Tag Archives: HILLARY CLINTON

Mark Caserta: Savvy leadership can avoid another Cold War

21 Oct

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot Editor

For nearly eight years, the Obama administration has utilized what has become a signature approach of appeasement and contriteness in dealing with world leaders. And Hillary Clinton’s symbolic “reset” with Russia, as secretary of state, has been met with aggression unlike anything we’ve seen since the Cold War of the mid to late 1900s.

hillary-reset

A recent FoxNews.com column by Judith Miller suggests that Putin is executing a “clearly defined strategy” to “undermine the West and liberal democracy.”

The column cites experts’ examples of recent actions such as “sophisticated cyberattacks,” “devastating air strikes on hospitals and relief convoys in Aleppo” (despite a U.S. Russian cease-fire) and Putin’s seemingly systematic attempt to “destroy Europe, divide NATO, and restore Russian power and global influence.”

Frankly, the Obama administration is dangerously outmatched in dealing with tyrannical leaders such as Vladimir Putin. Obama’s nave attempts to “talk” other nation’s leaders into submission has been an embarrassing disaster.

obama-and-putin

In stark contrast, Ronald Reagan understood the concept of achieving peace through strength.

Upon entering office, Reagan determined the U.S. military, under previous administrations, had become worn and antiquated. He saw America as the last stand for Democracy and believed in establishing a position of power to squelch communism.

In March 1983, the “great communicator” spoke on defense and national security and portrayed his vision for protecting the homeland.

“Let me share with you a vision of the future which offers hope,” Reagan said. “It is that we embark on a program to counter the awesome Soviet missile threat with measures that are defensive. Let us turn to the very strengths in technology that spawned our great industrial base and that have given us the quality of life we enjoy today.”

He proceeded to lay out his vision for a Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) which became known as “Star Wars.” The anti-missile system would be a space and ground-based weapons system designed to intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles launched toward the U.S.

While SDI was never fully implemented, Reagan’s leadership as commander-in-chief and his tenacious approach to defeating communism helped influence the collapse of the Soviet Union and end the Cold War.

The U.S. is a prize target for many rogue nations. Ambitious leaders across the globe have waited for Americans to embrace weak leaders like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. They know they’re strategically challenged and can be easily out-maneuvered.

It’s time for the U.S. to once again take its place as the world leader of democracy. Tyrants must understand that while the U.S. is hopeful for peace, we will be resolute in defending freedom.

When you’re the United States of America, the only way to ensure peace is to have a military strong enough we’ll never have to use it.

But you must also have a savvy leader, like Donald Trump, with the determination and backbone to leverage it.

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

Mark Caserta: Regarding Hillary Clinton, actions speak louder than words

14 Oct

me

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

CLOUD

It will go down as one of the darkest moments in our nation’s history, literally 13 hours of hell on earth.

And despite liberals trying to bury this story, millions of Americans will take the facts of Benghazi and Hillary Clinton’s lies with them to the polling booths.

On Sept. 11, 2012, Islamic militants launched an organized attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. Attackers set fire to buildings and launched mortar rounds at the CIA compound, killing U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, and two CIA operatives, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, former Navy Seals.

In my opinion, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are guilty of not only refusing to provide military assistance, but for attempting to cover up the details.

Outmanned and certainly outgunned, Ambassador Stevens was said to have retreated to a place security officers called a “safe area” during the first round of attacks. But apparently it was anything but safe.

Outside a crowd of angry militants gathered, banging on the fortified safety gate of the bunker-like villa. Multiple news agencies reported the complex was doused with diesel fuel and an immense fire was started, trapping Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith inside.

Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith died in this first round of attacks.

CIA timeline provided to the Washington Post and other news organizations confirms Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were attempting to defend the area from the roof of the CIA facility.

Doherty and Woods were killed in the second round of attacks, reportedly seven hours after the White House was initially notified.

According to the Select Committee on Benghazi report, no military assets were sent to Benghazi and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost eight hours after the attacks had begun.

Following the attack, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and surrogates fiercely condemned an “inflammatory” viral video multiple times for inciting the attack and even spent a reported $70,000 on television ads in Pakistan condemning it.

But the Obama administration knew these were terrorist attacks on the consulate and for several days continued to falsely blame the video. Many, including myself, believe it simply didn’t fit the Obama narrative that Osama bin Laden had been killed and Al Qaeda had been “decimated” under his watch.

Hillary Clinton’s actions as Secretary of State betray her heart when it comes to America.

MONICA 3

For you see, it wasn’t Obama’s legacy with which she was concerned, it was hers. And facts be damned when it comes to her vying for the presidency.

Hillary refused to take action to save American lives.

And actions speak so much louder than words, don’t they.

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

Mark Caserta: Clinton presidency would put nation at risk

19 Aug

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot Editor

8.19.16

We are a nation of laws. Without them we would surely fall.

Take for example, our highway safety laws. A set of fairly universal laws regarding the privilege of driving have been set in place to protect us while traveling in our vehicles. A red light means stop. A green light means go. There are definitive right-of-ways established. You get my meaning.

Well, what happens if just one person refuses to follow these laws?

The governing laws of our land with regard to our nation’s leaders are no different. We have laws protecting information and guarding behaviors consequential to the safety of our nation and its citizens. And no person, indiscriminate of race, ethnicity, gender or stature can be above these laws.

And when these laws aren’t followed, it can be detrimental to our nation’s security and the safety of massive numbers of people.

And I submit that is precisely what Hillary Clinton has done.

The majority of Americans now believe Hillary is guilty of committing criminal acts compromising our national security, according to a recent ABC News poll.

Additionally, I believe she is essentially being granted immunity and illegal asylum within the confines of the Obama administration and liberal factions of major media sources, such as MSNBC, CNN and The New York Times.

During the recent House hearing on Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., a former prosecutor, grilled FBI Director James Comey regarding his findings of Hillary’s actions while Secretary of State.

Here is an excerpt of the exchange published by multiple news sources, including the New York Times.

You be the judge.

Gowdy: “Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails, either sent or received. Is that true?”

Comey: “That’s not true, there were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents.”

Gowdy: “Secretary Clinton said, ‘I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email, there is no classified material.’ Was that true?”

Comey: “There was classified material emailed.”

Gowdy: “Secretary Clinton said she used just one device. Was that true?”

Comey: “She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.”

Gowdy: “Secretary Clinton said all work-related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?”

Comey: “No, we found work-related emails, thousands, that were not returned.”

So, has Hillary compromised our nation’s security?

A July column in the New York Times by David E. Sanger reports that while the FBI states it doesn’t have “direct” information that Hillary’s email account was hacked, cyber experts agree it’s indeed “likely.”

The implications of classified information and/or Clinton’s wrongdoings being privy to our enemies are vast in their scope. And we most likely wouldn’t know of it until “after” she became president.

By then, it would be too late.

Hillary’s disregard for our nation’s safety renders her unqualified to lead, much less become commander-in-chief.

A Hillary presidency places our nation and Americans at risk.

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

Doug Smith: The Clinton Coarsening

18 Aug

doug smith

 

 

 

 

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

8.18.16

clinton 1

This is just one more example of the Clinton Effect on our society. It is a decidedly coarsening one. Bill Clinton testified under oath that he didn’t think a certain sexual act was truly sexual, and in the decades since the Clinton effect has made that a more common thing in our schools, as low as middle school, because “Bill Clinton said that s not really doing it”.

Not so long before Clinton, Gary Hart saw the end of his political career in a photo of his secretary sitting on his lap in a bathing suit. In the Clinton era, none of that seems to matter.

Clinton perjured himself. He was disbarred, but still gets hundreds of thousands for a speech, and millions for a no show job at a university. Lying, even under oath, is apparently now ok.

The net and long term result of the Clinton infection on the body politic and the society at large has been a coarser, less moral, less honest society. Standards have been pushed down to the level of “anything the Clintons do must be alright, because…”

Now there is the part I don’t quite put my arms around. Has the left in our society lowered standards for the Clintons because of their love for them, or are they simply the most blatant in pushing the limits downward? Perhaps the left prefers the lack of standards and a moral code, because they do not wish to be judged by any standard, so they let the Clintons take the lead in debauchery, dishonesty, avarice, and disregard for life. They defend them furiously, so they don t have to defend themselves. Then, once a Clinton has gotten away with it, it is forever ok for them. Perhaps that is the Clinton effect: a push of the left to eliminate all sense of morality and judgment in our society, so they can all live the life Libertine.

I confess I do not know the answer, although that one makes as much sense as any. I do know the Clinton effect has been a coarser, and worse place to live than before they came on the scene.

Donald Trump may be coarser in language and discourse, but he does not seem to lead the society into that direction. He says I am what I am, take me or leave me. Not so the Clintons. They say we are what we are. Love us. And follow us.

With Trump it is somewhat like having a large, boisterous dog that knocks things over in your house. With the Clintons, it is more like sleeping in a den of wolves, and wondering why you itch all the time and find you have a taste for sheep.

Trump is a unique phenomenon. I don’t expect to see another on the scene. But the Clintons want a dynasty. If Hillary is entitled to high office for putting up with Bill, then surely Chelsea is as well. She was entitled to a $ 600,000 starting salary at NBC.

Surely she is entitled to move her scamming, hedge fund husband into the White House someday.

clinton 2

Or perhaps. Just perhaps. We might say, a barbarian who is very good at war may win power, but ought not to drive the culture for generations. A coarse, uncultured lothario who is very good at politics may likewise win power, for a time. But should we let the vices of the Clintons drive our society for generations to come?

Perhaps it is time for a long corporate shower.

 

 

 

Doug Smith: A brief history lesson, and a hard reality check

16 Aug

doug smith

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

GTY_Clinton_Trump3_MEM_160808

 

So many people in this political cycle are opting for the magical approach. Donald Trump is, well, Donald, not your Daddy’s candidate. He has an irritating penchant for speaking directly from the mouth, sans the filters most of us put on our speech. He is not a comforting, traditional GOP candidate like President Dole, or President McCain, or even President Romney. (They didn’t? Really?) Without rehashing the septicemia of the Grand Old Party that has led in cascading sequence to The Tea Party, the Freedom Caucus, and The Donald, things just aren’t what they used to be.

There are a few approaches to this new and unsettling development in American politics.

  • Hold on tight. Don t worry, the folks will come back around when they realize that their GOP liars are better than the Democrat liars. A 20 year run of blatantly broken promises, ineffectual or non-existent opposition to Barack Obama’s ideas and decisions that are abhorrent to conservatives will fade if we just let the folks see how bad it is if liberal Democrats get the reins of power.

The problem with this approach is that the folks, after a while, get tired of being the butt of that awful joke, and wonder just what difference it really made when part of their party goes along to get along, a al McConnell, while part of it actively supports the lib/Dem agenda, a la McCain, Graham, and even wonder boy Rubio. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me for 20 years? Well, first you get the rebuke of the Tea Party. Then you get the rebuke of the Freedom Caucus, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee. Finally, you get the ”Up Yours” of Donald Trump.

  • The Magic approach. Well, magic worked in literature and everyone loved it. Wave a wand (unbind the delegates), speak magic words (Romney’s a Nice Guy! David French writes for NRO, wouldn’t HE be a great candidate.) And we can FIX this.

Well, the problems with that approach are numerous. Magic doesn’t work in the real world. (Sorry, but no Merlin, and no Harry Potter. An earlier generation was convinced that Sherlock Holmes was really solving crimes. Just a fantasy. ) Besides, coming up with a candidate acceptable to the Good Ole Boys network doesn’t change the reality that for all his ( Admitted!) faults, Trump got more people voting for him in the GOP primary than any previous candidate in history, including Lincoln and Reagan. You can fix attitudes and disappointment by putting in a pinch hitter. At this dance, we are “going to dance with the fella that brung ya. “

  • The White Knight. Somebody out there is so appealing to the folks that he can ride in, say, ok, I’m here    to save you, and the folks will dutifully swoon and fall in step behind him.

Well. If such a knight existed, why didn’t he run? We have to rule out the 16 who did run, because a plurality of the folks rejected all of them in favor of Trump. (This should again tell the GOP stalwarts just how much they have to fix. But it won’t. And they won’t. ) Nor can such a mythical creature just pop into existence and enter the fray. Politics being what it is, he just cannot get from myth to votes cast in November in time.

So for you who can vote in November, a brief history lesson and reality check. You are on the roller coaster. You might be regretting it and wishing you did not have to go over the big hill, but the bar is down, the chain is pulling you up the hill, and soon, very soon, you and I are going to plunge down the big dip.

So. How many times has a 3rd party candidate done more than sway the race to ( ALWAYS) the more liberal, progressive candidate?

One. Abraham Lincoln defeated the Whigs and the Democrats on a platform of national unity and opposition to slavery. It is worth noting that the result of that was the end of the Whig party, secession, and Civil War.

Since then, 3rd parties have ended up helping to sway the outcome to Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton, but they have never won. Not once in a century. So if your magical hopes are pinned on Gary Johnson, you are about to be disappointed.

That leaves us, as it has since 1860, at least, with a simple reality. Absent an act of God, one of the 2 major party candidates now running will become the next President.

Donald Trump has a lot of faults, though he is not without virtue. The first article I wrote about him at the start of his campaign is unchanged: I think he is something of an ass. He is hardly the ideal candidate I would build in my Weird Science experiment. He shoots his mouth off without thinking, is brash, often crude, and reminds us regularly that a builder may end up sounding like the construction workers wolf whistling at a pretty girl who walks by. We don t know how much his move to a more conservative position will affect his judgment and actions.

Still. He is not Hillary Clinton.

And we do know with certainty what she will do. She will appoint progressive liberal judges to SCOTUS and the federal bench. She will raise taxes. She will continue the Obama war on coal, and the economy. She will, as is the wont of progressives, continue to chip away at basic rights. She will lie consistently. She will, in collusion with her husband, sell the office of the President in unprecedented ways to enrich her family.

And this one deserves a line of its own.

She will certainly involve us in at least one major war.

She will not, most likely, do so with a reasoned approach about our national security interests. Instead she will muddle along, incompetently, making misstep after misstep, until one of them lands her, and us, squarely in a major conflict.

That is Hillary.

Wm F Buckley maintained we ought to support the most right leaning viable candidate for President. To support the most right leaning candidate around, who cannot get elected, ensures that the most left leaning will win. To support a candidate who could viably win, but is markedly to the left, ensures the same. Basic logic of politics

So if you are still crying in your milk that “If only” the GOP had nominated ANYONE else, you would NEVER support Hillary Clinton, because she is dishonest and incompetent, and far left, then wake up friend. Get over it.

“If only” lost the primary. “If only” is not running against Hillary.

There are 2 choices. President Hillary Clinton. Or President Donald Trump.

Don’t let yourself be saying in a year, if Only I had helped stop her.

I’m not crazy about Trump. He is not ideal. But he is the better of the only 2 choices available. So I’m going to vote for him.

And so should you.

 

Mark Caserta: Now is the time to play political defense

5 Aug

me

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

 

tri·an·gle
ˈtrīˌaNGɡəl/
noun
noun: triangle; plural noun: triangles
  1. a plane figure with three straight sides and three angles.
    “an equilateral triangle”

With the nominees for the respective political parties having been chosen and nominations accepted, the campaign season for the presidency has officially begun. Just as the primary season was, it’s sure to be chock full of political caterwaul between pundits and candidates alike.

Interestingly, voters are faced with a political “triad” of sorts, with three sides, three points and three angles. They’re certainly not equilateral, and opposite sides have never been further apart.

On one side, we have the liberal left. These are individuals who would vote for Hillary Clinton even if she had committed multiple crimes and told numerous lies. In fact, she’s done exactly that! Yet, her supporters are willing to look beyond her nefarious character simply to advance their progressive agenda.

The point: These people couldn’t care less about the America of our founding fathers. They’re frankly willing to sacrifice God and country for the continued fundamental transformation of our nation.

The angle: The majority of these voters are satisfied to cast their lots with big government and their nets toward promised entitlements.

Then we have the side bolstering the Trump “revolution.” These ruffled rebels are primarily moderate to conservative individuals who’ve simply had enough of lying politicians more concerned with keeping their jobs than with serving their constituencies.

The point: These folks are looking to “kick political backside” and take names in an effort to return their country to both sanity and sovereignty.

The angle: They’re so starved for a commander-in-chief with leadership qualities they’re willing to take a chance with someone who values haughtiness over humility and coarseness over congeniality.

And then we have the “cynical” side, with those determined “not” to vote for either Hillary or Trump, regardless of the clear and present danger facing our nation. These individuals are content knowing they refused to “cave” to the political pressures around them and are satisfied to pull the lever for a third party candidate or just stay home.

The point: I believe these are people who have already carved a path in life. They typically have their feet planted firmly, with a clear direction and the means to survive.

The angle: They feel they can comfortably “ride out” the consequences of their choice until the next election cycle.

It’s this “third” side of the triad I wish to address.

History will never record your “noble” choice at the polls. It will, however, show that you helped elect not only Hillary Clinton, but helped appoint liberal Supreme Court justices for generations!

Hillary Clinton has proven her intent is to give us more of Barack Obama’s failed policies.

I can’t promise what we’ll get with a President Trump, but I can certainly promise what we’ll get with Hillary Clinton.

They say the game is often won with good defense. Now is the time for patriots to “dig in, bow your backs” and make a final stand for freedom.

And we need every vote possible to keep Hillary out of the White House.

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

Here’s The Full list of 92 Paychecks Hillary Collected from Wall Street

22 May
Here’s The FULL List of 92 Paychecks
Hillary Collected From Wall Street
By Robert Gehl 

http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Hillary-angry.jpg

The media’s going nuts that Hillary Clinton took three big paychecks for three speeches at Goldman Sachs.
At $225,000 a pops that’s pretty good scratch – but it’s just the tip of the iceberg.

She’s been very, very   busy, raking in millions in a three-year stretch since she left her post as the Secretary of State.
Her defense? It varies from ” It’s   what they offered me ” to the hilarious, “I happen to think we need more
conversations about what’s going on in the world.” Pricey “conversations” indeed.
Here’s a list of the 92 “conversations” that Clinton has had in just the past three years.
The total: $21.7 million.

http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Hillary-Clinton-Speeches-2013-2015_1.jpg
She’s been very, very busy. What did Hillary promise in all these speeches?

What was her advice to Deutche Bank, Cisco and the Council of Insurance Agents? What did she tell eBay?

Or the ” American Camping   Association ” and why on earth would the American Camping Association pay $260,000 to hear from Hillary? Has she ever been camping? We may never know because she refuses to tell us. 

What Hillary discloses to us peasants is on a ” need to know ” basis only.

Robert Gehl is a college professor in
Phoenix, Arizona. He has over 15 years journalism experience, including two
Associated Press awards.
%d bloggers like this: