Archive | FSP RSS feed for this section

Mark Caserta: Millions of Americans are grateful for Trump

22 Apr


Apr 20, 2018


president trump



Donald Trump is making America great again, just not for liberals.

While millions of Americans are enjoying the “conservative reawakening” President Trump has sparked within our nation, they’re also becoming increasingly aware of the irresponsible, self-serving, liberal antics to discredit our president.

And it’s making them angry.

From even a common-sense perspective, given the improvements for Americans in jobs, taxation, the economy, illegal immigration, healthcare, national defense and so many other areas since Trump was elected president, how can liberal Democrats continue to mount their campaign of resistance?

I submit it’s an unprincipled war against Americans who elected this president to return our country back to the path of prosperity, all in the name of protecting the progress liberals enjoyed under the Obama administration.

But despite the progressive petulance, millions of Americans reaping the dividends from the Trump presidency are grateful for the improvements in their lives.

Of course, liberals don’t seem thankful that Americans are once again prospering under President Trump. They would rather have speeches and empty promises, than a president committed to “America first.”

Frankly, the antics of the left have become so incredulous, it’s become downright embarrassing for liberal Democrats.

The recent return of ex-FBI Director James Comey and his interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News was nothing short of demeaning to a revered law enforcement organization like the FBI.

Nestled safely beside Clinton ex-crony Stephanopoulos, Comey revisited unverified claims about President Trump’s alleged 2013 activities with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room, for which Comey admitted there has never been evidence to support.

Astoundingly, Comey freely admitted the so-called “dossier” generated by Democrats and Hillary Clinton and used by the Obama administration to obtain a FISA (Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act) warrant to spy on the Trump campaign contained totally unverified information.

If Comey knew the allegations in the dossier were salacious and questionable, how did he present it to the FISA judge? Unverified and unsubstantiated information would fall short of obtaining such a warrant.

Did Comey, who supposedly represented an apolitical organization, lie to the FISA court about the dossier simply for political reasons?

During the interview, Comey exposed his lack of character when he compared President Trump to a “mob boss” and felt compelled to make disparaging remarks about the size of Trump’s hands and the color of his skin.

Folks, isn’t it clear, liberal Democrats have absolutely no credulity to leverage against President Trump? Isn’t it terribly sad and telling they’re willing to continue to blame our country for their sad representation in the 2016 presidential election.

I predict the voter perception between reality and liberal fantasy will continue to widen as more Americans become aware of liberal Democrat motivations. Their quest to delegitimize the presidency of Donald J. Trump at the expense of the American people will surely backfire.

I fully suspect voters will take their epiphanies regarding liberal politicians all the way to the polls in the mid-term elections.

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


Doug Smith: Presidential powers are absolute; Special Counsel powers subject

16 Apr


doug 2

Doug Smith:  Free State Patriot historian and social editor



Re the Pardon of Scooter Libby

I am working on an article for FSP on why we seem to get the very worst people in politics and government service. (We get, occasionally, some of the very best, but the scoundrels are always there, and in quantity.)  But current events compel me to take a brief aside and comment on the very premise: the very worst people in our society and culture may be found in organized crime and government, which are, at times, indistinguishable.

To set the stage, find a copy of the US Constitution. Now, search through it and find the part about appointing a special counsel, or prosecutor, or an independent prosecutor, who can wield the awesome sword of the justice, empowered to the Executive Branch, with no accountability. Of course, all other prosecutors exercise the power of their office as delegated from the ultimate Executive authority, the President, as delegated through the Attorney General, as provided by the Constitution. For purposes of this discussion, let us concern ourselves with the provisions for appointing that “special “counsel, a law unto himself, free of the Executive. Go ahead and look it up, we’ll wait.

Not there, is it? No, there is no provision whereby the power of the Executive can be waived, and a non-elected official imbued with that power sans the accountability which goes with it. For the Constitution does provide accountability for the Executive should he misuse his power. He can face the electorate who vote their displeasure and send him packing, or, if the cause is both serious and urgent enough, Congress is empowered to act and impeach him and remove him from office. Even there, they are accountable, and will face the voters in less than 2 years, so they are subject to the politics of the time. Thus, Congress will never impeach a popular President, because to do so would be political suicide. And in the case of an unpopular President, the viable threat of impeachment may be enough for him to resign and avoid impeachment. Thus, Nixon at 24%, and despised by Democrats, resigned. Bill Clinton at over 50%, was halfheartedly impeached, but not removed, by a Congress who looked to the electorate. And so, the system worked, and so it was designed, and so it should work. An unpopular President was removed from office as the voters reconsidered, and Congress, given sufficient high crimes and misdemeanors, could have removed him. Clinton, as morally bankrupt as he was (and is) presided over a strong economy, and was well liked (as most sociopaths are, the charm of Hannibal Lecter) and thus, Congress had the means, and the right, but not the will, to remove him. The will of the people won out. The system worked.

So why, oh why, would we ever permit ourselves to be saddled with a special prosecutor? He may be likened to a mass shooter, with unlimited choice of weapons, ammo, and apparently no accountability for who he shoots. Overly strong metaphor? Consider:

Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, appointed in the so called Valerie Plame affair, managed, in his time as a special counsel, although trying to indict Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, or anybody associated with the Bush Administration for illegally leaking the identity of a CIA covert operative ( she was not, she was a back office administrator, but for sake of argument, lets stipulate that revealing the identity of a CIA employee is not a good thing to do) to indict Scooter Libby on charges of lying to FBI agents for inconstancies in his statements at various times. (As Michael Flynn would tell you, no one should EVER under ANY circumstances, talk to the FBI, a fallen angel if ever there was one, and if compelled to do so, the only 2 appropriate responses are 1 I am exerting my 5th amendment rights and refusing to speak to you, or 2. I am not sure, I cannot remember precisely.)

Now. Let us start from a very important premise. Patrick Fitzgerald knew, from the time he began the investigation, and before he talked to Scooter Libby, that Richard Armitage, of the State Department, was the one who inadvertently leaked Plames CIA identity. So, in any rational world, he would have either shut down the investigation, or indicted Armitage.

Right? I mean, what was the purpose of interviewing Libby to ask if he knew anything about the leaking of this information, when he already knew exactly who it was? The only purpose, as we see in retrospect, was to keep asking him questions until he slipped up and contradicted himself, then charge him with perjury. And the underlying goal of the entire exercise was to damage the Bush Administration. Given that Fitzpatrick knew that Libby was innocent and continued until he could create a crime to charge him with. To restate: Libby had done nothing wrong before he spoke to the FBI under Fitzgerald investigation, and Fitz knew this, but pursued him anyway. Now, one would think someone doing such a thing would be fired, disbarred, jailed, or suffer some consequences.

But no. Fitzgerald has gone on to have a fine career. Libby paid a fine, was disbarred, served jail time, then finally was restored to the bar and able to practice law again. For nothing that had anything to do with the Special Counsel’s investigation. All this for what Fitzgerald, by his actions, considered to be a non-crime, because, note this: Even though he knew that Armitage was the one who leaked, neither he nor anyone else ever charged Armitage. He resigned from the State Department, and that was that. Libby was the victim of an out of control lawyer who had unrestricted powers and made Libby his target.

The Special Prosecutors are never prosecuted or held accountable in any way and their victims rarely see justice.

Rarely, but not never.

President Trump today pardoned Scooter Libby.

Now, if you have read my articles before, you will be aware that I am not a die-hard Trump supporter. I find him a flawed human in many ways and was not pleased with the choices in 2016. I do give him credit when credit is due. I think he could benefit from the old Roman custom of having a servant walk along during a triumph whispering (If I may paraphrase,) “Glory is fleeting, please stop Tweeting. “

Pardoning Libby was a good move for several reasons.  First, what Fitzgerald did to Scooter Libby was an injustice, for which Fitz should have been censured or lost his law license.  He cannot get back the time or money lost, but this is a good step toward balancing the scales of justice.

Second, it is an elegant and subtle shot across the bow to Robert Mueller. And I love it.

It says, so Bob, you want to move from Russia and why Hillary lost to anything and everything, looking for a crime? You want to act as a government within a government?

You Senators who want to pass a bill “protecting Mueller” from being fired, (you do understand that I won’t sign it, so its moot. And that you have NO Constitutional authority as the Legislative Branch to usurp the power of the Executive? Of course, you do, you are just posturing.)

And you Dems who have been trying to impeach me since January 2017, and bleat like sheared sheep Don’t you fire our Bobby!!!

So, all of y all, check this out. The power of POTUS to pardon is absolute, not subject to review, cannot be reversed, and even (as with Bill Clinton) if it is demonstrably the result of a bribe, cannot be reversed. I just nullified what Fitz did to Scooter. I can just as easily negate what the Jim and Bob show have done, or might do, to me, or any of my campaign, or any of my cabinet, or staff. So, do your worst.  Justice is going back to the Justice Department. A lot of career pogues in FBI and Justice are about to follow Sally Yates out the door. I don’t HAVE to fire you. I can do what you have been trying to do to me: cut the legs out from under you. And there is not a thing you can do about it.

Bush may have been content to just smile and take it and not fight back.

Makes for a different boxing match when you get hit back, doesn’t it?

So, choke on this for a few days.


Trump’s approval rating jumps to 51 percent

16 Apr

Click here or read below:


Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

Midterm Elections Media Co-Branding Partnerships – Available Now!



Monday, April 16, 2018

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 51% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-eight percent (48%) disapprove.

The latest figures include 35% who Strongly Approve of the way the president is performing and 39% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -4. (see trends).

Regular updates are posted Monday through Friday at 9:30 a.m.  Eastern (sign up for free daily email update).

Now that Gallup has quit the field, Rasmussen Reports is the only nationally recognized public opinion firm that still tracks President Trump’s job approval ratings on a daily basis. If your organization is interested in a weekly or longer sponsorship of Rasmussen Reports’ Daily Presidential Tracking Poll,  please send e-mail to .

Former FBI Director James Comey has taken to print and the airwaves to angrily denounce Trump, the man who fired him last year. But voters don’t rate Comey’s FBI performance too highly, and more think he should be legally punished for leaking to the media. 

Comey incorrectly notes in his new book that polls in October 2016 showed Hillary Clinton was most likely to win the presidency. Not all polls. Rasmussen Reports and two others showed that it was a close race, and they were the ones who proved to be right on Election Day.

Comey earned the wrath of many Democrats just before Election Day 2016 with his reopening and reclosing of the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information. Clinton initially listed Comey’s actions as perhaps the chief reason for her stunning loss to Trump, and 44% of Democrats agreed.

At the time, however, 60% of all voters agreed with Comey’s decision to go public with the reopened investigation shortly before the election. In a survey just before that decision was announced, 53% continued to disagree with the FBI’s decision not to seek a criminal indictment of Clinton.

Prior to reports of a new gas attack on civilians in Syria, fewer voters here viewed the war-torn Middle Eastern nation as vital to U.S. national security.

Tomorrow’s Tax Day. Find out at 10:30 how many Americans expect to make the deadline.

Some states are attempting to tackle income inequality at the state level, but when it comes to salaries, Americans think decisions should stay in the hands of the employer.

Still, most Americans support equal pay for men and women, although they’re not convinced that discrimination is the sole reason for wage disparities now.

See “What They Told Us” in surveys last week.

Some readers wonder how we come up with our job approval ratings for the president since they often don’t show as dramatic a change as some other pollsters do. It depends on how you ask the question and whom you ask.

To get a sense of longer-term job approval trends for the president, Rasmussen Reports compiles our tracking data on a full month-by-month basis.

Rasmussen Reports has been a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own operator-assisted technology (see methodology).

Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters is +/- 2.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Platinum Members.


Mark Caserta: Winning the battle requires Christians to take on the Whole Armor of God.

14 Apr



Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor


bible 3

A personal message for those struggling right now in the face of Washington, D.C. corruption and progressivism:

Jesus knew in the last days we would face our fiercest opposition. Those days have arrived.
The Bible says when we’ve done all we know to do…stand your ground.

These are the days for which God provided the third person in the Trinity – the Holy Spirit.

The Bible also tells us, when we’re not sure how to pray, pray in the Spirit and it will become exactly what the God of the Universe needs to hear.

So, the battle has arrived. We knew it would. So, in preparation for battle, it’s time to take on the whole armor of God…

We now don the Shield of faith, the Sword of the Spirit, the Helmet of Salvation, the Breastplate of righteousness,our loins girt with Truth and our feet shod with the “preparation of the Gospel of Peace. And the “Glory of the Lord” will be our “rear” guard.

Just remember…the battle is not ours…it’s God’s. 
WE WIN – period!

I believe with all my heart, our president is the appointed man for the right time in history, by God the Father. Throughout history God always chose the most unlikely heroes – remember Saul?

So stand firm in the Faith, my brother and sister and witness the POWER OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD. For it is not by power nor might that we win, but by My Spirit says the Lord of Hosts.

And let God’s Word be true and every man a liar.


Mark Caserta: Liberals inject misinformation in gun debate

13 Apr


Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor



AR 15



The assertion by the left that “fewer guns mean fewer crimes” is simply not based on fact.

Violent crime may be on the increase in some areas of our country, but it certainly isn’t due to law-abiding citizens purchasing guns.

One would be inclined to believe that a rationally minded, intellectually honest individual would understand that when guns are taken away from law-abiding citizens, only criminals will have guns.

It’s interesting liberals are strict constructionists when interpreting the Constitution in matters of civil rights and social injustice in America but vehemently declare it to be antiquated in addressing the gun violence we face in our nation today.

I never cease to be amazed how political expediency impacts progressive reasoning.

Isn’t it a reasonable expectation for anyone sincere about defending their cause, such as politicians, anti-gun groups and members of the media, to be adequately educated in the matter? Frankly, the ignorance of some of the most vocal gun control advocates is astounding!

Perhaps if these individuals spent as much time researching the facts as they do rattling their emotional sabers, they could comprehend the truths of the issue and contribute to a real solution.

A routine error by many people is to refer to a semi-automatic carbine as an “assault rifle,” a fully automatic weapon designed for purely offensive purposes. Many carbines have shorter barrels than full-length rifles, making them cosmetically similar to a military rifle, but they certainly don’t function the same.

For example, how often do you hear liberals describe the AR-15 as an “assault rifle” and argue, “the average citizen has no need for one?” Well, it may surprise you to know many gun enthusiasts enjoy shooting their firearms for sport just like many of you enjoy golfing or fishing. I personally enjoy target practice at the range with my sons.

And here’s a little tidbit for the left. The letters “AR” don’t stand for “assault rifle” but “ArmaLite,” after the company that developed the weapon in the 1950s.

Nor does the “AR” stand for “automatic rifle,” as assumed by many inadequately informed pundits. This “evil” weapon, so often decried by the left, is a semi-automatic rifle, like most of the firearms sold in the U.S. This means it fires one round each time the trigger is pulled. AR-15-style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges per the National Shooting Sports Association.

Additionally, the term “assault weapon,” a gun control moniker often unwittingly brandished in the gun debate, is a name fabricated simply for influencing.

According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of ‘assault rifles’ to broadly cover everything from shotguns to standard-capacity handguns,” or anything they want to eliminate besides the real culprit – the shooter.

The misinformation progressives carelessly leverage in the debate ostensibly delegitimizes their anti-gun position. And if progressive methodology holds true, “baby steps” toward gun control will, no doubt, turn into “liberal leaps” in years to come, hence the NRA’s firm stance on the 2nd Amendment.

Law-abiding citizens have a right to protect themselves. Nearly every horrific mass shooting committed through the years has been done void of an opposing force – a properly trained individual, adequately armed and mentally prepared for such an attack.

When only criminals have guns, we’ll be at their mercy.

Patriots who believe in the 2nd Amendment simply aren’t going to allow that to happen – period.


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



8 Apr

An Easter story from the children you’ll enjoy!




Mark Caserta: Liberal immigration argument all about votes

6 Apr


Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor






Stymied by the policies of the Trump administration, the progressive movement seems to be adapting its methodology accordingly.

In harmony with the prior administration’s marketed desire to “fundamentally change America,” it seems the foremost passion of present-day progressives is to prioritize the rights of illegal immigrants in our nation over the rights of law-abiding citizens.

This is particularly interesting given that historically Democrats have agreed we must protect our borders from illegal immigration.

In his 1995 State of the Union address before a Joint Session of Congress, President Bill Clinton said:

“All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country,” President Clinton said. “The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public services they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws …We must do more to stop it.”

A 2017 Boston Globe column written by Annie Linskey reminded readers of Democrat support of the “Secure Fence Act of 2006,” authorizing a barrier along the southern border. This act was passed into law with the support of 26 Democratic senators, including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer. Then-Senator Barack Obama also extolled the legislation.

“The bill before us will certainly do some good,” Obama said on the Senate floor in October 2006. He praised the legislation, saying it would provide “better fences and better security along our borders” and would “help stem some of the tide of illegal immigration in this country.”

So, what’s changed? Why do liberal Democrats now want more illegal immigrants in our nation as well as the ones already here, protected from deportation?

I believe the reason is clear.

The Obama administration’s socialist attempt to delegitimize the exceptionalism of America failed miserably. In fact, it was deemed so destructive to our society, it helped elect Donald J. Trump. U.S. citizens simply had enough of the liberal experiment wreaking havoc with their daily lives and chose to take back their government.

Liberals have learned they simply don’t have enough credibility in mainstream America to adequately convince enough Americans to effectually propagate progressivism in the U.S. to the degree they would like. The answer?

Change the players! Bring in enough “ringers” to successfully stack the electorate deck in their favor.

Why do you think Democrats are so supportive of chain migration, sanctuary cities and any other initiative that allows illegal immigrants to enter our nation or protects the ones who are already here?

Per multiple researchers, including the National Review, an estimated 70-80 percent of Latin American immigrants will vote Democrat. I believe the percentage is much higher if an immigrant feels compelled to feed the hand that protects him!

Liberal Democrats understand if they’re successful in their mission to “purchase” multiple demographics with your tax dollars, they’ll be assured of the presidency and control of Congress for decades! It’s important for them to capture as many dependents as possible in their government net and find a way for them to vote.

Isn’t it ironic liberals propose new gun laws which will have no impact on protecting law-abiding citizens but ignore immigration laws that will protect our citizens! Clearly, liberals choose to leverage the rule of law only when it’s politically expedient.

Americans must understand why the liberal stance on protecting our borders has shifted. It’s about regaining power.

And frankly, they couldn’t care less about it’s socioeconomic impact on our nation.

Border security must remain a priority.

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


%d bloggers like this: