Tag Archives: free state patriot

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: , ,

STOP COMMON CORE: SIGN RAND PAUL’S PETITION

11 Apr

WATCH RAND PAUL’S FACEBOOK VIDEO ON COMMON CORE HERE:

SIGN AND SUBMIT THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.randpac.us/stopcc_pac.aspx?pid=0202f

common core 2

“Stop Common Core” Petition:

To Your Senators and Representative

Whereas:   The Founding Fathers never intended the federal government to run our educational system; and
Whereas:   Under our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, education should fall under the jurisdiction of the states and localities; and
Whereas:   Studies show one-size-fits-all policies under the U.S. Department of Education have resulted in American students falling dramatically behind other countries; and
Whereas:   The U.S. Department of Education’s budget has exploded by over 500% since its creation, even though performance of American students has remained flat at best; and
Whereas:   Like No Child Left Behind, Common Core is a top-down, one-sized-fits-all education policy that simply doesn’t work;
Therefore: I urge you to support legislation that defunds the wasteful and ineffective U.S. Department of Education and let parents, educators and local school boards determine the educational policies in our schools.
 
 
 
 

header

Paid for by RANDPAC
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee
www.randpac.com

Tags: ,

Mark Caserta: Christians targeted in modern-day holocaust

9 Apr

mark 2

Free State Patriot Editor, Mark Caserta

Apr. 09, 2015 @ 12:01 AM

Sadly, church history is replete with examples of evil perpetrated in the name of Christianity. Far too often, those espousing the Christian faith have transgressed the examples and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps the most relevant example would be the Crusades of the Middle Ages, when those professing Christianity engaged in a “holy war” and brutally murdered thousands of Muslims to regain holy territory.

jesus muhammad

Some would like to compare the tragedy of that time with the modern-day war Islamic extremists are waging on Christianity. But there’s a stark contrast between the teachings of Muhammad and the teachings of Jesus.

Muhammad rode into Mecca on a stallion with a sword in hand to conquer by force. From the beginning, Islam has condoned the use of the sword to forcibly advance its religious beliefs. But Jesus rode humbly into Jerusalem on a donkey, not to conquer, but to overcome with love. He took up only the “sword of the spirit” and offered God’s grace and eternal life as a choice for mankind.

One can hardly make a modern-day comparison.

Additionally, the Islamic faith puts a strong emphasis on salvation by works, while Christianity is based on accepting salvation by faith. While having no assurance of heaven, Muslim extremists believe if they die while engaging in jihad, they’re assured of entering heaven and receiving “rich heavenly rewards.”

war on christianity 1

And in tumultuous pursuit of those rewards, the world is now witnessing a modern-day holocaust, as Christians are being targeted by radical Islamists simply because of their faith.

In February 2014, in the Christian village of Izghe in northeastern Nigeria, Islamic extremists from Boko Haram gathered at least 121 Christians and summarily slaughtered them. The rebels, seeking to impose Sharia law throughout Nigeria, reportedly shot some people and slit the throats of others while shouting, “Allahu Akbar” (God is greater).

In November 2014, members of the radical Islamic group Al-Shabab attacked a bus in northern Kenya, singling out and killing 28 passengers who could not recite an Islamic creed and were assumed to be non-Muslims. Those who could not say the “Shahada,” a tenet of the Muslim faith, were shot at close range.

In January 2015, Boko Haram Islamic militants randomly opened fire on northern Nigerian villages, leaving bodies scattered everywhere. Reportedly, as many as 2,000 men, women and children were murdered. Some were burned alive.

And last Thursday, Al-Shabab gunmen rampaged through a university in northeastern Kenya killing 147 people in the group’s deadliest attack in the East African country. The masked attackers, strapped with explosives and armed with AK-47s, singled out non-Muslim students and gunned them down mercilessly.

This attempted “cleansing” of Christianity by the followers of the Muslim “religion of peace” simply follows the edicts of the Koran. And we simply aren’t witnessing attacks of this magnitude from any other religion.

The truth is, “anti-Muslim” bigotry in the world pales in comparison to the “anti-Christian” bigotry we are now witnessing. And it’s time we face this reality.

Christians are indeed targets of a modern-day holocaust.

cf1

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

Tags: ,

DOUG SMITH: Candidates winning Iowa: Good or bad omen for becoming POTUS?

8 Apr

DOUG SMITH

DOUG SMITH: Author, historian and Free State Patriot regular contributor

Today, Jim Geraghty notes in National Review Online that the GOP elite both hate and fear Iowa. Yet none of them seem to have the necessary body parts to criticize Iowa. Well, buckle up, Hawkeyes. I m a Republican, barely (yea, I criticize them too), I’m not running for President, and I “ain’t scared of no Hawkeyes.”

So, brrrrrt, Iowa. (That is a raspberry). By virtue of holding the first caucus in the primary season, and lots of chicken dinners, Iowa has become quite the state celebrity. Everybody goes there; hat in hand, tail between legs, checkbook in shirt pocket. They promise, and deliver, ridiculous amounts of everyone else’s money (never their own!)to Iowa for farm subsidies, and pay farmers to grow corn for ethanol, which drives up corn prices, and gasoline prices, produces a less efficient fuel, creates more pollution to make a gallon of ethanol laced fuel than burning the gallon of unleaded regular would produce, all for the hope that maybe the stiff necked dirt farmers will smile on them. Amazingly, those who end up getting elected actually fulfill their promises, and pour all that money into Iowa.

And the dirty little secret is, very few Presidents actually won Iowa. Statistically, the best thing a candidate could do is land in Iowa, tell them they stink, and that Professor Harold Hill had the right idea, and dare them to vote for him. Winning in Iowa is a death knell for a campaign. Yet every four years, off they trudge.

Oh for a candidate, who will lose Iowa, so that he may win the White House, and will pledge to end the ethanol subsidy? Perhaps Rand Paul could suggest to Iowans that if they want their corn in ethanol they should sell it to Kentucky Distilleries so it can end up in Kentucky Sour Mash.

Or, perhaps West Virginia should move to an early caucus system, and demand kickbacks to remove restrictions on coal, or mandates to use it, or, how about forcing Iowans to pay a Carbon Tax to turn coal into a food? After all, if we are going to use corn as a fuel, why not eat coal? We could trade coal for corn, and let the Iowans turn the coal into fuel oil, while we turn their corn into cornbread, or make moonshine out of it. Hey, with our mountains and our moonshine stills, we could fuel a rocket and sell tourist excursions into space for a million dollars a pop. Tourism, baby! Or, how about the other 49 states get together and sign a pledge that we will not vote for any candidate who campaigns in the rubber chicken circuit in Iowa. Perhaps a lottery system like a football pool, with each primary assigned randomly every four years by chance.

We have had an awful lot of weird tossed into the political process by those stiff necked Hawkeyes. Perhaps it is time for the rest of us to embrace the weird. Or perhaps it is time to let it go.

How about it, 2016 Presidential candidates? Common sense, anyone?

Tags: ,

Doug Smith: Harry Reid? Certainly no “Mr. Rogers”

2 Apr

And you wouldn’t want him as your “neighbor”…

DOUG SMITH

Author, Historian and Free State Patriot regular contributor – Doug Smith

4/2/2015

Harry Reid is simply an awful man. He is dishonest and disingenuous to the point that evil might truly be the best description of the man.  Now, this comes as no surprise to anyone who follows politics, and has for the past dozen or so years.  What is new is his willingness to be smugly honest about it.

harry 1

When he blatantly lied about Mitt Romney’s taxes, it was hypocrisy so thick you could cut it with the exercise machine which recently beat the soon-to-be Ex-Senator bloody. Romney did indeed pay his taxes, while Harry decidedly did not pay taxes on a number of shady land deals and transfers of taxpayer money to his granddaughter.   These were deals which enriched him to the tune of $10,000,000, on nothing more than a public servant’s salary for his entire working life. Deals which really made the Clintons’ shady land deals look nearly palatable. Deals, which, it seems, brought him afoul of an exercise machine named Guido. But that is another story. Of course, since he was doing so on behalf of Barack Obama, it seems unlikely in the extreme he will be indicted for his crimes.  (Unless of course he moves to Texas, changes his name to Delay, obeys the law, but happens to be a Republican. Then he can fight a 3 year battle ending with a judge scolding the prosecutor. But, of course, Harry Reid is a Democrat.)

harry 4

Harry’s lies on the floor of the Senate about Mitt Romney were so transparent and egregious that even the New York Times and the Washington Post called them false.  To get those 2 bastions of liberal media to call out a liberal as a liar, it must be pretty far out indeed.

This week, the retiring (yes, Virginia, there is a God) Senator, who is preparing to spend quality time with his family and his lawyers, was confronted about this one of his lies by a CNN reporter. (CNN? Wow!)  His response was telling. “Well, he he, they can call it what they want, but Mitt Romney lost, didn’t he?”

In short, sure I lied. Sure we all knew it. But it helped us to win, so who cares?

Nancy Pelosi said of his lie, at the time, “If Harry Reid says it is so, it must be so. “

harry 3

These are the people the Democrats in Congress have chosen as their leaders for over a decade.  These are the Democrats who have backed and excused the lies and failures of Barack Obama for 6 years.  A liberal pundit was asked last night, “What about this? He lied, he admits he lied, and he is smirking about it. He doesn’t care! The end justifies the means, really?”

His response? Everybody lies in politics.  Wow. Just wow.  That is your reaction when you find one of your own lied so blatantly? No defense. No mea culpa. No, wow, that was wrong Harry, what were you thinking.

This is our current Democrat party. These are the people they choose to lead them. This is how they think. “I am Democrat. I am a liberal. I will do whatever I have to to you to win, and further my cause. Agree with me, or watch your back. “

Harry Reid.  Dishonest. Cheater. Liar. Crook. Shameless user of the Senate for his own ends.

Harry Reid: Democrat, Nevada.

Harry Reid: Democrat.

His is the face of the Democrat party. (Democrats are well into buyer’s remorse about BHO.  They are looking at their electoral losses and wondering if that was quite the right direction. )

But Harry? The Senate Democrats put him back in power over and over.

Now, one of the reasons that he is retiring is that the winds are blowing through Nevada that say the voters of Nevada are fed up with this, and he is likely to lose. Good for them.  But shame on every Democrat in the Senate.

harry 2

If this is what Democrats choose to lead them, then shame on them as well. Some are always going to vote for the one who offers them freebies, or advocacy for their pet causes, from abortion to snail darters.

Perhaps Democrats are waking up to realize that the party of JFK has been hijacked by some very wrong people. As Ronald Reagan said, “I didn’t leave the Democrat party. The party left me. “Perhaps some Democrats are there.

WV has its first GOP Legislature in 80 years. Harry is going. Hillary is fading in the polls, and no one is running against her yet. Barack Obama is going to hang on to Obamacare like a terrier with a rat, despite millions hurt by it, and an unwavering majority opposing it.

Perhaps the winds of change will continue to blow. We can only hope.

Tags: , ,

Iran Accuses U.S. of Lying About New Nuke Agreement

2 Apr

One executive failure after another…

Says White House misleading Congress, American people with fact sheet

Javad Zarif

Javad Zarif / AP

BY:
April 2, 2015 5:40 pm

 LAUSANNE, Switzerland — Just hours after the announcement of what the United States characterized as a historic agreement with Iran over its nuclear program, the country’s leading negotiator lashed out at the Obama administration for lying about the details of a tentative framework.

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif accused the Obama administration of misleading the American people and Congress in a fact sheet it released following the culmination of negotiations with the Islamic Republic.

Zarif bragged in an earlier press conference with reporters that the United States had tentatively agreed to let it continue the enrichment of uranium, the key component in a nuclear bomb, as well as key nuclear research.

Zarif additionally said Iran would have all sanctions lifted once a final deal is signed and that the country would not be forced to shut down any of its currently operating nuclear installations.

Following a subsequent press conference by Secretary of State John Kerry—and release of a administration fact sheet on Iranian concessions—Zarif lashed out on Twitter over what he dubbed lies.

“The solutions are good for all, as they stand,” he tweeted. “There is no need to spin using ‘fact sheets’ so early on.”

Zarif went on to push back against claims by Kerry that the sanctions relief would be implemented in a phased fashion—and only after Iran verifies that it is not conducting any work on the nuclear weapons front.

Zarif, echoing previous comments, said the United States has promised an immediate termination of sanctions.

“Iran/5+1 Statement: ‘US will cease the application of ALL nuclear-related secondary economic and financial sanctions.’ Is this gradual?” he wrote on Twitter.

words 4

He then suggested a correction: “Iran/P5+1 Statement: ‘The EU will TERMINATE the implementation of ALL nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions’. How about this?”

The pushback from Iran’s chief diplomat follows a pattern of similar accusations by senior Iranian political figures after the announcement of previous agreements.

Following the signing of an interim agreement with Iran aimed at scaling back its nuclear work, Iran accused the United States of lying about details of the agreement.

On Thursday evening, Zarif told reporters the latest agreement allows Iran to keep operating its nuclear program.

“None of those measures” that will move to scale back Iran’s program “include closing any of our facilities,” Zarif said. “We will continue enriching; we will continue research and development.”

“Our heavy water reactor will be modernized and we will continue the Fordow facility,” Zarif said. “We will have centrifuges installed in Fordow, but not enriching.”

The move to allow Iran to keep centrifuges at Fordow, a controversial onetime military site, has elicited concern that Tehran could ramp up its nuclear work with ease.

Zarif said that once a final agreement is made, “all U.S. nuclear related secondary sanctions will be terminated,” he said. “This, I think, would be a major step forward.”

Zarif also revealed that Iran will be allowed to sell “enriched uranium” in the international market place and will be “hopefully making some money” from it.

 Iran Says Nuclear Deal Hinges on U.S. Will to Lift Sanctions
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Monday, a deal on Iran’s nuclear program could be concluded this week if the United States and other Western countries have sufficient political will and agree to remove sanctions on Tehran. He said in Geneva, “Our negotiating partners, particularly the Western countries and particularly the United States, must once and for all come to the understanding that sanctions and agreement don’t go together.”
Inform

Tags: , , ,

Mark Caserta: Bergdahl deal was no bargain for US

2 Apr

But a great deal for the Taliban

me

Free State Patriot Editor – Mark Caserta

Apr. 02, 2015 @ 12:01 AM

Desertion on the field of battle has always been considered a loathsome deed. Besides being a blatant act of cowardice, it violates the military oath of enlistment and compromises the safety of others. And as any military person will tell you, a soldier must be able to trust his brother- or sister-in-arms with his or her very life.

Last week, the Army announced that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, a U.S. soldier who slipped away from his Afghanistan patrol base in 2009 and was held in captivity for five years by the Taliban, will now be charged with desertion and misbehavior. If found guilty of endangering the safety of a command, unit or place, Bergdahl faces life imprisonment.

bb 1

I don’t propose to usurp a military court’s decision by prejudging Bergdahl’s guilt or innocence, even though members of his own platoon have stated publicly they fully believe the soldier deserted them.

I do propose to deal with the terms, conditions and consequences of his return.

While it’s just to presume Bergdahl’s innocence until he’s proven guilty, it’s also prudent to be cautious about prematurely including him in the honored list of brave men and women who have proudly demonstrated their loyalty to our country.

Many recall the president’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice going on various Sunday talk shows claiming Bergdahl served his country with “honor and distinction.” And then there was President Obama publicly embracing Bergdahl’s parents in the Rose Garden while allowing Robert Bergdahl to deliver a message to his son, “Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim,” an Arabic phrase considered by some to be a major pillar of Islam. It means, “In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate.”

bb6bb4

But perhaps most disparaging is the insipid way the White House chose to handle Bergdahl’s return.

Bergdahl was a soldier who had reportedly expressed his disillusionment with the Army and his country and acted on it by leaving his post and possibly collaborating with the enemy. Logic would suggest any trade would be a fair and equitable one. But not only did Obama choose to return to the Taliban five of their most senior officers, he broke the law in doing so.

An independent review by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office declared the president indeed broke the law in authorizing the release of five Taliban detainees held by the U.S. in exchange for Bergdahl without giving Congress 30 days’ notice.

bb2 bb3

And now intelligence suggests that three of the five released detainees are attempting to re-engage in militant activities, possibly against the U.S.

It was clear from the outset that any charges against Bergdahl would be extremely embarrassing for the White House given its early stance.

Nevertheless, the rush to honor Bowe Bergdahl’s military service before the facts were known dishonors the service of those who have defended our country with valor. And the inept decision to trade five Taliban leaders for his return has placed our nation at risk.

gitmo 1

Once again, poor judgment and skewed values will place Barack Obama on the wrong side of history – at our nation’s detriment.

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

Tags: , , ,

IMPEACH CLINTON…AGAIN?

30 Mar

DOUG SMITH

DOUG SMITH: Author, historian and regular contributor to Free State Patriot.

3/30/15

The most powerful political tool the Congress has to wield against the other branches is impeachment.  The threat of impeachment, whether spoken or implied, acts as a check against the Executive crossing certain lines.

Let us be honest: Congress sucks at it.  They have impeached but not convicted Presidents, and have removed Federal judges. Richard Nixon resigned rather than put the country through the process of impeachment.  It is considered probable, but is by no means certain, that he would have been convicted.

clinton 1

In the case of William Jefferson Clinton, he certainly had a number of potential impeachable offenses against him; perjury, improper monetary dealings, accepting bribes from Chinese Communist Army Officers in the White House, and letting them obtain missile technology, and of course, his out of control sexual escapades, which, to be kind, make Bill Cosby look like Fred Rogers.  He was certainly impeachable, and convictable.

Yet the Congress, knowing his popularity, despite their distaste for him, chose a stupid and spineless approach.  They impeached him in such a way that the defense could be “everyone lies about sex, the GOP is only interested in his sex life”, and in the age of Dr. Phil and Jerry Springer, there was not the will to convict him. Had they portrayed him as a money grubbing, sleazy, unethical politician , shown his pattern of lies, accepting bribes, pushing for bills that weakened the economy, enriching himself while portraying himself as the champion of the little guy, he could have emerged as a man as popular as Bernie Madoff. That President Clinton, it seems probably, but by no means certain, would have been convicted.

clinton 2

Now, Congress once more has a very impeachable President.  The GOP has control of both houses, and without a doubt there are multiple issues, many of them winding through the courts, that constitute the high crimes and misdemeanors required to impeach a President. But, of course, they will never do so. They will never do so because Barack Obama happens to be black. Oh, don’t roll your eyes at me. He makes no bones about it. He wears his blackness like a sword, ready to hack at anyone who criticizes his lies, his incompetence, his lawlessness, or his failure.  If Barack Obama were Jimmy Carter, and the GOP had both houses, he would be gone. But he knows how to play his race, and the GOP lacks the courage to take him on in spite of it for his crimes against the nation.  As long as he does not push to the limits where the people feel compelled to remove him, he can rampage for 2 more years.

However, there is a move the GOP can make to strengthen the Republic, and hold the feet of the Democrats and the Executive to the fire: Impeach Hillary.

clinton 3

That’s right. Impeach Hillary Clinton.  She obstructed justice, she lied to Congress, and she broke the law in a number of ways. She has no record of success to balance against her failings, and despite the sycophants who are so anxious to dance at another Clinton ball, even her own party is starting to see her for what she is.  So, impeach her as Secretary of State. Even the Democrats won’t fight very hard for her, because they are nervous about her in her own right, and very nervous about another candidate who can be linked to Barack Obama.

Impeach her, before her run against the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, armed with the strains of Helen Reddy singing I am Woman, and I married Bill Clinton. Impeach her, convict her, and a few things happen.  She loses her security clearance.  Any files she may have can be subpoenaed. She loses her benefits as an ex Sec State.  And she becomes ineligible to hold ANY federal office, including, that’s right, President of the United States.

clinton 4

The GOP Congress can pull that fang from the snake. And in so doing, remove a threat to the future of the nation, while sending a message to the President, without requiring the courage to directly confront him: You’ve gone far enough. We are not ready to impeach you, yet. But we are warming up to it. And perhaps that will temper his actions till 2016 just a bit. Congress can impeach Hillary.  Congress should impeach Hillary.

Tags: , ,

Mark Caserta: Obama’s actions expose his convictions

26 Mar

They also expose his priorities.

me

Free State Patriot Editor, Mark Caserta

Mar. 26, 2015 @ 12:01 AM

In their first Oval Office meeting in 2009, President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shook hands and agreed to do everything possible to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Since that time, U.S. relations with our longtime ally in the Middle East have gotten “progressively” worse while the prospects for a nuclear-armed Iran are heightening.

bo bn 1

Rather than choosing to foster our 60-year friendship with the Jewish State and living up to his promise of support, Obama has proceeded to ostracize Israel and barter with her enemies. This dangerous shift of support has emboldened anti-Semitic nations by muddying the political waters where U.S. support of Israel is concerned.

But a recent show of diplomatic ineptness by Obama may have delivered an irreparable blow to relations between Israel and the United States, at least for the duration of his presidency.

And two years is a very long time.

Shortly after Obama delivered his 2015 State of the Union address, House Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress. The move was perceived by Democrats as a rebuke to the president’s repeated threat to veto new sanctions against Iran and disrupt negotiations with Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. But to Republicans, the move was necessary to avoid a very poor deal which would result in a potential nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

bo bn 2

Obama’s decision not to meet with Netanyahu during his visit to the U.S. was met with great disdain and questioned by many on Capitol Hill. But the White House defended the move as standard operating procedure.

“As a matter of long-standing practice and principle, we do not see heads of state or candidates in close proximity to their elections, so as to avoid the appearance of influencing a democratic election in a foreign country,” said National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan. “Accordingly, the president will not be meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu because of the proximity to the Israeli election, which is just two weeks after his planned address to the U.S. Congress.”

But many believe that not only did the Obama administration not adhere to principle by avoiding influencing the Israeli election, they may have attempted to manipulate its outcome.

bo bn 3

A bipartisan Senate committee is now investigating the possibility the Obama administration may have aided efforts to defeat Prime Minister Netanyahu in last week’s election. Reportedly, the investigation focuses on State Department grants to a non-profit group that has been leading field organizing efforts openly aimed at replacing Netanyahu’s conservative government with a “center-left” coalition.

Obama’s actions, besides being nave and adolescent, betray his convictions. For what purpose does Obama seek to pave the way for a nuclear-armed Iran? And in what world can Iran be trusted with a nuclear weapon? It would almost certainly result in a third World War!

It’s past time for a bipartisan effort by Congress to rein in this president’s radical agenda.

The world is, indeed, on fire. And Barack Obama is fanning the flames.

bo bn 4

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 →