Doug Smith: The Power to Tax

15 May

doug smith

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

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

tax b

“The Power to Tax is the Power to Destroy”

John Marshall

 

“A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing”

Oscar Wilde

Today is May 12, 2015. Congratulations. You are working for yourself. What, you didn’t know? If you have a job, you worked till April 24th for the government’s share before you start to work for yourself. It took you that long to earn enough to pay your “fair share” of taxes.

Last year, it was April 21st, in 2013 April 18th. That date has steadily moved forward for 100 years. You will pay more for your share of taxes than you will spend for food, clothing, and housing. You will work 114 days out of 365 before you are working for your own money.

I’ve been thinking of taking 2 year old granddaughter shopping. I’m going to give my credit card and check book to the cashiers, and then let her grab anything shiny or sweet that grabs her fancy. We’ll go through toys, and clothes, and candy, TVs, DVDs, you name it. We’ll hit it all. Spare no expense! Don’t consider the cost. If it seems like something she wants, just buy it.

Crazy, you say? Well, perhaps you are right. The two year old knows the price of nothing, and has a value system based upon what she wants. So giving her a blank check is perhaps, not the wisest course of action.

We might say that a Congressman is a person who knows neither the price nor the value of anything, or, if not, has the same system of values as that 2 year old. If it seems good, why then do it. Never consider the cost. Now why, do you suppose, that a Congressman and a 2 year old reason in much the same way?

tax a

The two year old knows only that certain ways of persuasion get her what she wants. Pouting is less effective, but the sweet smile and eyes aimed at her Daddy or her Papaw will usually melt all resistance and get her what she wants at once. (Mommy, of course, is made of sterner stuff.) She does not know the value or the price of what she gets, for she has not yet had to pay for anything. Nor has she had to work for the valuta with which to pay. Is it worth it to spend the value of 8 hours labor for a cheaply made toy that will amuse her for an hour and then never be touched again? I can make the value judgement that it is not, (absent that smile and blue eyes pointed at me!) for I know what it is to work those 8 hours.

Now, we hope that before she is out on her own paying bills and balancing a check book, she will learn of value, and work, and reward. She will understand that to get something that costs 8 hours of her labor will, in fact, Cost her those 8 hours. A Congressman, however, will never learn that lesson. After all, it is my labor from January to June that pays for what Congress takes from me. Congress gets to spend on whatever is shiny and new, and give in the coercions of thousands of 2 year olds, albeit some of them chronologically much older.

How, in fact, can a Congressman ever hope to know of value when he spends the fruits of the labors of millions for the pleasure of thousands? If he worked a full year, instead of the handful of days he does, his labors would not earn what he spends in 5 minutes. If he worked his entire life, and gave all he earned, he still would not have paid the piper. How can he ever know the cost of what he is spending on my behalf? And if he does not know, and yet has the power to tax me as much as he wants, then we have a dangerous situation.

Somehow we need to have people in Congress who understand, and respect, both cost and value, before they undertake to spend and tax. Otherwise, they are as destructive as that 2 year old with a credit card, or a cannon.

Do you doubt that Congress can destroy using the tax? Consider this example.

The estate tax destroys many small family farms. When the owner dies, if the total of the farm land and equipment is worth over a million dollars, (not a lot for even a modest sized farm, and not enough to make the farmer a millionaire) the estate tax will reach as much as 40%. ( In 2012, Democrats in Congress cheerily proposed raising this to 55%) So his heirs, also not wealthy, are forced to pay taxes again on what he has worked for, and paid taxes for, all his life. Now, not having 400 grand lying about, his children have no choice but to sell off all or part of the farm to pay the taxes, or lose it all to the IRS and the State. In time, often in just one generation, a family farm ceases to exist.

At the same time we are wiping out small family farms by taking with the right hand, the left hand is spending like that proverbial 2 year old in the candy store in the form of “farm subsidies.” This is a brilliant program (designed by Progressives during the Depression to bolster farms) that pays someone who “might” farm, not to.

Farm subsidy payments are based on acreage, so the bigger the farm the bigger the subsidies. Commercial farmers, with an average income of $200,000 and net worth of nearly $2 million, get the majority of farm subsidies. From 1995 to 2005, farm subsidies went out to, among others,

John Hancock Life Insurance ($2,849,799)

Westvaco ($534,210),

David Rockefeller ($553,782)

Ted Turner ($206,948

Also to members of Congress, who get to vote on the subsidies, such as

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa, $225,041)

Rep. John Salazar (D-Colo., $161,084).

In one crazy instance, a farm was converted to homes, and the owners were sent farm subsidy checks for not growing soybeans in their back yards!

So in this instance we see Congress’ power to tax is destroying family farms while making payoffs to wealthy friends, and, themselves.

The power to destroy? At what point will people refuse to go to work and work for Congress to spend their money on others?  150 days? 182? At some point, if the trend of Progressive big spenders in Congress continues, working people reach the point where they cannot pay for essentials with what

Tags: , ,

Mark Caserta: Islamic terrorism looms on our American soil

14 May

ISIS IS HERE

me

Mark Caserta, Free State Patriot Editor

May. 14, 2015 @ 12:01 AM

Last September, the Islamic group of terrorists known as ISIS called for a wave of random attacks to begin in the United States. Emboldened by a “weak at the knees” Obama administration, it was now time to advance their threat of terror into the most powerful nation in the West. There would be no greater victory than to die advancing the cause of the caliphate in America.

At the time, a spokesperson for the group specifically called for lone-wolf attacks and provided instructions on how to attack U.S. citizens. “Rig the roads with explosives for them. Attack their bases. Raid their homes. Cut off their heads. Do not let them feel secure. Hunt them wherever they may be. Turn their worldly life into fear and fire. Remove their families from their homes and thereafter blow up their homes.”

isis 2

Since then, ISIS has leveraged social media for the recruitment and training of individuals willing and able to carry out these attacks in the name of “Allah.” ISIS’ morbidly alluring propaganda has included “shock and awe” videos of beheadings and victims being burned alive.

And up until now, the U.S. had yet to experience the fruition of such threats on our soil.

But earlier this month, outside a “Prophet Mohammed cartoon contest” sponsored by a free speech movement in Garland, Texas, two ISIS soldiers opened fire on a group of participants. Armed with assault rifles and body armor, the gunmen, Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi, wounded a security guard before a policeman, armed with only a handgun, shot and killed them.

In a broadcast on its official radio channel, ISIS claimed the gunmen were affiliated with their terror organization. Calling the men “Al Khilafa soldiers,” the ISIS radio announcer also referred to Simpson and Soofi as the group’s “brothers.” The announcement included this warning to infidels:

“We say to the defenders of the cross, the U.S., that future attacks are going to be harsher and worse. The Islamic State soldiers will inflict harm on you with the grace of God. The future is just around the corner.”

JJ4

A recent grim internet warning from a self-described American jihadist warned of ISIS having scores of “trained soldiers” positioned in 15 states, awaiting orders to carry out more operations like the one in Garland.

“Out of the 71 trained soldiers, 23 have signed up for missions like Sunday, we are increasing in number,” read the warning. “Of the 15 states, 5 we will name: Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, California, and Michigan.”

Due to the escalating number of threats on the U.S., security at all U.S. military bases was raised this past weekend, according to CBS News.

To date, the Islamic State has given us no reason to question their resolve or barbarism, and have made it clear they intend to follow through with their mission. And they will gladly die for their cause.

But even with the enemy threat now on American soil, President Obama still hasn’t displayed the will or courage to defeat them.

How many will die before he takes action?

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

Tags: , , ,

Doug Smith: Winnie – The Enemy of the Left

10 May

“And once upon a time, the progressive movement began…”

DOUG SMITH

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

eeyore1POOH 2

Thank you, Professor of Sociology Adam Swift, University of Warwick, England.

We have met the enemy, and he is Winnie the Pooh. Professor (not so) Swift has shown us the way, the way of the Left. For once it is so clear.

The good Prof thinks that parents who read to their children are unfairly disadvantaging the kids who do not have parents who read to them. “A Bear, however hard he tries, grows tubby without exercise.” Poor Winnie. All these years he has been guilty of disadvantaging the kids who did not hear his stories, and Treasure Island, Narnia, or the journey of a little fellow named Baggins.

Funny. I wish I had the advantage of a Leftist education. I never knew. I thought that reading to your kids was a good thing. That it made them better people, expanded their minds, helped them love to read, and made them feel loved.  Good stuff.

But no. It is not fair to do things to raise them up, because others are left behind by not being read to, and that is not fair. So, we should let all our children settle to the bottom level of the least among us.

Pooh is the enemy of fairness.

POOH 3

Inadvertently, perhaps, Swift has given us a capsule summary of the whole premise of the Left s thought process.  Never seek to raise anyone. Anyone who is raised up, in any way, must be torn down. Except for us. Note the Professor Swift does NOT maintain that it would be fair for him to give up his tenured position at the University, and go to McDonalds and make $ 15 bucks an hour. After all, we need the Prof and his ilk to tell the rest of us how we ought to live.  And no one can do that on minimum wage.

So we see the Left displayed for a moment, naked to the view.  Let us not say to the minimum wage worker, “ Read, stay off the drugs, don’t get your girlfriend pregnant, don’t have sex with your boyfriend and GET pregnant, get more education, show up for work on time, make yourself worth more, so you will get more.”  No, the Left says, enjoy your joint, it is unreasonable to expect you not to have sex, it is your right to have all the babies you want, starting at 16, and it is our ( but by that, they never mean “Their”, always someone else’s work, and money) duty to provide for the children, which we will not discourage.  If you show up and put on that McDonalds uniform (which they gave you) and wonder around behind the counter, we (again, not meaning Professor Swift, but Ray Kroc) ought to give you enough to raise a family.  But at the same time, we are not going to make you feel bad by insisting that you avoid the drugs, stay with one woman and help raise the family you helped create.  After all, if you begat 21 children by 10 women, SOMEBODY has to be responsible for taking care of them.

But not you. And not Professor Swift. And don’t you read to them and encourage them to stay in school. That would not be fair.

We (ready for that pay cut yet, Prof?) will take care of everything.  “We” will support your right to live a life of poverty, with a few frills, and extort your sustenance from others, as long as you support us staying in power.  Meanwhile. I’ll tell others what to do, make them feel guilty for what they have, and what they do, and breathing, and eating.  And I’ll continue to envision a Leftist Utopia, where everyone is equal, and on the bottom, and miserable, but grateful.

Except We, and this time I DO mean we, have to live better, eat better, because we are better, and think better, and know better, how to provide all this for you, who are forever incapable. No, no thanks necessary. My reward is knowing you are in paradise. And a quarter mill a year salary as Dean for Cultural Equality.

And it all starts with Winnie the Pooh. Sorry, silly old Bear.

POOH 4

Tags: , , ,

Mark Caserta: Budget deal outlines repeal of Obamacare

7 May

This isn’t a settled deal…if the GOP keeps their promise.

mark 2

Mark Caserta:  Editor, Free State Patriot

May. 07, 2015 @ 12:01 AM
 dems turn 3

For the first time since 2009, both chambers of Congress have reached an agreement on a combined budget, setting the stage for financially curbing critical components of President Obama’s liberal agenda – including Obamacare.

Last week a budget proposal was agreed upon which would boost military spending while outlining a path to end deficits over the coming decade by cutting some $5 trillion in spending. And, to the chagrin of many Democrats, the budget does not include any additional taxes on the American people.

Additionally, this budget resolution would unlock a procedural tool that Republicans say they will use to send the White House a repeal of Obamacare. The process known as “reconciliation” allows legislation to pass Congress with a simple majority. Some may recall in 2009, Democrats wrote into its budget rules that they could use the reconciliation maneuver to pass the president’s healthcare reform bill. At that time, many warned this could come back to bite Democrats should they lose power in Congress, so it only seems poetic justice that the process be used to begin the repealing and replacing of Obamacare.

Yes, President Obama still wields the veto pen, but the case for moving forward on Obamacare’s repeal is still very straightforward. Nearly every poll shows that most Americans dislike the law and want more freedom in their health insurance choices. A recent Rasmussen Poll shows that 54 percent of likely U.S. voters view the national health care law unfavorably while 37 percent have a “very” unfavorable opinion of it.

nfl 4

For many voters, ridding our country of this healthcare abomination will be a litmus test for a presidential candidate. Astute voters realize the GOP does not yet have a veto-proof majority in Congress. Forcing a presidential veto of a bill repealing Obamacare will force every 2016 presidential candidate to respond as to whether they would have signed or vetoed a similar bill.

Politically speaking, the process of drafting and passing the reconciliation measure through both chambers will serve as an effective trial run, and affirm the GOP-controlled Congress’s commitment to sending a bill repealing Obamacare to the president’s desk in 2017. This will ensure that every insurance company or industry with a vested interest in the Affordable Care Act realize the law remains very unsettled rendering them less likely to make changes permanently embedding the job-killing law into our lives.

The leveraging of reconciliation also will prompt the GOP to offer a viable healthcare alternative which no doubt will impact the pending Supreme Court’s ruling on whether to strike down subsidies received by millions of Americans who purchased health insurance through a federally run exchange. Such a decision would dramatically increase the cost for many potential 2016 voters and further fan the flames of discontent.

Five years into this healthcare debacle, Americans are still learning of its adverse impact on their lives. And frankly, it’s a huge reason we have a GOP majority in Congress.

Republicans must pass this budget and follow through with their pledge to the American people to repeal and replace Obamacare.

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

Tags: , , ,

Mark Caserta: Fundamental change must come from people

30 Apr

Not from government!

me

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

Apr. 30, 2015 @ 12:01 AM

“We’re approaching the end of a bloody century plagued by a terrible political invention – totalitarianism. Optimism comes less easily today, not because democracy is less vigorous, but because democracy’s enemies have refined their instruments of repression. Yet optimism is in order, because day by day democracy is proving itself to be a not-at-all-fragile flower.”

It’s been 32 years since President Ronald Reagan spoke these words in his enduring “Westminster Speech” to the members of the British Parliament. But there is undeniable wisdom for today in the speech, which laid the foundation for bursts of democracy throughout the world.

reagan 1

Watch this enduring speech from President Ronald Reagan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7tpKDQH9nE

In a manner feared by some, yet revered by all, the Great Communicator poised America for decades of a prodigious heightening of America’s strength and resolve. Reagan was quick to recognize and fearless to expose any internal threat of government overreach and lack of steadfastness in principle. In his speech, he spoke directly to these dangers.

“At the same time there is a threat posed to human freedom by the enormous power of the modern state. History teaches the dangers of government that overreaches – political control taking precedence over free economic growth, secret police, mindless bureaucracy, all combining to stifle individual excellence and personal freedom.”

Noble words from the father of conservatism, yet we live in a day in which “individual excellence” is losing ground to the Marxist notion, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

President Reagan understood the ultimate determinant in America’s struggles with those who would challenge democracy would “involve a test of wills and ideas, a trial of spiritual resolve, the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish” and the “ideals to which we are dedicated.”

reagan 2

But around the globe, America’s enemies are emboldened, and our allies dispirited. Nations once inspired by the stoutheartedness of the United States are now disheartened by its disquieted purpose.

But democracy has always had its price. In our nation’s nearly 240 years of sovereignty, we’ve endured plenty. But the American spirit has always persevered and emerged from the challenge stronger than before.

But America has never faced an enemy with such a tailwind as the progressive movement. The liberal assault on our nation over the last six years has been cataclysmic and relentless. We’ve witnessed America’s decline in nearly every measurable area.

But the blame no longer rests solely on the liberal movement. The current GOP party leaders have become complicit in this war on America. They’ve failed their constituents time and again by offering false hope and empty promises.

But I choose to believe that optimism is still in order. We are still a republic where the people are empowered to pursue change.

It’s incumbent upon each of us to study our choices carefully, regardless of political affiliation. Has your candidate demonstrated a commitment to integrity? Have they represented your values, beliefs and ideals? Will they govern by principle versus what’s popular? These characteristics must be non-negotiable in America’s next leader.

Fundamental change must not come from government, but from the people.

reagan 3

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

Tags: , , ,

G.W. Bush finally weighs in on Obama’s Iran plan

27 Apr

If there really is one…

bush 2

Former President George W. Bush weighed in on his successor’s foreign policy challenges in a closed-door meeting over the meeting, voicing concerns about Iran’s trustworthiness as Washington and Tehran resume nuclear talks.

Secretary of State John Kerry was meeting Monday with his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif in New York. The U.S. and five world powers are trying to finalize a nuclear deal with Iran by the end of June.

But Bush, who rarely comments on the Obama administration’s efforts in public, offered a word of caution about the negotiators on the other side of the table, during a closed-door meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition on Saturday in Las Vegas.

According to a report in Bloomberg View, Bush warned that new Iranian President Hassan Rouhani appears “smooth,” but said: “You’ve got to ask yourself, is there a new policy or did they just change the spokesman?”

Just how tough Bush was on the sitting commander-in-chief, though, is a matter of dispute.

The Bloomberg report said Bush was highly critical of President Obama’s efforts on Iran and the Islamic State

bush 1

But another attendee, Eric Golub, told FoxNews.com this characterization was “totally wrong.”

“[Bush] went out of his way not to criticize President Obama,” Golub said.

The meeting was off-the-record, but Golub — a conservative comedian who describes himself as a “passionate Jewish Republican” — said he’s speaking out to correct the record.

Golub confirmed Bush’s comments on Rouhani, but said the ex-president was criticizing Iran, not Obama, in sounding a cautious tone about the course of talks.

At the heart of the pending Iran deal is a commitment by Iran to roll back its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. While Obama says those sanctions could snap back if needed, Bush apparently cast doubt on that claim.

“You think the Middle East is chaotic now? Imagine what it looks like for our grandchildren. That’s how Americans should view the deal,” he said, according to Bloomberg.

Bloomberg also reported that Bush accused Obama of putting the U.S. in “retreat” while criticizing Obama’s efforts to check the rise of the Islamic State.

Golub said Bush wasn’t quite so harsh. He said Bush specifically said he did not want to project an image of the U.S. in retreat.

The toughest Bush appeared to get was quoting Sen. Lindsey Graham as saying the 2011 troop pullout from Iraq was a “strategic blunder.”

Golub said Bush described ISIS as Al Qaeda’s “second act” and was delivering the basic message that they’re “evil killers” — and the way to deal with them is to kill them.

The New York Times described Bush’s comments on Saturday as a “tacit critique” of his successor. Golub described the Times’ account as more accurate than the one in Bloomberg.

To date, Bush indeed has largely avoided commenting on the current administration — though former Vice President Dick Cheney has been outspoken in his condemnation of Obama’s national security policies.

The Iran talks, though, have generated a heated international debate. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, addressing Congress at House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation, blasted the preliminary nuclear deal before it was even announced.

bo bn 3

Critics like Netanyahu say it does not close Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon, and merely delays that possibility while giving Iran access to funding by lifting sanctions.

Proponents, though, say the framework deal is better than the alternative options — including military conflict — and would allow international inspectors to ensure Iran is living up to its end of any agreement.

Tags: , ,

Doug Smith: Character matters after all

25 Apr

doug smith

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

4.25.15

The phrase “character matters” was batted about some years ago.  It was also widely discounted by the Clintonphiles when it came to the Clintons.  Odd that a DUI 20 years previous to an election was a major character flaw for Bush, but peccadilloes in office, ( Literally, in office: The Oval Office) were excused as a private matter when it came to The Clinton ( Like The McGregor, but with less kilts and more charm.)

One of the most iconic pronouncements of the 20th century, and one that typifies the Clinton approach to ethics, truth, and behavior came from the lips of Bill, The Clinton.

I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.

bh5

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/bill-clinton-responds-monica-lewsinsky-affair-allegations-28406403

And later,

I did, indeed have an inappropriate relationship with Miss Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, they were not correct.

Don’t these guys just make you love lawyers? As long as no one specifically asked if he engaged in the particular act, at a particular time, in a particular place, his lies and evasions were, to his way of thinking, ok – until they were not. Perhaps they should have had a divorce lawyer question him, or a psychiatrist.

But all the Clintonese parsing of words aside, when Bill Clinton answered under oath, the question “Did you have sexual relations with her?” with a flat “No.”, it was a lie.

When he famously uttered the Miss Lewinsky pronouncement to all of America, it was a lie – Period.

But Bill was charming (so was Charles Manson), handsome, and popular. The economy was good. No active wars were underway.

So, did the character of the Clintons (Hillary has the same relationship with the truth as Bill, her gravy train, but without the charm) matter? The Arkansas Supreme Court, to their credit, felt that a lawyer perjuring himself was a bad thing and disbarred him. The judgement of many supporters, and the Senate, at the time was, no, not so much.

So, does it matter, the character of those we entrust with power over our lives and our country?

Hillary  would have us believe at one time she  picked up the Wall Street Journal one day, said, Hmm, cattle is going up, and plopped down $ 1,000 bucks, and made a neat return of $100,000, good day’s work.

Except, the odds of that happening at millions to one.

Hillary’s investment was made by a trader tied to Tyson foods, not by her.

Her investment was 60,000 in the red at one point, and she was not required to put up more to cover the loss, as were other investors, who lost their shirts.

bh2

If Hillary, and he, had played by the rules, she would have lost the 1,000, and more.

Her investor was disciplined by the Chicago Mercantile Board for the practice of “straddling”, i.e. waiting till the winners and losers are known then allocating the trades, in short picking the winners and losers after the trades are done. That is like making a bet in poker after the other guy shows his cards. It is fraudulent. (He lost his license to trade for a year over the practice.)

Gradually, bit by bit, the Clinton White House revealed the truth of the trades, that it was not Hillary, that it was in fact guided by the trader tied to Tyson Foods. But as is their wont, they released the truth only when caught, and bit by bit, so that no one notices.

Tyson Foods was in turn the beneficiary of millions in favors from the state of Arkansas, under Clinton.  Governor Clinton refused to enforce his own clean up rulings against them at a chicken plant, which caused many residents to sicken, and the Governor to declare it a disaster area, forcing (surprise!  ) the State, and not Tyson, to clean it up.  When allegations surfaced of envelopes of cash from Tyson arriving at the Governor’s mansion for the Clintons, a special prosecutor sought to investigate the apparent quid pro quo. But by now, it was 1994.  Attorney General Janet Reno, now President Clinton’s appointee, refused his request to investigate, and the allegations reported by Time were never pursued.

Chelsea Clinton (net worth 15 million) said, a few years ago, “I guess I got this from my parents. We have just never cared about money.”

bh1

But in fact, for the Clintons, it is all about money. Power, to be sure, but power as a means to get money. They like the Park Avenue lifestyle, the private jets, hobnobbing with the rich and famous.

And the record shows they will do anything, say anything, break any rule, to get it.

With a 20 year pattern of such behaviors, underscored in present revelations by the Clintons going back to amend their taxes to include millions in donations from foreigners that they just “ forgot” to report, and forgot to pay taxes on, it is increasingly the question must be asked “ Can we trust  Clinton?”

Even as allegations of impropriety surface with the Clintons receiving money from foreign interests with business before the State Department while Hillary was Secretary of State, supporters are rushing to say

“There is no evidence that those millions had any impact on her decisions as Secretary.”  Huh? So in other words, someone gave her millions, and she made a ruling in their favor, but there is no proof she would not have ruled the same way even without the money.

Seriously? That is the story they are going with?

Now, just by way of perspective, let us consider this.  A week after President Obama was inaugurated, President Bush, Treasury Secretary Paulson, and Energy Secretary Bodman, got to look at their holdings for the first time since taking office. In the case of President Bush, he placed all his wealth into a blind trust with Northern Trust in 1999, when he began running for President. None of these men, all millionaires, received any information, nor were able to see where their money was invested, by the terms of the blind trust, until it was removed from the trust, after they left office. In this way, they avoid the appearance of impropriety in their decisions. They don’t know if their money is in oil, or real estate, or Uranium.  So their decisions cannot be influenced by what will do those good financially, but on what they think is right. That is a sound approach.

So we might start out with this question.  Why didn’t the Clintons recuse themselves from the Clinton Foundation, and take no money, or salary, or free travel from them, and meet with no donors, and not be made aware of the donors, during the time when Hillary was Secretary of State.  Henry Paulson did, and he was worth far more than the Clinton Foundation.

And again now, why don’t the Clintons take that action now that Hillary is a candidate for President, so she can avoid the appearance of impropriety as she runs for the highest office in the land? After all, Bush did. And he lost money in the 2008 collapse.

bh3

After all, we don’t want the appearance that our leaders are for sale.  Except, of course, if they are.

Now, many people like Bill Clinton. He is a likable guy. A scoundrel, but a likable guy. I might enjoy grilling hamburgers with him, but would I trust him with my wallet?

But Hillary?  That one has me puzzled.  Some people seem to worship her as a political icon of the Left. But why? She is NOT likable, as is her husband. She is not accomplished.  Everything she has been involved in has been tainted with failure, disaster, and scandal.  She is, to say the least, ethically challenged. Somehow she has wrapped herself in the mantel of “First Woman President.”

But let us follow that to its logical conclusion. Support Hillary, because only she can be the 1st Woman President. Really? So, even discounting her failures and her questionable ethics, are the feminists seriously telling us that of all the women out there, of all the smart, accomplished, personable women who have been on the national scene, there is only one that might win the Presidency? If that is true, what an indictment on feminism and on women. Really? One? That is all you’ve got for 100 years since Susan B Anthony?

bh4

Character? Yes, it does matter.  Condi Rice would make a fine President. As would Nicki Halley. As would Carly Fiorina. As would, were she still living, the former Ambassador to Britain, Shirley Temple Black.  These are 3 fine choices from the conservative side of the spectrum.  Again, my liberal friends, are you really saying that among all the liberal women on the national scene, all you have is one? It is not, nor has it ever been, Hillary or no woman President.

Character matters. As the latest revelations, and Clinton scrambling to revise the lies toward truth as they are caught, to pay taxes they evaded to set the record straight, (any ideas what would have happened if Mitt Romney, or you, or me, had REALLY evaded our taxes for 5 years?) continue to unfold, we need to get past the tunnel vision of Hillary because….Hillary.

Ironically, Hillary Rodham was involved for a time in efforts to remove Richard Nixon for his dishonesty and deception.  Now, after a lifetime of showing herself to be so very much like him, she wants his old job.

It is time to take a hard look at the actions, words, deceits, and record of this person and ask seriously, Will having her as our President be a good thing?

Tags: , ,

Mark Caserta: Abortion is the Holy Grail of liberalism

24 Apr

Progressives support no limitations

me

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

Apr. 23, 2015 @ 12:01 AM
stop abortion
 Want to get involved?
““““““““““““““““““““““““““““

Do liberals support any limits on taking the life of an unborn baby?

A recent attempt by an Associated Press reporter to corner Rand Paul on his stance on abortion triggered a much-needed firestorm around the issue.

While giving a press conference in New Hampshire last week, Senator Paul was asked to state definitively which exceptions to a ban on abortion he would support. Paul was quick to turn the table on the reporter.

“You go back and you ask (U.S. Rep.) Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she’s okay with killing a seven-pound baby that is just not yet born yet. Ask her when life begins, and you ask Debbie when she’s willing to protect life,” he said. “When you get an answer from Debbie, come back to me.”

Little Debbie, D-Fla., didn’t like being called out, so the congresswoman was quick to respond.

“Here’s an answer,” she said in an emailed statement. “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. Now your turn, Senator Paul.”

So, let me see if I understand the progressive position on the question of abortion.

So in the third trimester, when a baby could be around 6 or 7 pounds and viably be birthed, is it permissible to inject a lethal dose of Digoxin into the heart to give the baby a fatal heart attack? Is that the accepted position of liberal Democrats?

What about a partial birth abortion, where the baby is birthed feet first, but just before the head emerges from the cervix, the abortionist punctures the base of the baby’s skull with a pair of surgical scissors and suctions the baby’s brain with a powerful suction machine?

What about live birth abortion, where a baby is “accidentally” born due to a botched abortion and refused medical attention so it will die as planned? Is that type of murder acceptable to liberals?

Which one of you would be first to insert the needle into the baby’s heart, taking its life? Which one of you would be first to puncture the base of the skull? Which one of you would stand idly by as a baby lay crying for attention and allow it to die a slow and agonizing death?

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye are like unto whited sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and all of uncleanness,” Matthew 23:27.

I submit there is no greater sin against humanity than to take the life of the most frail and innocent among us.

Every mother has felt the movement of the baby while in her womb. Modern technology now enables the child to be seen in 4D, just as they would appear lying in their crib, cooing and babbling with life.

Yet, murdering the unborn continues to be the “Holy Grail” of liberalism.

It’s time to end this modern day holocaust. It’s time for progressives to stop lobbying for lawful infanticide.

It’s time to return to Godly, conservative values.

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

Tags: ,

Mark Caserta: Common Core is nationalized education and frustrating our children.

16 Apr

Heart-wrenching Viral Photo Of Frustrated Little Girl Shows What Common Core Does To Children

common core acommon core 2

It’s time for this failed liberal experiment to END!

https://commoncore.act.freedomworks.org/?source=02171514day#primary_form

me

Free State Patriot Editor, Mark Caserta

Apr. 16, 2015 @ 12:01 AM

Abe Lincoln once said, “The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.”

Truer words were never spoken. For years progressives have sought ways to infiltrate the classroom at an early age to begin the indoctrination of liberalism. Their methodology has been to sow seeds of discontent with current standards while proposing a “progressive” alternative. Typically, this liberal solution involves more government control and fewer individual rights.

For those less informed, the Common Core State Standards Initiative appears to be the result of years of exhaustive and collaborative effort aimed at raising the achievement levels of students across the country.

common core 2

But for those focused on reality, Common Core is a premeditated, liberal attack on states’ and parents’ rights to control local education. All across America, concerned parents and students are refusing to participate in new tests aligned with the Common Core state standards.

“The explosive growth of the opt-out movement has been one extremely encouraging development in a sea of bad news when it comes to government education in the United States,” said Alex Newman, international journalist and educator, in a World Net Daily interview. “As more and more parents and teachers realize what is going on with Common Core, I expect this movement to continue growing by leaps and bounds.”

Newman, who co-authored the book, “Crimes of the Educators: How Utopians are Using Government Schools to Destroy America’s Children,” views Common Core as profound government overreach into our lives.

“There is no doubt that this Obama scheme to nationalize education is designed not to educate children properly, but to shape their minds with propaganda and reduce their critical thinking abilities for nefarious purposes,” Newman said.

And indeed, this apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

Common Core standards stem from a 2008 task force created by then Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (Barack Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security from 2009-2013) as a result of her apparent dissatisfaction with the U.S. school system’s ability to “adequately prepare” students for entering the workforce. Napolitano’s group of governors and recognized “experts” in higher education prepared a report that would eventually serve as the building blocks for Common Core.

Now the curricula issues and potential unintended consequences tied to Common Core are so vast, it would be impossible to adequately address them in this venue. But this attempted liberal coup on public education is apparent.

Common Core, as defined on its website, is a “set of high-quality academic standards in mathematics and English language arts/literacy which defines what students should know and be able to do each grade.” The entire Common Core conception narrows the purpose of public education to “college and career readiness” and excludes the foundational principles our state constitutions give for establishing an educational system led by parents and local educators.

Clearly, this proposed set of standards is an attempt by progressives to control states’ and parents’ rights where educating our children is concerned. Liberals simply want a greater presence in the classroom.

Common Core grants them that presence.

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

Tags: , , , ,

Doug Smith: Hillary Clinton Conservative ‘Rules of engagement’ (Just don’t!)

15 Apr

doug smith

Doug Smith: Author, historian and Free State Patriot regular contributor

4.15.15

The Hillary Rules

So it seems the rules now (isn’t it funny that it is always the Progressive Left PC police who get to make these inane rules?) are that

  1. We cannot criticize any of Hillary’s characteristics, lest we be misogynistic
  2. We should say yes! We want to see a woman President. But must not say, just not her.
  3. We cannot criticize any of Hillary’s actions, or we are part of the vast right wing conspiracy ( mental note: I need to pay my dues, my VRWC card expires next month)
  4. We cannot focus on Hillary’s accomplishments, because that holds her to an unfair standard. Like having one.

clinton 3

(How much have you accomplished Madam Secretary?)

Now, these are rules designed to function only in Bedlam. They can serve only one purpose: to elect Hillary. So let us take a quick look at the logical fallacies behind these “rules”.

We cannot criticize Hillary?

The world of chivalry, in which a man might say “Step outside, you can’t say that about my wife.” precludes politics. Nor can Hilly and her supporters have it both ways:

I want to break the glass ceiling into the all men world of Presidents, and at the same time

I am woman, hear me whine, don’t be mean to me.

The Left still, to this day, delights in painting Ronald Reagan as a cheerful idiot.

Dan Rather used a made up story about GW Bush’s military service to smear his character as he ran for President.

Remember Willy Horton? He was a convicted murderer, let out for weekend furlough under Mike Dukakis, Governor of Mass, and committed a heinous crime while out. Dukakis was smeared as soft on crime and a weakling. (By Al Gore, it should be noted, not a prominent member of the VRWC.) But of course, these are all men.

Remember the Iron Lady? That would be Maggie Thatcher, British Conservative Prime Minister. Iron Lady was one of the milder epithets applied to her. Critics in England even cheered publicly her death at 87, decades after she left office, singing Ding Dong the witch is dead. (And SHE never said “I ll get you my pretty…..to Monica.)

clinton 2

A man cannot hide behind his wife, nor a woman behind her sex, and expect special treatment to permit her to win the right to lead. After all, her opponents and enemies should she be elected will not grant her that favor. Nor did Maggie’s. But then, Maggie didn’t need it.

We should WANT a woman President

It is foolish to WANT a “woman” President. Or a “black, Hispanic, Irish Catholic, gay, disabled, (am I missing any?) President. Identity politics is absurd. We want an American President, one who is committed to us as a people, to our system of laws, and who is capable of leading the most powerful nation in the world. If we want to tick off a box on a list saying we have picked one from each group, then let it be Miss America, or America’s Most Admired. They can be picked for their charming smile and winning personality, and go on speaking tours and be admired. Come to think of it, Hillary does that now, and completely without benefit of any discernible personality.

It should be noted that England had one powerful, dynamic woman Prime Minister. She served 11 years; the longest PM in 150 years. But, they had: One.

If we do want a woman President, surely, even the Dems can do better. Certainly the GOP can. How about Condi Rice, whose father was registered as a Republican in Jim Crow Alabama because the Democrats refused to do so.

clinton 4 clinton 1

(Oh my…What was I thinking?)

We cannot criticize her actions?

Really?

Sure we can. Many criticized Nixon’s illegal and unethical actions, despite some real accomplishments as President, and were ready to have him removed from office. In fact, Hillary was a young lawyer working for the House Managers preparing to do just that. Until she was fired. For unethical behavior. Makes sense: her boss was about to launch an impeachment of a President for ethical lapses, and had on his staff an aggressive (nana nana nana, yes I said It.) lawyer who trampled the rules of ethics. That would look bad if he got into a trial. Interesting that young lawyer went on to have a career marked by ethical lapses, and was prominently on the other side of the next impeachment. When you are applying for a job, a hiring manager will look at your strengths, but also your failings. If they find that you don’t have what it takes, they will not hire you and deal with the problems you bring to the table. Hillary is applying for a job with us. We are being asked to hire her, and put our future and our security in her hands. We absolutely can, and should, and must look to her failings and weaknesses. No one is without them, but we ought to know them and make an informed decision.

Hillary has led a life of unethical dealings in business, in government, and in politics. Her modus operandi has been to hide, deceive, and destroy. Nancy Reagan has some quirks and a temper, and has been castigated by the Left for decades. Hillary Rodham has skirted or crossed the ethical lines, clearly engaged in illegal business dealings, lied, tried to destroy the lives of women who were victims of her husband’s libido. (Could that be because the one thing she had going for her ambitions were his coattails?)

She was a viscous First Lady, who had long term employees fired and kicked to the curb to provide political patronage for her friends from Arkansas.

She shrouded her Hillarycare plans in secrecy, and brought it down in flames.

She was elected as Senator from a state in which she had never lived, turning in a lackluster performance, with poor attendance, and no notable legislation or accomplishments.

She was involved in getting pardons for terrorists tied to making contributions to her political war chest.

Her term as Secretary of State ended with conditions and relations worse in every part of the world she had touched, never mind Benghazi. Little wonder she once again flexed her secrecy muscle. (One would think she would learn. But, no.)

She was paid multimillion dollar advance on a book she “wrote”. Then her book tour and its sales were so poor that the publisher could not recoup the advance, and her book was quickly remaindered.

We can criticize her. We should criticize her. But we must remember that in the world of the Left, intention and supporting the right cause is everything. Results and accomplishments are nothing. That is a part of why Leftist sycophants still defend 6 years of Obama failures, and make a folk hero of a woman whose only notable accomplishment was to pick the right husband and hold on like a bulldog, regardless of his foibles.

hillary 1

How sad for the feminists who line up behind her. This? This is a hero of the feminist cause?

We cannot make it about her accomplishments.

No we cannot. But for the sake of completeness, let us list them.

  1. Married Bill Clinton
  2. Still waiting

Tags: , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →