Archive | FSP RSS feed for this section

Mark Caserta: Columnist gets to spend time with an American hero

16 Sep

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot Editor

9.16.16

Americans love extolling our heroes, but it isn’t often you actually get to meet one. Recently I was blessed to share some time with one of our nation’s most esteemed living patriots – Joseph Whitt.

Joe was aboard the U.S.S. San Francisco during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, and is currently one of four remaining survivors.

Joe is truly representative of the “Greatest Generation” our country has ever produced.

As I sat across the table from Joe and his lovely wife, Judith, in a restaurant near Bethel, Ohio, where they reside, I couldn’t help but politely ask questions about his experience.

I listened intently as Joe attempted to describe the indescribable.

“I saw the Arizona blow up,” Joe said, speaking of the U.S.S. Arizona, the most heavily damaged of all the vessels in what was called “Battleship Row.” He labored to describe the chaos of that day and his fallen crew mates.

The assault, which lasted nearly two hours, claimed the lives of more than 2,400 people and destroyed nearly 20 American ships and at least 300 airplanes.

At the age of 92, Joe understandably has some difficulty recalling the intimate details of his experience. I was touched by the way Judy (some years younger) would, at times, lovingly step in to finish a portion of Joe’s story. It became particularly difficult when he shared his ghastly recollection of the sharks that rapidly infested the waters to feast upon the ensuing carnage.

We cried.

My heart swelled with love, admiration and appreciation for Joe and Judy as they painted a haunting picture of Joe’s tumultuous experience.

One might think increasing apathy from some would callous the heart of an individual who gave so freely to his country, but Joe’s humility and entrenched love for America guide his path. My heart ached for this man obviously encumbered by a horrific memory that would never, ever go away.

Joe never mentioned it, but I learned he earned 17 battle stars in World War II and has been the recipient of multiple honors throughout the years. But he’ll never receive just recompense.

Joe Whitt represents an iconic America that’s rapidly slipping away.

After talking with Joe and Judy, I have a renewed respect for those who’ve given their very best to purchase the freedoms we enjoy in this great country.

But amid this patriotic swell, I’ve also acquired a refurbished disdain for those who take this sacrifice for granted and mock our flag.

Words are darn cheap – cheaper than ever. And we’re getting loads of dung-ridden verbiage shoveled at us every day.

But the bravery of men and women like Joseph Whitt made America great.

It’s now up to us to keep it going.

God bless you, Joe and Judy.

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

Tags: , ,

Mark Caserta: Libertarian candidate has merit, but he’s no conservative

9 Sep

me

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot editor

9.9.16

 

gary

Only 10 presidents in history have won the presidential election with less than 50 percent of the popular vote. But it will likely be 11 very soon.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are currently among the “worst-rated presidential candidates of the last seven decades” with “highly unfavorable” ratings of 33 and 42 percent respectively, according to Gallup’s long-term “scalometer” polling trend.

The most memorable president in my lifetime winning with less than 50 percent would be Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential election in which many (including myself) believe third-party candidate H. Ross Perot became the “spoiler” of the election for George H.W. Bush by garnering 18.9 percent of the popular vote as an Independent.

Now, during that particular election, the Libertarian candidate, Andre Marrou, received only .28 percent of the popular vote. But the times, they are a changin’ and so are the attitudes of the American people.

Disdain for our top two presidential candidates has given rise to Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who is blossoming in his third-party candidacy.

Johnson, the former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico, has been consistently rising in the polls. An NBC News “political profile” lists Johnson as a “libertarian-minded conservative” who has been active in libertarian causes, including marijuana legalization, since leaving office.

Interestingly, Johnson’s platform does have some good components. I like the “pre-amble” I pulled directly from the Libertarian platform website.

“As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.”

It goes on to say Libertarians “believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world … and those individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways” without government interference or any authoritarian power.

But while portions of the platform are plausible, in reality, Libertarian aspirations are currently somewhere over the rainbow.

Under the “Statement of Principles” section on the party’s platform website, there are a couple of elements that don’t align with Christian conservative values.

Article 1.5 “Abortion,” states that Libertarians recognize abortion as a sensitive issue and that people can hold “good faith views” on all sides. “We believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”

Well, conservatives believe abortion is murder – period. And it should be illegal. Leaving this matter up to the individual is pro-choice, pure and simple.

Article 1.7, “Crime and Justice,” states that libertarians “favor the repeal of all laws creating ‘crimes’ without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or ‘recreational’ purposes.”

Conservatives believe that the use of illegal drugs in our society is “not” a victimless crime and results in the destruction of lives, family and society every single day.

Conservatives will not “progressively” compromise these principles. We plan to use this election to defend the Constitution and the Supreme Court.

That leaves a single candidate – Donald Trump.

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

 

 

Tags: , , ,

Mark Caserta: Obama’s health care plan is falling apart

5 Sep

Americans have been bamboozled!

me

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

  • Sep 2, 2016

President Obama’s signature healthcare law is collapsing beneath its own weight.

Major insurers across the country are saying the law has been too great of a financial drain on them and coverages promised by Obamacare are simply unsustainable.

An April column by Peter Sullivan in “The Hill” reports the nation’s largest health insurer, UnitedHealth, recently announced it will be pulling out in all but a “handful” of states in 2017 because of financial losses under Obamacare.

An NPR “Health News” column this month by Alison Kodjak announced that in 2017 the insurance giant Aetna will “stop selling health insurance through most of the exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act because the company is losing money.”

A July “Politico” column by Sarah Karlin-Smith reported the huge insurance provider Humana will “stop marketing Obamacare exchange plans in several states next year and will exit many off-exchange individual markets as well.”

Obamacare isn’t working.

And this is only the beginning. Reportedly, other insurers such as Blue Cross Blue Shield are contemplating pulling back some of their Obamacare plans.

The news isn’t much better for folks with coverage in the remaining markets.

A June Associated Press health release on NBC News online disclosed that millions of people will “face the sting” of rising premiums next year, with no government subsidies.

According to the release, Blue Cross Blue Shield would be seeking an average premium increase of nearly 60 percent for 2017 in some markets! Available data show the premium increases could easily hit the double-digit mark for many Americans.

Simply put, Americans have been bamboozled.

Many recall Barack Obama’s famous 2013 Politifact “Lie of the Year”: “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.”

And then there was Obama’s 2007 campaign promise that he would sign a universal healthcare bill into law that will “cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.”

And possibly the “creme de la creme” came in 2013 when the “architect” of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, said that a “lack of transparency” and the “stupidity of the American voter” helped Congress approve Obamacare.

In a clip of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor appearing on a panel to discuss how the bill earned enough votes to pass, Gruber revealed the plan.

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Gruber said. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”

Gruber went on to say the law was “written in a tortured way” to avoid a bad score from the Congressional Budget Office.

So to partially quote Obama’s longtime pastor and friend, Jeremiah Wright, the president’s “chickens are coming home to roost.”

Obamacare has missed the mark in healthcare coverage. It’s also cost jobs and marred a large portion of our economy. Yet liberals like Hillary Clinton still support it.

The November election is our last chance to repeal Obamacare.

And then work toward a real healthcare solution.

 

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

Tags: , , ,

Doug Smith: The Medici Foundation

2 Sep

doug smith

Doug Smith: Author, historian and lead contributor to Free State Patriot

9.2.16

house of medici

For the non-history geeks, a book I am reading on the rise and fall of the House of Medici will likely be boring. I find it fascinating and instructive. The Medici was a Florentine family of growing wealth and influence in Renaissance Italy. At their apex, they wielded great power in the formation of the 14th century world. This is not to say it was all a good influence, but they changed the world around them.

One of their most notorious and flawed sons, Giovanni, certainly had his little foibles. He launched a war to install his nephew in power in one Italian city. He borrowed exorbitant amounts for his war, and his hobbies, which included hiring famous artists of the day for such projects as the St Peter’s Basilica. He spent far more than he had on his pet projects, and set out to thoroughly enjoy the position of power he held, regardless the cost, or who had to pay, or what he had to do. He was notorious for his debauchery as well as his extravagance, and if he had any shame in selling his office to support his desires, it was well hidden and not recorded.

He is remembered to the world as Pope Leo X.

One of his more ingenious ways of selling his office was indulgences. On the theory that the Pope had the power of earth to forgive sins on God’s behalf, Leo came up with a divine get out of hell free card: the Indulgence. For a price, wealthy donors could wipe out what they had done, or even invest in what they intended to do in the future, that was forbidden by their faith, and have the sin wiped out, or indulged, by good old Leo. Adultery? Theft? Murder? Extortion? Let me consult the menu, and see how many ducats we need to keep the artists painting, the soldiers fighting, the consorts cavorting naked, and the various deals alive. (I suppose his vows of poverty and chastity were indulged as well). Does a bishop need money to send to the Pope to purchase his office? Indulgences. There was even a bureaucrat in the church in charge of indulgences. It was argued that, after all, the church did some good with its money, and paid for some great works of art, so its little foibles ought to be overlooked, after all, everyone did it; that was just the way of the world.

Then along came a young priest with a conscience deeply troubled by the debauchery and corruption he witnessed at Rome. So troubled was this young man that he took exception. In point of fact, he took 95 exceptions, which he wished to debate. So troubled was the Pope by his daring to challenge his authority, and income, that he excommunicated the young man and invited him to come to Rome and be imprisoned. He declined the offer, and took his list of 95 problems, and his conscience, and his understanding of truth and right, and began to teach others. Many who were also disturbed with the corruption and avarice of those who sought to lead them self-righteously, while living in such debauchery, followed the young man and began a movement that rejected the old, corrupt ways.

That man was Martin Luther. His influence is still evident today, 5 centuries after the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Church no longer sells indulgences.

Now, if you see many parallels between current or aspiring leaders of today and Giovanni De Medici, you are not alone.

For whatever good the Medici Foundation may do with a few of its ducats, it does not make the corruption with which it obtains them any less objectionable.

So where is our Luther?

 

 

Tags: , ,

Mark Caserta: We must accept Trump’s challenge on radical Islam

27 Aug

It’s truly this election…or never

me

  • Aug 26, 2016

GOP presidential nominee Donald John Trump is laying down the gauntlet against radical Islamic terrorism and asking Americans to accept his challenge.

Last week, in Youngstown, Ohio, Trump likened the fight against terrorism to the Cold War and the battle against Nazism and laid out his plan advocating a “new screening test for the threats we face today,” calling it “extreme vetting extreme, extreme vetting.”

Trump’s plan calls for all immigrants to be subjected to tests for a commitment to U.S. values, including religious freedom and tolerance. He added we would assess our allies based on their commitment to defeat “radical Islam.”

“All actions should be oriented around this goal, and any country which shares this goal will be our ally,” Trump declared. “Very important – some don’t share this goal. We cannot always choose our friends but we can never fail to recognize our enemies.”

Trump was most likely imputing our commander-in-chief, who is so apologetic for the Muslim faith he won’t even utter words insinuating radical Islam. And incredibly, we have a Democrat presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, willing to perpetuate protecting Islam over the lives of Americans.

Given the president has no greater responsibility than to ensure the safety and security of the American people, how can either one of these individuals be qualified to lead our country? Despite the obvious, neither seems to believe our nation’s borders are at risk!

Both Obama and Hillary are determined to bring thousands of Syrian refugees into the United States without properly vetting them.

Top U.S. officials have already admitted concern that a potential terrorist could be hiding among refugees looking for asylum in the U.S. as reported in a February 2015 column by Justin Fishel and Mike Levine on ABC.com.

And FBI Director James Comey and the nation’s top intelligence officials already have admitted we simply don’t have the information in our nation’s data base to properly vet these individuals.

“We can only query against that which we have collected,” Comey said before the House Homeland Security Committee in 2015. “We can query our database till the cows come home, but there’ll be nothing show up, because we have no record on that person.”

But even then, it’s a red herring. As reported in a November 2015 column by Kerry Picket of “The Daily Caller,” the Obama administration is limiting the scope of query to focus on “behavior,” rather than religion or ideology.

Incredibly, Obama’s counter-terrorism officials have trained domestic Homeland Security law enforcement officers to focus on the behaviors of people entering the U.S. rather than their political, ideological or religious background.

At what point do we ostensibly label this administration’s efforts to protect Americans either a “lack of skill” or a “lack of will” – and possibly both.

It’s time America accepts Trump’s challenge. If we don’t use this election to get serious about keeping radical Islam out of our country, it will be too late.

They will have an open range under Hillary Clinton.

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

Tags: , , , ,

State Dept. Warns: Iran Seeking to Capture U.S. Citizens

22 Aug

 Originally printed in The Washington Free Beacon

new

Hassan Rouhani / AP

BY: Adam Kredo August 22, 2016 5:16 pm

 

The State Department issued a warning on Monday urging U.S. citizens to avoid traveling to Iran, which has made the detention of Americans a priority.

The latest travel advisory, which emphasizes Iran’s desire to capture U.S. citizens, comes on the heels of a growing scandal over the Obama administration’s decision to pay Iran $400 million in cash on the same day that it freed several U.S. hostages.

The payment has been cast by lawmakers and others as a ransom payment and prompted concern among U.S. officials that Iran is making arresting Americans a priority.

The travel warning is meant to “highlight the risk of arrest and detention of U.S. citizens, particularly dual national Iranian-Americans,” according to a State Department announcement on Monday. “Foreigners, in particular dual nationals of Iran and Western countries including the United States, continue to be detained or prevented from leaving Iran.”

“U.S. citizens traveling to Iran should very carefully weigh the risks of travel and consider postponing their travel,” the warning adds. “U.S. citizens residing in Iran should closely follow media reports, monitor local conditions, and evaluate the risks of remaining in the country.”

Iran continues to imprison Americans, particularly those holding dual Iranian citizenship, according to the State Department.

“Iranian authorities have detained and harassed U.S. citizens, particularly those of Iranian origin,” the travel warning states. “Former Muslims who have converted to other religions, religious activists, and persons who encourage Muslims to convert are subject to arrest and prosecution.”

The Obama administration expressed particular concern about commercial airlines doing business with Iran. This warning comes as American companies such as Boeing continue to pursue million-dollar business deals with the Islamic Republic.

“The U.S. government is concerned about the risks to civil aircraft operating into, out of, within, or over Iran due to hazards from military activity associated with the conflicts in Iraq and Syria,” the warning states. “The FAA has advised U.S. civil aviation to exercise caution when flying into, out of, within, or over the airspace over Iran.”

The warning emphasizes that “the U.S. government’s ability to assist U.S. citizens in Iran in the event of an emergency is extremely limited.”

adam

Adam Kredo

Adam Kredo is senior writer for the Washington Free Beacon. Formerly an award-winning political reporter for the Washington Jewish Week, where he frequently broke national news, Kredo’s work has been featured in outlets such as the Jerusalem Post, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, and Politico, among others. He lives in Maryland with his comic books. His Twitter handle is @Kredo0. His email address is kredo@freebeacon.com.

    

Tags: ,

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.

20 Aug

https://secure.donaldjtrump.com/new-tv-ad-release?utm_medium=sms&utm_campaign=s_djt0819150839_TPG_081916_T_immigrationvideo&utm_source=sms_f&sc=TPG_081916_T_immigrationvideo

Mark Caserta: Clinton presidency would put nation at risk

19 Aug

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot Editor

8.19.16

We are a nation of laws. Without them we would surely fall.

Take for example, our highway safety laws. A set of fairly universal laws regarding the privilege of driving have been set in place to protect us while traveling in our vehicles. A red light means stop. A green light means go. There are definitive right-of-ways established. You get my meaning.

Well, what happens if just one person refuses to follow these laws?

The governing laws of our land with regard to our nation’s leaders are no different. We have laws protecting information and guarding behaviors consequential to the safety of our nation and its citizens. And no person, indiscriminate of race, ethnicity, gender or stature can be above these laws.

And when these laws aren’t followed, it can be detrimental to our nation’s security and the safety of massive numbers of people.

And I submit that is precisely what Hillary Clinton has done.

The majority of Americans now believe Hillary is guilty of committing criminal acts compromising our national security, according to a recent ABC News poll.

Additionally, I believe she is essentially being granted immunity and illegal asylum within the confines of the Obama administration and liberal factions of major media sources, such as MSNBC, CNN and The New York Times.

During the recent House hearing on Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., a former prosecutor, grilled FBI Director James Comey regarding his findings of Hillary’s actions while Secretary of State.

Here is an excerpt of the exchange published by multiple news sources, including the New York Times.

You be the judge.

Gowdy: “Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails, either sent or received. Is that true?”

Comey: “That’s not true, there were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents.”

Gowdy: “Secretary Clinton said, ‘I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email, there is no classified material.’ Was that true?”

Comey: “There was classified material emailed.”

Gowdy: “Secretary Clinton said she used just one device. Was that true?”

Comey: “She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.”

Gowdy: “Secretary Clinton said all work-related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?”

Comey: “No, we found work-related emails, thousands, that were not returned.”

So, has Hillary compromised our nation’s security?

A July column in the New York Times by David E. Sanger reports that while the FBI states it doesn’t have “direct” information that Hillary’s email account was hacked, cyber experts agree it’s indeed “likely.”

The implications of classified information and/or Clinton’s wrongdoings being privy to our enemies are vast in their scope. And we most likely wouldn’t know of it until “after” she became president.

By then, it would be too late.

Hillary’s disregard for our nation’s safety renders her unqualified to lead, much less become commander-in-chief.

A Hillary presidency places our nation and Americans at risk.

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

Tags: , ,

Doug Smith: The Clinton Coarsening

18 Aug

doug smith

 

 

 

 

Doug Smith: Author, historian and lead contributor to Free State Patriot

8.18.16

clinton 1

This is just one more example of the Clinton Effect on our society. It is a decidedly coarsening one. Bill Clinton testified under oath that he didn’t think a certain sexual act was truly sexual, and in the decades since the Clinton effect has made that a more common thing in our schools, as low as middle school, because “Bill Clinton said that s not really doing it”.

Not so long before Clinton, Gary Hart saw the end of his political career in a photo of his secretary sitting on his lap in a bathing suit. In the Clinton era, none of that seems to matter.

Clinton perjured himself. He was disbarred, but still gets hundreds of thousands for a speech, and millions for a no show job at a university. Lying, even under oath, is apparently now ok.

The net and long term result of the Clinton infection on the body politic and the society at large has been a coarser, less moral, less honest society. Standards have been pushed down to the level of “anything the Clintons do must be alright, because…”

Now there is the part I don’t quite put my arms around. Has the left in our society lowered standards for the Clintons because of their love for them, or are they simply the most blatant in pushing the limits downward? Perhaps the left prefers the lack of standards and a moral code, because they do not wish to be judged by any standard, so they let the Clintons take the lead in debauchery, dishonesty, avarice, and disregard for life. They defend them furiously, so they don t have to defend themselves. Then, once a Clinton has gotten away with it, it is forever ok for them. Perhaps that is the Clinton effect: a push of the left to eliminate all sense of morality and judgment in our society, so they can all live the life Libertine.

I confess I do not know the answer, although that one makes as much sense as any. I do know the Clinton effect has been a coarser, and worse place to live than before they came on the scene.

Donald Trump may be coarser in language and discourse, but he does not seem to lead the society into that direction. He says I am what I am, take me or leave me. Not so the Clintons. They say we are what we are. Love us. And follow us.

With Trump it is somewhat like having a large, boisterous dog that knocks things over in your house. With the Clintons, it is more like sleeping in a den of wolves, and wondering why you itch all the time and find you have a taste for sheep.

Trump is a unique phenomenon. I don’t expect to see another on the scene. But the Clintons want a dynasty. If Hillary is entitled to high office for putting up with Bill, then surely Chelsea is as well. She was entitled to a $ 600,000 starting salary at NBC.

Surely she is entitled to move her scamming, hedge fund husband into the White House someday.

clinton 2

Or perhaps. Just perhaps. We might say, a barbarian who is very good at war may win power, but ought not to drive the culture for generations. A coarse, uncultured lothario who is very good at politics may likewise win power, for a time. But should we let the vices of the Clintons drive our society for generations to come?

Perhaps it is time for a long corporate shower.

 

 

 

Tags: , , ,

Doug Smith: A brief history lesson, and a hard reality check

16 Aug

doug smith

 

 

 

 

 

Doug Smith:  Author, historian and lead contributor to Free State Patriot 

 

 

GTY_Clinton_Trump3_MEM_160808

 

So many people in this political cycle are opting for the magical approach. Donald Trump is, well, Donald, not your Daddy’s candidate. He has an irritating penchant for speaking directly from the mouth, sans the filters most of us put on our speech. He is not a comforting, traditional GOP candidate like President Dole, or President McCain, or even President Romney. (They didn’t? Really?) Without rehashing the septicemia of the Grand Old Party that has led in cascading sequence to The Tea Party, the Freedom Caucus, and The Donald, things just aren’t what they used to be.

There are a few approaches to this new and unsettling development in American politics.

  • Hold on tight. Don t worry, the folks will come back around when they realize that their GOP liars are better than the Democrat liars. A 20 year run of blatantly broken promises, ineffectual or non-existent opposition to Barack Obama’s ideas and decisions that are abhorrent to conservatives will fade if we just let the folks see how bad it is if liberal Democrats get the reins of power.

The problem with this approach is that the folks, after a while, get tired of being the butt of that awful joke, and wonder just what difference it really made when part of their party goes along to get along, a al McConnell, while part of it actively supports the lib/Dem agenda, a la McCain, Graham, and even wonder boy Rubio. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me for 20 years? Well, first you get the rebuke of the Tea Party. Then you get the rebuke of the Freedom Caucus, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee. Finally, you get the ”Up Yours” of Donald Trump.

  • The Magic approach. Well, magic worked in literature and everyone loved it. Wave a wand (unbind the delegates), speak magic words (Romney’s a Nice Guy! David French writes for NRO, wouldn’t HE be a great candidate.) And we can FIX this.

Well, the problems with that approach are numerous. Magic doesn’t work in the real world. (Sorry, but no Merlin, and no Harry Potter. An earlier generation was convinced that Sherlock Holmes was really solving crimes. Just a fantasy. ) Besides, coming up with a candidate acceptable to the Good Ole Boys network doesn’t change the reality that for all his ( Admitted!) faults, Trump got more people voting for him in the GOP primary than any previous candidate in history, including Lincoln and Reagan. You can fix attitudes and disappointment by putting in a pinch hitter. At this dance, we are “going to dance with the fella that brung ya. “

  • The White Knight. Somebody out there is so appealing to the folks that he can ride in, say, ok, I’m here    to save you, and the folks will dutifully swoon and fall in step behind him.

Well. If such a knight existed, why didn’t he run? We have to rule out the 16 who did run, because a plurality of the folks rejected all of them in favor of Trump. (This should again tell the GOP stalwarts just how much they have to fix. But it won’t. And they won’t. ) Nor can such a mythical creature just pop into existence and enter the fray. Politics being what it is, he just cannot get from myth to votes cast in November in time.

So for you who can vote in November, a brief history lesson and reality check. You are on the roller coaster. You might be regretting it and wishing you did not have to go over the big hill, but the bar is down, the chain is pulling you up the hill, and soon, very soon, you and I are going to plunge down the big dip.

So. How many times has a 3rd party candidate done more than sway the race to ( ALWAYS) the more liberal, progressive candidate?

One. Abraham Lincoln defeated the Whigs and the Democrats on a platform of national unity and opposition to slavery. It is worth noting that the result of that was the end of the Whig party, secession, and Civil War.

Since then, 3rd parties have ended up helping to sway the outcome to Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton, but they have never won. Not once in a century. So if your magical hopes are pinned on Gary Johnson, you are about to be disappointed.

That leaves us, as it has since 1860, at least, with a simple reality. Absent an act of God, one of the 2 major party candidates now running will become the next President.

Donald Trump has a lot of faults, though he is not without virtue. The first article I wrote about him at the start of his campaign is unchanged: I think he is something of an ass. He is hardly the ideal candidate I would build in my Weird Science experiment. He shoots his mouth off without thinking, is brash, often crude, and reminds us regularly that a builder may end up sounding like the construction workers wolf whistling at a pretty girl who walks by. We don t know how much his move to a more conservative position will affect his judgment and actions.

Still. He is not Hillary Clinton.

And we do know with certainty what she will do. She will appoint progressive liberal judges to SCOTUS and the federal bench. She will raise taxes. She will continue the Obama war on coal, and the economy. She will, as is the wont of progressives, continue to chip away at basic rights. She will lie consistently. She will, in collusion with her husband, sell the office of the President in unprecedented ways to enrich her family.

And this one deserves a line of its own.

She will certainly involve us in at least one major war.

She will not, most likely, do so with a reasoned approach about our national security interests. Instead she will muddle along, incompetently, making misstep after misstep, until one of them lands her, and us, squarely in a major conflict.

That is Hillary.

Wm F Buckley maintained we ought to support the most right leaning viable candidate for President. To support the most right leaning candidate around, who cannot get elected, ensures that the most left leaning will win. To support a candidate who could viably win, but is markedly to the left, ensures the same. Basic logic of politics

So if you are still crying in your milk that “If only” the GOP had nominated ANYONE else, you would NEVER support Hillary Clinton, because she is dishonest and incompetent, and far left, then wake up friend. Get over it.

“If only” lost the primary. “If only” is not running against Hillary.

There are 2 choices. President Hillary Clinton. Or President Donald Trump.

Don’t let yourself be saying in a year, if Only I had helped stop her.

I’m not crazy about Trump. He is not ideal. But he is the better of the only 2 choices available. So I’m going to vote for him.

And so should you.

 

Tags: , , , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →