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.