CONTRACTOR: FINDING LERNER’S LOST EMAILS EASY

24 Jun

WASHINGTON – The CEO of a major a federal contractor, which has several contracts with the Treasury Department, says it should be relatively easy for IRS contractors to retrieve the “lost” emails of Lois Lerner, the IRS official at the center of the tea party-targeting scandal.

lernerRon Gula is CEO and chief technical officer of Tenable Network Security, an information technology services company nestled in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., that has major contracts with many federal agencies, including the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service and United States Mint.

“It is very unlikely that the emails in question are not stored on a backup machine someplace else,” Gula told WND.

Gula also said questions about the lost emails from Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Darrell Issa, R-Calif., for Monday evening’s hearing are spot on.

Over the weekend, Issa called IRS Commissioner John Koskinen to testify Monday evening about the IRS’ “email systems, data retention policies, and document production processes.”

“Because the IRS has refused to provide basic information about these matters to the committee in advance of the hearing, and in the interest of promoting a frank and thorough discussion at the hearing, I ask that you provide answers to the factual questions posed below,” Issa said in a letter to Koskinen.

In his letter, Issa asked Koskinen to provide further details about the “failure of the hard drive,” identify employees involved in examining the hard drive, explain steps taken by the IRS to recover the information and give dates of those attempts. He also asked for the identities of all IRS employees who had any role or responsibility in maintaining or servicing IRS email servers since 2009 and for other details on the IRS archival systems.

After reviewing the letter, Gula said, “Many of the questions outlined for [Monday’s] session are on the right track.” He said the emails in question could also be stored on any number of laptops and systems such as spam filters, which process email throughout the IRS.

Gula noted that because IRS contractors have the same access as employees to email systems, there shouldn’t be any issue retrieving lost data.

“In my experience, contractors who were authorized to do work for organizations like the IRS have full access to email and corporate resources,” he said.

To make email work for an organization the size of the IRS, Gula said, “there must be a great deal of redundancy and separate systems to deliver email reliably.”

WND found that several large corporations hold the IRS’ Total Information Processing Services, or TIPSS-4, contract to handle the IRS’ email servers and provide staff to work, in many cases, on site at IRS offices.

Those companies include: Accenture, Unisys, AT&T Government Solutions, Avaya Government Solutions, Booz Allen Hamilton, CGI Federal, Computer Sciences Corp., Deloitte Consulting, General Dynamics, HP Enterprises, IBM, Leidos, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman Systems and Pragmatics.

Issa called an archivist from the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration and invited White House counsel Jennifer O’Connell to testify Monday in a continuation of the investigation.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/contractor-easy-to-find-lerners-lost-emails/#iCsMZpD5MCPOiXGr.99

Tags: , ,

Mark Caserta: US foreign policy heartens aggressors

19 Jun

OBAMA FOREIGN POLICY

Jun. 19, 2014 @ 12:00 AM

The recent offensive launched by Sunni insurgents is the first real challenge to Iraq’s security since the American withdrawal in 2011. But the stakes are high for the United States as well.

America is only as secure as the strength we portray to the world in the integrity, determination and moral fiber of our leadership. Sadly, the fact that this administration is perceived as sorely lacking in these attributes is conducive to challenge.

A recent Washington Post editorial board column described Obama’s foreign policy as one based on “fantasy,” employed in a world in which the president believed “the tide of war” was receding and the United States could “without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed forces” as well as its tenacity in temperament.

“President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality,” the column read. “Other leaders, in this vision, would behave rationally and in the interest of their people and the world. Invasions, brute force, great-power games and shifting alliances — these were things of the past.”

But leaders around the world are “old school” and operate in reality when it comes to military prowess.

An effective military isn’t simply based on its size and capability, but the enemy’s perception of its willingness to deploy assets if an immovable, non-negotiable line is crossed. And we can’t negotiate with terrorists. Conciliation empowers them.

President Obama did, however, make the right decision when he brought our troops home in 2011 to allow the Iraqis to take ownership of their own freedom. For years I’ve maintained that the U.S. has erred in thinking that freedom can be delivered by a U.S. carrier. Freedom’s value is relative to the price at which it was secured. In the case of the U.S., thousands of men and women have paid the ultimate price, not only to secure our freedom, but assist the Iraqis in achieving theirs.

But the naivete with which our commander-in-chief “trumpeted” our withdrawal was a huge military mistake brought on by political aspiration and was a gift to our enemies in the Middle East. And now any hesitancy to react with at least drone strikes to bolster the Iraqis and provide them a foothold would be foolish. But once again, the world is watching Obama’s passive and indecisive reaction to aggression.

The 4,500 Americans killed and the far larger number permanently wounded is too great of a price to pay to see all that they fought for lost. Iraq War veterans across the country are watching with dismay as the same insurgency they fought and defeated returns to control in Iraq.

The larger issue is that we have a president whose repetitive display of ineptness in dealing with our enemies is emboldening aggression across the globe.

The U.S. can only expect to avoid major military conflict by electing leadership able to reposition America in the eyes of our enemy.

And show the world the United States is unshakable about protecting our freedom.

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

Tags: , , ,

Mark Caserta: Taliban trade may mar Obama legacy

12 Jun

Bergdahl

Jun. 12, 2014 @ 12:00 AM

The Obama administration just released arguably the five most dangerous Taliban leaders detained at Guantanamo Bay in exchange for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. And it appears the president knowingly and willingly broke the law in doing so.

Under the National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law by Obama last year, the administration was required to notify Congress 30 days in advance of any such action. And even if the president can somehow find “legal” justification for what he did, he did not abide by the law.

Even Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said that it was “very disappointing” that President Obama decided not to alert Congress about the deal, suggesting a low “level of trust” at the White House.

Taliban leaders are reportedly hailing the release of the five prisoners as a major victory over Obama and the U.S.

A senior member of the Afghan Taliban described the exchange for Bergdahl as an “historic moment for us.” He went on to tell NBC News this was the first time its “enemy” had “officially recognized our status.”

President Obama was defiant in his remarks that he will “make no apologies” for a trade in which he openly admitted the possibility that these leaders may “return to activities that are detrimental to us,” despite families who still mourn the loss of six brave American troops who died while searching for Bergdahl after he went missing five years ago.

So who were these five Taliban leaders Obama released?

One was Abdul Haq Wasiq, a Taliban deputy minister of intelligence who reportedly used his office to support al-Qaida and to “assist Taliban personnel in eluding capture.” Wasiq has been accused by Human Rights Watch of mass killings and torture.

Mullah Norullah Noori, a senior Taliban military commander, is described as a military mastermind who engaged in hostilities “against U.S. and Coalition forces.” Noori has been implicated in the murder of thousands of Shiites in northern Afghanistan and reportedly “does not express any regret” for his actions.

Mullah Mohammad Fazi, a former Taliban deputy defense minister, was held at Guantanamo after being identified as an enemy combatant by the United States. He’s also wanted by the United Nations on war crimes for the murder of thousands of Shiite Muslims in Afghanistan.

Mullah Khairullah Khairkhwa, the former governor of the Herat province, once had close ties with Osama Bin Laden. He “represented the Taliban during meetings with Iranian officials seeking to support hostilities against the U.S. and coalition forces.”

Mohammad Nabi Omari, a senior Taliban leader, once held multiple leadership roles in various terror-related groups. Nabi reportedly helped al-Qaida operatives smuggle missiles in Pakistan for use against the U.S. and coalition forces.

So what would prompt Obama to bypass Congress to trade these Taliban militants for a questionable soldier and risk retribution against the U.S.?

The president’s argument that “we don’t leave our men or women in uniform behind” is pretty hollow given his failure to act in Benghazi.

This is one decision which may return to haunt the Obama legacy.

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

Tags: , , , , ,

Mark Caserta: National security no flippant matter

5 Jun

CIA obama

Jun. 05, 2014 @ 12:00 AM

Admittedly, every administration leaks its share of classified information. But it seems Team Obama has raised the bar.

Last week, in one of Washington’s “Friday afternoon” information dumps, the White House admitted it had revealed the name of the CIA’s top officer in Kabul, Afghanistan, to some 6,000 journalists on a list provided to news organizations of senior U.S. officials participating in the president’s surprise visit with U.S. troops.

Upon learning of the error, the administration issued a revised list that didn’t include the individual who had been identified on the initial release as the “Chief of Station” in Kabul, a designation used by the CIA for its highest-ranking spy in a country.

“It shouldn’t have happened,” deputy national security advisor Tony Blinken told CNN. “We’re trying to understand why it happened. The chief of staff, Denis McDonough, asked White House counsel to look into it, to figure out what happened and make sure it won’t happen again.”

Now while an internal investigation will likely satisfy Obama supporters, it’s a far cry from the bitter tone used years ago when the Bush administration leaked Valerie Plame’s identity. At that time, words like “traitor” and “treason” were used to describe Bush officials involved in the controversy.

But the leaks from the Obama administration stretch back for years and are some of the more notable in recent history.

Shortly after the successful raid that killed Osama Bin Laden, the Obama administration revealed the classified identity of SEAL Team Six, Special Operations Force behind the raid, placing a target on the backs of the team members as well as their families.

Speaking at an event two days following the raid, Vice President Joe Biden, apparently giddy over the mission’s success, publicly identified the unit that tracked down and killed America’s foremost enemy, giving jihadists a clear target to avenge the death of Bin Laden.

The Obama administration would then go on to “out” the Pakistani doctor who helped the CIA track down Bin Laden. Dr. Shakil Afridi, a Pakistani physician who helped the CIA confirm Osama Bin Laden’s presence in the city, was sentenced to 33 years by the Pakistani government for his role in the attack.

Even allied nation’s secrets apparently aren’t safe with this administration.

In December 2012, the Obama administration “accidentally” revealed extensive details about a top-secret missile base the U.S. planned to build for Israel to host a new ballistic-missile defense system called the Arrow 3. Israeli military officials were shocked when they learned that the U.S. revealed details of the project in documents it published seeking contractor bids.

Now many folks aren’t sure if this administration’s reckless disclosure of our nation’s secrets is for political gain or simply from sheer incompetence. I believe it may be both.

But it’s time for Obama to end his flippant approach to national security — before it results in catastrophic loss of life.

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

Tags: , , , , , ,

Bergdahl release arrangement could threaten the safety of Americans, Republicans say

1 Jun

G BAY

By Karen Tumulty, Published: May 31

Amid jubilation Saturday over the release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from captivity by the Taliban, senior Republicans on Capitol Hill said they were troubled by the means by which it was accomplished, which was a deal to release five Afghan detainees from the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Top Republicans on the Senate and House armed services committees went so far as to accuse President Obama of having broken the law, which requires the administration to notify Congress before any transfers from Guantanamo are carried out.

“Trading five senior Taliban leaders from detention in Guantanamo Bay for Bergdahl’s release may have consequences for the rest of our forces and all Americans. Our terrorist adversaries now have a strong incentive to capture Americans. That incentive will put our forces in Afghanistan and around the world at even greater risk,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard P. McKeon (R-Calif.) and the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, James M. Inhofe (Okla.), said in a joint statement.

Lawmakers were not notified of the Guantanamo detainees’ transfer until after it occurred.

The law requires the defense secretary to notify relevant congressional committees at least 30 days before making any transfers of prisoners, to explain the reason and to provide assurances that those released would not be in a position to reengage in activities that could threaten the United States or its interests.

Before the current law was enacted at the end of last year, the conditions were even more stringent. However, the administration and some Democrats had pressed for them to be loosened, in part to give them more flexibility to negotiate for Bergdahl’s release.

A senior administration official, agreeing to speak on the condition of anonymity to explain the timing of the congressional notification, acknowledged that the law was not followed. When he signed the law last year, Obama issued a signing statement contending that the notification requirement was an unconstitutional infringement on his powers as commander in chief and that he therefore could override it.

“Due to a near-term opportunity to save Sergeant Bergdahl’s life, we moved as quickly as possible,” the official said. “The administration determined that given these unique and exigent circumstances, such a transfer should go forward notwithstanding the notice requirement.”

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said that the detainees transferred from Guantanamo to Qatar, where they are to stay for at least a year, “are hardened terrorists who have the blood of Americans and countless Afghans on their hands. I am eager to learn what precise steps are being taken to ensure that these vicious and violent Taliban extremists never return to the fight against the United States and our partners or engage in any activities that can threaten the prospects for peace and security in Afghanistan.”

Beyond this individual instance, some raised the larger question of whether it is sound policy for the United States to have, in the words of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), “negotiated with terrorists.”

Rogers said the action marked a “fundamental shift in U.S. policy.”

Tags: , , , , , ,

Mark Caserta: Does Obama see a crisis or opportunity?

29 May

crisis mode

May. 29, 2014 @ 12:00 AM

Crisis management is a familiar term for any organization providing a service to the public.

Very simply, it’s the process by which an organization deals with a major event that threatens to harm the organization, its stakeholders or the general public.

The size and scope of a crisis management team will vary depending on a particular organization’s product and the potential impact of a breakdown in the service it provides. And there are certain foundational principles by which they operate.

First, there is a pipeline of communication established which enables information to travel rapidly and efficiently from the source to the appropriate team member. This “rapid response” system is usually tested periodically to ensure its efficiency.

After a potential crisis is reported, the team immediately begins “information gathering.” It’s critical to have the facts to address the issue effectively.

Once the situation has been properly assessed, a determination is made whether to “go public” with a statement. Unqualified personnel are always restricted from communicating to the press and are directed to defer questions to a responsible party.

Most crisis management failures result in the first few hours of an incident. Any indication an organization is being less than forthright about the details of the event can result in catastrophe.

An example of an effective crisis management effort was the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Despite being considered the largest marine oil spill in history, the initial response and ongoing effort by BP officials to communicate responsibly to the public enabled the company to survive.

An example of poor crisis management would be the Elk River chemical spill where a dangerous chemical used to wash coal and remove impurities was released into the Elk River. Freedom Industry officials did a poor job providing answers to the public, and the company was forced into insolvency eight days after the spill.

Now due to the nature of politics, crisis management techniques are deeply embedded in our nation’s government. Crises have long been leveraged politically, and rest assured every governmental department of consequence employs a team charged with averting crisis.

But there is a noticeable distinction between crisis management teams with which most are familiar and the strategies employed by the Obama administration. This administration appears to see them as opportunities rather than setbacks.

Some recall in 2008, when during an interview, then Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said:

“Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things.”

This capricious view of tragedy aligns perfectly with the Obama administration’s inability to bring resolution to even a single crisis involving his administration. It brings to question whether it’s the president’s goal to fix the crisis or leverage it to fulfill his agenda.

Actually, the only effective crisis management I’ve observed is not designed to protect the country, but rather to protect this president.

Americans will do well to remain vigil and alert to this strategy in the coming months leading up to elections.

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

Tags: , , , , , ,

IRS BARS EMPLOYERS FROM DUMPING EMPLOYEES INTO HEALTH EXCHANGES

26 May

irs

WASHINGTON — NYT

The Storm is brewing. And when it hits, everyone will feel the impact, but mostly the middle class.

Many employers had thought they could shift health costs to the government by sending their employees to a health insurance exchange with a tax-free contribution of cash to help pay premiums, but the Obama administration has squelched the idea in a new ruling. Such arrangements do not satisfy the health care law, the administration said, and employers may be subject to a tax penalty of $100 a day — or $36,500 a year — for each employee who goes into the individual marketplace.

The ruling this month, by the Internal Revenue Service, blocks any wholesale move by employers to dump employees into the exchanges.

Under a central provision of the health care law, larger employers are required to offer health coverage to full-time workers, or else the employers may be subject to penalties.

David Cordani of Cigna said the insurer planned to expand beyond the five states where it offers coverage on the exchanges.

Insurers Once on the Fence Plan to Join Health Exchanges in ’15MAY 25, 2014

Many employers — some that now offer coverage and some that do not — had concluded that it would be cheaper to provide each employee with a lump sum of money to buy insurance on an exchange, instead of providing coverage directly.

But the Obama administration raised objections, contained in an authoritative question-and-answer document released by the Internal Revenue Service, in consultation with other agencies.

The health law, known as the Affordable Care Act, builds on the current system of employer-based health insurance. The administration, like many in Congress, wants employers to continue to provide coverage to workers and their families.

“I don’t think that an employer-based system is going to be, or should be, replaced anytime soon,” President Obama said recently, when asked if the law might speed the erosion of employer-sponsored insurance.

When employers provide coverage, their contributions, averaging more than $5,000 a year per employee, are not counted as taxable income to workers. But the Internal Revenue Service said employers could not meet their obligations under the health care law by simply reimbursing employees for some or all of their premium costs.

Christopher E. Condeluci, a former tax and benefits counsel to the Senate Finance Committee, said the ruling was significant because it made clear that “an employee cannot use tax-free contributions from an employer to purchase an insurance policy sold in the individual health insurance market, inside or outside an exchange.”

If an employer wants to help employees buy insurance on their own, Mr. Condeluci said, it can give them higher pay, in the form of taxable wages. But in such cases, he said, the employer and the employee would owe payroll taxes on those wages, and the change could be viewed by workers as reducing a valuable benefit.

Andrew R. Biebl, a tax partner at CliftonLarsonAllen, a large accounting firm based in Minneapolis, said the ruling could disrupt arrangements used in many industries.

“For decades,” Mr. Biebl said, “employers have been assisting employees by reimbursing them for health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs. The new federal ruling eliminates many of those arrangements by imposing an unusually punitive penalty.”

When an employer reimburses employees for premiums, the arrangement is known as an employer payment plan. “These employer payment plans are considered to be group health plans,” the I.R.S. said, but they do not satisfy requirements of the Affordable Care Act.

Under the law, insurers may not impose annual limits on the dollar amount of benefits for any individual, and they must provide certain preventive services, like mammograms and colon cancer screenings, without co-payments or other charges.

But the administration said employer payment plans do not meet those requirements.

Richard K. Lindquist, the president of Zane Benefits in Park City, Utah, a software company that helps employers reimburse workers for health insurance costs, said, “The I.R.S. is going out of its way to keep employers in the group insurance market and to reduce the incentives for them to drop coverage.”

The ruling came as the Obama administration rushed to provide guidance to employers and insurers deciding what types of coverage to offer in 2015.

In a new regulation, the Department of Health and Human Services said it would provide financial assistance to certain insurers that experience unexpected financial losses this year. Administration officials hope the payments will stabilize premiums and prevent rate increases that could embarrass Democrats in this year’s midterm elections.

Republicans want to block the payments, which they see as a bailout for insurance companies that supported the president’s health care law.

In a separate rule, the administration prohibits states from imposing onerous restrictions on insurance counselors, who educate consumers and help them enroll in health plans. Under the rule, states cannot establish standards that impair the counselors’ ability to help consumers or to perform other tasks required by federal law.

In January, a federal district judge in Missouri found that the state was illegally obstructing the activities of insurance counselors, including those known as navigators. The state has appealed the decision.

A version of this article appears in print on May 26, 2014, on page A12 of the New York edition with the headline:

Tags: , , , , ,

Mark Caserta: Americans need answers, not more cover-ups

22 May

soldier

May. 22, 2014 @ 12:00 AM

The Obama administration faces yet another scandal.

As if the ongoing investigations into Benghazi, the IRS, and the Justice Department weren’t enough, the president and his administration now face a scandal involving the possible mistreatment of our brave military veterans.

Evidence is mounting showing the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been keeping “two” sets of books in some of its hospitals to make it look like they were reducing wait times experienced by military veterans before seeing a doctor.

The VA, which has long been the target of complaints of delays and dysfunctional bureaucracy, made the commitment in 2010 to introduce a new appointment system for veterans designed to reduce wait time for an appointment with a primary care physician or specialist in one of its hospitals or outpatient clinics.

It’s surmised the pressure felt by the VA to meet the increasing demands of veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan compelled them to “cook the books” to make it look as if they were indeed making the headway expected from a department that’s received substantial increases in taxpayer funding.

Even more damning are the allegations from a “whistleblower” doctor in Arizona who claims dozens of patients at one hospital died while languishing on a “hidden” waiting list without ever being given as much as an appointment.

In an interview with CNN, Sam Foote, a retired VA doctor of 24 years in the Phoenix area, revealed that as many as 40 patients had died after being placed on a secret waiting list and that officials at the hospital actually shredded documents and faked evidence to cover up their actions.

Since then, numerous whistleblowers have alleged similar practices in at least seven other VA hospitals around the country claiming that officials at the hospitals were sometimes even paid bonuses for reducing “declared” wait times.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., took the Obama administration to task last week for being slow to react to what he called “a systemic, cultural problem” inside the VA.

“It’s been more than a month since allegations that some 40 veterans died while waiting care at the Phoenix VA were first made public.” McCain said in the weekly GOP address. “To date, the Obama administration has failed to respond in an effective manner.”

Exacerbating the problem for Americans is that once again we’ll see no independent investigation into the matter. The VA secretary, Eric Shinseki, will oversee an “internal” investigation.

Now with all due respect to the retired Army general who was himself wounded twice in Vietnam, Shinseki should recuse himself from oversight of the investigation and allow an independent counsel to conduct the inquiry.

But this follows a familiar pattern within this administration that totally contradicts Barack Obama’s promise of transparency and a new era of “openness in government.” Team Obama has excelled in sweeping their liberal dirt neatly under the White House rug.

Failing our brave military veterans in this manner is inexcusable, and it’s time to hold this administration accountable.

Americans deserve answers, not more cover-ups.

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

Tags: , , , , ,

Mark Caserta: Liberals value progressivism over the truth

15 May

progressive movmt

May. 15, 2014 @ 12:00 AM

Why do you suppose liberals refuse to ever hold Barack Obama accountable for the lies and poor decisions he’s perpetrated on the American people?

It’s interesting how they refuse to call the president out on any mistake no matter who gets hurt or how great the loss. Instead they resort to diversions and tactics designed to devalue his involvement, unless of course it was one of those “rare” photo op, publicist’s moments. One might think Obama did everything short of firing the shot that killed Osama bin Laden — but he wasn’t even in the situation room during the attack on our consulate in Benghazi.

And if anyone disagrees with the president, well, it must be racism. In fact, it’s been suggested more than once on this very opinion page that the reason West Virginians don’t support Obama has nothing to do with dwindling jobs or the president’s war on coal. It’s because he’s black.

It’s time liberals learn incompetence comes in all shapes, sizes and colors. Playing the race card is simply indicative of an inability to defend the facts related to Obama’s failures.

One such failure emanates from the president’s unschooled foreign policy. His perceived lack of strength and strategic savvy prohibits him from competing on the world stage while his policies of appeasement and accommodation are prompting rogue leaders across the world to successfully rattle their sabers against the U.S.

But liberals share no conviction over Obama’s failures and aren’t interested in truth.

Liberals aren’t even interested in finding the truth about the terrorist attack in Benghazi and in fact have referred to any such pursuit as “drivel” and “old news” and prompted by politics.

Let me be clear. No true American patriot would ever refer to the unexplained death of four brave Americans serving their country as “drivel.” I doubt the families of Ambassador Stevens, computer specialist Sean Smith and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty would agree with such an insensible remark.

And I submit that liberals, not conservatives, are playing politics. Conservatives seek the truth for the healing of a nation. Liberals only seek closure of the investigation before a smoking gun is located.

And liberals don’t mind the president telling an occasional lie if it serves the “higher” progressive purpose.

It doesn’t bother liberals that the president knowingly misled the nation about the true nature of the terrorist attack in Benghazi, blaming it on an obscure anti-Muslim video.

It’s insignificant that Obama repeatedly lied to Americans about being able to keep their healthcare plan if they liked it and that millions are losing their existing plans.

It doesn’t matter that he lied about lowering annual insurance premiums for families by $2,500 with his signature healthcare initiative.

Liberals never attempt to defend any of these falsehoods. They simply believe the end justifies the means.

In fact, when it comes to Barack Obama, liberals value his contribution to the progressive movement far beyond truth, and they will go to any length to protect him.

The rest simply doesn’t matter.

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

Tags: , , , ,

Mark Caserta: Progressives repudiate founding principles

8 May

progressives

May. 08, 2014 @ 12:00 AM

Today’s progressive movement and the liberal policies it has generated arose from a conscious repudiation of the principles on which our nation was founded.

Americans must be keenly aware of the progressive yearning to fundamentally transform society into one which imposes no “concrete” sanctions for immorality and no restrictions within which we should live our lives. We are in a sense “gods” within ourselves able to transcend through reason.

Progressive confutation stems from their view that society is changing and “intelligent” people must adapt accordingly. They claim Christians are archaic in their beliefs and “modern” Christianity should be tolerant of varying lifestyles. And precepts by the Bible’s writers or our nation’s founders were penned without “clairvoyance” of the future — discrediting any possible unction by an omnipotent God.

But God’s Word says in Matthew 7:13, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.”

Now, the progressive movement hasn’t “broadened” the road overnight. Its tenacious approach calls for constant pressure against the “status quo” designed to move the parameters of acceptance further and further to the left.

But unchecked, where will it end?

The single largest barrier facing liberalism is God’s Word and the influence of Christianity in our society. It’s imperative for liberal “theologians” to question the plausibility and intent of biblical scripture to uproot preconceived notions of morality or principle.

Some recall Barack Obama’s June 2007 rant against the “Christian Right” for hijacking religion and using it to divide the nation:

“Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together… Part of it’s because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who’ve been all too eager to exploit what divides us,” Obama said.

In retrospect, this quote should be added to Obama’s growing list of infamous accolades as the single most “hypocritical” statement ever made.

Liberals want us to believe our nation wasn’t founded on Christian principles. But Thomas Jefferson, our third U.S. President and drafter and signer of the Declaration of Independence said:

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?”

Liberals want us believe we’re not a nation blessed of God. But in Genesis 12:3, God told Abram, “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse…” God is referring to Abram’s descendents, the nation of Israel, with whom our relationship must be symbiotic. Our nation’s obedience to God has heretofore secured His blessings according to the 28th chapter of Deuteronomy.

But I believe as progressives promulgate disobedience to God’s Word, those blessings will be revoked accordingly.

There’s one more “biblical reference” found in Matthew 12:36 which is apropos for the progressive movement.

“But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken.”

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 →