURNS, KRISTOL AND BARNES WANT YOU TO COME

Fred Barnes and Bill Kristol have the solutions to what ails the nation as well as the Republican party and they want your input.  Problem is, in order to offer your two cents (which is all the value they put on your opinions), you have to meet them at the exclusive Broadmoor Resort in Colorado Springs, way up in the Rocky Mountains away from it all at a cost of anywhere from $2,199 if you’re alone, $3,499 if you’re not to $3,384 or $4,684 respectively if you want to be taken seriously plus the cost of your airfare, about $340 coach from NYC.  You will be wined and dined, at your own expense of course, but there is a consolation, you will sit through hours and hours of speeches delivered by not only Kristol and Barnes, but Terry Eastland, Stephen Hayes, Andrew Ferguson, Byron York, Michael Barone, Mark Tapscott and last, but not least, Charles Krauthammer.  Some of the names you will no doubt recognize, those you don’t work in various positions for the Weekly Standard, that venerable periodical which thinks of itself as the voice of rational conservatism, but is more or less Time Magazine in a suit.  While you’re there, these people will do what they’ve become known for doing, distorting conservatism in such a way anyone who lends them an ear and some credence will come away a card carrying moderate.

They represent all that is wrong with the Republican party and the entrenched elite “conservative” movement.  They are the bluest of bluebloods, the heirs to William F. Buckley’s legacy, one they have corrupted just as the descendants of English aristocracy corrupted their own lineage.  Who but the best off of us can afford to take the time and make the expense for a four day ear-bending, mind numbing cavalcade of the same old same old?  Why would you even if you could afford it?  The participants are the same people who have an unparalleled record for getting it wrong.  Wasn’t it Bill Kristol who helped Mitt Romney along during his campaign by calling him “arrogant and stupid”?  And isn’t this the same group, with perhaps the exception of Krauthammer who insist the way forward for conservatism is left?

The fact that Kristol and Barnes sponsor through their magazine enormously expensive cruises and resort escapes so as to “discuss” the most important issues facing the country is prima facie evidence of their distance from the realities the rest of us face, economically and politically.  There is no reason on earth why any thinking individual would spend time and money traipsing across the country to sit for days on end listening to them get it wrong yet again.  They are not only part of what’s wrong with conservatism and the Republican party today, they are the reasons.

If you’ve been reading the commentary on this site over the last couple of weeks you will note I received an email from RNC Chairman, Reince Preibus on January 24, 2013.  You may have received the same one calling on us, the rank and file to respond with our ideas under a new Republican initiative called the Growth Opportunity Project.  I did.  And you may also note I stated then I did not expect a reply and in fact have not received one.  Of all the letters and emails I’ve sent over the years to the Republican party, I’ve never once received a reply with the exception of boilerplate solicitations for money.

My suggestion to Mr. Preibus was prophetic in a way.  I wrote that it would be a tremendous boost to the party, its members and the country in general if he called for a Constitutional Convention to be held in some unlikely centrally located city where hotels were reasonable and the meeting hall a comfortable, but not extravagant place where average people, regular people, rank and file conservatives could reaffirm their faith in the United States Constitution; a convention at which we could express our dismay if not disgust with the Republican party as it exists while providing it with the tonic of fresh blood, committed people and new ideas based on fundamental conservative tenets.  Instead, and it isn’t Preibus’ fault as far as I can tell, but it is illustrative, we get an invitation from faux conservatives Kristol and Barnes to come to a posh place in the Rockies where the caviar and champagne presage deep discussion by intellectual mighties who just don’t get it.

Preibus, Barnes and especially Kristol are poster children for a third party.  No better time could there be than now to establish one.  They will try the old shibboleth on us, that a third party only enhances the opposition’s chances in every election, but that will no longer wash.  Clearly, the disaffection with the Republican elite by the Republican rank and file is massive.  In all politics, where the voters go, so do the politicians.  A third party, rooted in the Constitution and deeply held conservative values will lure millions upon millions of disaffected Republicans with the result the new party will be the second party in a new two party system.

The inevitability is inexorable for the realities are very clear.  Liberal Democrat voters send their people to Congress to do what those voters want, and they do, loudly, rudely, with lies and distortions, whatever gets the job and agenda done.  Republicans send their people to Congress to do their bidding, but instead of doing what the voters sent them there to do, they do what the liberal Democrats sent their representatives to do.  We sent Boehner and the boys to hold the line on any tax increases, they raised them.  We voted in several new representatives to cut spending, they spent more.  We told them to stymie Obamacare, it is the law of the land more than ever.  And now they are telling us we’re the ones at fault because we’re too conservative.

In what screwed up political world do we live when the very people we sent to office with the clearest of mandates now tell us what we sent them there to do is wrong and that we must get our heads right if they’re going to be effective on our behalves, that we’re the ones who have to change?

No, Messrs Kristol and Barnes, and no, Mr. Preibus, we will not be attending your soiree nor will we participate in the sham called the Growth Opportunity Project.  We will call our own convention and we will form a third party of the people, by the people and for the country, then finally, you may listen, but it will be too late.

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation.

No comments

By Peter J. Fusco – February 8, 2013

BITCH SLAPPED!

While listening to Dr. Benjamin Carson, please keep an eye on Barack Obama.  He is seething with anger, but true to form, he acts like a child, refusing to applaud while even Michelle O does.  Very revealing as Berry is handed his behind.

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation.

No comments

By editor – February 7, 2013

THE TERRORIST IS YOU

On the face of this one, like so many issues in the post 911 world, the inner workings of our psychology, especially the symbiosis of fear, hatred and self preservation quickly synthesize the practicality and justice of drone killing American citizens abroad identified as terrorists.  The question becomes, who identifies them as such?  What exactly is a terrorist?  Where is it in American law in statute or precedence which describes the process of leaving our shores and giving up our most fundamental rights when we do?

And yet, in violation of the most basic right, that of life, the policy of Barack Hussein Obama is to kill Americans.  This is not only unconstitutional, it is unconscionable, a threat to this nation worse than any we have ever known.  Under his policy, Obama himself should be the target of one of his own drone strikes for he is more a terrorist than ever was Osama Bin Laden.  Over the last four years we have seen this man, this aberration, this evil, despicable race-baiter crush the principles on which America has been built and he is not about to stop.  The comparison to Hitler is clearer now than ever before.  Distort, lie, prevaricate, make truth a function of media repetition then, when confronted, threaten and attack, kill the messenger, literally.  Hitler had Goebbels, Obama has the entire mainstream media complex and he is using it now to justify stripping Americans of their means of protection while committing murder overseas under the guise of protecting us from ourselves.

If it is legal to kill Americans without any regard to their rights under our Constitution, then the entire Constitution is null and void.  Pointing to his predecessor is no justification.  George Bush was equally out of line in retrospect, but at minimum, he was fighting a war with enemies who were yet in the shadows.  Citing Justice department opinion is also no reason.  Eric Holder of Fast and Furious fame is not credible, much less a judge.

The pill may be a bitter one, for we are, whether we like it or not, a vengeful people, and rightfully so in this regard, but never to the extent we foolishly award to an untrustworthy government headed by a megalomaniac the least bit of leeway when it comes to our freedoms.  The Constitution is the law of the land, ignoring its most basic tenets simply takes it out of our nation’s equation.  Without its protections, we are no better off than black slaves on an antebellum plantation.  While we may see the merit, justification, indeed the pragmatism of eradicating terrorists or potential terrorists by killing them from foreign skies, if they are American citizens it is not only a violation of our law, but murder, certainly a treasonous exercise.

If we needed a clearer picture of the hypocrisy on the left, we should consider ourselves blind over this matter.  And if there are Americans, regardless of their skin color, ethnicity or religion, who believe a government which actively pursues filicide can be trusted to be lawful and just regarding their own personal liberties, then they are dead already.  They will awake one morning, walk outside to greet the sunshine and be blown to pieces by a government which the night before arbitrarily identified them as a terrorist.

Drone killings may one day be a necessity on the field of battle against our enemies, but not today against Americans regardless of their political waywardness.  Do American terrorists deserve to be killed?  Absolutely, but if and only if they are hauled before an American court of law and afforded the American rights all Americans are guaranteed under the supreme law of the land.  Anything short of that negates the Constitution and sends us down the same historical path all outlaw nations go, to destruction.

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation, The World.

No comments

By Peter J. Fusco – February 7, 2013

IDIOT WOMEN AND MICHELLE OBAMA’S BUTT

In today’s news there are two items of interest, not just two, but two which illustrate the state of our non-culture and the hypocrisy of racism.

A Tucson, Arizona police Lieutenant (her name is unimportant) was demoted recently for sending sexual photos and videos to a subordinate who then (big surprise) showed them to his colleagues, one or several of whom blabbed to their superiors, ergo the demotion.

This scenario is being played out all too often.  Either women are degenerating into beings without the brains of frogs or there is a new strain of congenital malady which makes them stupidly trusting.  It’s not naiveté, that would beg ignorance, but notice this doesn’t happen to streetwalkers (who apparently have the good sense and low morals to be paid for the same thing), it happens to female police lieutenants who are presumably intelligent enough to be aware that such fodder will ultimately be consumed by the public.

In a related matter, a group of Texas women are suing a website devoted to revenge on previous girlfriends.  They allege that private pictures and videos of a sexual nature which were done for the amusement of their then-boyfriend(s) are being posted on the site without their permission.

Whether women have the right to privacy once they provide their paramour du jour a cache of sexually explicit pictures and videos is not the issue here, the issue is stupidity.

On what planet are the only three lies:  “The check’s in the mail”; “I’ll only stick the h__d in”; and “I won’t ___ in your mouth.” not known to women?  To which we must add a fourth, “No one will see these but me.”  How dumb can a woman be?

But it may not be stupidity, it may be something far more sinister and sick.  Women, especially younger women and most especially young American women, are desperate for approval and fame.  They know the inevitable outcome, they must, it’s all over the place, but they do it anyway.  That’s either the definition of incredible stupidity or real insanity.

My personal theory is they feign indignation when the pictures and videos are made public, but they secretly love the attention.  There is another theory however, also mine:  In the previous age, most, if not all women were well aware of what a “past” might cost them in the future.  Admitting to several partners and at least some deviant sexual behavior immediately cancelled out the lawyer or doctor husband.  The refrain, “I’ve never done that before” would, perhaps unbeknownst to them, ring so hollow to savvy male ears it was as much as a guarantee she not only had done it before, but would be more than happy to do it again with you unless you were her target for marriage.  In that case, she was as much a virgin as good Queen Bess.

The point is, if women feel exploited by men taking their pictures and filming them performing like porn stars, don’t do it.  It’s that simple.  Any man who feels compelled to take photographs and videos of you performing sexual acts doesn’t love you, rest assured of that.  At minimum he doesn’t have much respect for you.  Women who believe they are doing for their man “out of love” are truly in trouble.  If there is a measure for levels of female self-esteem, allowing themselves to be used in such a fashion must be the lowest.  It’s either that or women are simply really that stupid.

As to the story regarding Michelle Obama’s posterior, Washington Post writer, Krissah Thompson considers any mention of MO’s bum size racist.  What a load, no pun intended.

A digression for purposes of illumination:  My eldest son is tall, dark, good looking and Italian-American.  From the time he was a baby, he had a nice round butt.  It was beautiful.  His mother and I used to laugh about it all the time because his little bum was so perfectly round and wonderfully formed.  As he grew, so did his butt, not out of proportion, to the contrary, in perfect proportion…as far as Italian-Americans would be concerned, and as I found later, as far as African-American girls were concerned.

An athlete, my son played lacrosse in high school and college.  Once, while attending a high school lacrosse game, I happened to be standing at the fence around the field next to three African-American girls.  Typical high schoolers, they were looking at and assessing the boys on the lacrosse teams.  I wasn’t paying much attention until one of them said, “Look at number two,” which happened to be my son’s number.

My interest piqued, I eavesdropped on the following conversation:

Girl 1: “I  see him in the halls all the time.  I think I know his sister.  He’s one of those Italian boys.”

Girl 2: “He’s fine.  I like Italian boys.”

Girl 3: “I don’t know what he is, but he ain’t got no white boy’s butt.  Do all Italian boys have butts like that?”

Girl 2: “I don’t know, but he’s fine.”

Then a great deal of girlish laughter all in admiration of my son’s behind which set me thinking.

Culturally it would appear as if black people put a great deal of importance on butts.  As in all art, the admirer is the judge of what is good and bad.  From that little snippet of real-time information I understood what I think to be true, black people find big butts not only attractive, but stimulating.  So what?  Nothing, okay, big deal.

So Michelle Obama has a big butt, what’s the problem?  Where’s the racism?  Is it now racist not to like big butts?  What if you don’t find silicone boobs the size of two Hindenburgs to be attractive, does that make you a misogynist pig?  And what if you say, “Michelle’s got a big butt, mmm, mmm, mmm!”  What does that make you?  It certainly doesn’t make you a racist, or does it?  I don’t know anymore.

It is a mystery to me what Krissah Thompson is, a white woman with a small butt, a black woman with a big butt, a white woman with a fat butt or a black woman with a big fat butt that apparently is perceived as quite beautiful by some people, but I’ll say this to Thompson, butts come in all shapes, sizes and colors, some are beautiful regardless, some so ugly they make you vomit in your mouth, and then there are some which just seem to be there, growing with age, but nice enough just the same.  So shut up about the racism, no one cares that much about MO’s butt except maybe BO.

Share

Posted in The Nation.

No comments

By Peter J. Fusco – February 6, 2013

REINCE PRIEBUS’ LETTER TO ME…AND MY RESPONSE – SEE IF YOU AGREE

Dear Peter,

Last month, the RNC launched the Growth & Opportunity Project (G.O.P) to grow the Republican Party and improve future campaigns. The project is chaired by five Republican leaders who will make critical recommendations on everything from our ground game and messaging to volunteer fundraising and mobilization.

The insight of dedicated volunteers and activists like you will be crucial to the project and to the Republican Party’s success in 2013 and beyond. So please, take a moment to explore our new website GrowthOpportunityProject.com to learn about the project and take our quick survey to give us your input. We want to hear from you!

What do you think the Party must do better? Where do we go in the future? This is your chance to make your voice heard, and we are listening.

Thanks in advance for your input, and as always, thanks for all you do to grow our Party and strengthen our country.

Thanks,

Reince Priebus
Chairman, Republican National Committee

——————————————————————————————

My response:

Reince:

The repercussions from our November defeat are hardly being understood much less dissected and all we in the trenches hear and see is defeatism which may be justified given the present state of our party.

If you want to know why the Republican party is teetering on the brink of extinction, I will gladly tell you…no guts, at least the kind of guts we want to see.  To have guts means to take risks, but each and every election lately looks like tentative altar boys at their first mass.  But now you are in the best of all possible positions because, having lost pretty much everything, we have nothing to lose by being as strident and angry and forceful as the opposition.  I mean, we lost the country!  What else is there to lose?

This is not to say we can’t win it back, it’s to say we can’t win it back by doing the same things we did to lose it which is what we here in the hinterlands see you doing year after year.

We rank and file Republicans feel ignored, neglected and taken for granted…used and abused are more to the point.  The leadership never changes, the in crowd remains the in crowd with the result being losers run the party, losers occupy the seats in government, losers drive the left’s agenda forward while we on the right wring our hands and shake our fists at you bastards all the while knowing we are a mass of troops ready, willing and able to fight if you would just listen to us.  Stop leading!  You don’t know how.  Start listening and following us.  We’ll tell you where we want the country to go, and we will help elect those who will get it going in that direction.

It is genteel to preface criticism of a friend, associate or superior by saying, “With all due respect,” but I cannot in good conscience reference the Republican leadership with any such salutation.  Who has earned respect in our party?  I’m not blaming you personally, indeed, look at what you have to work with?  But Barack Obama should have been easy to beat.  How much more can be wrong with this country?  And the Republican party could not overcome him?  It’s hard to fathom.  Was it a better ground game?  Or was it the wrong candidate at the wrong time?  All we know is that we lost to a man whose opinion of this country was forged in a haze of marijuana smoke, a nose crammed full of cocaine in the arms of communist parents and grandparents and in the halls of the foulest, most liberal universities in the world.  We lost to him.  You’ve got to be kidding.

I could spend days writing to you about what’s wrong, but you’ve probably heard it all before.  Let me tell you how to get it right.  But before you ask yourself, “Who’s this guy?”, let me assure you I know from whence I speak.  I am the author of “Running: How To Design And Execute A Winning Political Campaign.”  The first words of the first chapter of my book are, “The object of a political campaign is to win.”  I think you people forgot that somewhere along the way.  Instead, what we got and get are candidates too afraid to speak their minds even when they know people are sick and tired of the same old same old perpetrated on us by “political consultants.”

None of you live right here in the world of tired and worried about our country’s future.  You live in the halls of political upism where big thoughts are thought and big plans are planned and where giant failures are created, nurtured and sent out to do what they were bred to do.  Not one of you thinks he or she is taking us all down with such massive failure.  But you’ll still hire those consultants and you’ll still beg us for our time and money during campaign season.  I think you can feel it in the air my friend, it’s different this time.  We’re tired of you, you’re hanging by a thread as far as we’re concerned.

I say you call a second Constitutional convention, something like a Vatican II (only not resulting in the destruction of the country as V-II did the Catholic Church).  The convention should be attended by regular people, not big shots, not politicians already in the 2016 campaign, but everyday people representative of their neighborhoods, counties and states.  At this Constitutional convention, their task will be to shape the Republican vision of the future WITHIN the constraints of the Constitution.  They will issue a manifesto of sorts, a radical document for its adherence to the Constitution, but one which lays down the law for the Federal government that if our representatives do not turn back the tide of overwhelming government influence, the people of America will take it back themselves by whatever means are available.  This document will form the platform for the Republican party from thence forward come what may.

Imagine the issues that can be brought up, discussed and decided.  Imagine how with one voice, the Republican party can state unequivocally through the convention that the Second Amendment is sacrosanct and the Republican people will defend it even if they have to violate the illegal Executive Orders coming out of a renegade White House.  Here we can say, “Enough!”  We Republicans are not just a political party any longer, we are a political force and we will disobey all laws edicts and regulations issued by a government we believe is working outside the purview of the Constitution or in direct violation of it.

Here the Republican party can say, “Everyone of every race, color and creed, as long as he or she holds conservative values, is welcome to the table.”  Here they can strongly reaffirm their dedication to life and here they can say, “If it comes down to it, we will take to the streets, but we are no longer going to stand by and allow our country to be taken from us or our pockets picked by an out-of-control liberal establishment.  We are the new revolution.”

You know why we lose?  Because we don’t like to get dirty.  Well, it’s a dirty world, and there is nothing dirtier than politics, but there’s nothing wrong with getting dirty for a noble cause.  This is our country and this is our cause, to set it right again.

If you want to save the Republican party, you must destroy its core.  Those old hacks, has-beens, blue-bloods and country elites are anathema.  We will no longer respond to them, I think that is clear to you now.  We need people, regular people and there are millions upon millions of us just waiting to be invited in…not as observers or servants to the elite, but as full partners.  If you don’t accomplish this, the party is doomed and a new party will arise to take its place.

I urge you to reference my web site: http://www.pjfusco.com and listen to my speech to the Upstate (New York) Conservative Coalition on December 6th, 2012.  Just listen to the speech, and then listen to the reaction from the crowd.  It was about Upstate separation from Downstate, or independence from Downstate if you will.  It’s an old idea, but listen to the presentation and you will understand right away what I’m saying to you here.  People want a political war, but they want to win it and there are millions who will rally around the banner that brings them to battle and victory.  No nice guys ever made a difference in politics.  The opposition knows this, they practice politics as a blood sport.  Isn’t it about time we do the same?  We need to fight.

I await your reply, but I’m guessing this will go the way of all my correspondence to the Republican party and I will never hear from you which is precisely why you are doomed.  Surprise me and then maybe we can begin to make the changes necessary for the GOP to not only survive, but conquer.

Peter J. Fusco

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation.

2 comments

By Peter J. Fusco – January 24, 2013