Republicans vow to reverse the final flurry of administration activity.
Archive | FSP RSS feed for this section
With days left in office, President Obama ushers in dozens of policies. But will they stay seated? – The Washington Post
15 JanMark Caserta: Democrats’ chickens have come home to roost
13 JanMark Caserta: Free State Patriot editor
Like it or not, President Obama’s signature healthcare plan is living on borrowed time.
Obamacare will be repealed and replaced by the Trump administration, honorable members of the GOP and possibly as many as 10 Senatorial members of the Democrat Party up for re-election in 2018.
Expectedly, progressive pundits are already “building a wall” around any such Republican initiative. Some have unofficially labeled any GOP plan as “Trumpcare,” even though the official Republican plan isn’t yet on the table.
I’ve even heard House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and others attempt to pervert Trump’s campaign phrase, “Make America great again” into “Make America sick again.”
Liberals are so creative.
Frankly, the name “Obamacare” had nothing to do with the healthcare plan’s implosion. President Obama actually became quite fond of the moniker and often said so during his presidency. I believe he envisioned the name enshrined in his presidential legacy.
And so, it will, but more like an eulogy than a legacy.
Obamacare failed because it was a poorly planned initiative based on an unsustainable foundation of political deceit of the American people. And it’s preparing to go down as one of the single largest, most embarrassing failures of any presidential administration.
And remember, Democrats alone are to blame for this “repeal and replace” mandate voters have given President-elect Trump and the GOP-led 115th Congress. While the 2016 presidential election was clearly a referendum on Obama’s multiple failed policies, his healthcare plan was right at the top of the list for consideration.
And as far as “making America sick again,” Americans couldn’t be any sicker than they are now of the deception and economic foolhardiness the Obama administration employed in attempting to fundamentally change our country to align with the president’s apparent rancorous view of the United States.
For perspective, let’s “metamorphically” go where no liberal has gone before and reminisce how Democrats passed Obamacare.
During Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, he repeatedly (eight times per a 2010 New York Post column by Clemente Lisi) promised that health care negotiations “will be on C-SPAN” and “the public will be part of the conversation and will see the choices being made.”
Never happened.
In March 2010, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said of the Affordable Care Act, “But we have to pass the bill, so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”
In 2013, Obama gave us the “PolitiFact ‘Lie of the Year'” when he made his healthcare promise to Americans, “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.”
And maybe the “crme de la crme” denoting the progressive path of prevarication enabling passage of Obamacare happened when, in 2014, the so-called “architect” of the federal healthcare law said the “lack of transparency” and the “stupidity of the American voter” helped Congress approve Obamacare.
The disregard Democrats have shown for the American people is flabbergasting!
Allow me to borrow a familiar idiom.
“Democrat’s chickens have come home to roost.”
Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.
Doug Smith: Adams & Jefferson in “The Argument”
12 Jan
Doug Smith: Author, historian, patriot and Free State Patriot’s lead contributor
1.12.17
The Argument:
Mr. Adams, listen to this. I think this will make a good start.
(Jefferson reads)
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Whiskey, Houses, and Doctors,
(Adams interrupts)
Mr. Jefferson, Really? Are you mad? Now just what do you suppose will happen to the whiskey distillers if we make their drams a Right? Who is going to pay them for their whiskey? How much is every man entitled to? If the Government takes their whiskey and gives it out, their customers won’t buy from them anymore, and they will protest when it is taken. They will regard it as indentured servitude, indeed as chattel slavery! They won’t abide it. Not in Massachusetts! I tell you if we leave that part in we will find ourselves with another rebellion, a Whiskey Rebellion. We can’t promise to give everyone someone else’s stuff.
Jefferson “So, no whiskey, Mr. Adams?”
I think not, Jefferson. Better take that out.
Quill pen scratches. Very well, then Adams. Now then …hold these…created…ah..here we are: “Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Houses, Doctors, and…)
Oh, my dear Jefferson. Housing? We are going to promise everyone a House? Whose house? Who will build them? Or pay for them?
Well, Adams, John Hancock has plenty of wealth. I suppose he could.
Jefferson, for God’s sake how far do you suppose his silver will go to build a house for every family in the colonies? And what makes you suppose he will give up his money to pay for a house for me? He will say, Adams, you have a trade. Go out and earn it, then buy your own house! And he’d be right, too. No, no, no, my dear Jefferson, it will just never work.
Sigh. Well alright then, but we have to offer something. Mutters. Quill pen scratches. Very well, then Adams: “Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Doctors, and…”
Jefferson, Jefferson, Jefferson. How do you plan to do that? Are you going to train up some Virginia slaves to practice medicine? Because by Thunder, if they are a RIGHT then how do they charge for their services? Don’t you see man, if we make one man’s goods or services the Right of another; we must of necessity make one the Master and one the Slave? How many will agree to go to war with England and…
Glares at Adams. Elaborately scratches out Doctor. Alright then, John. Just what Rights do we suppose a man is granted by the Almighty, which we WILL fight for?
Well, now Tom, since you ask. You know there were scores of bodies on the green at Lexington last April. I think there are none who would gainsay us pledging that each man has the right to his own life and that King George’s Lobsters have no right take it from them.
Hmm. Alright Adams. So, Life? Come to that, Life is not worth so much if we can be told to come and go, pay and work, at the whim of the Sovereign. After all, if it is to be war, then let it be war, but for our Liberties.
That is good, Jefferson. Life and Liberty. Of course, we want to be able to pursue commerce as each man is able and as he desires. Smiles, then they can buy a hogshead of whiskey, to take to their house. And pay for the Doctor Warren to give them a tonic for the whiskey.
Very well then , Adams, I suppose each man will want to make his living in his own way, and live as he please. That, John, is what I call a happy life.
There! You have it Jefferson. Each man wants to find happiness in his own way, and our Creator will make him free to pursue it as he will. Of course, General Washington will have to enforce the will of the Almighty. He may, in his wisdom, endow us with these rights, but the King will not give it willingly. We must purchase these rights dearly.
Jefferson, thoughtful, scratches at the bottom of the page. Alright, John. What of this?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. __That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Obama set for pardon frenzy as he leaves office
7 JanA Rastafarian prophet, a former Taliban captive and thousands of minor drug traffickers have one thing in common: Their names have been submitted to President Barack Obama for clemency before he leaves office in two weeks. Some US presidents have used this regal power of leniency in a pointed way near
Mark Caserta: US must be steadfast in support of Israel
6 JanMark Caserta: Free State Patriot editor
1.6.17
The roots of the Arab-Israeli conflict date back centuries. And throughout history, God has faithfully demonstrated his favor and divine regard for the Israeli people and their land.
The United States must be equally steadfast in its support. For opposition to Israel, frankly, is opposition to God.
Since 1967, following Israel’s victory in what’s commonly called the Six Day War, the United States and Israel have built a special relationship, two nations sharing the same values and passion for democracy.
Surrounded by larger Middle Eastern nations who’ve openly displayed their hostility to the Jewish people, Israel has been anchored, in part, by the support of the United States. But, rest assured, as the strongest military presence in the region, Israel is very capable of protecting herself and her democratic presence.
Yet despite being comparable in size to New Jersey, nations around the world still advocate Israel giving up additional land to the contentious Arab population of Palestine.
Understand, this land was given to the Israeli people by God and is not transferable.
In fact, the Bible repeatedly refers to the territory in which Israelis live as “their land” (Ezekiel 37:21). And when speaking of the Israeli people, God calls them “my people” and integral to His divine order and plan for mankind.
Many know the biblical account in Genesis, of God’s covenant with Abraham and His promise of a son (Isaac) through whom He would make a great nation and redeem the earth. God purposely selected this land (Israel) and these people (Jews) to provide every person access to His divine blessings and plan of salvation.
“I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”
I have no doubt this is the primary reason America has become the most prosperous nation in the world. And from our abundance, we bless other nations. In areas such as health and human services, the fight against hunger and poverty, and aiding in recovery from natural disasters, the U.S. has been a resource for the world.
The Bible also says, “To whom much is given, much is required.” America has been given quite a lot. And I believe it’s been God’s response to how we’ve honored Israel.
Despite the progressive view on our nation’s founding, I believe America was founded on the very Judeo-Christian principles of liberty and the value of human life that were birthed from the nation of Israel.
If we refuse to honor Israel and compromise our support, we could, in relative fashion, forfeit many of God’s blessings, which in turn could impact our ability to bless other parts of the world.
We must work to rebuild the relationship of trust and respect with Israel that’s been under attack for the past eight years.
Finally, we must proceed in lockstep fashion with God and the Israeli people.
Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.
CNN’s Don Lemon on Chicago Torture Video: ‘I Don’t Think It Was Evil’ – Breitbart
5 JanCNN’s Don Lemon on Chicago Torture Video: ‘I Don’t Think It Was Evil’
Source: CNN’s Don Lemon on Chicago Torture Video: ‘I Don’t Think It Was Evil’ – Breitbart
Doug Smith: Truth, Lies, and for goodness sake Harry, call it manure.
2 Jan
Doug Smith: Author, historian, patriot and lead contributor to Free State Patriot
1.2.17
“Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society.”
John Adams
“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [hard-core pornography]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”
Justice Potter Stewart
“For goodness sake, Harry, can’t you call it manure?”
Bess Truman
Ok, admittedly, that last one is an assumption, borrowed from a quip by Ronald Reagan, to wit, that Bess had for years tried to get Harry to call a certain substance found in abundance around cattle and politicians “manure”. But to that point, this may be the year when truth suddenly mattered a lot more than it had for years.
Follow me down the path a bit, kind reader, and I’ll try not to get us lost. Some clever wag has noted ““If you want to make a Conservative mad, lie to him. If you want to make a Liberal mad, tell him the truth”. (Sometimes attributed to Teddy Roosevelt, but whoever said it, it makes me smile.)
Hillary Clinton gave a series of ever changing answers, redefinitions, and diversions to questions regarding her business and political dealings for the entirety of her 40 years in the public eye.
Bill Clinton famously told us:
“I want you to listen to me. I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Miss Lewinsky.
And, 8 months later;
“Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible. I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression.”
Too bad he didn’t see fit to say it all on the same day.
So, to look at the truth from the underside (the preferred angle for the Clintons, and the progressives they have led for a generation) what, we might ask, is a lie?
Well, sir, Justice Potter to the rescue. In speaking of pornography, which was the issue before SCOTUS at the time of his famous quip, he noted that he might not be able to define it, but he could certainly recognize it when he saw it!
What exactly is a lie, coming from a politician? Well, we said in our millions, I might not be able to define it for you, but I can sure tell when somebody slaps me in the face with it like a dead fish. Parenthetically, the 2 smell largely the same.
Lest you assume that I am only able to see lies when perpetrated by Liberal Democrats like the Clintons, which is, as we used to say in the Navy, a “target rich environment”, I note that the leader for some years of my own exasperating, infuriating Grand Old Party, Mitch McConnell, had a pre-November and a post November side of his mouth in regards to repealing or defunding Obamacare. (We wait with baited breath, now that he has it all, both Houses of Congress, POTUS, and over 2/3 of statehouses firmly in GOP control, if he will finally, to quote, well, him, “repeal it, root and branch.”)
Now here is a curious phenomenon. I am (Ok, Bess, you could never tame Harry, but I’ll filter the Navy out of the boy) angry with Mitch for lying to me. The Democrats who stood in lock step supporting Bill on the steps of the Capitol were not angry with him in Aug when he admitted he had lied, and got them to swear to it. They were angry with Ken Starr. They were angry with the GOP for making a big deal about it. They were angry on an individual basis with conservatives who dared to say, See, I told you so. Bill Clinton is a liar. (Or moving forward, after Hillary contradicted her own story for the 4th or 5th time, HRC is a liar.) It did not matter that they lied, only that they gave at least lip service to the right ideas.
When Barack Obama promised most faithfully those “shovel ready jobs”, and then chuckled later, that oops, they were not as shovel ready as we thought, (in point of fact, they were nonexistent), when his lies on Obamacare unraveled, when he campaigned in favor of medical marijuana, then worked against it as POTUS, (now THAT one ought to have the lefts undies bunched up!), no Liberal Democrats were outraged and angry at him. Instead, they joined in merry chorus of RACIST! Against anyone who opposed him or pointed out his lies.
Now, in 2016, for better or worse, the truth became important. What Obama had done, instead of what he promised or took credit for, mattered. The constant lies of Hillary Clinton became too much to swallow for too many people. And it was part, if not all, of a political tidal wave.
And in all of it, conservatives and Republicans were outraged at the leaders of our party for lying to us, and gave rise to the year of the insurgency candidates Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. Trump may be far from perfect, but so many times he called the same things Bull… sorry, Bess, I m trying, manure, that we did. And it struck a chord.
Meanwhile, Democrats angrily, hysterically, denounced any who failed to kow tow to party orthodoxy, and many, too many, or enough, depending on your point of view, said, Nope, not this time.
The party outraged by the truth slid behind the ones outraged by the lies to its lowest ebb since Woodrow Wilson. The Progressive movement has been set back a generation, and the work of undoing their damage is about to begin.
Sophistry has about run its course. Truth is gaining ground.
Taking on the most extreme, out of touch, fringe elements of society, desperately waiting to be insulted or aggrieved, does not make you a major political influence, it makes you a fragmented party of wackos, who eventually, and finally, make it clear that my job, my housing value, my paycheck, my retirement, my life and safety and that of my children and grandchildren, is less important to you than wedding cakes and Kardashians.
Common sense folks, trying to live their lives, have been aware of these truths, if hesitant to say them for fear of the (Democrat) mob.
So, here’s another bit of truth: that is all about to change.
The last time the Democrat party was this weak, Babe Ruth hit 138 home runs, The Republic of Ireland was formed, a famine began in Russia, FDR developed polio, and John Glenn was born.
If you are a Democrat, perhaps you need to find a safe place and make some playdough Unicorns.
Because the Lions are back.
Mark Caserta: What path will the liberals take in 2017?
30 Dec
Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot editor
12.30.16
As we prepare to move into arguably one of the most important first years of any U.S. presidency, I have but one question for liberal Democrats.
Will you consider the resolution to unify with the Trump administration and the “principled” members of the GOP to make America great again?
Regrettably, rather than learn from the election, liberals have been busy lamenting over their November loss and exhausting every excuse possible for the landslide electoral college defeat of Hillary Clinton.
Aside from the fact that no definitive evidence has ever been offered proving this allegation, I simply offer a common-sense rebuttal.
First, Hillary’s unethical standards created her own email nightmare. She alone is to blame.
Second, as reported by multiple news outlets, Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, firmly denies the assertion that Russia provided the emails.
Third, given the fact that Vladimir Putin has, for all intents and purposes, moved at will against Hillary and the Obama administration, with whom do you suppose he would rather confront, Trump or Clinton?
Subsequently, as the hacking allegation began to lose steam, Hillary supporters started blaming “angry white men” for the loss. Her hubby, Bill Clinton, offered his boisterous perspective on Trump’s win at a New York bookstore earlier this month per Politico.
“He doesn’t know much,” Clinton said when asked if Trump was smart. “One thing he does know is how to get angry white men to vote for him.”
Have you looked in the mirror lately, Willy?
Actually, based on Pew Research Center data, Trump won white voters by a margin “almost identical” to that of Mitt Romney, who lost the popular vote to Obama in 2012. Trump also fared better among blacks and Hispanics than Romney did four years ago.
This same report shows Trump carried 42 percent of the female demographic, despite liberals attempting to tarnish Trump’s history with women using dated audio-video clips.
But I believe the “coup de grace” ensuring Trump a victory over Hillary was the evangelical vote.
But progressives sought to play every card in their blame game.
Some were even willing to blame the defining element of our Republic, the Electoral College system, for stacking the odds against the “judicious” election of Hillary to the presidency. In their view, apparently, crippling the Constitution would be a small price to pay for a liberal victory.
But despite the tenacious efforts of the left, Donald J. Trump will be sworn into office as the 45th president of the United States on Jan. 20th, 2017.
So, what path will liberal Democrats take in 2017?
Will they continue to pursue a debilitating progressive agenda? Or will they join the new administration in putting Americans and our country first?
Future voters will be watching very closely.
Mark Caserta is a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.
Doug Smith: If the Russians were hacking the U.S.
20 Dec
Doug Smith: Author, historian, patriot and lead contributor to FSP
12.20.16
If the Russians were or are hacking into our computers, we ought to take offense. If, mind you. Of course, it is hard for the guy who said, Tell Vlad I ll have more flexibility after the election, and If Syria uses chemical weapons, that would be a red line in the sand, and Golly, Crimea? Really? Well, stuff happens, to be the one to take them on.
However, I note with interest that so far all I have seen is pundits and talking heads saying The CIA director said, or, more specifically, the Media reports that CIA employees said, that in a memo which we can’t see, read by employees who are not named, the CIA director said, that the FBI and NSA directors said, that we are all in agreement.
How’s that again?
However, we still refuse to brief the House Intelligence Committee.
Say what?
Not once have I seen and CIA spokesman or director make a statement to the public, or to Congress. Everything I have seen, and can look up online, cites reporters talking about what unnamed sources said Clapper said that Comey said.
Given that mainstream reporters tend to be among the biggest liars around, (Dan Rather, Brian Williams, to name a few), and have often put forth a story based on either a lie, or partial or misinformation to further their narrative, I ll reserve judgment on that aspect of things until we hear something definitive, like, oh, I don’t know, proof, or testimony from the Director of Central Intelligence.
However, in the broader sense, can we agree that we ought to have a sense that government officials ought not to interfere with the elections of foreign countries?
So we object in principle to the idea that Russia might try to influence or cast doubt on our elections. But if we follow that principle, we must equally object to Obama sending money and political operatives to Israel to actively work with an opponent of Netanyahu to try and defeat him, because he does not like him. That is materially worse, and principally the same as what is alleged now, to wit, a leader of one country did not like a candidate in another country and so worked actively to try and defeat them in an election.
Goose, meet Gander. If you are going to say I object to Russian interference in our elections, regardless the degree of effectiveness, then, if you are consistent, you must equally condemn Obama s failed attempt to unseat the Israeli Prime Minister.
Let us go a step further. Both Ted Kennedy , as a Senator and Presidential hopeful, and Jimmy Carter, as a sitting President, directly contacted officials within the Soviet government to ask their help in creating events and military postures that would help them defeat Ronald Reagan, judging, correctly, that the Soviets would vastly prefer either of them to Reagan. And so they should have, for Reagan put the final nail in their coffin.
Now, these things did not come out as 2 Democrat politicians actively tried to solicit help from the Soviets for partisan political purposes during the Cold War, but some years later as documents were made public after the fall of the Soviet Union.
John Walker, who American sailors justly reviled, was convicted of espionage for selling secrets (which I was charged with protecting as well as he was, and still would not divulge to you) to the Soviets for money. He died in Federal Prison in 2014. What he did was very similar in tone and potential damage to what Kennedy and Carter tried to do. How much did the Soviets adjust their posture toward the US in the 80’s at the behest of those 2? We will likely never know.
We can be utterly certain that the Soviet leadership was far, far more upset with Ronald Reagan than Shirtless Vlad is with Hillary (Easy Button Reset) Clinton. After all, she didn’t stop them at anything. In fact, her claim that Vlad is Mad (angry, not nuts) is a little specious since she signed off on a deal for control of US Uranium that helped make him the wealthiest man in the world, and did not hurt her pocketbook either.
I think a reasonable case can be made that both Carter and Kennedy should have been charged with espionage , if they gave US state secrets to the Soviets in part of their request for internal political help, or perhaps treason, for dealing with our primary enemy to further their own political ambitions.
Now, Kennedy is dead, and Carter is 90, although he still has a penchant for working actively against the interests of the US in his words and actions abroad. He has the record at this point, for the worst, most meddlesome, most anti American ex-President ever. But he can take heart. He also once looked to be the worst President on record.
Then along came Obama.
