Jul. 17, 2014 @ 12:00 AM
The very sovereignty of the United States and the resolve of the American people to stand firmly upon the principles of our republic are being challenged by the crisis at our southern border.
In the second of my series of columns exposing the progressive movement in our country, we’ll examine the liberal ideology behind their desire to “reform” the immigration policies of the United States.
Many recall President Obama’s first inaugural address in January 2009 when he suggested we must begin “the work of remaking America.” Understand what liberals peddle as “reform” is simply the progressive unraveling of our nation’s laws and redefining them to help propagate the progressive movement. Necessary to this change is reconstructing the very landscape of America’s demographics and gradually whittling away at our constitution.
The United States has a long history of welcoming immigrants from all parts of the world. America values the contributions of immigrants who continue to enrich this country and preserve its legacy as a land of freedom and opportunity.
However, America places no small value on the decision to become a U.S. citizen. To become a citizen you must apply for a “derived” or “acquired” citizenship through parents or apply for naturalization. The process requires a display of commitment to the United States and loyalty to its constitution. Their reward includes the rights and privileges afforded a U.S. citizen.
Integral to this process is “The Immigration and Nationality Act” set in place post-World War II and meant to control immigration into the United States. The law negated exclusion of immigrants based solely upon their country of origin, but protected our nation from those who were unlawful, immoral, diseased, politically radical, etc. and was accepting of those willing to assimilate into the U.S. economic, social and political structure.
Admittedly, poor enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws has rendered our borders porous far too long. But President Obama’s perceived open-door policy and his subsequent level of neglect of our nation’s borders is unprecedented! Among other things, it represents an unrestricted threat to our national security by anyone willing to exploit our vulnerabilities.
Make no mistake about it. Liberal reform of our nation’s immigration policies would render the current immigration laws null and void and virtually eliminate any incentive for immigrants to naturalize or assimilate into the culture of the United States, thereby having no ownership in its continuance.
But progressives thrive on arbitrary power, not the rule of law. They pursue immigration reform under the guise of humanitarianism while portraying conservatives as prejudiced and outright “haters” simply because we refuse to capitulate to those who would reframe America around their own cancerous liberal theology.
For liberals, bypassing the lawful assimilation of immigrants into the United States, among many potential deleterious effects, adds to a populace dependent upon a government willing to sustain it and devoid of any commitment to the sovereignty of our nation.
But most importantly, it broadens the scope of individuals, void of constitutional acumen, who may be dubiously proselytized into a predacious progressive movement.
Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.
Jul. 10, 2014 @ 12:00 AM
The United States’ greatest enemy may very well be “an enemy from within” — the progressive movement.
This is the first of a series of columns intended to define and expose the tactics I believe progressive visionaries plan to employ in the U.S. over the next several years.
One must first understand the idiopathic process of the progressive movement is literally revealed in the name. Through a progressive, resolute methodology of challenging the status quo, liberals doggedly advance the standards from right to left. They understand that rooted mindsets will not change overnight, but through a gradual desensitization to liberal theology, they can create an ideology more befitting a “new age” of Americans.
Progressives often leverage the liberal factions of our judicial system and the classroom in their quest for fundamental change. Over the next several weeks I plan to deal with the evolving strategies we’re witnessing in the United States and how to recognize and avert them.
Abe Lincoln was quoted as saying, “The philosophy of the classroom today will be the philosophy of government tomorrow.” In my youth, religion was a welcome part of the classroom. Saying the Lord’s Prayer and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance was simply part of our daily morning routine. Most of my teachers even had a Bible on their desk, and why not? It was the accepted foundation for all we knew and loved about America. And nearly every classroom wall displayed the Ten Commandments.
Scripture was something we reverenced and referenced nearly every day.
Then in 1962 the Supreme Court ruled that official prayer had no place in the public school system. While many blame Madalyn Murray O’Hair, an outspoken atheist of the time, her role was minimal.
The decision resulted from the case of Engel v. Vitale in which parents challenged a prayer written by a New York education board. These multi-denominational parents did not want their children subjected to state-sponsored devotions which the high court equated to the government “respecting an establishment of religion.”
The relatively benign invocation in question read, “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.” Still, parents were adamant that it shouldn’t be uttered in the public sphere.
In the following year, 1963, the Supreme Court handed down another important ruling dealing with prayer in public schools. In Abington Township School District v. Schempp, the court declared school-sponsored Bible reading and recitation of the Lord’s Prayer unconstitutional. And in 1980, the Ten Commandments were eventually removed from the classroom.
It’s been 50 years since the Supreme Court first ruled that official prayer in public schools is unconstitutional. The landmark decision has given liberals the opportunity to debase Christianity and begin progressively removing God from the classroom where it would instill conservative values in young minds.
Since then, this liberal “progression” has marred the path for our nation’s youth and indeed unconstitutionally “impeded” the “free exercise of religion” in America.
Removing God from the classroom was integral to the progressive agenda.
Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.
Jul. 03, 2014 @ 12:00 AM
The Obama administration has been so ridden with scandal, Americans are becoming desensitized to the muck and mire surrounding Capitol Hill. But scurrilous behavior and a blatant disregard for the constitutional functions of our republic can’t be ignored.
During the Obama presidency, headlines have been inundated by scandals involving dereliction by the Justice Department such as the Fast and Furious gun-walking operation, the unwarranted surveillance of the media, and most recently the IRS targeting of conservative groups.
Liberals may want these stories to just go away, but America deserves better.
But the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, the man charged with upholding our nation’s laws, Attorney General Eric Holder, has instead been grossly negligent in his duties to the American people.
Consider Operation Fast and Furious, the infamous gun-walking program by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms that allowed guns to flow into Mexico in an attempt to track them back to notorious drug cartels.
The program was approved at the highest levels of the Justice Department and put thousands of illegally purchased weapons into the hands of drug lords. One of these guns was found at the murder scene of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry in December 2009. During Congressional investigations, Holder dodged questions, was inconsistent in his testimony and refused to comply with Congress’ subpoena for documents related to the operation. With bipartisan support, Holder became the first head of the Justice Department in U.S. history to be held in contempt of Congress.
Evidence also shows that Holder committed perjury when he testified under oath to Congress about the Justice Department’s investigation of Fox News Chief Washington Correspondent James Rosen.
Last year in May, Holder testified before the House Judiciary Committee that he was not involved in nor had knowledge of a potential prosecution of Rosen as a “co-conspirator” in alleged violations of the Espionage Act. But three days later, the Justice Department released documents authorizing such an investigation of Mr. Rosen, which required approval from the Attorney General. This proved Holder knew of the investigation. Holder has since placed a “gag order” on members of the Justice Department, prohibiting them from answering further questions about the scandal.
Holder is also grievously failing the American people by refusing to appoint a special prosecutor to independently examine the IRS scandal. Mounting evidence shows that IRS officials were directing the illegal practice of targeting groups based on political affiliation, which is a federal crime.
Holder is just a tool in the Obama shed for “progressively” changing America. It’s an indescribable shame that there are liberals willing to compromise the very soul of our nation to propagate their progressive agenda.
Conservatives must not falter during these tumultuous times.
As President Reagan warned, “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.”
My advice to conservatives: Become even more tenacious about demanding justice in the United States and speaking out against the progressive movement.
Only conservatives stand between our republic and those who would sacrifice it.
Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.
Seemingly unfazed by the threat of a lawsuit, President Obama on Saturday vowed to press on and use executive actions wherever and whenever possible.
In his weekly address, the president didn’t directly address House Speaker John A. Boehner’s announcement earlier this week that he’ll sue Mr. Obama for supposed abuses of executive authority.
But the president did take aim at the so-called GOP “obstruction” that, in his view, necessitated the go-it-alone strategy now utilized by this White House — an approach that bypasses both the House and Senate.
“Republicans in Congress keep blocking or voting down almost every serious idea. This year alone they’ve said no to raising the minimum wage, no to fair pay, no to student loan reform, no to extending unemployment insurance,” Mr. Obama said. “This obstruction keeps the system rigged for those at the top and rigged against the middle class. And as long as they insist on doing it, I’ll keep taking actions on my own — like the actions I’ve already taken to attract new jobs, lift workers’ wages and help students pay off their loans. I’ll do my job.”
Mr. Obama’s remarks come as he attempts to reconnect with average Americans. On Thursday and Friday, the president spent time with a working mother in St. Paul, who had written a letter describing her family’s financial struggles.
While in the twin cities, Mr. Obama also visited local businesses, held a town-hall meeting and spoke at a Democratic party fundraiser.
At the fundraiser, he repeated his plea for a Democratic Congress, urging voters to give him the majority he needs to enact more of his agenda.
While Democrats say that agenda will greatly aid the middle class, Republicans allege the president and his allies on Capitol Hill actively are holding back projects that would create jobs and pump billions of dollars into the economy.
In the GOP weekly address, Louisiana Rep. Bill Cassidy — seeking the Senate seat now held by Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu — blasted Democrats for holding up the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which would create more than 40,000 jobs, according to the Obama administration’s own research.
“President Obama continues to oppose job-creating projects, such as Keystone,” Mr. Cassidy said. “Sadly, Democrats in Washington stand with President Obama rather than standing with hardworking families in Louisiana and elsewhere. They would rather your family struggle than offend their political base. President Obama and his allies like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are more interested in rolling out the red tape than the red carpet for these jobs.”
The president has delayed a decision on Keystone for the entirety of his time in office. A bill that would take the decision out of Mr. Obama’s hands passed a key Senate committee last week with bipartisan support, but Mr. Reid, Nevada Democrat, thus far has refused to allow it to come up for a full vote on the Senate floor.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/28/obama-ignores-boehners-lawsuit-threat-ill-keep-tak/#ixzz35znOazHs
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Jun. 26, 2014 @ 12:00 AM
President Obama appears determined to eclipse his Politifact “Lie of the Year” regarding Obamacare with his position on the recent IRS debacle.
In response to a question about the IRS investigation during a recent interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, President Obama emphatically declared that “not even a smidgen of corruption” was involved in the IRS scandal.
In fact, the president has referenced it as one of a number of GOP fabricated “phony scandals.”
Really, Mr. President?
Not only do I believe this is quintessential partisan corruption for political gain, this incredulous journey has brought to light the conniving, liberal factions of the Internal Revenue Service and their abusive overreach into American’s lives.
In August 2010, the IRS circulated the first “Be on the lookout” list to its tax exempt screener and evaluator unit, commissioning minions to flag applications with key words such as “Tea Party” and “Patriots.”
In June 2011, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., sent a letter to then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman inquiring about IRS targeting of taxpayers who donated money to conservative groups, as well as information regarding audits of 501(c)(4) organizations.
In July 2011, the IRS responded to Chairman Camp’s letter with assurances “that the IRS’s actions in this area were in no way influenced by political considerations.”
In March 2012, during a hearing of the Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee, Commissioner Shulman was asked about reports that the IRS has been unfairly targeting Tea Party groups. Shulman responded, “I can give you assurance, there is absolutely no targeting.”
However, complaints were pouring in from conservative groups regarding questionable IRS application forms and difficulties securing tax-exempt status.
A March 2012 follow-up letter sent by Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darryl Issa, R-Calif., to IRS Exempt Organization Division Director Lois Lerner requested additional information related to the reports that conservative groups were receiving “extra scrutiny” from the IRS.
In April 2012, Director Lerner responded to Chairman Issa’s letter that “the ordinary course of the application process” was in place for securing tax-exempt status.
Months of investigation began exposing irrefutable proof that the IRS had unfairly audited conservative Tea Party organizations far more than others.
In February 2013, Lerner publicly admitted the IRS had indeed targeted taxpayers based on their political stance. Lerner then wrongly attempted to blame the entire perusal on two “rogue” front-line workers in a Cincinnati office.
In a May 2013 Oversight Committee hearing, after reading an opening statement asserting her innocence in the scandal, Lerner invoked the Fifth Amendment. A “repeat performance” in March 2014 saw her held in contempt of Congress.
And now, with GOP lawmakers closing in on the truth, the IRS expects Americans to believe that Lerner’s emails from a two-year period during the scandal’s timeline have disappeared, along with emails from six other IRS employees, and that “unfortunately” the hard drives also were destroyed.
To deny this masquerade is a blatant, government cover-up would be simply nonsensical.
But for President Obama to deny even a “smidgen” of corruption exists in this IRS atrocity is, well, predictable.
Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.
WASHINGTON – The CEO of a major a federal contractor, which has several contracts with the Treasury Department, says it should be relatively easy for IRS contractors to retrieve the “lost” emails of Lois Lerner, the IRS official at the center of the tea party-targeting scandal.
Ron Gula is CEO and chief technical officer of Tenable Network Security, an information technology services company nestled in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., that has major contracts with many federal agencies, including the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service and United States Mint.
“It is very unlikely that the emails in question are not stored on a backup machine someplace else,” Gula told WND.
Gula also said questions about the lost emails from Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Darrell Issa, R-Calif., for Monday evening’s hearing are spot on.
Over the weekend, Issa called IRS Commissioner John Koskinen to testify Monday evening about the IRS’ “email systems, data retention policies, and document production processes.”
“Because the IRS has refused to provide basic information about these matters to the committee in advance of the hearing, and in the interest of promoting a frank and thorough discussion at the hearing, I ask that you provide answers to the factual questions posed below,” Issa said in a letter to Koskinen.
In his letter, Issa asked Koskinen to provide further details about the “failure of the hard drive,” identify employees involved in examining the hard drive, explain steps taken by the IRS to recover the information and give dates of those attempts. He also asked for the identities of all IRS employees who had any role or responsibility in maintaining or servicing IRS email servers since 2009 and for other details on the IRS archival systems.
After reviewing the letter, Gula said, “Many of the questions outlined for [Monday’s] session are on the right track.” He said the emails in question could also be stored on any number of laptops and systems such as spam filters, which process email throughout the IRS.
Gula noted that because IRS contractors have the same access as employees to email systems, there shouldn’t be any issue retrieving lost data.
“In my experience, contractors who were authorized to do work for organizations like the IRS have full access to email and corporate resources,” he said.
To make email work for an organization the size of the IRS, Gula said, “there must be a great deal of redundancy and separate systems to deliver email reliably.”
WND found that several large corporations hold the IRS’ Total Information Processing Services, or TIPSS-4, contract to handle the IRS’ email servers and provide staff to work, in many cases, on site at IRS offices.
Those companies include: Accenture, Unisys, AT&T Government Solutions, Avaya Government Solutions, Booz Allen Hamilton, CGI Federal, Computer Sciences Corp., Deloitte Consulting, General Dynamics, HP Enterprises, IBM, Leidos, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman Systems and Pragmatics.
Issa called an archivist from the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration and invited White House counsel Jennifer O’Connell to testify Monday in a continuation of the investigation.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/contractor-easy-to-find-lerners-lost-emails/#iCsMZpD5MCPOiXGr.99
Jun. 19, 2014 @ 12:00 AM
The recent offensive launched by Sunni insurgents is the first real challenge to Iraq’s security since the American withdrawal in 2011. But the stakes are high for the United States as well.
America is only as secure as the strength we portray to the world in the integrity, determination and moral fiber of our leadership. Sadly, the fact that this administration is perceived as sorely lacking in these attributes is conducive to challenge.
A recent Washington Post editorial board column described Obama’s foreign policy as one based on “fantasy,” employed in a world in which the president believed “the tide of war” was receding and the United States could “without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed forces” as well as its tenacity in temperament.
“President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality,” the column read. “Other leaders, in this vision, would behave rationally and in the interest of their people and the world. Invasions, brute force, great-power games and shifting alliances — these were things of the past.”
But leaders around the world are “old school” and operate in reality when it comes to military prowess.
An effective military isn’t simply based on its size and capability, but the enemy’s perception of its willingness to deploy assets if an immovable, non-negotiable line is crossed. And we can’t negotiate with terrorists. Conciliation empowers them.
President Obama did, however, make the right decision when he brought our troops home in 2011 to allow the Iraqis to take ownership of their own freedom. For years I’ve maintained that the U.S. has erred in thinking that freedom can be delivered by a U.S. carrier. Freedom’s value is relative to the price at which it was secured. In the case of the U.S., thousands of men and women have paid the ultimate price, not only to secure our freedom, but assist the Iraqis in achieving theirs.
But the naivete with which our commander-in-chief “trumpeted” our withdrawal was a huge military mistake brought on by political aspiration and was a gift to our enemies in the Middle East. And now any hesitancy to react with at least drone strikes to bolster the Iraqis and provide them a foothold would be foolish. But once again, the world is watching Obama’s passive and indecisive reaction to aggression.
The 4,500 Americans killed and the far larger number permanently wounded is too great of a price to pay to see all that they fought for lost. Iraq War veterans across the country are watching with dismay as the same insurgency they fought and defeated returns to control in Iraq.
The larger issue is that we have a president whose repetitive display of ineptness in dealing with our enemies is emboldening aggression across the globe.
The U.S. can only expect to avoid major military conflict by electing leadership able to reposition America in the eyes of our enemy.
And show the world the United States is unshakable about protecting our freedom.
Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.
Jun. 12, 2014 @ 12:00 AM
The Obama administration just released arguably the five most dangerous Taliban leaders detained at Guantanamo Bay in exchange for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. And it appears the president knowingly and willingly broke the law in doing so.
Under the National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law by Obama last year, the administration was required to notify Congress 30 days in advance of any such action. And even if the president can somehow find “legal” justification for what he did, he did not abide by the law.
Even Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said that it was “very disappointing” that President Obama decided not to alert Congress about the deal, suggesting a low “level of trust” at the White House.
Taliban leaders are reportedly hailing the release of the five prisoners as a major victory over Obama and the U.S.
A senior member of the Afghan Taliban described the exchange for Bergdahl as an “historic moment for us.” He went on to tell NBC News this was the first time its “enemy” had “officially recognized our status.”
President Obama was defiant in his remarks that he will “make no apologies” for a trade in which he openly admitted the possibility that these leaders may “return to activities that are detrimental to us,” despite families who still mourn the loss of six brave American troops who died while searching for Bergdahl after he went missing five years ago.
So who were these five Taliban leaders Obama released?
One was Abdul Haq Wasiq, a Taliban deputy minister of intelligence who reportedly used his office to support al-Qaida and to “assist Taliban personnel in eluding capture.” Wasiq has been accused by Human Rights Watch of mass killings and torture.
Mullah Norullah Noori, a senior Taliban military commander, is described as a military mastermind who engaged in hostilities “against U.S. and Coalition forces.” Noori has been implicated in the murder of thousands of Shiites in northern Afghanistan and reportedly “does not express any regret” for his actions.
Mullah Mohammad Fazi, a former Taliban deputy defense minister, was held at Guantanamo after being identified as an enemy combatant by the United States. He’s also wanted by the United Nations on war crimes for the murder of thousands of Shiite Muslims in Afghanistan.
Mullah Khairullah Khairkhwa, the former governor of the Herat province, once had close ties with Osama Bin Laden. He “represented the Taliban during meetings with Iranian officials seeking to support hostilities against the U.S. and coalition forces.”
Mohammad Nabi Omari, a senior Taliban leader, once held multiple leadership roles in various terror-related groups. Nabi reportedly helped al-Qaida operatives smuggle missiles in Pakistan for use against the U.S. and coalition forces.
So what would prompt Obama to bypass Congress to trade these Taliban militants for a questionable soldier and risk retribution against the U.S.?
The president’s argument that “we don’t leave our men or women in uniform behind” is pretty hollow given his failure to act in Benghazi.
This is one decision which may return to haunt the Obama legacy.
Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.
Jun. 05, 2014 @ 12:00 AM
Admittedly, every administration leaks its share of classified information. But it seems Team Obama has raised the bar.
Last week, in one of Washington’s “Friday afternoon” information dumps, the White House admitted it had revealed the name of the CIA’s top officer in Kabul, Afghanistan, to some 6,000 journalists on a list provided to news organizations of senior U.S. officials participating in the president’s surprise visit with U.S. troops.
Upon learning of the error, the administration issued a revised list that didn’t include the individual who had been identified on the initial release as the “Chief of Station” in Kabul, a designation used by the CIA for its highest-ranking spy in a country.
“It shouldn’t have happened,” deputy national security advisor Tony Blinken told CNN. “We’re trying to understand why it happened. The chief of staff, Denis McDonough, asked White House counsel to look into it, to figure out what happened and make sure it won’t happen again.”
Now while an internal investigation will likely satisfy Obama supporters, it’s a far cry from the bitter tone used years ago when the Bush administration leaked Valerie Plame’s identity. At that time, words like “traitor” and “treason” were used to describe Bush officials involved in the controversy.
But the leaks from the Obama administration stretch back for years and are some of the more notable in recent history.
Shortly after the successful raid that killed Osama Bin Laden, the Obama administration revealed the classified identity of SEAL Team Six, Special Operations Force behind the raid, placing a target on the backs of the team members as well as their families.
Speaking at an event two days following the raid, Vice President Joe Biden, apparently giddy over the mission’s success, publicly identified the unit that tracked down and killed America’s foremost enemy, giving jihadists a clear target to avenge the death of Bin Laden.
The Obama administration would then go on to “out” the Pakistani doctor who helped the CIA track down Bin Laden. Dr. Shakil Afridi, a Pakistani physician who helped the CIA confirm Osama Bin Laden’s presence in the city, was sentenced to 33 years by the Pakistani government for his role in the attack.
Even allied nation’s secrets apparently aren’t safe with this administration.
In December 2012, the Obama administration “accidentally” revealed extensive details about a top-secret missile base the U.S. planned to build for Israel to host a new ballistic-missile defense system called the Arrow 3. Israeli military officials were shocked when they learned that the U.S. revealed details of the project in documents it published seeking contractor bids.
Now many folks aren’t sure if this administration’s reckless disclosure of our nation’s secrets is for political gain or simply from sheer incompetence. I believe it may be both.
But it’s time for Obama to end his flippant approach to national security — before it results in catastrophic loss of life.
Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page
Free State Patriot 