Steve Davis: WV Supreme Court Justices compromise trust required to serve with dignity.

29 Jul

wv supreme court

West Virginia Supreme Court:  Can the void of trust be filled?

 

steve davis

The law is the law and there is always room for mercy which we all have needed and some have accepted.

The fact that our Supreme Court Justices have broken trust is and should be enough to ask all of them to step down.

The fact that the poorest state in the Union has been abused with lavish spending within our most high court, the court that we all depend on to assure that we are treated equally under the law, is a permanent stain on the West Virginia robe of Justice.

There is no decision that any one of these Justices can deliver at any level in any court that will not be put under the microscope of the scandal that they are currently entrenched within.

Their lack of stewardship with the people’s money and the arrogance of their actions are far beyond the level of self indulgence.

Their attitude and approach to their own selected self worth elevating them far above the people and our elected representatives is the makings of separation of classes and tyranny.

Actions such as these need to be quashed as soon as they appear. There is no room in any Republic by any elected or appointed official for actions such as these.

The foundation of equality and freedom are in great peril when the trust is broken and left in the state of aristocracy.

I call upon the committee investigating within the House and the Senate to ask for the immediate resignation of all 3 remaining West Virginia Supreme Court Justices.
If they do not then they should be impeached sooner rather than later.

All West Virginians have equal protection under the law and all of the Justices are equally protected.

Impeachment however is not a sentence of law it is a disciplinary action that gives the people relief from Maladministration and other actions deemed not in the best interest of all the people not just those whom feel like they are at an elevated stature somewhere above.

Let us relieve ourselves any further delay in Justice being available within our state at the highest level for all people of our Great State.

 

Steven J. Davis
Chairman
Concerned Citizens of Huntington
Founder
League of Principled Citizens
League of Principled Men

Mark Caserta: Conservative columnist canned after 14 years! Listen to an interview with 800 WVHU’s Radio Talk Show Host, “the Straight Shooter”, Tom Roten

27 Jul

https://800wvhu.iheart.com/featured/the-tom-roten-morning-show/content/2018-07-27-mark-caserta-no-longer-an-hd-columnist/#.W1tvDbrD2WE.twitter

Click the above link to hear 800 WVHU Radio Talk Show Host, Tom Roten’s conversation with conservative columnist, Mark Caserta.

Listen to The Tom Roten Morning Show, Monday through Friday, 6-9 am.

800 WVHU on iHeartRadio

me

 

TOM ROTEN

Mark Caserta: Liberal attacks on President Trump hypocritical at best

26 Jul

trump in wv

President Trump greets supporters at one of his huge rallies

 

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

7.26.2018


 

According to liberal commentators, we’re “smack dab” in the middle of Mar-a-Lago Zombie land and the Trump apocalypse is upon us.  I suppose we should all head to a safe zone.

It’s really become pathetic that rather than legitimately working for the prosperity of their country, liberals insist in “wallowing” in progressive hypocrisy, hoping for a chance to delegitimize the Trump presidency – at any cost.

Understand, these people incredulously want to return our country to the days of fewer jobs, lower workforce participation rates, higher taxes and open borders!  Their laughable positions make them less credible and more irrelevant every day.

One thing’s for sure, Americans know President Trump loves his country, likely more than his deluded detractors.

Let’s look at some of the more obvious hypocritical positions taken against our president.

In a recent newspaper column, someone called the president a “pro” when it comes to lying.  Perhaps the pharmacy made an error providing this person’s Prevagen medication because this individual apparently suffers, not only with Trump Derangement Syndrome, but with progressive memory loss.

Where was this “champion of virtue” during Barack Obama’s 2013 PolitiFact “Lie of the Year” which disrupted twenty percent of our nation’s economy and caused insurance rates to skyrocket for millions of Americans!  Not only did Obama lie when he told Americans they could “keep their doctor” or “healthcare” if they liked, he lied about lying about it!

Another columnist in a local paper called the Trump administration “diabolical” for separating children from parents breaking our nation’s laws and attempting to enter our country illegally.

Where was this “family rights arbiter” when prior administrations, including President Obama’s, did the exact same thing! And why does this individual express concern about illegal immigrant children being separated from their parents by the courts and not for American children separated from their parents who commit crime within our country?  Are the rights of illegals more valued than Americans?

Then there was the “far left” columnist who declared, “scandals abound in the Trump administration”, and then failed to list even a single scandal in his piece.  Where was Inspector Clouseau during the Clinton years?

Bill and Hillary are the modern-day “Bonnie and Clyde” of scandals!  This newspaper’s pages couldn’t hold the number of scandals the Clintons have racked up over the last 25 years, beginning with the 1992 Gennifer Flowers sex scandal when Bill was governor of Arkansas, to the Monica Lewinsky scandal when he was president.

Hillary gave us everything from “Whitewater to Benghazi”!  As Secretary of State, she was able to “scandalously” have her own private server during her tenure at the State Department, risking our national security.  And the Clinton Foundation is suspected of laundering millions under the guise of “good will,” for quid pro quo dealings with foreign entities.

I agree with another local column which argued Trump’s policies have polarized our country, but not as the writer opines.

Barack Obama had the unique opportunity to unite Americans as never before, as the first Black president.  He chose rather to drive a progressive wedge between Americans.  And while his presidency will be remembered as one of the most impotent in history, he was very successful at being the “divider-in-chief.”

He was so successful, in fact, he led us painfully down this liberal path, directly to the fork in the ideological road.

If progressives want to blame our nation’s woes on lies, diabolical methods or scandals, don’t blame Trump.  Blame your failed liberal experiment – Barack Obama and his supporters.

Patriots fight on behalf of their country, not in opposition of it.  Fighting in opposition is called treason.

Somehow liberals have that backwards.

 

 

Doug Smith: Further thoughts on Settled Law in view of Kavanaugh

26 Jul

kavanaugh

President Trump nominates the Honorable Brett Kavanaugh for Supreme Court Justice

 

doug and mark 1

This is the second in a series on “settled law” by historian and Free State Patriot social editor, Doug Smith.

7.26.2018


 

Settled Law. I still find that an amusing concept, that only Leftists circling the wagons, (though why would they do that, since violence never settles anything?) about a favorite decision can espouse with a straight face. Historically, in fact, little law is “settled”. By settled, of course, they mean “I don’t wish to debate it.”

But let us look at the ways law is, in fact, settled.

By whim.

One of my favorite movie lines is Yul Brenner, as Pharaoh, pronouncing, “I have said it, and it is so. So, let it be written. So, let it be done.” Yes, when the (Pharaoh, King, Emperor) is appointed by or descended from God or gods, then his pronouncements are sacrosanct and may not be questioned. We depend upon his good nature to make good laws. Occasionally, as in the case of Bernadotte in Sweden, or Solomon, or James I in England, it turns out mostly good. Often, as under Henry VIII or King John of England (for those of you who are NOT fans of history, look up Runnymede or read Ivanhoe, or the Magna Carta.) it turns out rather badly. You could ask Anne Boleyn, but the settled law from Henry put her in an awkward position:

A tisket a tasket, a head in a basket, it cannot respond to the questions you ask it.

If the basis of settled law is by the whim or desire and a single or exalted few, then we must hope for the “better angels of their nature “to win out. History suggests that this is a rare, and brief, occurrence. We may observe in passing that the whim of a POTUS or 9 SCOTUS robes carry the same inherent difficulty.

By mob

This is an easy, but equally dangerous way to “settle” the law. Demagogues have whipped up crowds from the days when demagogue did not sound like Greek, because, well, they WERE Greek. It is a powerful weapon. Later, in Rome, the crowds demanded “more bread and circuses” from the Senate, until they were a hollow pipeline of the national treasury into the mob in the street, and little more. Settled law was to pay them off so they would not riot. It worked out, until it didn’t, one cold winter in 406 AD, when the Rhine froze and barbarian hordes swarmed into Rome. Within a few years, they sacked Rome itself, which did not work well for either the Senate, or the mobs. Turns out, there is always a bigger, badder mob, learning from the previous mob that violence does, indeed, solve anything. Rule by mob is rather like setting backfires to fight a brush fire. Make one mistake, and the mob, like the fire, is unforgiving and unstoppable. And, like fire, the more you feed it, the more it wants to eat, until there is nothing left. Including, as Robespierre found, just before the blade fell, the demagogue.

By Outlaw

This is a curious but occasional way of doing business. The pirates working the Caribbean with near impunity, Al Capone buying off Chicago and running his own soup kitchens, medieval bandits extorting tolls to pass a road, are all examples of law by outlaw. The problem, of course, being that they are making up their laws as they go, and that is going to go poorly for the guy who is not holding the gun.

Law

Then there is the law by agreed upon social compact, i.e. the Constitution. The progressives who prefer to rule by a combination of 1 and 2 (the whim of judges and do as we say, or we will shriek and break things) are fond of saying those who support the Constitution are simply “Old white guys who want to hold on to power.”  It is a shame to find them so woefully ignorant of their own history.

In fact, the basic legal framework was built by a group of folks who wrested control over their future away from England, and then spent over a decade arguing over what they would all agree to for governance. The Anti Federalists argued (and we can see the wisdom of their fears) that trading a tyranny in England for one in Philadelphia (Washington was not the capital then) was no bargain, and the Federal government ought to be kept too weak to oppress the people.  Nor were theseThe Federalists argued that it was the very fact of a weak central government that permitted Great  Britain to exert their will on the colonies without considering the consent of the people. (And we can see examples of the wisdom of their argument as well. Imagine South Carolina and Ohio debating whether to send troops to assist President Roosevelt with the invasion of Normandy)

2 opposite positions, but both valid to the health and survival of the fledgling nation, and to that of we, their descendants.

A few observations are in order about the social compact of law.

First is that power, political or legal, is ultimately backed up by violence. From something as mundane as running a stop sign or deciding if a Cuban boy whose mother died bringing him to Florida will stay with an Aunt or be forcibly returned to his father in Castro’s Cuba, there is always the prospect of a gun to the head forcing the question. Power is always backed by the threat of violently enforcing it.

Second is that, as noted by the Federalists, absent any concentrated power of government, power tends to devolve to those most willing to commit violence on their neighbors to enforce their will. When the Sheriffs under King John rode out to extract taxes they had armed men with them. On the other end of the spectrum, you may read at length of lawless, anarchic Missouri and the warring mobs in the run up to the Civil War. Neither alternative is pleasant.

Thirdly, a fluid, or, as leftists who are about to ignore the Constitution are wont to say, “living” legal compacts, are utterly meaningless. For the same reason that we build our homes from “dead” lumber, and not “living” trees, we need stability.  Suppose you and I enter into a contract in which I agree, for a certain sum, to sell you my house. We execute that contract, money changes hands, and we both move. Ten years, later, the value of the house has appreciated, and is now worth 20% more. So, I engage a good progressive lawyer, and inform you of the “living “nature of our contract, and insist that you pay me the difference, or vacate what has been, for 10 years, your home. (Side note: most of the money changing hands will, of course, go to the blood sucking lawyer, which explains a lot about why they have such creative notions about the law) You wouldn’t like that living document, would you? You would protest, this is what we agreed to, and you can’t change it now!

Or suppose that we had never met. But I’ve been looking at your house and decided that maybe I could build an office building where it stands. Of course, my office building would pay more in taxes than your house, and I make that point to the City Council. Now, instead of me having to come to you and offer you what you want to let me have it, the City forces you to accept the fair market price, as determined by them, for a house you don’t want to leave, vacate it, along with your neighbors, so they can offer it to me for development. Never mind that you and I are both private citizens, and never mind that I decide after all, not to build my office building, and the City is left with an empty lot, some angry and justifiably aggrieved citizens. If the Constitution is “living”, then the “Courts” can rule that the takings clause does, indeed, permit such an action, not just for schools, roads, and public buildings, but because the City Council likes My idea for using your house better than your idea of just, well, you know, living there. Now before you scoff and tell me that I’m being ridiculous, look up the case of Kelo vs City of New London, Ct and the SCOTUS decision in that case. For that is precisely what happened there.

Finally, the protections of the law, that is, the Constitution, are primarily designed to protect the people from excesses and corruption by those in power, exercising the awesome power of the Federal government.  As Madison put it,

First, That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration, that all power is originally rested in, and consequently derived from, the people.

That Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.

These protections are for the people, that is you, dear reader, if you are a citizen of these United States. Madison and the Anti Federalists no more intended that these should be a living document, subject to the whim of a lawyer or tyrant, than a locksmith would intend that the door to your house have a living lock, permitting access to whoever some judge decided could share it with you.

And while there is debate as to what laws we desire, Madison and the other Framers included a mechanism, and a right, to amend these laws, but made it tedious and difficult to do so. And there is genius in that. We can, and do, and have amended the Constitution, but only in those cases where it is clearly the will of the people, as demonstrated by their ability to vote their desires and for each state to weigh in on the question.  In the same way I can amend my house, by tearing out a wall and building a door, but do not wish for my studs and joists to amend my house by growing vines, we can amend our laws without being held captive to the tyranny of an aggrieved minority, however loud or vociferous. One judge, or a handful, ought not to be entrusted with the power to remake our laws. Nor, except when Congress abdicates its authority, and the Democrat party finds it is easier to shop for judges than to win in the court of public opinion and get the votes for their agenda, do they.

To our detriment, that has been the way of things for some time. But we ought not to let it continue. Whether you are on the left or the right politically, you ought to want the protections of the Constitution to be adamant. If you are on the Left, and you like the rulings various courts have made, consider this. Suppose Conservative judges adopted the same play book. Suppose, instead of revering the law, they chose to revere agenda above all else.

What liberal organizations might they outlaw overnight? What liberal rulings might they rule invalid. Suppose a 7-2 Conservative SCOTUS sat down with a newly elected POTUS and said, ok Mr. President, tell us what you want us to do this year.

Liberal reader, that makes you shudder, doesn’t it? As well it should. But while it makes Conservatives shudder that something very like the opposite has occurred all too often, especially in the Anthony Kennedy era, that is not what Conservative Justices will do, nor is it what Conservatives expect. Instead, both the people, and the judges, expect that a 9th grade Civics class should be able to figure out what is legal and protected under our Constitution, by simply reading it. And, more to the point, should they find something they dislike, understand the process by which we change our laws, and govern ourselves. If they understand that, they will properly exercise the franchise, and the power, which is, by law, entrusted to the people.

Sadly, far too many do not. And that is why we are increasingly governed by the 1st three options: whim of judges, deference to mobs, and fear of outlaws.

Our great experiment, self-government, has worked, not without fault, and not without growing pains, going into its 3rd century now. If we give it up, we will be ruled by the most ruthless men with guns.

It is not too late to reclaim it.

 

 

 

 

Mark Caserta: Court may address abortion during Trump presidency

24 Jul

pro life

Roe v Wade is not settled law

 

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

Jul 20, 2018

 

God’s Word leaves no doubt when life begins.

Luke 1:41-42 shares the delightful account of Elizabeth (six months pregnant with her son, later to be known as John the Baptist), being visited in the hill country of Judea by her friend Mary (who had just been told by an angel she’d found favor with God and would give birth to our Savior, Jesus.)

“And it came to pass, that, when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost. And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, ‘Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.'”

This year marks the 45th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Roe v. Wade. In January, people from across our nation gathered in our nation’s capital for the annual March for Life.

It was heartening that among the estimated 100,000 plus participants, teenagers and young adults recognizing the impact the 1973 court decision has had on their generation carried signs reading, “One-third of my generation is missing,” referencing more than 1 million babies, on average, aborted each year in the U.S., per The Baptist Press.

What makes this particularly encouraging is that people younger than my generation of baby boomers are taking notice of the infanticide plaguing our nation for decades because of a progressive movement that incessantly challenges the standards of morality and principles of life God desires for our nation.

The acceptance of abortion in society is an example of liberals successfully achieving a foothold in an emotional issue and tenaciously working to challenge the argument’s viability. This is done by gradually improving the general standard of acceptability through attrition of the opposition’s resolve and desensitization to the moral consequences.

The court’s primary decision in Roe v. Wade held that a person may choose to have an abortion until a fetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment.

The court then applied a controversial trimester time line designed to guide judges and lawmakers in balancing the mother’s health against the viability of the fetus.

In the first trimester, the woman had the exclusive right to pursue an abortion, not subject to state intervention. In the second trimester, the state couldn’t intervene unless the mother’s health was at risk.

Once the pregnancy enters the third trimester, the state could restrict the right to an abortion but must always include an exception if the health of the mother is at risk.

Let’s be clear. Choosing abortion simply to negate another poor choice in life is not a “health care” choice, as some argue. Since 1973, compromise and outright pandering has resulted in abortion available on demand and in many instances, merely for convenience.

Twice, in history, a decision to destroy children before they could fulfill their life’s mission was employed. Both followed the emergence of a “deliverer.”

During the birth of Jesus, King Herod, fearing for his kingdom, sought to destroy the Christ child. Unable to engage the Magi in locating the child, he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem who were 2 years old and younger.

In retaliation for plagues Egypt endured following Pharaoh’s refusal to let the Israelites go at the prompting of God’s chosen deliverer, Moses, Pharaoh ordered every Hebrew boy to be “thrown into the Nile.” Sadly, Egypt suffered from his decree.

The return of our Deliverer is approaching. Righting this inherently wrong decision to destroy life is not an option we can ignore if given the opportunity.

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

 

 

Mark Caserta: President Trump working to control our borders and protect Americans

13 Jul

president-trump

As Commander-in-Chief, Trump boldly places America first

 

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

July 13, 2018

 

Since winning the presidency, Donald J. Trump has successfully exposed the liberal bias in our nation, not only among the mainstream media, but in the nooks and crannies of “dark state” America. Even individuals heretofore considered “moderates” are “coming out” and revealing their ardent disdain for conservatism.

Exposing the progressive movement in this country has long been a mission of mine. As millions of Americans awaken every day to an unprecedented number of non-sensical attacks on this presidency, the mission has accelerated exponentially.

I believe many of the so-called “never Trumpers” would rather our nation’s unemployment rate and taxes be higher, the labor participation rate lower, and our brave military men and women facing down ISIS in large numbers, just so they can defile the Trump presidency.

And it’s the epitome of hypocrisy that they do it under the guise of protecting our “republic” from the “worst president in U.S. history,” a moniker for which they’ve no concrete foundation, other than his demeanor and success makes them look irrelevant.

The most recent attempt by the left to assault President Trump resulted from his promise to the American people to enforce border security and protect our nation.

Trump’s wins for America are compiling so rapidly that liberals have no argument that engaged Americans are willing to support. Ineffective as they are, they must find a way to make an emotional connection with the masses if they ever hope to regain the White House.

The attempt to make a connection between Russia and Trump failed miserably. Liberals are now reduced to throwing anything possible against the wall and hoping it sticks – hence their clamor on illegal immigration.

I wish I had a Buffalo nickel for every time I heard a “never Trumper” make the case against Trump’s border policies by asserting “we’re a nation of immigrants.”

Agreed. The U.S. has always been inviting for individuals desiring to come to our country – but legally. Anyone saying otherwise is woefully ignorant of American history.

And yes, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free.” But don’t begin your assimilation by ignoring our laws and entering our country illegally. We are a nation of laws. When we ignore them, we’ll resemble the nations from whence these individuals desire to escape.

The Statue of Liberty was gifted to the United States by France to commemorate our alliance during the American Revolution and to honor our perseverance for freedom and democracy. The sonnet mounted on the statue, written by Emma Lazarus in 1883, was written to help raise funds for the statue base.

It’s not a “Bada book, Bada boom” invitation!

America’s military is far too mighty for our sovereignty to be challenged by another country. But I can think of no quicker way to concede our sovereignty than to eliminate our border. That’s essentially what liberals are proposing in dealing with illegal immigration.

My great-grandfather traveled from Italy and disembarked at Ellis Island over 100 years ago. He arrived legally, assimilated into our American culture and worked hard to become a contributing citizen to society. He earned his citizenship and learned to love his country. That sort of patriotism can’t be imparted to someone unwilling to respect our laws.

When our nation becomes inundated with illegal residents, who haven’t pledged their allegiance to our country and flag, we’ll become weak from within, susceptible to civil unrest and discord.

Sound familiar? The liberal position on border security will make it devastatingly worse.

That’s why President Trump and millions of supporters realize our borders must be controlled.

It’s time liberals put America first.

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

 

Mark Caserta: Trump to decide balance of the Supreme Court

6 Jul

supreme court building

The Supreme Court of the United States of America:  The highest court in the land.

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

July 6, 2018

 

 

Let me be perfectly clear. The reason liberals are incessantly attacking Donald J. Trump, is they know they’re losing ground in “fundamentally changing America.” During the Obama administration, priorities were turned upside down, and we were rapidly becoming a nation of insignificance to the world.

But let not your heart be troubled. The more wins this president gains for America, the more obnoxious and out of touch with reality progressives become. We should begin worrying when liberals stop attacking Trump!

For example, last week, in the wake of Trump’s enforcement of his “zero-tolerance” policy on illegal immigration and decision to adhere to the law, liberals irresponsibly began calling for the abolishment of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.

Can you imagine the impact if ICE were dissolved? Our borders would be massively overtaken by illegals, including those desiring to do us harm. Isn’t it telling liberals seem to fight harder for the rights of illegal immigrants than they do for the protection of their fellow Americans?

The notion we should be willing to compromise our safety is another reason liberals can’t be taken seriously where the prosperity and safety of our nation is concerned.

Thankfully, considering recent events, liberals may as well get used to losing.

checks and balances

The pending balance of the Supreme Court was right at the top of the list for conservatives voting for Trump in 2016. We’ve witnessed the deleterious impact a liberal-leaning court can have on our nation. Millions of innocent babies have been murdered because of a Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade. Conservatives were committed to electing a president who would help mold a court incapable of such calamitous decisions for future generations.

Less than six months into his presidency, Trump successfully nominated and achieved confirmation of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Gorsuch replaced the late Antonin Scalia and backfilled his conservative stance on the bench.

Last week, I thought liberals were going to lose their minds when Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement from the Supreme Court. A Ronald Reagan appointee, Kennedy took the bench in 1988 and was often the moderate “swing vote” between liberal and conservative-leaning justices. His key votes were influential in rulings for same sex-marriage and abortion access.

Kennedy’s decision to step down could transform the Supreme Court and impact the progressive movement for generations. A justice is bound by an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and a berth on the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment.

Should Trump be successful in replacing Kennedy on the court with another conservative, the balance of the court is likely to lean to the right, possibly resulting in not only more conservative rulings, but past liberal judgments overturned upon challenge.

Liberals are enraged because he’s negated many of Obama’s socialist policies. They’ll be incensed beyond measure if Trump successfully tilts the balance of the Supreme Court to the right for decades.

Currently in this political tennis match, it’s advantage Trump. If progressives decide to double-down in the weeks to come on their attacks on the president, Trump is sure to break his opponents’ serve.

But if the Supreme Court picks up one or two more conservative justices, it might just be game, set and match for conservatives.

Mark Caserta is a Cabell County resident.

 

%d bloggers like this: