Tag Archives: free state patriot

Mark Caserta: Should pro-choice include selective birth?

25 Aug

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

Aug 25, 2017

down

“What kind of a society do you want to live in?: Inside the country where Down syndrome is disappearing.”

That was the title of the August “CBSN On Assignment” column by Julian Quinones and Arijeta Lajka of CBS News reporting on the “significantly decreased” number of Down syndrome births in Iceland. With a population of about 330,000, Iceland has reduced the number of children born with Down syndrome to around one or two per year, according to the report.

Interested in how they did it? Simple. They killed the babies before they were born.

Per the column, since prenatal screening tests were introduced in Iceland in the early 2000s, the vast majority of women, close to 100 percent, who received a positive test for Down syndrome terminated their pregnancy.

Using what’s called the Combination Test, screeners determine whether the baby will have chromosome abnormality, which could result in Down syndrome. Reportedly, other countries aren’t far behind using this method of selective birth.

Knowing that many people born with Down syndrome can live healthy, productive lives, how does this make you feel?

Understanding the progressive movement’s pro-choice stance, I submit this is a liberal form of genetic selection based upon predetermined, preferential impact on society – nothing more, nothing less. But despite its despicable and evil nature, I believe most liberals would support the woman’s choice.

No doubt, many progressives would answer the CBS question with something like: “While we may not subscribe to the morality of the mother’s choice, it’s still her choice, and we support it.”

But, historically, where does this mindset originate?

In 2009, I wrote a column titled “Planned Parenthood fulfilling founder’s vision.” In the column, I discussed how Margaret Sanger, a controversial eugenicist, founded Planned Parenthood in 1916, envisioning a society not unlike that sought by Adolf Hitler.

In her 1922 book “The Pivot of Civilization,” Sanger refers to blacks, immigrants and indigents as “human weeds, reckless breeders, and ‘spawning … human beings who never should have been born.'”

Sanger believed “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Since its founding, Planned Parenthood, an organization which has the support of most liberals, has become the largest abortion provider in the U.S.

Sanger, officially endorsed by the American Eugenic Society in 1932, was also recognized by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at a 2009 Planned Parenthood function.

“The 20th-century reproductive rights movement, really embodied in the life and leadership of Margaret Sanger, was one of the most transformational in the entire history of the human race,” Clinton stated upon receiving an award from the organization Sanger founded.

Clinton extraordinarily acknowledged she was in “awe” of Sanger.

Others stand in “awe” of creation.

Do we really want life to be so arbitrary? How many champions have been destroyed before given the opportunity of life? Where will selective birth end?

God, in His infinite wisdom (and sometimes to our detriment) has given us the ability to choose.

I propose we give life a chance.

Mark Caserta is a Cabell County resident.

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Doug Smith: When is a liberal not a liberal

21 Aug

This is the first part of a series on the history and evolution of liberalism in America.

doug and mark 1

Doug Smith: Free State Patriot history and society editor

August 21, 2017

 

 

Well, the flippant answer is 1900.  But a more reasoned answer must ask first, what is liberalism? As happens so often, the word has been hijacked.  Orwell warned of this practice. Up is down. Truth is a lie. War is peace. 2 plus 2 equals 5, Winston Smith.

Words are important. Meaning is important. If we permit people to undermine meaning, they can mask actions and intentions. If I like chocolate all my life, and suddenly we call it butterscotch, we make a lie of my frame of reference.

The father of classical liberalism is widely considered to be John Locke. He believed that people were equal and had the right to defend their life, health, liberty, or possessions. That phrase was condensed into Jefferson’s “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness in the Declaration of Independence. He believed that individuals had the right to own their property and goods based upon their own labor to produce them.

Classical liberalism, as opposed to what passes for liberalism after Woodrow Wilson, is in favor of private property rights and a free economy, guarantees of freedoms codified into law in the Constitution. From Wilson forward, the term Liberal came to mean something it is not.  The modern “liberal “is more the egalitarian of the French revolution; emphasizing state control of property, markets, and equalization of outcomes by government picking winners and losers.  We have seen that where this is practiced, the only winners are those in government power, and private citizens, who find they have no rights that the government does not choose to give them, see those rights decreasing as the power of the state increases. The losers are the folks waiting in line in Moscow for bread, the millions murdered because they had no wall to protect them from the psychotic whims of Stalin.

This is the dangerous fantasy put forth by Wilson’s ” Living Document” view of the Constitution. Rather than an agreed wall between the individual and the state, the Wilson New liberals see it as a fluid contract, subject to the perceived notions of those currently in power as to the needs of the people.

Imagine if you signed a contract to buy a house for a certain sum. 5 years into the contract, the governor decided that all homes should cost 20% more, and now, regardless of the agreement you had made, you were forced to borrow additional money and send it to the seller. With, of course, a taxed sop to the government. Or suppose you were the seller, and he decided that you had sold your house for too much, and you had to borrow money and refund it to the buyer, years after the fact.

You wouldn’t like it so much.  That wall of iron words took years, and much effort to get the agreement of enough citizens and states to ratify it and enter a contract.  The idea that the contract is living and can change with time would make it useless, and meaningless. It could come to mean anything at any time.  Recognizing how hard it was to ratify, and that future citizens may, indeed wish to alter it, Madison and the framers included specific steps to do so, and made it as difficult to alter as to pass initially. They protected the individual from the whim of a government official, or a vocal minority, or a small but insistent majority. If you wish to change this contract, you must persuade a decisive majority that the change is beneficial.

Our government as a rule of law, not lawyers, or nobles, or kings, affords that protection to all our citizens.  The liberal judge who looks between the lines and finds things we must do as a government undermines those protections for every citizen.

So then, the classical liberal, as the term was used for over 200 years, places its trust and support of the individual’s rights to property, self-determination, and personal liberty and responsibility. The citizen, in the view of a classical liberal, resides in the state, not under the state.

The egalitarian, or “social” liberal, has a very different world view indeed. Next article, we shall lift the veil of the Wilsonian “liberal” and look at the iron hammer lurking there to supplant the iron words of the Constitution he so disdains.

 

Tags: , , ,

Mark Caserta: President’s N. Korea strategy a good one

20 Aug

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

 

Aug 18, 2017

kim

 

We’ve never been closer to engaging another nuclear power in my lifetime as we are with North Korea.

The escalating threat prompted President Trump last week to warn the rogue nation he was prepared to unleash “fire, fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before” should that country’s Supreme Leader, Kim Jong-Un, fulfill threats against the United States or any of her allies.

In 2012, I wrote a column titled, “U.S. must maintain its military resolve,” referencing the waning respect leaders of other nations had for the global military prominence of the United States, largely due to the appeasement strategies of Barack Obama.

In the column, I discussed the significance of a North Korea missile test despite U.N. resolutions banning that country from using ballistic missile technology. I also discussed how Iran’s nuclear and missile programs were also reported to have benefited from Russia and China, breaching the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which calls for only peaceful use of nuclear power.

In March of this year, I reiterated in a column that North Korea was becoming an increasing military concern, warning the economic and military ties with Russia and China were very dangerous for the U.S.

We are now knee-deep in military mire, I believe, due to our weak strategies.

We know China is technically committed to the defense of North Korea. They’re also economically dependent upon them, comprising roughly three-quarters of North Korea’s imports and exports.

Russia’s ties with Iran are similar. I believe we will see that relationship become an increasing concern soon.

Let’s be clear. No nation would dare suggest the U.S. doesn’t possess the most powerful military armament the world has ever known. That isn’t the problem.

The problem is that lack of leadership of prior administrations has precipitated opposing nations to perceive the U.S. had lost its military resolve. Perception in military engagement is reality. When appeasement precludes action, your enemies take notice.

In 1994 the Clinton administration chose to deal with North Korea’s mounting nuclear weapons program by “bribing” it with more than $4 billion in energy aid over 10 years. In turn, North Korea was expected to reciprocate by dismantling its nuclear weapons program.

In 2016, the Obama administration decided to take the same sort of action with Iran when Obama approved a $1.7 billion settlement resolving claims over a failed arms deal. The first installment was in cash, secretly delivered by plane, the same day Iran released four American prisoners and formally implemented Obama’s nuclear deal with the Iranians, per The Washington Times.

Negotiating from a position of appeasement is a poor strategy. And then there was Donald J. Trump.

As a master negotiator, Trump knows something about leadership and the importance of defining and adhering to consequences. While the president has made clear he’d rather conduct business peacefully, he’ll not withdraw on a pledge he’s made on behalf of protecting our nation – period.

Given our nation’s position, this is the only way to proceed.

North Korea would be wise to negotiate with our commander-in-chief.

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

Tags: , , ,

Doug Smith: “The Patriot’s Credo” A declaration birthed from freedom

12 Aug

doug and mark 1

Doug Smith:  Free State Patriot history and social editor

 

newborn-812470__340

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

 

“The Patriot’s Credo”

By Doug Smith

 

I believe that a man ought to:

Always do his best.

Tell the truth or be silent.

Earn his own way, and keep the fruits of his labor

Never abandon women or children dependent on him

Be kind and courteous to those weaker than him.

Learn all he can, all the time.

Know the history of his people, and his nation, and his world.

 

I believe that people:

Have the capacity to be decent and responsible, but are not angels. Some cure polio: some build Auschwitz.

Are mostly decent, hardworking, law abiding, and desire peace with their neighbors.

Should defend his family, his neighbors, and his country against harm from those who do not.

Are either cantankerous, independent cusses who want to make their own way and be left alone, or weak spirited desiring to be ruled and cared for.

There are those like George Washington who will reluctantly lead the former,  and far too many who will gleefully rule the latter.

 

I believe that government:

Is made up of people not angels, so must be held in check

Is governing people, not angels, so must have sufficient power.

Requires constant attention and effort from those governed.

Exists to protect the rights and property of the people.

Produces nothing, owns nothing, and is a thief unless it serves the people.

Is about protecting the Constitutional rights of its citizens, not supplying their needs.

 

I believe that America:

Is the greatest nation in history

Has done more to extend liberty to more people than any nation in history.

Has greater opportunity for people to better themselves than any nation in history.

For all its faults, is far and away the best place to live in history.

Is worth defending.

Is worthy of pride.

Can be better.

Can fail, if we don’t preserve her.

 

These things I believe. Being a man, and not an angel, I admit to sometimes, far too often, falling short of those things I believe as ideals. But these beliefs form the basis for which I strive.

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , ,

Mark Caserta: President is blocking the progressive movement

11 Aug

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

8.10.2017

 

progressive movement

 

Much to the chagrin of liberal Democrats, President Trump’s visit on Thursday of last week was a banner day for the city of Huntington and the state of West Virginia. The turnout and enthusiasm of Trump supporters everywhere clearly illuminates the disconnect between the president’s reported approval ratings and reality.

Remember, the same people trying to convince you Trump’s approval ratings are low are the same folks who tried to persuade you Hillary Clinton would win in a landslide.

Sadly, the American people seem to have increasingly fewer mainstream media outlets which can be trusted to adhere to the gravity of free speech afforded them by the Constitution, a condition I’m concerned will be memorialized as a discordant turning point in our country’s history.

But, it’s quite fascinating that even with the support of the media, the liberal voice is becoming increasingly irrelevant on nearly every front, by virtue of liberals’ expanding progressive ideology moving them further to the left of most Americans.

For posterity, I’d like to pose a few questions to readers.

Do you feel like liberals hate President Trump more than they love our country?

Is there anything Trump will ever do which liberals will support, regardless of the benefit to our nation?

And where does this pathological hatred of the president place liberal leaders in terms of acting on behalf of the American people?

One observation I’ve made is that President Trump has forced many progressives out of their “moderate” closets into the dimly lit darkness of hard-core liberalism, both locally and nationally. Meanwhile, and possibly even more appreciably, conservatives who were heretofore complacently on the sidelines have enthusiastically engaged in the fight.

It’s mind-boggling that progressives continue to propose their liberal policies as a “better deal” for America. The eight-year liberal Obama experiment certainly rendered that argument mute.

The progressive movement involves tenaciously advancing an ideology free of tethering principles and boundaries of morality. And frankly, their methodology for improving America is quite nonsensical.

Liberals believe removing God and His Word from all public venues will make America a better place.

Liberals believe more government intrusion into our lives is a good thing.

Liberals believe government deserves to have more of your hard-earned tax dollars because they will spend it more wisely.

Liberals believe in open borders and anyone who disagrees is a bigot.

Liberals believe abortion-on-demand is the right of every woman and supersedes the life of an innocent baby.

Liberals want to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

Liberals want to “progressively” redefine the family structure beyond the traditional union of a man and a woman.

And liberals don’t want to place any restrictions on gender identification, regardless of anatomy.

Is this the America you desire?

I believe liberalism is about fundamentally changing society to accommodate a new, universally accepting social order. And the fact that we have a president who is successfully blocking their movement is driving liberals crazy.

Conservatives have the momentum, so let’s keep working. Tell your representatives to support the president.

Let’s return America to greatness. And continue to make the liberal voice irrelevant in our society.

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

Tags: , , , ,

Mark Caserta: Readers respond to columnist’s question

5 Aug

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

Aug 4, 2017

 

capitol

Last week’s column, “Did West Virginians elect Trump out of ignorance?,” was centered on the facetious question as to whether voters in our state are qualified to make an educated choice for president of the United States.

Of course they are.

But some of the cynical responses were very telling. Some even had me questioning the reader’s ability to comprehend the text, as portrayed in this response from one reader.

“Mark. Oh no, buddy. It has finally hit you right between the eyes. YOU are seeing Trump for what he is. You’re asking YOURSELF this question: Did I help elect Trump out of ignorance? Looks like you’ve been mulling that over.”

Other folks, as in this reader, surmised West Virginians simply chose the “lesser of two evils.”

“As West Virginians only had, as a viable alternative vote in 2016 the corporatist, republican-lite option of voting for Hillary Clinton, it is very understandable that most Democratic voters stayed home and some even voted for what was perceived as a wild-card, anti-DC candidate like Trump rather than falling in line behind the empty establishment pants suit.”

Of the responses from individuals typically aligning themselves with progressives, it’s worth noting the lack of regard they apparently have for the intellect of West Virginians.

“They had other options, they can write in any person they want, or not vote at all. Only stupid people believe there is some magical civic- duty to vote. They never/don’t realize the door of obligation swings both ways. Ignorant conservatives, you know I love-em!”

“Well, considering Arch Moore was convicted for corruption and jailed, then RE-ELECTED in West Virginia as governor and THEN his daughter enters politics and SHE gets elected? I don’t know, but? Does that speak to an abundance of smarts in this state?”

“A majority of West Virginians are too busy trying to make a living to give much time to considering political candidates. After all, they’ve sent some real losers (not this one) to the statehouse.”

“Did West Virginians elect Trump out of ignorance? Yes. Like there was any other option. How else could/would clueless conservative hillbillies vote?”

Then there were responses like this one, interjecting reasoned perspective into the discussion.

“This is all pretty funny. And it confirms something I’ve known to be true for a long time. Liberals can’t read. Mark concludes that ‘And just perhaps, it isn’t the 68 percent of West Virginians who elected Donald Trump who are the ignorant ones, after all.’ And liberals read that as Mark concluding that West Virginians who voted for Trump did so out of ignorance. Pretty funny, and shows their total lack of logic and reasoning ability.”

So, according to liberals, ignorance, indeed, played a role in electing Trump in West Virginia. I can only assume they believe similarly for the other 30 states he won.

This progressive rationale prompts me to ask liberals another clarifying question.

Do you accept any of the blame for Donald Trump being elected president, or was it simply the ignorance of others?

Future voters eagerly await your response.

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

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Mark Caserta: Did West Virginians elect Trump out of ignorance?

29 Jul

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

Jul 28, 2017

trump in wv

 

According to the West Virginia Secretary of State, more than 45 percent of our state’s voters are registered Democrats, with only 30 percent registered as Republicans.

Given that stark contrast, how does one explain nearly 68 percent of West Virginians voting for Donald Trump and only 23 percent voting for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election?

Now, this is quite the conundrum for liberal Democrats in our state who vehemently despise President Trump and are working diligently to convince others his election was a fluke.

Do liberal Democrats expect us to believe the Russians hacked into West Virginia’s voting machines and changed votes? Or do progressives simply believe most West Virginians are simply too ignorant and “deplorably old-fashioned” to make the right choice and elect someone who would continue the failed policies of Barack Hussein Obama?

After all, Obama was quoted in The Huffington Post in 2008, speaking of his difficulty in winning over working-class voters in the Midwest, “It’s not surprising then they get bitter,” Obama said. “They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Yes, some of us are adamant about clinging to both our guns “and” our religion. And woe be to any liberal attempting to remove either from a West Virginia conservative.

But do liberals truly believe West Virginians were prospering under the leadership of arguably the most liberal president in our nation’s history? Do they really believe liberal ideology was working in West Virginia?

Well, weren’t good living wage jobs on the increase in our state? Weren’t liberal policies growing our state’s labor force? Wasn’t the average household income of West Virginians growing under Obama? Didn’t we feel much safer as a nation and less afraid of terrorist attacks on our own soil? Weren’t most West Virginians pleased with Obamacare?

Weren’t West Virginians happy with the impact progressive policies were having on our state?

Anyone intellectually honest enough and halfway knowledgeable would respond with a resounding, “Are you kidding?”

So, why would liberal Democrats (who often suggest they’re the most intellectual among us) seek a continuation of liberal policies? What could possibly be their reasoning?

I submit the progressive desire to elect Hillary Clinton and now to delegitimize Donald Trump have little to do with improving our jobs, income, security or even healthcare.

I believe it’s about advancing their liberal ideology, which we all know includes removing the core, conservative, Christian values most West Virginians hold dear.

Perhaps (much to the chagrin of liberal Democrats) West Virginians are, indeed, some of the brightest among us. Perhaps we’re so well-grounded in our belief system that we refuse to allow our state to falter beneath the weight of liberal oppression. Perhaps West Virginians embody the very best in America.

And just perhaps, it isn’t the 68 percent of West Virginians who elected Donald Trump who are the ignorant ones, after all.

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

 

Tags: , , ,

Let’s help “Make America Great Again” together! Join FSP in supporting President Trump this Thursday, in person!

29 Jul

Join Free State Patriot in supporting President Trump at Big Sandy Arena this Thursday 7 pm!

trump in wv

Well, Free State Patriot (Doug and I) invite all patriots and Trump Supporters to join us at the Big Sandy Arena this coming Thursday to support our president, Donald J. Trump.

Here is the link to reserve your tickets on your mobile device Better hurry. You can only reserve 2 tickets per cell number.

More details to come on where we will meet so we can stick together, hopefully.

Again, better hurry. The Big Sandy Arena may not be big enough…

LET’S MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN – TOGETHER!

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/rallies/huntington-wv

 

doug and mark 1me

Tags: , , ,

Doug Smith: A “Better Deal” with whom?

26 Jul

doug-for-fsp

Doug Smith:  Free State Patriot history and society editor

July 26, 2017

 

 

So, the Democrats, party of the New Deal, The Great Society, All this and World War, too, have decided to solve their problem (nobody votes for them anymore) with a “Better Deal”.

Hmm. Really?

Well, I have not written a book about deals, nor have a stayed in a Holiday Inn Express recently, but I have made and observed a few deals in the past 60 years and offer some observations and lessons learned.

  1. Who you make a deal with matters. I have made business deals with people I had reason to mistrust, but a desire to trust; an alcoholic, a thief, a chronic liar. (not all the same person!) Those deals have, predictably, gone south.
  2. Examine your motivation. I made those bad deals because they promised a lot that I wanted. I wanted those things badly, for reasons of my own, but they were a little too good to be true. In perfect hindsight, I should have passed.
  3. If a deal sounds too good to be true, it most likely is. Trust your gut.
  4. Deals offered by Democrats have a poor track record. (The 7 years of broken promises by my own party, the GOP, is a subject for another time.)Wilson ran on a strong anti-war platform: “Too Proud to Fight. “, “He Kept us out of the War” (WW1, if you were wondering.)  He was inaugurated Jan, 100 years ago, for his second term. And in April, he went to Congress to launch the US into WW1.

    Reagan made a deal with the Democrats in 1983 for $ 1 of tax increases for every $ 3 in spending reductions. So, the Dems promised, and sent him a budget including the tax increases, which he signed. Reagan noted in his memoirs, and I note now, 34 years later, that we are still waiting for any Democrats, anywhere, at any time, to ever reduce spending on anything.

    Bush 41 made a deal with Ted Kennedy that he, Bush, would break his “Read my Lips, No New Taxes” pledge, in exchange for which Democrats would lower spending a commensurate amount. (Note that at that time, they still had not come through on those promised to Reagan, Bush’s predecessor.)  As noted, we are still waiting on those spending decreases.

    Since I have written at length about it, I won’t belabor the point too much, but Barack Obama s shovel ready jobs, which he laughed off, are still not done or filled, the 2500 a year savings never happened, we cannot keep our Doctors or plans, and whatever else it may have done, the “Affordable Care Act did not make Health Care either more affordable, or more available. Indeed, it had nothing whatsoever to do with “Care” but a great deal to do with “Insurance. “(Also, worth noting that the Insurance companies heartily signed on to a deal with a Dem that promised to assure them that 350 million people, under force of law, would be customers. And how did that work out for them?)

  5. Which brings us to a lesson learned by observations: if you make a deal with someone who does not keep their word with others, don’t expect them to keep their deal with you.
  6. Deals made with other people’s money are easy for the deal maker, (the Dems), enticing for the beneficiaries (their voters), brutal for the people whose money they spend (Me. You, if you pay taxes.) and once again, too good to be true. (See 3, above. See also Detroit, Illinois, black youth unemployment, minimum wage workers in Seattle.
  7. There is no real wealth, other than the fruits of labor. That is what we work and do. We assign an arbitrary value to gold and diamonds, yet if I were to lock you in a room with all the gold and diamonds you wanted, and nothing else, you would starve. You could not build a car with it, except if you used it to build a factory, buy raw materials, and hire workers. The Gross Domestic Product, the yardstick of the wealth of a nation, is not about the number of zeros at the Federal Reserve, (on the ledger, not the people. Yea, I know, cheap shot.) It is about the goods and services we produce, and the value that potential buyers assign to them, and are willing to pay, in their own valuta, time, or work to obtain them.Only in the Garden of Eden was all that a man and woman needed available to reach out and take. Only in the Garden of Eden was sex available, commanded, and totally without consequence, all the time. Only in the Garden of Eden was there no need to work, and produce.

There, and in the yearning for that which was lost, which comes to be expressed in the Utopian fantasies from Plato to Marx to Wilson to Obama.  And time and again, throughout history, there have been those who try to overturn the natural order, and operate on Eden Standard Time, the way we wish things were, instead of the way they are.  Every attempt has been met with failure, and disaster, and misery.

So, the Democrats’ promises are based on the Utopian ideal: we can replant the abundance of Eden and make it grow, we can go back to how it was, and make it happen again, just put us in charge.

And they reject the promises attached to the Eden story, because they contain unpleasant realities they wish to reject: By the sweat of your brow will you eat bread, until you return to the dust, for of dust you were made, and to dust you shall return.

To accept that means to accept that men will not be perfect, that we are subject to a higher power, and that we must obey certain rules.  Progressives, notably Democrats, do not want any rules but their own, and certainly not those rules.

But that pronouncement is not all bad. You Shall eat bread, by the sweat of your brow.  Not such a terrible thing. You no longer get the Eden deal, because you broke that one. But you do get this one: You won’t go hungry, but you must work for it now. But the Democrats keep trying to establish the Eden Deal, and, failing the power to do so, find it to fail over and over.

Tragically, the lesson they learn is not that it won’t work, which is has not for millennia. No, they come away saying, if we do the same thing over and over, we will eventually get a different result.

Einstein called that insanity.  So, it is. And so, is making a deal with the Democrats, whether you are a President or a voter.

 

 

 

Tags: , , , ,

Mark Caserta: Is hatred of Trump spurring fake news?

22 Jul

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

Jul 21, 2017

 

news-logos

Americans are being inundated with allegations of so-called “fake news.”

Are media outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post really attempting to unethically influence how Americans feel about our country and our president?

Now, I believe most major media outlets have been guilty, at some point, of trying to “influence” rather than report. Frankly, politicians attempting to exploit the media’s increasing significance to their advantage may have actually sparked this conundrum.

But it’s my strongly held belief that the election of Donald Trump has so dramatically crippled the progressive movement in our country, we’re now seeing members of the mainstream media frantically attempting to gain some sort of relevant foothold as they slide down the slippery slope of “trumpery.”

Thankfully, some remain who covet the principles and ethics of true journalism.

A New York Times best-seller written by veteran journalist Sharyl Attkisson titled “The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote” exposes what Amazon Book Review called “diabolical tactics of Smear artists and their outrageous access to some of the biggest names in the political media.”

In the book, Ms. Attkisson shares antics of operatives corrupting the political process and “discouraging widespread citizen involvement in our democracy.” The following excerpt describes the world of the “smear artist” and how the mainstream media play an integral role:

“In the distorted world of the smear artist, things are very different. Up becomes down and down is up. It’s Alice in Wonderland and somewhere down the rabbit hole there’s a tea-sipping Mad Hatter stirring the pot.”

This “upside down” world sounds hauntingly familiar.

Attkisson shared one of her most memorable “smear attempts” she observed during her lengthy journalism career in a June column in Breitbart. Of course, it involved Bill and Hillary Clinton.

“It’s impossible for any outsiders to know exactly how the Clintons became adept at engineering smears to deflect from their controversies,” Attkisson said. “One of the earliest smear campaigns perpetrated by the Clintons began even before Bill announced he was running for president, when Hillary was busy devising a preemptive strike against women rumored to be involved with her husband.”

But even during that volatile period, my recollection of reporting was there was always a sense of “fair play” and fair reporting from most major news outlets. Some stories may have favored a player or two, but I can’t recall ever seeing a complete willingness to shed all ethical precepts to destroy a man.

Donald J. Trump didn’t need this presidency. He had everything he needed. He simply knew America would not survive four more years of liberal policies and decided to place everything on the line to save a nation from collapse.

Sadly, because of his patriotism, he and his family have been unabashedly attacked by liberals, so filled with hate, they can’t see straight.

I call that a political “hate crime” that should be punishable by viewer discretion.

Liberals: Either get on board, or get out of the way.

We have a country to save.

 

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger and a Cabell County resident.

Tags: , , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →