Mark Caserta: President Trump working to control our borders and protect Americans

13 Jul


As Commander-in-Chief, Trump boldly places America first



Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

July 13, 2018


Since winning the presidency, Donald J. Trump has successfully exposed the liberal bias in our nation, not only among the mainstream media, but in the nooks and crannies of “dark state” America. Even individuals heretofore considered “moderates” are “coming out” and revealing their ardent disdain for conservatism.

Exposing the progressive movement in this country has long been a mission of mine. As millions of Americans awaken every day to an unprecedented number of non-sensical attacks on this presidency, the mission has accelerated exponentially.

I believe many of the so-called “never Trumpers” would rather our nation’s unemployment rate and taxes be higher, the labor participation rate lower, and our brave military men and women facing down ISIS in large numbers, just so they can defile the Trump presidency.

And it’s the epitome of hypocrisy that they do it under the guise of protecting our “republic” from the “worst president in U.S. history,” a moniker for which they’ve no concrete foundation, other than his demeanor and success makes them look irrelevant.

The most recent attempt by the left to assault President Trump resulted from his promise to the American people to enforce border security and protect our nation.

Trump’s wins for America are compiling so rapidly that liberals have no argument that engaged Americans are willing to support. Ineffective as they are, they must find a way to make an emotional connection with the masses if they ever hope to regain the White House.

The attempt to make a connection between Russia and Trump failed miserably. Liberals are now reduced to throwing anything possible against the wall and hoping it sticks – hence their clamor on illegal immigration.

I wish I had a Buffalo nickel for every time I heard a “never Trumper” make the case against Trump’s border policies by asserting “we’re a nation of immigrants.”

Agreed. The U.S. has always been inviting for individuals desiring to come to our country – but legally. Anyone saying otherwise is woefully ignorant of American history.

And yes, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free.” But don’t begin your assimilation by ignoring our laws and entering our country illegally. We are a nation of laws. When we ignore them, we’ll resemble the nations from whence these individuals desire to escape.

The Statue of Liberty was gifted to the United States by France to commemorate our alliance during the American Revolution and to honor our perseverance for freedom and democracy. The sonnet mounted on the statue, written by Emma Lazarus in 1883, was written to help raise funds for the statue base.

It’s not a “Bada book, Bada boom” invitation!

America’s military is far too mighty for our sovereignty to be challenged by another country. But I can think of no quicker way to concede our sovereignty than to eliminate our border. That’s essentially what liberals are proposing in dealing with illegal immigration.

My great-grandfather traveled from Italy and disembarked at Ellis Island over 100 years ago. He arrived legally, assimilated into our American culture and worked hard to become a contributing citizen to society. He earned his citizenship and learned to love his country. That sort of patriotism can’t be imparted to someone unwilling to respect our laws.

When our nation becomes inundated with illegal residents, who haven’t pledged their allegiance to our country and flag, we’ll become weak from within, susceptible to civil unrest and discord.

Sound familiar? The liberal position on border security will make it devastatingly worse.

That’s why President Trump and millions of supporters realize our borders must be controlled.

It’s time liberals put America first.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.


Mark Caserta: Trump to decide balance of the Supreme Court

6 Jul

supreme court building

The Supreme Court of the United States of America:  The highest court in the land.


Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

July 6, 2018



Let me be perfectly clear. The reason liberals are incessantly attacking Donald J. Trump, is they know they’re losing ground in “fundamentally changing America.” During the Obama administration, priorities were turned upside down, and we were rapidly becoming a nation of insignificance to the world.

But let not your heart be troubled. The more wins this president gains for America, the more obnoxious and out of touch with reality progressives become. We should begin worrying when liberals stop attacking Trump!

For example, last week, in the wake of Trump’s enforcement of his “zero-tolerance” policy on illegal immigration and decision to adhere to the law, liberals irresponsibly began calling for the abolishment of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.

Can you imagine the impact if ICE were dissolved? Our borders would be massively overtaken by illegals, including those desiring to do us harm. Isn’t it telling liberals seem to fight harder for the rights of illegal immigrants than they do for the protection of their fellow Americans?

The notion we should be willing to compromise our safety is another reason liberals can’t be taken seriously where the prosperity and safety of our nation is concerned.

Thankfully, considering recent events, liberals may as well get used to losing.

checks and balances

The pending balance of the Supreme Court was right at the top of the list for conservatives voting for Trump in 2016. We’ve witnessed the deleterious impact a liberal-leaning court can have on our nation. Millions of innocent babies have been murdered because of a Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade. Conservatives were committed to electing a president who would help mold a court incapable of such calamitous decisions for future generations.

Less than six months into his presidency, Trump successfully nominated and achieved confirmation of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Gorsuch replaced the late Antonin Scalia and backfilled his conservative stance on the bench.

Last week, I thought liberals were going to lose their minds when Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement from the Supreme Court. A Ronald Reagan appointee, Kennedy took the bench in 1988 and was often the moderate “swing vote” between liberal and conservative-leaning justices. His key votes were influential in rulings for same sex-marriage and abortion access.

Kennedy’s decision to step down could transform the Supreme Court and impact the progressive movement for generations. A justice is bound by an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and a berth on the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment.

Should Trump be successful in replacing Kennedy on the court with another conservative, the balance of the court is likely to lean to the right, possibly resulting in not only more conservative rulings, but past liberal judgments overturned upon challenge.

Liberals are enraged because he’s negated many of Obama’s socialist policies. They’ll be incensed beyond measure if Trump successfully tilts the balance of the Supreme Court to the right for decades.

Currently in this political tennis match, it’s advantage Trump. If progressives decide to double-down in the weeks to come on their attacks on the president, Trump is sure to break his opponents’ serve.

But if the Supreme Court picks up one or two more conservative justices, it might just be game, set and match for conservatives.

Mark Caserta is a Cabell County resident.


Doug Smith: Liberal “settled law” about to be shaken by a new era of SCOTUS.

2 Jul

supreme court

Current 2018 U.S. Supreme Court


doug 2

Doug Smith is a historian and social editor for Free State Patriot

July 2, 2018


The left is facing the possibility, after generations of relying on SCOTUS as a sort of rump Congress, of a court which will follow the very (for them) inconvenient Constitution.

Their reactions are nothing, if not predictable.

Like the toddler who thoughtfully redecorates your wall with shoe polish, the Left, mostly the Dems, (but we must include Susan Collins and the other Rinos in this category), they have no idea of the intended purpose of the Court and are destructive in their creative misapplications.

Because so many of them failed Civics, failed to take it, or took over the education system and replaced with social studies to create generations of Americans who had no earthly idea how their government functions, a brief recap.

We have 3 branches of government in our representative republic. Within the framework established by the Constitution, the covenant under which the citizens agreed to live, power is loaned, by the consent of the people, to these 3 branches. None of them holds all power, and that is for the safety of the citizens and the republic.

The President, and those Secretaries he appoints, are charged with executing the laws of the United States and keeping it safe through the judicious use of military might.

The Congress is charged with enacting laws, within the framework of the Constitution, for the functioning of the country, and has the sole power to raise, and spend money.

The Supreme Court is charged with ruling on lower court decisions as to the application of laws solely to determine if they are enacted within the boundaries of the Constitution.

The 3 branches are prohibited by the Constitution from usurping each other’s’ functions.  Thus, the President may not allocate money or raise taxes, Congress cannot wage war or enforce the laws they pass, and SCOTUS may not make laws or order the spending or allocation of moneys.

That is how things are done in the representative republic known as the United States of America. Not so in the Province of “Lefterville”.

The Left cannot honestly work within the system, run for election on what they truly believe and desire, get members of Congress elected, and enact their agenda as law. We want tax rates at 70%, 50 million abortions a year, lower wages, and everybody who is not one of us, and thus in charge, dependent on the government so they don’t dare oppose us is not a winning ticket.

So, they lie. But that is a tactic, not a strategy. The strategy is to ignore the Constitution, and the law, and instead rule from the bench as if the judges and justices were reigning over a ducal fief.

And this brings us to a favorite phrase of the Left: Settled Law. (Settled science or consensus is a similar favorite, with the same nefarious aim: to stifle dissent. When a Lefty says, “It is Settled Law, of course, what they mean is “It’s a law we like, some court has ruled our way, so precedent forbids you from EVER changing it.” Of course, they don’t really believe in settled law, because every one of them would overturn the 2nd Amendment tomorrow if they thought they could get away with it.

So “Settled Law” means, for them, (reminiscent of the Russians, who never give back land taken in conquest when the war is over), that anything they have won, they get to keep forever. If you try to take it back, they will respond with hysteria, shrieks, obscenities, death threats, and of course, always, and forever, some way to make it about (everyone stand and salute now) THE CHILDREN.

If any ruling by SCOTUS were Settled Law, and inviolable, then the Dred Scot decision of 1857 would be the precedent for keeping slavery alive to this day. Instead, the 13thAmendment, ratified in December 1865, forbade slavery or involuntary servitude in the United States.

Did you catch it? I just whizzed by you, plain as day. The Left misses it. How about you?

Ah, yes, there IS a settled law. It was settled because 13 colonies of the British Empire declared their independence, fought for it, and 6 years later, established and ordained the Constitution of the United States of America. Each subsequent territory, to become a state, agreed to adhere to those laws, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. If the people choose to change their laws, as with their experiment with prohibition of alcohol, they have a mechanism to amend the Constitution. And we have done so many times. But you see, to do so, you must persuade most of the folks that it is a good idea.

That is a hard proposition, especially if your ideas and goofy, or have been repeatedly tried and failed. Much easier to get people used to bowing to judges, issuing rulings that force people to DO something, or Congress or States to spend money, (see mini lesson above: Who gets to make laws and distribute money?) Then you merely must pack the courts with judges who will ignore the law and rule according to their politics. FDR applied that principle in trying to pack SCOTUS with 2 extra Leftist Justices in 1937. Thus, the Left does not worry about persuading people of their ideas, but in forcing them on people. Hence their hysterical panic at this nexus in history which offers an opportunity for a generation of a court which will rule according the Constitution, and not popular sentiment, or political correctness.


Note their arguments: Roe v Wade, Gay Marriage, Obamacare, Immigration Reform, or pick your issue, will be tossed out, overturned, destroyed. Note, as well, what they do, NOT say: if the people want abortion, or gay marriage, or Obamacare, then let them petition their representatives to pass laws to enact it.

In short, they must do what Obama, the quintessential Lefty would not or could not do, persuade. Must easier to step on their necks with judges. And using this principle they have forced the will of a minority elite on most of the folks time and again.

The arrogance that has instilled in them is why Leftists will not debate issues and insist that Global Climate Change Warming Cooling Ice Age Armageddon is Settled Science. That way we don’t have to do research, cost/benefits analysis, or factual reporting. We just must insist that you do it our way, believe our way, or we will throw bad Karma your way.

In short, they don’t want to govern, they want to rule. The Knights of the Black Robe, and their Knight Commander Kennedy have ruled far too much and far too long. But a new day may be at hand. King John is riding toward Runnymede and is about to meet the barons. The Magna Carta is about to be signed. And for a season, or a generation, we may see a move back to the proper roles of government and a court which refuses to make new law. It is the form of government under which we live.

But those who prosper by usurping it will not cheer. Nor will they accept it quietly. We ought to win the fight but be ready for Lefties marching in the streets (since they have no jobs and exist on welfare or have government jobs and thus can get off to go protest the government for whom they work, which, by the way, may also change shortly), Lefties wearing hats resembling genitalia, pitiful, even if faked, pictures of crying children, and Borkian tales of Dystopia if the Left stops getting its way.

Buckle up.  But it is worth the E ride. A true 5-4 constructionist court will begin to force us to live under our Constitution again, and become a nation of laws, and not of lawyers.

And keep your heads up. SCOTUS has been a flail for a long time. But 2 of the Lefty justices left after Kennedy are 79 and 85 years old. Conservatives will look at some of the wacky positions of the Left, balance that against Trump s Twitter finger, and decide that a 7-2 SCOTUS for a generation sound pretty good and is worth dealing with Trumps eccentricity for another 6 years.




Mark Caserta: Liberal Democrats unfairly attack Trump on emotional issue

1 Jul


Jun 29, 2018



Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor



Liberal Democrats were wrong to portray President Trump as apathetic to children being taken from parents as they illegally attempted to cross our southern borders. The president was simply doing his job: protecting American citizens, by enforcing the law.

Trump ultimately showed his compassion by signing an executive order allowing children to stay with their parents after crossing the border illegally, which exceeded the actions of his predecessors.

But while sad, it isn’t Trump’s fault these parents made the choice to put their children at risk.

In the wake of the president’s decision to enforce a “zero tolerance policy” on illegal immigration, liberal Democrats and the mainstream media once again thought they had Trump “trapped” when they began to feign moral outrage over the Trump administration’s decision that required children to be separated from parents illegally attempting to cross the border into our country.

Where were these virtuous defenders during prior administrations’ “crimes against humanity?” It’s unfortunate Democrats aspire to exploit the sympathies of marginally engaged Americans and portray themselves as the party of compassion, while positioning themselves for another vote.

What liberals intentionally failed to tell you is the policy to separate children from their parents during the prosecutorial process has been in place for multiple administrations, including the Obama administration, which prosecuted half a million illegal immigrants and similarly separated families, per a June column in The Daily Caller by Saagar Enjeti. This time allows an immigration judge to review “the initial deportability and custody determinations,” per a Supreme Court ruling in Reno v. Flores (1993).

Enjeti’s column featured stories and photos of such separations from not only the Obama administration, but the Bush administration as well. Liberals simply saw this as another opportunity to strike a low blow at this president.

No doubt the left thought they could ride this issue to the November mid-terms and regain control of Congress.

Following the president’s decision to sign the executive order, I observed CNN’s news reporting was tagged with a headline that read, “Trump flips” on family separation.

There was no “flip.” Trump chose to follow the law while calling on legislators to fix a problem they’ve ignored for generations. When he discerned their deceitful attempt to politicize innocent children, he made the decision to fix it himself and move forward on immigration reform.

Although very sad, families are routinely separated in communities across our nation when parents who break the law are incarcerated. There is no difference. But let’s talk about the tragic, permanent separation of parents and children.

How about 32-year-old Kate Steinle, who was shot and killed in 2015 by an illegal alien who’d been deported five times and had returned to our country and given sanctuary in the city of San Francisco.

How about 16-year-old Tessa Tranchant, who was killed in 2007 in Virginia Beach. Tessa and her friend were sitting at a stoplight when an intoxicated illegal alien rear-ended their car. The illegal had a history of prior convictions, but Virginia Beach’s sanctuary policies protected him from detention.

Liberals were wrong to use children and an emotional issue to take down Trump.

We’re fortunate we have a president who is determined to honor the rule of law and keep his promises to the American people, even in the winds of discontent.

Mark Caserta is a Cabell County resident.


TRUMP VICTORY! Supreme Court upholds travel ban!!

26 Jun

This is why the Supreme Court is so important…



WASHINGTON (AP) — A sharply divided Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Donald Trump’s ban on travel from several mostly Muslim countries, rejecting a challenge that it discriminated against Muslims or exceeded his authority. A dissenting justice said the outcome was a historic mistake.

The 5-4 decision Tuesday is a big victory for Trump on an issue that is central to his presidency, and the court’s first substantive ruling on a Trump administration policy. The president quickly tweeted his reaction: “Wow!”

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion for the five conservative justices, including Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch.

Roberts wrote that presidents have substantial power to regulate immigration. He also rejected the challengers’ claim of anti-Muslim bias.

But he was careful not to endorse either Trump’s provocative statements about immigration in general or Muslims in particular, including Trump’s campaign pledge to keep Muslims from entering the country.

“We express no view on the soundness of the policy,” Roberts wrote.

The travel ban has been fully in place since December, when the justices put the brakes on lower court rulings that had ruled the policy out of bounds and blocked part of it from being enforced.

In a dissent she summarized in court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, “History will not look kindly on the court’s misguided decision today, nor should it.” Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan also dissented.

Sotomayor wrote that based on the evidence in the case “a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.” She said her colleagues in the majority arrived at the opposite result by “ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens.”

She likened the case to the discredited Korematsu V. U.S. decision that upheld the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Roberts responded in his opinion that “Korematsu has nothing to do with this case” and “was gravely wrong the day it was decided.”

The travel ban was among the court’s biggest cases this term and the latest in a string of 5-4 decisions in which the conservative side of the court, bolstered by the addition of Gorsuch last year, prevailed. Gorsuch was nominated by Trump after Republicans in the Senate refused to grant a hearing to federal appeals Judge Merrick Garland, who was appointed by Barack Obama with more than 10 months remaining in Obama’s term.

The Trump policy applies to travelers from five countries with overwhelmingly Muslim populations — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. It also affects two non-Muslim countries, blocking travelers from North Korea and some Venezuelan government officials and their families. A sixth majority Muslim country, Chad, was removed from the list in April after improving “its identity-management and information sharing practices,” Trump said in a proclamation.

The administration had pointed to the Chad decision to show that the restrictions are premised only on national security concerns.

The challengers, though, argued that the court could not just ignore all that has happened, beginning with Trump’s campaign tweets to prevent the entry of Muslims into the United States.

The travel ban has long been central to Trump’s presidency.

He proposed a broad, all-encompassing Muslim ban during the presidential campaign in 2015, drawing swift rebukes from Republicans as well as Democrats. And within a week of taking office, the first travel ban was announced with little notice, sparking chaos at airports and protests across the nation.

While the ban has changed shape since then, it has remained a key part of Trump’s “America First” vision, with the president believing that the restriction, taken in tandem with his promised wall at the southern border, would make the Unites States safer from potentially hostile foreigners.

In a statement he released Tuesday morning, Trump hailed the decision as “a moment of profound vindication” following “months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country.”

Strongly disagreeing, Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota said, “This decision will someday serve as a marker of shame.” Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, and Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, who was born in Japan, both compared the ban and the ruling to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

Critics of Trump’s ban had urged the justices to affirm the decisions in lower courts that generally concluded that the changes made to the travel policy did not erase the ban’s legal problems.

The current version dates from last September and it followed what the administration has called a thorough review by several federal agencies, although no such review has been shared with courts or the public.

Federal trial judges in Hawaii and Maryland had blocked the travel ban from taking effect, finding that the new version looked too much like its predecessors. Those rulings that were largely upheld by federal appeals courts in Richmond, Virginia, and San Francisco.

But the Supreme Court came to a different conclusion Tuesday. The policy has “a legitimate grounding in national security concerns,” and it has several moderating features, including a waiver program that would allow some people from the affected countries to enter the U.S., Roberts said. The administration has said that 809 people have received waivers since the ban took full effect in December.

Roberts wrote that presidents have frequently used their power to talk to the nation “to espouse the principles of religious freedom and tolerance on which this Nation was founded.” But he added that presidents and the country have not always lived up “to those inspiring words.”

The challengers to the ban asserted that Trump’s statements crossed a constitutional line, Roberts said.

“But the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements. It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility,” he said


Associated Press writers Ashraf Khalil and Jonathan Lemire contributed to this report.


Mark Caserta: Want to be a millionaire? Become a member of Congress!

23 Jun

At a beginning salary of $174,000, how do so many members of Congress become multi-millionaires?  Yet, some of them want more of your hard-earned tax dollars!

We must simply vote out hypocrisy, greed and feckless behavior this November!




Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

June 23, 2018

Mark Caserta: Are liberal Democrats rooting against America?

22 Jun



Are Trump’s failures more important to progressives than America’s wins?



Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

June 22, 2018



Liberal Democrats are exposing their true colors, and they’re not “red, white and blue.”

Let’s be clear. Americans are keenly aware of issues impacting them. And frankly, what people are “seeing and feeling” regarding the Trump presidency, versus what progressives are “telling and selling,” simply don’t align.

The “Trump Effect” has our nation improving in nearly every single metric, yet liberals continue to rail against every word, every step, every action taken by Trump. When called on it, the lame liberal response typically expresses a desire for our nation to be successful “under any president,” even Trump. They just don’t see our president as being successful.

Really? Putting liberal and conservative bias aside, and looking only at metrics that help make America prosperous and peaceful, what possible failures can be leveraged against Trump? Nearly every issue important to the American voter has improved since Trump took office!

Our economy is thriving. Per a January CNBC column by Patti Domm, the first year Trump was in office he was able to help our economy do something it’s been unable to do since 2005 – maintain a 3 percent GDP growth rate for three quarters in a row, which is a critical indicator according to most economists. And our outlook is healthy, per other key economic indicators, through 2018 and beyond.

Jobs are on the increase. A Fox Business column by Brittany De Lea in January recognized that about 2.1 million new jobs were added to the economy in 2017, per government statistics.

“From economic growth and job creation, to the surging stock market, business has boomed in America over the past year,” De Lea wrote. The column went on to attribute much success to expectations following Trump’s delivery on his promise to overhaul the U.S. tax code.

The result? The number of people collecting food stamps has declined by more than 2 million under Trump, per USDA data.

Remember ISIS? A December 2017 column by Alex Pappas of Fox News titled, “Trump ends 2017 with big wins on economy, taxes, ISIS and more,” tracks Trump’s success in crippling the Islamic caliphate in Iraq and Syria. The column shares data from U.S. military officials reporting ISIS had lost 98 percent of the territory once held, “with half of the terror group’s ‘caliphate’ having been recaptured” since Trump took office.

American intelligence, at that time, assessed fewer than 1,000 ISIS fighters remained in Iraq and Syria, down from a peak of nearly 45,000 just two years ago.

Illegal immigration is something I believe Trump has come to understand in terms of the implications on families, not just criminals.

Last week, a CNN column by Lauren Fox and Jeff Zeleny revealed CNN learned from three sources Trump is headed to Capitol Hill this week to discuss immigration with the House Republican conference. Discussions will include the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) and funding for Trump’s border wall. I anticipate the president will strike another deal overhauling U.S. immigration policies in an historic manner.

One thing I’ve learned from the Trump presidency is that vermin in the Washington “swamp” scurry down both sides of the aisle. I find it ironic that while these card-carrying members of the genus “Rattus” phylogeny despise Trump, they actually empowered him through their feckless leadership and failing policies.

And these “never Trumpers” are slowly painting themselves into a lonely corner. Rooting against America won’t be popular in November.

Mark Caserta is a Cabell County resident.

%d bloggers like this: