Archive | FSP RSS feed for this section

OBAMA DESERVING OF “LIE OF THE YEAR” AWARD

19 Dec

obamacare 3 years later Obama deserved the ‘Lie of the Year’ award

Dec. 19, 2013 @ 12:00 AM

The votes are in. And the winner of the Politifact.com 2013 “Lie of the Year” award goes to (drum roll please) …

President Barack Obama’s “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it” promise he exploited for over three years!

Congratulations, Mr. President. Along with disappointing millions of Americans, you’ve successfully compromised the integrity of the office of president of the United States.

The president’s bogus pledge was the winner of this year’s “Lie of the Year” award from Politifact.com, a Tampa Bay Times project in which reporters and editors from the Times and affiliated media outlets “fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups.” On their website, original statements are evaluated and assigned a “Truth-O-Meter” rating, which range from “True” for completely accurate statements to “Pants on Fire” for outright lies.

In winning this year’s award, Barack Hussein Obama received the esteemed “Pants on Fire” rating for his presidential prevarication, and deservedly so.

In justifying last week’s annual award, Politifact explained the administration’s responses subsequent to the president’s and his Marxist minions’ original canard provided the necessary “tail wind” leading up to this year’s recognition.

Shortly after the lackluster rollout of the Healthcare.gov website and millions of Americans receiving insurance cancellation notices, the administration tried desperately to shift the blame to the health care providers.

“It’s important to remember both before the ACA was ever even a gleam in anybody’s eye, let alone passed into law, that insurance companies were doing this all the time, especially in the individual market because it was lightly regulated and the incentives were so skewed,” said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.

But the president distanced himself from the field in winning this year’s award when he tried to rewrite history altogether and “lie about his lie.”

“Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law, (it was also at this point the moniker “Obamacare” disappeared from the lips of liberals) and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed,” the president told his political supporters.

But as Politifact reported, President Obama uttered his infamous “If you like it, you can keep it” phrase at least 37 times without any such caveat or disclaimer.

While I offer a facetious portrayal of this annual accolade, I submit that this was an unapologetic deceit of the highest order which is impacting the lives of millions of Americans who are losing their healthcare coverage.

One must wonder what other lies Americans have been told to advance or protect this president’s socialist agenda?

Were Americans lied to about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, the ATF’s “Fast and Furious” scandal, the IRS targeting Tea Party groups or the NSA?

These questions remain unanswered but voter polling makes one thing perfectly clear.

If Americans had known the truth about Obamacare, Barack Obama would have never won the 2012 presidential election.

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

Tags: , , , , , , ,

PERHAPS WE SHOULD REFLECT ON THE CHAINS WE’VE FORGED

18 Dec

CHRISTMAS CAROLDec. 21, 2011 @ 10:00 PM

The brilliance and imagery of the Charles Dickens classic, “A Christmas Carol,” offers a timeless reflection of the magical consequences of human kindness.

Of his tale, Dickens wrote, “I have endeavored in this Ghostly little book, to raise the Ghost of an Idea, which shall not put my readers out of humour with themselves, with each other, with the season, or with me. May it haunt their houses pleasantly, and no one wish to lay it.”

And “haunt” us it has for over 150 years with its sustained relevance for mankind and its sobering look at the sanctity and purpose of life.

Ebenezer Scrooge was a man lost within his own maize of anxiety, stripped of his compassion for others whose significance diminished as his wealth grew.

Yet, Scrooge, although unworthy of his journey of recompense, was given an opportunity to witness the chains he forged in life from the third person as he was led on a journey by the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Yet to Come.

I can only surmise Dickens chose Christmas as the setting of his tale of repentance because of the depth of purpose he envisioned it had for his fellow man and the opportunity it offered for reflecting upon one’s life choices.

I do, however, submit Dickens is prompting us to invoke similar introspection.

How would your journey fare with the three apparitions?

How sound are the choices in your past?

Life choices in today’s world are exceedingly complex and follow a path dimly lit and laden with distractions proprietary to our times.

A popular phrase the past few years has been, “What would Jesus do”?

Psalms 25:4 says, “Show me your ways, Lord, teach me your paths.”

More than ever before, we need a spiritual compass to help with our decision-making.

What about the present day?

As you woke this morning and prepared for interaction with others, what was your expectation? What, do you suppose, was theirs?

James 1:19 tells us, “Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry…”

A simple recommendation which would undoubtedly help each day become more productive for many of us!

What about your future? Surely thoughts of our future should consume us! After all, we’re taught from a young age to prepare for this period of life!

But isn’t that exactly what Ebenezer did?

Today is yesterday’s future!

God doesn’t want us consumed with hoarding riches in this life.

Matthew 6:19 advises, “Do not store up yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.”

God wants us to love each other and build our eternal riches in heaven!

Ebenezer Scrooge had some ghostly mentors to influence change in his life and Dickens ensured his writings paved the way by allowing time for Scrooge to alter his future.

Unfortunately, none of us have Dickens’ script guaranteeing our life tomorrow.

Perhaps we should use Christmas, as Dickens did, to reflect upon chains we may have forged.

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

Iran gamble gives Tehran time and money

14 Dec

Iran nuclear sites

Iran gamble gives Tehran time and money

Dec. 12, 2013 @ 12:00 AM

The Obama administration is gambling on the world stage, and the stakes are very high.

A deal was reached last month with Tehran and six major powers meant to freeze key components of the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for relief from economic sanctions.

At the time the deal was signed, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it a “historic mistake” and one that made the world a “much more dangerous place.”

Consider first, the players at the table — Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States.

An argument can be made that the interest of our closest ally and the nation with the most to lose from these negotiations was missing from the table. That is Israel.

Second, both China and Russia are known to be actively engaged in assisting Tehran in its nuclear and missile technology. In fact, the very foundation of Tehran’s nuclear program can be traced to extensive Chinese and Russian cooperation.

Tehran has received extensive missile testing and guidance assistance from China and Russia, according to multiple reports. In June 1996, the results of a Congressional hearing cited U.S. intelligence findings that China had already “delivered dozens, perhaps hundreds of missile guidance systems and computerized tools to Iran.”

With Russian help, Iranian scientists have set up two sites to use laser technology to “more efficiently” enrich uranium which could be used for a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports Tehran expects Russia to build two “additional” nuclear plants in the Bushehr province where they’ve been assisting the Iranians for years.

Two years ago, the IAEA released a comprehensive report on Tehran’s nuclear program based on intelligence from multiple countries, interviews with scientists who helped Tehran develop their program and the IAEA’s own investigations.

The report clearly indicated Iran engaged in “activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device.” These activities include:

Research on uranium cores and detonators for nuclear weapons.

Acquiring nuclear weapons information and documentation from a clandestine supply network.

Developing an indigenous nuclear weapons design and testing of the components.

Computer modeling of nuclear explosions and logistics for nuclear testing.

Engineering studies to adapt missiles for nuclear warheads.

The IAEA’s May 2013 report noted Tehran already had a sufficient stockpile of enriched uranium to produce weapons-grade uranium for seven nuclear bombs and was continuing to increase its capacity to enrich to weapons-grade.

Remember, Tehran is considered to be the leading state sponsor of terrorism, providing financial support and training for organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah and others.

The United States seems to be the only nation with no “down cards” in this apocalyptic game. Inspections and “fail-safe” measures aside, once a rogue nation has technology, it cannot be extracted!

A good gambler knows when to walk away. Right now, President Obama is “all in,” wagering the safety of millions on the hope we can trust Tehran, China and Russia — and the odds aren’t favorable.

Staying in this game provides our enemies with the two resources they need most — time and money.

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

Tags: , , , , ,

FOREIGN AID? AMERICA HAS HER OWN PROBLEMS

5 Dec

obamaspast00Mark Caserta: Foreign aid must be cut to bolster US stability
Dec. 05, 2013 @ 12:00 AM
The United States simply cannot sustain current levels of assistance to other countries.

According to the Treasury Department, our projected deficit for Fiscal Year 2014 is about $744 billion and our national debt is around $17 trillion, or about $52,807 per person.

I’d say it’s time to keep some cash at home until we can get our own financial house in order.

From a business perspective, it’s inconceivable that Congress has been operating without a federal budget for over three years. And sadly, our current mix of representation lacks the competencies required to build relationships and collaborate on viable financial solutions.

Additionally, President Obama, who is required by law to submit a budget to Congress on or before the first Monday in February of each year, has missed the mark four of the past five years and has yet to have a proposal seriously considered by either chamber of Congress.

Understand, the U.S. budgetary process is essential in determining funding levels for the next fiscal year and directly affects the monetary amounts allocated to foreign assistance programs.

The U.S. Agency for International Development states its function is to provide “economic, development and humanitarian assistance around the world in support of the foreign policy goals of the United States.” The U.S. provides around $50 billion in aid to other countries each year, according to the agency.

Now, humanitarian aid, at reasonable levels, has a strong political constituency in the U.S. But development aid remains controversial, and many contend it is a waste of taxpayers’ money. Multiple reports reveal inadequate oversight has resulted in billions of dollars in wasted resources.

The Commitment to Development Index (CDI) compiled each year by the Center for Global Development ranks the “quantifiable performance” of foreign aid for 27 of the world’s richest countries. The index uniquely assesses multiple categories ranging from trade to technology — not based on how much aid a nation provides, but the weighted value of the aid given.

Of the 27 countries, while the United States was by far the world’s top financial donor, it ranked 19th in overall value, behind countries like Denmark, Ireland and Canada.

Conspicuously missing from the donor list was China, which recently surpassed Japan as the world’s second largest economy and is forecasted to overtake the U.S. by 2016.

Yet, according to the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. provided $28.3 million in foreign assistance to China in 2012 to promote human rights, democracy, the rule of law, environmental conservation and to support Tibetan culture!

While perhaps noble in nature, do these causes supersede the fundamental needs of Americans?

What portion of U.S. foreign aid could have been re-allocated as tax subsidies for the 15 percent of Americans who were without health coverage, pre-Obamacare? And still could.

Our government has become a poor steward of the taxpayers’ hard-earned money — domestically and internationally.

And until we achieve financial stability, we must limit foreign aid to humanitarian needs and require other nations to be more assertive in their own development.

The U.S. has its own problems.

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

Tags: , , , , ,

SENATE GOES NUCLEAR

28 Nov

declaration signingMark Caserta: Nuclear option provides Dems fundamental change

Nov. 28, 2013 @ 12:00 AM

Democrat leadership won’t allow anything to impede President Obama’s progressive agenda.

Last week, Senate Democrats “progressively” altered our representative form of government by invoking the so-called “nuclear option” for judicial nominees.

The act’s conviction was appropriately characterized by Vice President Joe Biden while speaking last week to a group of immigration activists.

“As my father would say, come hell or high water, we’re going to win this.”

Folks, this administration is painstakingly committed to fundamentally changing America.

In a partisan 52-to-49 vote, Democrats used a rare parliamentary procedure to change the rules and making it possible for Congress to confirm most judicial and executive nominees with just 51 votes as opposed to the supermajority of 60 votes previously required.

Following the split decision, senate leadership retreated to their respective corners.

“It’s a sad day in the history of the Senate,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters following the vote, calling the move a Democratic “power grab.”

But Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, D-Nev., thumbed his nose at the Republican outcry, declaring it was time for the Senate to “evolve” beyond parliamentary roadblocks.

“The American people believe the Senate is broken, and I believe the American people are right,” he said, adding: “It’s time to get the Senate working again.”

After the vote, President Obama told reporters at the White House that Republicans had turned nomination fights into a “reckless and relentless tool” to grind the gears of government to a halt and noted while “neither party has been blameless … today’s pattern of obstruction … just isn’t normal; it’s not what our founders envisioned.”

Excuse me, Mr. President, but our representative form of government known as a “Republic” is “exactly” what the founders intended! And what you refer to as “obstruction,” Republicans call protecting Americans from your socialist agenda.

Additionally, Mr. President, do you recall in 2005, as an Illinois State senator, how you lamented over Republicans considering the nuclear option for President Bush’s nominees?

“I sense that talk of the nuclear option is more about power than about fairness … I believe some of my colleagues propose this rules change because they can get away with it rather than because they know it’s good for our democracy.”

If not, perhaps you recall what your Senate majority leader said during the same controversy.

“The threat to change Senate rules is a raw abuse of power and will destroy the very checks and balances our founding fathers put in place to prevent absolute power by any one branch of government.”

Why the double standard, Mr. President?

It’s clear the current system of checks and balances prevent Barack Obama from achieving his “fundamental change” for America “legislatively.”

His only hope for pursuing his socialist agenda is to nominate and have confirmed more liberal judges in our nation’s judicial system. And the Senate rules just didn’t provide enough votes to confirm activist nominees.

But Americans aren’t fools, Mr. President. They’ve become quite astute to the progressive mindset and very weary of this liberal adventure.

And the 2014 mid-term elections aren’t that far away.

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

Tags: , , , ,

THE PRESIDENT WHO “COULD NOT TELL THE TRUTH?”

26 Nov

Mark Caserta: Obama falls short on promise of transparency

Nov. 22, 2013 @ 09:59 AM

The day after his inauguration, President Obama promised a new era of “openness in government.”

“We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration,” he wrote in one of his first memos to federal agencies. “Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.”

Well, five years into the Obama presidency, Americans are balking at their willingness to take this president at his word.

Among a laundry list of examples contributing to this sentiment is the administration’s lack of forthrightness in the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in September 2012.

A recent survey, commissioned by “Secure American Now,” and conducted by pollsters John McLaughlin and Pat Caddell, revealed that 63 percent of Americans believe the president and his administration are covering up the facts of the siege that killed information officer Sean Smith, former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty and Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Those following the tragedy’s timeline remember the Obama administration attempted to blame the pre-meditated attack on an obscure video mocking Islam and the Prophet Mohammed, but later was forced into admitting the storming of the consulate was indeed a calculated terrorist attack thanks to a pursuit of truth by a few patriotic Americans.

Subsequent investigations disclosed there were survivors who were present the night of the onslaught who could possibly shed light on the events that transpired during the senseless massacre.

For example, why did the Obama administration falter in providing military support for the ambassador and his aides and who issued the “stand down” order? Also, why did the administration attempt to downplay terrorist involvement in the attack and why the obvious resolve to prevent testimony from surviving eye witnesses?

For more than a year since the attack, Congress has tried repeatedly to gain access to these survivors, with little success — until now.

Last week, three CIA security officers who were present during the attack testified in a closed-door session before the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. The men were described by sources as former Navy SEALS, Army Special Forces and Marines, under contract to guard CIA agents on the consulate grounds.

Their identities and information regarding their testimony have not been released.

However, information obtained recently by Fox News revealed that at least five CIA personnel, including government contractors, were asked to sign “non-disclosure” agreements regarding the Benghazi attack. While such agreements are standard protocol, it’s unclear why these individuals were asked to complete a second agreement following the incident.

Why does it always appear the Obama administration seems to be working harder trying to hide the truth than it does pursuing it?

It’s entirely possible that while the allegory of presidents portrays George Washington as “unable to tell a lie,” Barack Obama could go down in history as the president “unable to tell the truth.”

While this administration falls way short of delivering its promise of transparency, more Americans are clearly beginning to see through this president.

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

Tags: , , , , ,

EXPECT THE NUMBERS TO BE COOKED

11 Nov

one bill at at time
Who counts as an Obamacare enrollee? The Obama administration settles on a definition.

By Sarah Kliff, Updated: November 11, 2013

(Photo by Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg)

The fight over how to define the new health law’s success is coming down to one question: Who counts as an Obamacare enrollee?

Health insurance plans only count subscribers as enrolled in a health plan once they’ve submited a payment. That is when the carrier sends out a member card and begins paying doctor bills.

When the Obama administration releases health law enrollment figures later this week, though, it will use a more expansive definition. It will count people who have purchased a plan as well as those who have a plan sitting in their online shopping cart but have not yet paid.

“In the data that will be released this week, ‘enrollment’ will measure people who have filled out an application and selected a qualified health plan in the marketplace,” said an administration official, who requested anonymity to frankly describe the methodology.

The disparity in the numbers is likely to further inflame the political fight over the Affordable Care Act. Each side could choose a number to make the case that the health law is making progress or failing miserably.

On Monday, the Wall Street Journal, citing anonymous sources, said insurance companies have received about 50,000 private health plan enrollments through HealthCare.gov. Even combined with state tallies, the figure falls far short of the 500,000 sign-ups the administration initially predicted for both private sign-ups and those opting for the expansion of Medicaid.

In recent weeks, administration officials have warned that the enrollment figures for October would be low, given the tumultuous launch of the health Web site.

The administration plans to use this count of enrollees because that’s where their interaction with the healthcare.gov site ends, the administration official said.

Addressing the Wall Street Journal’s report, Health and Human Services spokeswoman Joanne Peters said: “We cannot confirm these numbers. More generally, we have always anticipated that initial enrollment numbers would be low and increase over time. . . . The problems with the Web site will cause the numbers to be lower than initially anticipated.”

States that have so far released enrollment data also tend to use this wider definition. The 14 states running their own insurance marketplaces have reported 49,000 enrollments in private health insurance plans, according to an analysis released Monday by consulting firm Avalere Health. They have also enrolled many thousands more into the Medicaid program, which the health-care law expanded.

“The idea that people are going to do layaway purchasing three months out goes against the American way,” Rhode Island exchange director Christine Ferguson said in late September, shortly before the health law’s rollout.

Different definitions of enrollment lead to vastly different estimations of who will gain coverage under the Affordable Care Act. In the District of Columbia, for example, health insurance plans reported signing up five people during the health law’s first month.

But the city’s exchange, DC Health Link, estimates that 321 people in the District have dropped a specific health insurance plan into their shopping cart. Of those, 164 have requested an invoice for their first month’s premium from the insurance carrier.

“We recognize that most people do not have the luxury of paying for coverage in October, months before a bill is due,” exchange spokesman Richard Sorian said Friday. “I hope that all consumers here in the District remember that they have until Dec. 15 to finalize their selection by paying their first month’s premium in order to have coverage on Jan. 1, 2014.”

© The Washington Post Company

Tags: , , ,

Image

I gotta have one of these T-Shirts

4 Nov

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/11/01/sauk-rapids-graphic-artist-challenges-national-security-agency/

NSA

GOP should return to health care message

3 Nov

insuranceOct. 31, 2013 @ 12:00 AM

As the shortcomings of Obamacare emerge, now is the time for the GOP to get back on message regarding its plan to provide accessible, affordable healthcare to all Americans.

Folks, if Obamacare is such a great proposition for America, why the need to force individuals to purchase it or be penalized financially? It’s very simple. Without everyone’s participation, it wouldn’t be financially viable. Government-run healthcare epitomizes the socialist ideology of Barack Obama. The president is simply executing his “inadvertently” expressed intention when he told Joe the Plumber, “…when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Unfortunately, that’s socialism.

The push for increased government involvement in healthcare dates back over 100 years, when presidential candidate Theodore Roosevelt, campaigning on the Progressive Party ticket, called for the establishment of a national health insurance system modeled on what had already been established in Germany.

But in America we deserve and demand a choice.

Indeed, rising healthcare costs have had a catastrophic impact on Americans and our economy. But the choices legislators have made in regulating the industry have not helped in providing affordable healthcare. And political “jousting” has depreciated the narrative far below the interests of most Americans.

It should be objectionable to all Americans that the first path Democrats chose to reform healthcare was to provide the government power to “mandate” its purchase without first pursuing other options to improve its accessibility and affordability.

The U.S. Census Department says about 15 percent of Americans needed health insurance prior to Obamacare. Logic suggests first attempting to make insurance more affordable for those Americans before revamping the entire healthcare system!

Early on, the GOP offered some viable solutions which would help make quality healthcare affordable and accessible for everyone including those with pre-existing conditions.

It begins with allowing Americans who like their healthcare coverage to keep it while giving all Americans the freedom to choose the health plan that best meets their needs and ensuring all medical decisions are made by patients and their doctors — not government bureaucrats.

Eliminating the barriers of purchasing health insurance across state lines would create healthy market competition. Individuals and families who reside in one state would be able to purchase affordable health insurance from another. Likewise, health insurance plans would be able to sell their policies in all states, just as other companies do in selling a wide variety of goods and services.

Comprehensive medical liability reform is needed to reduce the costly, unnecessary defensive medicine practiced by doctors trying to protect themselves from overzealous trial lawyers.

The tax code should be adjusted to fairly extend tax credits to those who do not have employer-provided insurance but purchase health insurance on their own. The deduction would be equivalent to the cost of an individual’s or family’s insurance premiums.

These are but a few of the options the GOP once clearly articulated.

It’s time now for Republicans to return to focusing on real healthcare solutions and allow Obamacare to be exposed.

By 2016, many more Americans will be listening intently to your message.

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

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Mark Caserta: Judgment House experiences can change lives

25 Oct

untitledMark Caserta: Judgment House experiences can change lives

Nov. 04, 2010 @ 09:47 PM

This past week, hundreds of lives were changed right here in Huntington.

Judgment House 2010 at Christ Temple Church on Johnstown Road was an extraordinary event put on by extraordinary people.

Powered by hundreds of trained volunteers working tirelessly with a spirit of servitude, the Judgment House “experience” is a dramatic walk-through presentation about the truth of people’s choices and their consequences in this life and the next.

Known as an “agent of change” for communities in which it’s presented, Judgment House has gained recognition across the country as an effective evangelical tool for providing people with a clear understanding of the path from guilt to grace, from sin to salvation and from death to life.

For over 20 years Judgment House drama presentations have been changing people’s lives by helping them realize that life, whether we accept it or not, involves real life choices resulting in real “after-life” consequences.

The script for each Judgment House portrayal is unique in setting, characters and story, but each provides a relevant interpretation of events happening in the world today and asks the important question, “What will you do with God’s offer of salvation and a personal relationship with His Son, Jesus Christ.”

During last week’s event, I had the unanticipated privilege of being able to experience the walk-through presentation at Christ Temple Church.

Upon returning late Friday night to Huntington from a trip to Knoxville, I looked to my left from the eastbound lane of I-64 and saw the parking lot of Christ Temple Church completely filled with cars, so I decided to stop to see what kept the attention of hundreds of people at 11 p.m. on a Friday.

As I entered the church’s narthex, I must admit the spirit of excitement and expectancy was a bit overwhelming.

I moved past the activity of people exiting the guided tour, and couldn’t help but notice the wide spectrum of emotion upon their faces. Some were laughing and talking about the experience; most were thoughtful and quiet. Some were crying.

Upon opening the large wooden sanctuary doors, I looked upon hundreds of people being “interactively” entertained from the stage as they patiently waited their turn to experience the group tour.

I decided to join them.

No pre-conceived notion of Judgment House could have prepared me for the heartfelt emotion I would experience along with others in my group as our guide escorted us from scene to scene, prefacing each dramatization with a monologue providing continuity to the experience.

Each scene was portrayed amid an aesthetic sensory impact of sight, sound and olfactory accompaniments. While some of the dramatizations featured consequences which were terrifying and at times surreal, the heavenly scenes depicting rewards for making the “right” decisions were “overwhelmingly” peaceful, comforting and sublime.

Life, at times, administers an epiphany of reality which exalts itself above most others. That’s exactly what hundreds of people received during their tour of Christ Temple’s Judgment House 2010.

I must admit, I needed a tissue to make it through to the end.

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

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →