Doug Smith: Thieves, Robbers and politics

12 Feb
DOUG SMITH
Doug Smith: Author, historian and lead contributor to Free State Patriot
2.12.16
I was a sailor. One thing any sailor will tell you is that we do not tolerate thieves.  A thief on a ship is dealt with quickly by his superiors, lest an accident befall him.
theives 1
Life falling overboard holding an anchor.
There is good reason for this attitude.  Ships are notoriously crowed. There is little personal space and almost no privacy. The few personal items we carried; books, letter writing material, candy, coffee cups were cherished and very precious to us. Steal from one shipmate and incur the wrath of all.  If you don’t respect his stuff, you won’t respect mine.
Throughout history, people have cherished their “stuff”.  Handmade knife, corn worked for and tended with sweat and labor throughout the growing season, a pot, a bowl, a pig fattened all year to feed the family for the winter. And just as surely, there have always been thieves and robbers.
(Disclaimer: I have heard it said “There is nothing in my house worth taking a life over.  If a thief wants what I’ve got, it’s better to let him have it. “I disagree. Come to my house to take what I’ve got, what I’ve worked and sweated and sacrificed for, and Ill “let you have it, alright.” Center mass. Two shots.)
And that is, after all, the point. My stuff is not “just stuff.” It is the result, for good or ill, of my hard work, my choices, my investments of the limited number of hours and days of my life. If you steal from me that which took me a week’s work to earn, you are stealing a week of my life. And I will defend it.
Thus it has been with thieves from early times.  A thief makes the judgement that the easiest “work” is to let you sweat and save and sacrifice and struggle for that which he wants. Then, while you rest from your labors, to come and take it, and sneak away. That the result of a week, or a month, of your labor goes with him, and hence a week of your life, concerns him not at all. You have it. He wants it. That is his entire reasoning and morality. Why he wants it does not matter, his desire outweighs your rights.
The robber is a bit more industrious, but no more moral. The robber will not sneak, but will take your stuff, and by the same extension, pieces of your life, by force with weapons or threats. He will not sneak to steal it, he will demand that you surrender it to his desires. Again, his desire outweighs your rights.
theives 2
The most energetic robbers in history, and the best, manage to wrap themselves in a mantle of respectability. Pharaoh of all Egypt (give me your corn and work on my projects, or I will send my soldiers to kill you.) King of Kings, Agamemnon.  First Ill beat Athens, then I force Athens to help me beat Sparta, then force them both to help me beat Troy. Henry Fitz-Empress, 2nd of that name, First Plantagenet, most able soldier of an able time, a King at 21, and ruled in his time an Empire greater than Charlemagne.
These energetic robber kings use a tried and tested formula. Be good at fighting. Beat someone up, but promise to let them live if they help you. Then the 2 of you can beat up on more, and rob them of gold, food, animals, labor, and daughters, whatever you wish. Eventually, you have enough powerful, but less powerful than you, robbers, who will join with you in robbing the labors of thousands, or millions, in return for a share of the booty, and support for your ambitions.
Henry II, Plantagenet King of England, was a prime example of this principle. He lived in a fine castle, but he was not a builder: he was a soldier. He ate the finest foods, which he neither grew nor killed: he was, again, a soldier. And he spawned the bloodiest royal House in British history, with countless commoners, and not a few “royals” slaughtered in the name of their ambitions. (See the Hundred Years War)
But it all came down to robbery.  What Henry and his heirs wanted, someone would provide, because his Sheriffs would collect his taxes at the point of a sword.  It was their disregard for the possessions of others that led to one major step forward in people asserting and demanding their property rights from Henry’s son, John, the Magna Carta. (See Ivanhoe, and Runnymede)
But it is all about our “stuff”. If I am free, but must give you all I earn or produce, my freedom is meaningless and my incentive to produce what I can is only as much as you can force me to do for you. Conversely, the more I am free to keep what I produce, the more I will strive to do so, for my own benefit. Free societies, thus, are always more productive and wealthy than slave societies.
So, (apologies to those who are not lovers of history, like me) what does this little history lesson on thievery do for us today?
Well, let’s see if we can find the thieves and robbers today.  If Bill Gates decides to spend a billion dollars to fight diseases among poor countries, he has the money to spend, and has a generous impulse, and does it. Bill is a philanthropist.
If Congressman Leghorn Foghorn decides to give a billion dollars to his district to build the Foghorn Leghorn Bridge, when he makes $ 150,000 a year, where, we must ask, will he get that money?  If Foggie gets $ 2,500,000 in speaking fees to talk for half an hour to the Bridge Builders Association, and the Department of Architecture housed in Leghorn Hall at Podunk State, what could make his words that valuable? If 1000 people in his district get 10,000 bucks a piece for building his bridge, (that would be $ 10,000,000)
But Foggie is sure of a few thousand votes in November because of all the palms he has greased. Palms belonging to people who said in their hearts, we need this. Somebody has to pay us.
Foggie doesn’t have to come up with the Billion.   The IRS and Sherriff will do that for him, from people who live a long way from his district, and have no interest in Foggie, or his bridge, or Local 864U of the Bridge builders, but have to pay up or the Sherriff will take their homes for which they have worked.
thieves 3
So, in this little morality tale, we can find the robbers, and the thieves, and the serfs, robbed again.
Robin Hood, after all, took from the Sheriffs and John’s nobles to give back to those who had it taken from them. The Magna Carta was forced out of John to respect the rights of his Barons, because he was squeezing too much from them.
No one likes a thief. Some will not tolerate a thief. And eventually, the thieves and robbers are cornered at Runnymede and told “Enough.”
With April 15 coming, and Primaries just beyond that, and a General Election in November, perhaps it is time we all read about John at Runnymede, play a little game of “Who’s the Thief?”, and ask ourselves, “Enough?”

Tags: ,

Mark Caserta: Will the rule of law be applied to Hillary?

6 Feb

2013 0613 caserta 01

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

  • Updated Feb 5, 2016

 

Have some government officials risen so high in political power that they’ve indeed risen above the law? Do Americans still value the rule of law over the ruler?

Consider retired Gen. David H. Petraeus, arguably one of the finest minds in military history and certainly a man who played a major role in the U.S. success in the Iraq War.

Originally appointed by George W. Bush to head multinational forces in the 2007 surge in Iraq, Petraeus later served as commander-in-chief of Central Command, head of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and as the director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

But even Petraeus wasn’t above the law.

In April 2015, he pleaded guilty to providing classified information to his former mistress and biographer and was sentenced, in a plea deal, to two years of probation and ordered to pay a $100,000 fine by a North Carolina court, as reported by Reuters.

So if a decorated general, who no doubt helped save American lives, isn’t above the impropriety of compromising classified information, should an ex-secretary of state?

 

Fast-forward to last Friday, where an Associated Press Newsbreak, written by Bradley Klapper, reported the Obama administration had finally confirmed that Hillary Clinton’s home server contained closely guarded government secrets and at least 22 emails that contained material requiring one of the highest levels of classification, despite telling the American people that she had “never sent or received any material marked classified.”

MONICA 3bh1

The article went on to say the AP had learned of seven email chains containing “top secret” information so highly restricted that it would not be released even with redactions.

“The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain a category of top secret information,” State Department spokesman John Kirby told the AP, calling the withholding of documents in full “not unusual.” That means they won’t be published online with others being released, even with blacked-out boxes.

In what I believe was a calculated attempt to “feign” her innocence, Clinton campaign spokesman Brain Fallon issued a classic Clinton bluff.

“We firmly oppose the complete blocking of the release of these emails,” Fallon said. “Since first providing her emails to the State Department more than one year ago, Hillary Clinton has urged that they be made available to the public. We feel no differently today.”

Right! The Clinton camp knows these top secret emails can never be released, further compromising national security, hence the assuming dare to release them.

As a younger man, I viewed hours of the Watergate hearings with great wonder. Soon thereafter, I witnessed President Nixon tender his resignation, fearing impeachment from an espionage operation inside the offices of the Democratic National Committee. While tragic, the system worked and forever changed politics as we know it.

 

Now, over 40 years later, could we be witnessing Hillary’s escape from indictment for far greater crimes against these United States of America?

If so, Americans will never again be able to trust that the rule of law will apply indiscriminately in Washington.

 

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

Tags: , , ,

Doug Smith: Age and Experience

6 Feb

DOUG SMITH

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

 

One of the (many, and legitimate) criticisms of Obama is his lack of experience before taking the Presidency. Many are leveling the same criticism at the top 4 GOP candidates for the replacement. It is worth noting that despite many with a great deal of experience, the folks are choosing people they think would do a better job without the experience of say, a Chris Christie or a Jeb Bush.  The founders did not include a requirement of political experience for the Presidency. Only age (which ostensibly equates to experience and wisdom, but then, they never met Donald Trump) and citizenship (which ostensibly equates to interest and loyalty to the nation, but again, they never met Barack Obama).

superhero-businessman-revealing-american-flag-classic-superman-pose-tearing-his-shirt-open-to-reveal-t-shirt-concept-59485146

Ought we to add to the requirements a demonstrated time of successful public service? Then a back bencher, who had the Gallipoli disaster on his resume, could never have become the Churchill who saved England. Perhaps it is more the nature of one’s experience that matters. Demonstrably, community organizing, encouraging riots and civil disobedience, orchestrating shakedowns of successful businesses, do not equate to preparation to lead a nation. While a failed shopkeeper may learn from his mistakes enough to lead an Army to victory and a nation to begin rebuilding.
Ought we to raise the minimum age, noting that 35 was well into the last quarter of life in the 1780s? Well, perhaps, but age, as we can well note, does not always denote wisdom or ability. Certain it is that not all our elders are men of vision or wisdom. How do we choose leaders that will make us better off than we were, who will keep us safe, who will increase our freedoms and not become tyrants?
Chances are, we will do none of these things. For we are of an era who chooses our leaders by the mob, as led by the most successful demagogues. And who has the courage to oppose the mob?
Mr. Churchill did, and the mob threw him under the double decker bus as soon as their need for a war time leader was past.

245px-Sir_Winston_S_Churchill
Do we have leaders of such vision, who, knowing the will lead the people through a crisis, and then be left behind, will lead anyway? How do we as a people choose to delegate our personal power into political power to leaders of wisdom and prudence?  How do we function as a free people, and not as a mob?
Free people stood toe to toe with the British Army and forged a nation. Free people carved out a government that set the stage for the most successful nation in history. The mob?
The mob is Robespierre, the French Terror, and the Guillotine.  The mob is Ferguson. The mob is Baltimore. The mob is Melissa Glick, the Mizzou prof who assaulted a student reporter and called, like some drug addled Marc Antony for the mob to come and complete her work.   The mob is senseless violence, soiling one’s own nest, turning on one’s own, for imagined slights and a sense of entitlement. Barack Obama depends on the mob for his leadership.

bald-eagle-american-flag-front-32160142
The survivors of Lexington and Concord did not expect anyone to give them anything. They did demand to be left alone to pursue their business and make their lives. They formed a government for mutual defense and common cause, to have life, liberty, and to pursue, each in his own way, and with his own effort, happiness.
If we are to be a free people, we must choose leaders who are committed to leading a free people. If we choose the loudest voice in the mob, we will become the mob. Or its victims.

Tags: , ,

Doug Smith: Here’s to flawed candidates

1 Feb

DOUG SMITH

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

 

Donald Trump is a flawed candidate. Ted Cruz is a flawed candidate. But I’m not waiting for a perfect candidate. I’m ok with flawed. I am flawed. (Don’t let my wife read this!) I just want him to do a better job than the current POTUS. That is not a very high bar.

Trump and Cruz both bring a lot to the discussion, and address anger of the electorate and the fight against the decline of the country.

So I am not happy at NRO and the GOP throwing darts at Trump, and, to a lesser extent, Cruz, the number 1 and 2 candidates for our party; one in the name of Ideological purity and the other in the interest of status quo. Come on! No Republican candidate should have to run against both the Democrats and the GOP.

FLAWED

So how about we stop shooting at our wounded and think of reasons to vote for the next flawed POTUS.

Let’s throw the darts at Liberal Democrat policies. Let’s blast radicals and criminals who want to rule over us. (Not govern, Rule!)

NRO and the GOP leadership maintain it risky to believe what Trump says. Yet is it less risky to believe Mitch McConnell? John Boehner? Paul Ryan? Bush 41? Bush 43?

Has Mitch “repealed Obamacare, root and branch “, as he promised, or raced with Boehner to surrender to Obama’s every whim?

George HW Bush said, ” Read my Lips: No new taxes. “ Followed by, I’m in, I can deal with Ted Kennedy, thanks for the votes, but you’re screwed.”

Dubya said “I am a compassionate Conservative.” That translated to only 12 vetoes in 8 years, and huge increases in entitlement spending.

McConnell, Boehner, Bush 41, Bush 43 were all flawed Republicans.

FLAWED 2

donald

I first pulled the lever for Republican Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter. Reagan was a great, though flawed, President. I have consistently voted since then, for flawed GOP candidates. Sometimes I had to hold my nose, as when voting for John McCain, then wolfing down the Alka-Seltzers.

I have been pretty consistently lied to and betrayed by the GOP who ostensibly shares and will fight for my values for a long time. We had a brief shining moment with the Gingrich insurgency’s Contract with America, followed by increasingly blatant lies from my own party. That’s right, it was mine. I voted, I sent money, I worked to see Republicans elected. I saw a GOP takeover of my home state, WV’s legislature, for the 1st time in 80 years.

And for what? Could Obama have done any better with Democrats in control? The fact that a lifelong Republican can ponder that question speaks volumes to the flaws in the GOP.

Perhaps it is a bit Nihilistic to support Trump, a flawed candidate, hoping that his words will be more true than the GOP has been, that he will act on the ” Plague on both your houses” feeling, and, emulating Jesus with the money changers, tear down some comfortable crooks in the most second most corrupt crime family in history, The US Congress. (The Clinton Foundation, of course, is number one, with the Gambinos just behind.)

I recall William F Buckley’s Dictum to support the most conservative candidate who can viably hope to be elected.

We did not do that with Bob Dole. Or John McCain. Or Mitt Romney. Or even George W Bush. That gave us several losses and liberal Presidents. And one big government Progressive Republican. (That is what compassionate conservative apparently means.)

So, what does that leave us? We have a number of flawed people running for President. One of these flawed candidates is going to be the next POTUS.

We can easily look around and know we don’t need 4 more years of Liberalism.

Here’s to our flawed candidates.

 

Tags: , ,

Doug Smith: A Way to end the “Cornfusion” in Iowa

30 Jan

 

 DOUG SMITH

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

It is time to clear up the Cornfusion in Iowa.

 Ethanol from Corn has NOT worked out as a fuel source. Neither has Cold Fusion. (See what I did there?)   After all, what has Iowa given us? The Music Man, Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, and ethanol.

ETHANOL

 We don’t need ethanol in our cars. We certainly don’t need another Jimmy Obama. We do need that clarity.  So, here are my thoughts: 

 My neighboring state of Kentucky has a successful industry converting corn into ethanol. The Kentucky form of ethanol does not pollute or hurt car engines. It does not required taxpayer subsidies to survive: it sells very well, without coercion, and produces a tidy tax base.

 Whiskey has a long tradition in America. It was once practically currency. (See the Whiskey Rebellion)

 The 2 big centers for American Whiskey are Kentucky and Tennessee. Once, the technology centers were Boston and Silicon Valley. Then Raleigh, NC came up with Research Triangle and the 3rd great center was born.  

rye

  The time has come for Iowa whiskey. The corn is already there. Distilleries are already there. Add some oak barrels, some transplanted Scots, or Irishmen, or Kentuckians, and we have a whole new industry, ready to explode on the scene.  

 Or…NASCAR.  I can see it now: The Ethanol 500. We’ll promote it at the Newton Motor Speedway in Iowa. All cars for the race will be modified to run on pure Iowa Whiskey. It doesn’t need to be aged in Oak barrels for this. West Virginians will be glad to supply them with Mason Jars.  

  Never mind, we will work out the details.  I’ll get a jacket for the Landon Cassel (NASCAR driver from Iowa, for the uninitiated) team.  Kellogg’s can be a sponsor. 

 We can further start an Off Broadway venue and drum (see what I did there?) it up as the new face of Iowa. We can build the Professor Harold Hill Theater, on River City Drive. And the patrons, who will come from far and wide, can have a few shots of Paroo Whiskey along with their Corn Pudding for dinner before the show. 

 Baseball!  Kevin Costner showed us the way. Baseball diamonds in the midst of corn rows. Iowa needs the next MLB expansion team. Who doesn’t love baseball, and of course, Corn Dogs!

Ethanol_plant

 Politics is only every 4 years, but whiskey is all the time. Baseball has a nice long season. And they will all turn out for the games. Yes, the Sioux City Hawks will have a large and loyal following. Taking a note from Green Bay, they can wear a corn cob hat. 

 Those Hawkeyes are not very good at politics. The winners of the Hawkeye “Cauceye” are more often the loser than the winner of the big Enchilada. (That would be the Presidency, not the Mexican food made with, yep, you guessed it, corn). Yes, they will be making so much money, and having so much fun, that the next political train wreck “a La Carter” or Obama will have to come from somewhere else.

 Arkansas, perhaps.  

 This will work!

 

Tags: , ,

Mark Caserta: Iran nuclear deal could yield disaster

29 Jan

mark

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

1.29.16

Americans believe terrorism is our No. 1 problem, according to a recent Gallup Poll.

But could the U.S. actually be helping finance terrorist activity? Well, according to our nation’s top diplomat, it’s very likely.

iran nuclear 1

As reported by multiple news agencies, Secretary of State John Kerry admitted last week that a portion of the billions of dollars of U.S. sanctions relief from the Obama administration’s controversial nuclear deal with Iran will likely support terrorist groups. During an interview just outside the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Kerry confirmed the stunning information.

 

“I think that some of it will end up in the hands of the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists,” he acknowledged to CNBC. “You know, to some degree, I’m not going to sit here and tell you that every component of that can be prevented.”

 

These “labeled” terrorists could acquire a portion of roughly $100 billion in sanctions relief, according to the U.S. Treasury Department. The money, derived mainly from Iranian oil sales, has reportedly been tied up in international banks as a result of the sanctions. But now, these funds are being freed into the hands of people who really don’t care much for America.

 

So, let me see if I understand this scenario. Not only is the United States paving the way for a nuclear prolific Iran and a potential arms race in the Middle East, we’re actually going to help finance the terrorists who will eventually seek to use it toward our destruction?

 

Frankly, the elements of this agreement reach new levels of lunacy. Appeasement and compromise have always been deemed acts of weakness by our enemies and come as no surprise from this administration. But any proposition that actually helps fund our nation’s greatest fear seems to me to be nothing short of treason.

 

Iran has been recognized by the U.S. State Department as a state sponsor of terror for years and has never given America any reason to trust it – in fact, quite the opposite.

Iran has perpetually lied about its nuclear aspirations, claiming it was strictly for peaceful purposes.

 

A December 2015 report issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency indicated that Iran “had carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device” and that some activities may still be ongoing.

 

And Iran remains a sworn enemy of the U.S. and Israel. In March 2015, amid negotiations with the United States and its allies, a speech by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was interrupted by the chant “Death to America.” He reportedly smiled and responded, “Of course yes, death to America.”

 

Americans simply cannot feel safe with an administration that consistently proves it’s willing to gamble with lives for no other reason than to adorn this president’s legacy.

 

We need leadership in 2016 that will put an end to this deal and other “fruits” of this failed liberal experiment.

 

Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran just might be pivotal to disaster for the U.S.

 

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

Tags: , ,

Mark Caserta: Republicans must support their nominee

22 Jan

mark

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

1.22.16

As I watch members of the GOP cannibalize their own day after day, I can’t help but wonder if we might be witnessing the total collapse of the Republican Party as we’ve come to know it.

Following President Obama’s final State of the Union address last week, the Republican response was given by South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley. Now, typically, the response is used to offer the GOP perspective of the state of the union, often in stark contrast with the president’s. But this address was very different.

 

A significant portion of the governor’s speech took aim at Republican leaders and their rightful ownership of the dysfunction of Washington.

“We as Republicans need to own that truth,” she added. “We need to recognize our contributions to the erosion of the public trust in America’s leadership. We need to accept that we’ve played a role in how and why our government is broken.”

 

Well spoken, empress of the obvious. While confession is good for the soul, only substantive solutions will change the ebb and tide of this political storm.

 

But then, and possibly for the first time ever in a state of the union response, Haley and the GOP establishment she represented proceeded to challenge the Republican presidential front-runner, Donald Trump, and his hardcore stance on immigration.

 

“Immigrants have been coming to our shores for generations to live the dream that is America. They wanted better for their children than for themselves,” she said. While the immigration system must be repaired, she said, “During anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices. We must resist that temptation. No one who is willing to work hard, abide by our laws, and love our traditions should ever feel unwelcome in this country.”

 

While I’m no fan of “the Donald,” how can the GOP be so short-sighted! Heaven forbid that Trump would indeed win the Republican nomination, but stranger things have happened. What if he’s successful at carrying this torch to his final destination? What if Americans really feel they’ve exhausted all other options? Where will Republicans be then?

It’s very telling that not only are half of Americans willing to give a neurotic liar and a professed socialist a shot at the presidency in order to perpetuate their progressive, leftist regime, a significant portion of the right are considering a paradigm shift in their conservative mentality simply to get our nation back on track. Hence, the Trump factor.

 

The one condition most Americans can surely agree upon is the state of our nation is in no way being improved by the listless group of elected officials who have lied and bamboozled their way into office only to sell their constituencies down the river. And the GOP is falling exceedingly short in presenting a unified front with real solutions to our nation’s woes.

 

And if Republicans refuse to support their party’s nominee in 2016, it may indeed be the end of the Grand Ole’ Party in the U.S.

 

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

Tags: , ,

Mark Caserta: Our nation’s woes result from poor choices

17 Jan

mark

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

  • Jan 15, 2016

Have you ever noticed how liberals respond when a Christian suggests the precepts of God’s Word as a solution to our nation’s woes?

cross

 

In fact, commentary regarding Christianity and its value in our society seems to draw the most vehement confutation from progressives. Following any such “Godly” expression, one will surely be poorly lectured on the “separation of church and state” and the edicts of the First Amendment.

 

I never cease to be amazed at how liberals are so “proficient” at ensuring “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” but so inept at protecting “the free exercise thereof ”

It isn’t difficult to correlate the plight of our nation with the decline of our acceptance of God’s will for our country. Deuteronomy 11:26-28 clearly makes the connection.

“See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse – the blessing if you obey the commands of the Lord your God that I am giving you today; the curse if you disobey the commands of the Lord your God”

 

Each of us makes choices, directly or indirectly, based upon the values and principles we’ve adopted through our life’s learnings. But as a nation, we’ve made some devastatingly poor choices, many within our own judicial system. And as a nation, we’ve paid the price.

 

The decision by the Supreme Court in 1962 that allowing prayer in public schools amounted to government promotion of religion was a huge mistake and gave progressives the foothold they now leverage in attempting to remove any semblance of God from a public venue. It also paved the way for the 1963 decision to remove Bible reading and make the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer unconstitutional.

 

Abe Lincoln said, “The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” We are now reaping from those progressive seeds of the ’60s.

 

A decade later the court gave us the landmark decision in Roe v. Wade that protected a woman’s decision to have an abortion. The decision was meant to be balanced between protecting the women’s health and protecting the potentiality of human life and viability outside the womb.

 

Half a century later, it’s potentially easier to take the life of an innocent baby than it is to purchase cold medicine. And way too often, it’s not to protect the health of the mother – it’s simply a matter of “inconvenience.”

Our nation didn’t go astray overnight. Our country has been progressively desensitized to inhumanity. The clarity between good and evil has become blurred and it’s driven society to choose the temporal pleasures of life.

 

The Bible says, “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”

 

Have we come too far to ever comply with this condition for restoration? I’m not optimistic.

 

But we must begin at some point. Now is a good time.

 

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

Tags: , ,

Mark Caserta: Obama plans surge in executive orders

14 Jan

mark

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

  • Jan 8, 2016

President Obama has but one year to complete his fundamental transformation of America into a humble, apologetic nation satiated with socialist and progressive tendencies. And unfortunately, whether by design or fortuity, Congress has become so dysfunctional, he just may be able to complete his mission via executive order.

In what I expect to be a rampant executive surge by Obama that frankly could border on the edge of dictatorship, we could see our lives impacted by major policy decisions made without any congressional or judicial input.

immigration 1

 

In a New Year’s Day address, the president shared his 2016 resolution was to complete “unfinished business,” which included addressing gun violence, as reported by multiple news agencies. In his message Obama paraded his frustration over a feckless Congress and its inaction and said he planned to meet with Attorney General Loretta Lynch “to discuss ways of reducing gun violence unilaterally through measures that do not require congressional approval.”

Allow me to re-ask liberals a simple question I posed in a previous column on gun control. What stricter gun law would have prevented any of the recent mass shootings?

Interestingly, Glen Kessler, a Washington Post fact checker, recently decided to fact check a statement made by Sen. Marco Rubio during a “CBS This Morning” interview in which he said, “None of the major shootings that have occurred in this country over the last few months or years that have outraged us, would gun laws have prevented them.”

 

In his “fact checker” column, Kessler writes his decision to scrutinize Rubio’s remark was prompted by a colleague who suggested that “it was almost certainly incorrect” and “posed an interesting challenge.”

 

But after a thorough vetting, Rubio’s statement received “The Geppetto Checkmark,” which is given only to statements and claims that contain “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

 

The fact is, Obama and liberal Democrats cannot name a single gun law that would have prevented these shootings, yet they continue to shamelessly exploit these tragedies in order to advance their gun ideology.

 

So, what is the liberal motive here? In an era when the average citizen’s greatest concern is domestic terrorism, shouldn’t the conversation be about protecting Americans – not disarming them?

 

In fairness, Obama’s initial proposals, such as broadening background checks, are likely to be fairly easy sells to the American people.

But progressive methodology involves advancing the status quo one victory at a time. As with the tragedy of abortion over the years, expect the restrictions on gun owners to continue to evolve and increase, until the final objective is met. And remember, liberals believe the fewer the guns – the fewer the crimes, so you do the math.

 

Sadly, it will take both Democrats and Republicans to stop the Obama surge, and that isn’t likely.

 

It’s time for conservatives to take a “progressive” approach to regaining control of Washington and focus on accumulating our share of victories.

 

Returning our nation to greatness will be a marathon; not a sprint.

 

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

Tags: , , ,

Mark Caserta: Liberals apply double standard on religious tolerance

3 Jan

mark

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

  • Updated Jan 1, 2016

Progressives waste no time quoting the First Amendment when there’s the slightest reference to Christianity in a public venue. But where is their outrage over similar references to the Muslim religion?

 

In a September Fox News opinion column by Todd Starnes, he shares an incredulous example of what can easily be viewed as public school “indoctrination” of the Islamic religion.

 

Seventh-graders at Spring Middle School in Maury County, Tenn., spent three weeks covering Islam in a social studies class. Some parents were outraged, claiming the lesson plan not only crossed the line into indoctrination, but proselytization as well.

“I am not pleased that my 12-year-old was taught the Islamic conversion prayer,” parent Brandi Porterfield told Starnes.

 

Starnes shares that another parent, Joy Ellis, was also “fired up” about her daughter’s class work.

 

“I was very angry that my child, my Christian child, was made to profess that Allah was the only God,” she told Starnes.

 

Apparently, part of the lesson included requiring each student to write the “Shahada” – “There is no God but Allah; Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” Starnes also writes the students learned the “Five Pillars of Islam.”

 

Porterfield told Starnes she did not have a problem with the school teaching about Islam, but was upset that other religions didn’t get equal time.”to me, that is state-sponsored prayer in schools,” said Porterfield.

 

Porterfield is exactly right. I whole-heartedly agree with Starnes when he asks, “Could you imagine the outcry from liberal activists if the students had been forced to write, ‘Jesus is Lord’? ” The ACLU, along with every other liberal-minded group, would be climbing all over this public school system. And the liberal media would be like “white on rice” with their coverage!

 

The double standard in religious tolerance by liberals in our nation is as obvious as the nose on your face and fostered, in part, by President Obama. While many quotes are available from various sources, Obama’s 2009 speech at Cairo University is very telling in his understanding of his role as “protector-in-chief” of the Muslim faith.

 

“That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

So, one may ask, where are the president’s long and eloquent speeches protecting the Christian faith? Certainly one would have to agree Christians are increasingly under attack both at home and abroad. But on this, our president’s silence is deafening.

 

Frankly, the Muslim faith, at this point, is inconsequential to the progressive movement and poses little threat. Liberals couldn’t care less if the Five Pillars of Islam were posted in front of a courthouse or if a copy of the Koran was left in your hotel room.

 

Any you’ll never hear a liberal question “Allah’s word.”

 

Liberals attack Christianity in America because it denies the “free-form” tenets of the progressive movement; hence the double-standard.

 

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

Tags: , , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →