Skip to content


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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


HILLARY CLINTON, A CASUALTY OF THE TECH REVOLUTION

Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC), Chairman of the House Select Committee On Benghazi announced on Friday that according to Hillary Clinton’s personal attorney she “decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server.”

No surprise there. The Clintons are pathological sleazes. The question isn’t why she did it. You would have to be a troglodyte not to surmise she has a great deal to hide. The question is, what are Trey Gowdy and the Republicans going to do about it?

If you are sick and tired of the Republicans in Congress doing nothing but retreating from every possible fight in the war to save America, raise your hand. Correct, there are too many to be counted.

The Clintons are a cancer on the body politic, but a cancer cannot be blamed for being a cancer. The Republicans on the other hand can be blamed for being surgeons who diagnose the cancer then fail to perform the surgery. That also goes for a worse cancer, Barack Obama. Where are the surgeons to perform the surgery on a tumor that is choking the life out of the patient? The prescribed treatment in the former case is criminal prosecution, in the latter, impeachment. The Republicans have scrupulously avoided both. Were they real doctors, they would be banished from practicing for so egregious a violation of the Hippocratic Oath.

Clearly there is a war going on within the ranks of the Republican party, but there is also a war going on among Democrats. For the Republicans it’s easy, the new are at odds with the old and in one of the greatest modern political ironies, the war is over the new wanting to return to the old ways, the strict Constitutional ways while the old are desirous of pushing a form of progressivism using the oldest strategy of going along to get along. It is an axiom of all life however that inevitably the new shall replace the old. This axiom most certainly applies to not only the Republican and Democrat parties, but the Clintons particularly.

Hillary Clinton and her husband are using the same playbook they used in the 90s.  Lie, cheat, obfuscate, deny and hope that sooner or later the matter will be forgotten. It won’t work, the world is completely different.  She is a victim of time just like the rest of us.  And her party doesn’t help either. The Democrats have so alienated the average right of center American, they have marginalized themselves.  The fact that Harry Reid is stepping down should say it all.

We think the Republicans blasted the Democrats in 2014.  They did not and Harry Reid knows this.  The Republicans were simply the only choice in the population’s voicing its anger over a government which treats them like the enemy. Newly elected Republican House and Senate members understand this far better than the entrenched old-timers. It is the reason there’s a war going on within its ranks.

The same applies to Democrats, but the situation is far worse. That war is between old timers like Reid against a radical left contingent led by people like Guiterrez, Sheila Jackson Lee and others who have only one issue, amnesty and race respectively.  The country is sick of both. An old dog like Harry Reid needs only his one good eye to see that writing on the wall.

There are changes coming, big changes to the way both houses work. The day and age of seniority is coming to a close. It’s an agonizing death for an outmoded system and it’s all because of the Internet.  We know what they’re doing now, there is nowhere for any of them to hide any longer, especially not behind a system that awards those who are simply there the longest. That day is done. While the Industrial Revolution had a radical and profound effect on all of humanity, it pales in comparison to the technological/information revolution, and we’re at the nascent edge.

My generation won’t be here to see its full effect, nor perhaps will our children’s, but our grandchildren will see the total transformation of mankind into something we cannot imagine with one exception, there will always be the haves and the have-nots and the haves will always rule.

Hillary Clinton’s day has come and gone. She is a liar and a schemer without a shred of care about the country and its people. She cannot escape the fact that she will be seen for what she is since the Internet does not allow a sculpted illusion no matter how hard the FCC may try to “fix” it.

Pandora’s box has been opened, its contents released. The pandemic of information cannot be contained. No government, certainly no one person can impose its will on technology. Like Nature itself, technological advancement precludes its control. Mankind will find a way forward within that framework, it always has, it always will. Hillary Clinton, the Republican establishment and the Democrat cult of extreme liberalism will be the first to pass away as a result.

 

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation, The World.

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


THE GOVERNMENT WE DESERVE

When a government separates itself from the governed so completely as ours has from us, the bond which once existed cannot be restored, it must be reborn to reflect what it was originally. We were once a nation of laws. Americans down to the rudest of the great unwashed understood the principle that a lawless society cannot work. As a nation founded on the rule of law as set forth in our Constitution, Americans also understand that for laws to be the rule, there must be consequences for those who break them. More than the rule of law however is the silent pact between and among us all that measures of morality and decency are expected of society as a whole and that they are based on a common understanding and acceptance of those measures. In order for there to be a uniform level of propriety and lawfulness there must be trust that no one is above the law, that violators of the law, regardless of their place in society or position in government must be punished just as any citizen would be punished for similar violation. This unalterable agreement between and among us assumes a classless society with one set of rules every individual, regardless of status, race or religion must obey or face punishment.

America has been divided however into two distinct classes, the political and the ordinary. We, the ordinary are at war with the political for it has fostered and husbanded an increasingly oppressive government even it cannot control. The single most important reason for our government being impossibly out of control however is not the political class’ allowance, but the lack of punishment for those of the political class and those within the vast array departments and bureaus who do wrong and break laws. It has been an evolutionary process, people in government don’t act with conscious impunity, they’ve become immune to the routine of law-breaking to the point of indifference since there are no consequences when they are purposely or carelessly malfeasant.

Instead of threatening Barack Obama with impeachment for violating the rule of constitutional law insofar as he has trampled on the most fundamental aspect of that document, the separation of powers, the Republican leadership in the Congress of the United States made it absolutely clear they would not take advantage of the impeachment provision no matter what Obama does. How can the people of the United States expect Barack Obama to follow the rule of law if there are no consequences when he doesn’t?

Hillary Clinton defies the rule which states she must turn over all correspondence from her tenure as Secretary of State before leaving that office or directly after. She not only fails to perform that duty, she purposely hides the documents, then deletes what she and her staff determine to be private. That she has no right whatsoever to do so is a matter of absolute indifference to her. Why? Because there are no legal consequences and she knows it.

Now there is a report in the Washington Examiner that the Secret Service erased tapes of the latest incident at the White House where two drunk agents crashed a car into a White House barricade. When Republican Jason Chaffetz, Chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee queried Secret Service Director Joseph Clancy about what happened to the surveillance tapes showing the crash on March 4th of this year, Clancy responded, “that it’s normal policy for the agency to erase surveillance tapes of the White House grounds after 72 hours.” Whether true or not, prudence in its most primitive form would dictate that the tapes chronicling such an extraordinary event would be saved. With or without the tapes, there will be no consequences over this because there are no consequences over anything in Washington. Our government is out of control.

Joseph de Maistre, an 18th century philosopher famously wrote, “Every nation gets the government it deserves.” The obvious interpretation for Americans is, “You rolled with dogs, now you have to live with fleas.” But do we deserve this government? What have we done except trust those who promised to do the right thing? Is it our fault when the selection of candidates is left to those who have enough money to purchase them? Is it our fault there are no statesmen, only politicians? We do not deserve this government, not at all.

The answer to America’s problem with its government lies in a determination to force it into submission. That takes time, energy, money, will and an element of patriotism, not to the government we have, but to the country we were. It will not be easy. It will take time. But if the United States is to survive itself, the people must shed the government they have for the government they deserve.

 

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation.


ISN’T IT A PITY

You couldn’t be more of a petulant child than Barack Obama. After Netanyahu’s historic win in yesterday’s Israeli election, the White House trotted out heretofore unknown aide David Simas to say, “We want to congratulate the Israeli people for the democratic process for the election that they just engaged in with all the parties that engaged in that election.” It wasn’t even grammatical, in fact the statement bordered on incoherency. Read that quote a couple of times, you’ll come away shaking your head. Another product of our dumbed-down educational system presumably chosen by the brain trust that is the Obama Administration.

Why Obama hates Netanyahu so much is anyone’s guess. I suspect it’s not a matter of hating the man as much as it is hating a culture. As has been written on these pages, to understand Obama’s loathing for Netanyahu, Israel and Jews in general one must only look to his upbringing. A communist quasi-Muslim himself, Obama sees Israel as the only thing standing in the way of permanent peace in the Middle East. It is in his DNA to appease, therefore to sacrifice Israel to Islamists will, in his twisted view of how the world works, solve the entire problem there.

Look at the man’s history, you need not look beyond. He is a champion quitter. Obama’s thought process is such that to quit is to win. America must quit being the world’s leader in order to be the world’s leader. American troops must leave Iraq and Afghanistan to Isis and the Taliban respectively, that’s how we declare victory in both places. Iran must be allowed to build nuclear weapons, that’s how we prevent them from building them.

In eight years, Barack Obama will have succeeded in severely weakening the United States all over the world, shredding the very Constitution we live under, making race relations so rotten that a new Civil War between blacks and whites is not unthinkable and changing the very structure of American society by flooding it with illegal immigrants.

But he cannot be blamed entirely. Congressional Republicans have allowed him to do what he has done and continues to do. They are like weak, enabling parents who knowing their son is a recalcitrant miscreant if not a full blown criminal, yell and scream, but never punish. And like the child he is, without discipline he continues to do whatever he pleases, all of it wrong and without a scintilla of care how his actions affect the rest of us.

Someday, the people themselves will have had enough, if not of Obama, then American politics generally and the system it has bred. It will be then when the system breaks apart and Americans will have to fight once more for their freedoms, if not among themselves, then against foreign enemies who will strike when we are weakest.

It will be said, “What a pity the great experiment was actively pushed into failure by the very people sworn to keep it alive.” A pity indeed.

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation, The World.


ROBBY MOOK? HILLARY, ARE YOU SURE?

It is with no small amount of irony that Hillary Clinton has hired 35 year old Robby Mook to run her presidential campaign.

It is also ironical Mr. Mook and his crew are called “Mooks Mafia”.

I would suggest the ironies are apt in so feckless and laughable a scenario that is Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.  In the first place, if a comparison is to be made to the real Mafia, hers is the Joey Gallo clan, the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.

Second, and more ironical, as every Italian-American with any connection to the streets knows, a “mook” is the moniker we apply to goofballs and a-holes.  It’s been a term so used for as long as I can remember.  It’s right up there with “rombombeet” and “chitrool” (all spelled phonetically as I do not know the Italian etymologies).

A “rombombeet” is someone who always gets it wrong, no matter what…he/she always gets it wrong.  In my culture, once you’ve been labeled a “mook” or a “rombombeet” you might as well move to Mars, no one will have anything to do with you.

Finally, Mr. Mook doesn’t ever want to hear someone calling him or his boss a “chitrool” because it means the lowest scum of the earth in the form of a turd.

Mook’s Mafia…what a joke.

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation.

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


KICK START MY FATHER’S BOOK OF SOUTHERN ITALIAN PEASANT FOOD

We’re doing a Kickstarter project to finance the marketing of “My Father’s Book Of Southern Italian Peasant Food”.  Go here: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1102154547/my-fathers-book-of-southern-italian-peasant-food?ref=nav_search

Back the project and spread the word if you will.  Buon appetito!

Share

Posted in Business, Fusco Imports.

Tagged with , .


NO MORE LEADERS!

Last evening I watched Bret Bair interview former senator, Jim Webb, a Democrat. In his rationale for perhaps a presidential bid Mr. Webb said he was “born to lead”. He extolled his own leadership qualities further, but they all came back to his being “born to lead”.

He, like all modern politicians, doesn’t seem to get it. Americans don’t want leaders, they want followers, people who will do what we tell them to do. Leaders seem to forget that as politicians they are elected to carry out the will of the people, not their own. We’ve seen what a “leader” does when the will of the people is simply ignored. He becomes a potentate, he violates the Constitution, he puts himself above the law, he is overtly racist, he is a disaster. So too is Hillary Clinton. She is not a leader, she is nothing more than another tyrant-in-waiting. The same applies to Jeb Bush who sees himself as a kind of benevolent dictator taking the country by the nose down a road they do not want to go down.

Here’s some advice for every politician running for the presidency: We don’t want you to lead us anywhere. We want you to follow our orders. You work for us, not the other way around. We want you to take our orders and fulfill them, that’s your job, not to “lead” us where we do not want to go.

For you so-called leaders, when we give you the job of President, start with this order: Begin dismantling every federal bureaucracy that has overstretched its bounds. The Internal Revenue Service is at the top of that list, then the EPA, the Department of Education…any and all agencies that over the years of their evolution have succeeded in pushing their way into our lives without our permission. Do not lead, follow our orders.

Next on the list, we order you to propose legislation that reduces the powers of the Executive branch, including limiting the Executive’s power to create law by fiat. That means, no more executive orders or memoranda.

We order you to propose legislation that forces Congress to take back its authorities from bureaucratic agencies such that before any rule or regulation takes effect, Congress has to review and approve it first. Furthermore, we order you to propose a balanced budget to Congress and to rigidly adhere to it such that if Congress adds one penny which would throw it out of balance, you will reject it out of hand.

We order you to build our national defense up to the point it is the greatest war making machine in the history of the world once again. This includes doing everything possible to remove from the military’s ranks any and all people who are not committed to making war without any rules of engagement except those to which the enemy adheres. We order you to direct the Pentagon to immediately put into place a policy which clearly states, an eye for an eye.

We further order you to call for a Constitutional convention to amend that document according to Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments:

  1. Term Limits
  2. Repealing the 17th Amendments
  3. Restoring the Judiciary to its proper role as opposed to the all-powerful role it assumes presently.
  4. Limiting the government’s power to tax and the amount it can tax.
  5. Limiting the size, scope and power of the bureaucracy.
  6. More clearly defining the Commerce Clause to reflect its original intent to restrict government from regulating commerce, not empowering it to do so.
  7. Severely limiting the power of the government to take private property.
  8. Allowing state legislatures to amend the Constitution. “The proposed amendment allows states to bypass Congress and propose an amendment with support of just two-thirds of the states (instead of three-fourths) and without convening a convention.”1
  9. Empowering the states to override Congress.
  10. Protecting the vote by requiring all voters to have legitimate identification at the time of voting in any and all elections.

To which I add an amendment which allows intrastate secession, e.g. Upstate New York counties should have the right to unilaterally decide their own fate separate and distinct from Downstate by a two-thirds vote of the counties wishing to secede from New York State.

And one more amendment is absolutely necessary, that is one which clearly sets forth a provision for recalling all members of Congress by a majority vote of the people.

No, we don’t want leaders Mr. Webb, we’ve had enough of them. We Americans want people who will do what we order them to do. Such people are statesmen and we’ll take a statesman over a leader any day.

1Levin, Mark, The Liberty Amendments

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation.

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


NOT WHAT HILLARY DELETED, IT’S WHAT SHE RELEASED THAT COUNTS

The issue of what emails Mrs. Clinton erased is important, but equally important is the issue of emails she released. It is as sure a bet as could be made that they were carefully culled to create an image, a practice the Clintons have made into an art form. The carefully crafted image will show a woman of great intellect, courage, decisiveness, leadership ability, everything a president should be. They will show the world how, during crises, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used her astounding skills to prevent World War 3 while at the same time making friends out of America’s enemies. They will also show she did not agree with Barack Obama on many issues, this to cover her posterior in every which way or at least make the illusion of her righteous dissension plausible.

Among the sheer number of problems Hillary faces on her journey to the presidency, there is one she cannot control, Clinton fatigue, or better put, Clinton drama fatigue. After so many years in the public eye, after so many smelly affairs, after so many stretches of truth, ethics and legality, even her staunchest supporters, including James Carville aka Skeletor, will become tired of the whole thing. When people have been at war for so long protecting someone who doesn’t deserve protection or patching up a person who consistently shoots herself in the foot, the desire may linger, but the fire is gone. Nothing destroys a campaign faster than the loss of fire in those who support the candidate.

The same applies to American voters, more so in the sense they become sick and tired of the drama. Every day there seems to be an issue with the Clintons. They’re like that cousin who no matter how much promise he or she shows, always manages to be in trouble and in need of bailing out. After awhile, the family gives up, they have better things to do with their time, energy and money.

The plight of Hillary Clinton is of her own making and no one else’s. This latest debacle can’t even be blamed on her husband, so long the bane of her existence. Worse, Bill Clinton’s history as a bald-faced liar prevents him from being credible in her defense. The public bo sees them both as pathological prevaricators and the public is not so willing to take another chance with someone of such low character especially as they’ve been burned so badly by the present roll of the electoral dice.

The upcoming presidential election is one the Republicans will have to make an effort to lose. But they’ve been known to make such efforts on several occasions. It won’t be easy losing to Hillary, let’s hope the Republicans aren’t as successful as they’ve been in the past since she will all but hand them the win.

Share

Posted in The Nation.

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


UNDERSTANDING OBAMA’S HATREDS, AND OURS TOO

My best friend David and I have a relationship that goes back over 60 years. We were urchins when we met on Taylor Avenue near Roosevelt School half a block from my grandmother’s house. I don’t quite remember the instance of our first meeting, I just remember we’d see each other all the time on the street and after awhile, the way boys do, we developed a tangible interest in each other’s lives until what differences might have existed became obscured by the relative sameness of our surroundings, cultural and otherwise.

Both of us being of Italian extraction injected an aspect of commonality into our respective outlooks not unlike it does in other cultures I am sure, but that it has underpinned our relationship to this day speaks to a reality political correctness spawned of liberal fantasy refuses to acknowledge. We are products of our childhood environments and no matter how far we may distance ourselves from them over time and through the necessities of life, we are who we are based on what we were.

David and I share many loves: food, wine, beautiful women and our heritage. We love the Lord, our families and our country. We also share innumerable biases and hatreds, some we make clear to everyone, many we will never disclose to anyone other than ourselves, not out of fear, but out of a cultural cynicism which dictates it is always best to be silent on matters to which others need not be privy unless profit from their participation is to be gained. It may not be lucre, but simple agreement on perceptions and beliefs. The best business in that regard is done by assumption, not a word needs to be exchanged. But it must begin with an element of trust so profound it has taken a lifetime to develop. I trust David to hate pretty much what I hate as much as I trust him to love that which I love. At this time in both our lives we do not have to test each other to find the soul of our hearts’ content or discontent. We know.

There is no profundity in the above, it is simply human nature. Just as it applies to David and me, it applies to all mankind including Barack Hussein Obama.

It should therefore come as no surprise to anyone who is in the least agreement with the foregoing that Barack Obama has no love for Jews much less Israel. He was brought up to if not hate them as a people, to dislike them as a culture. It is the way of Islam, it is the way Obama learned.

To deny the reality of Obama’s animus toward Jews is to deny human nature. It is folly. No other explanation for his careless indifference for the future of Israel can be extended. His affinity for Islam is likewise incontrovertible. He grew up with it, went to school with its practitioners, presumably became friends with them at the same time as he was inculcated with Communism at home. What other conclusion can intelligent people draw? It is not even slightly reasonable to believe he came out of his environment a Christian much less patriotic American and believer in Capitalism.

Historians will say two things about Barack Obama if they are at all truthful, he was the worst president and though try as he did, he could not destroy America. They will also write that Americans were so dumbed-down by a failing education system which catered to those who couldn’t and twisted by a self-loathing left-wing media, they elected Obama simply because he was black.

America is truly at a crossroad. We are here as a result of losing faith in ourselves. You may rightfully ask, how did that happen? The answer is, we tried to be nice to each other when we should have maintained our hatreds for that which we knew was wrong. We are a product of an entirely misguided generation who refused to grow up, one which was happy to stay in a drug-induced fantasy land in the Age of Aquarius governed by peace, love and Woodstock. We have lost our way and rather than admit it, we fall back on an evanescent Utopian dream that never materialized as planned because it can’t, it isn’t real.

Although we differ on some fundamental aspects of our individual hatreds, David and I are in total agreement that we hate what America has become under the authority of our own generation. But we have at least held onto a commodity in such short supply it is almost gone, shame. We recognize our generation’s guilt and are ashamed in totum.

Share

Posted in Politics, The Nation.

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




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