Tag Archives: history

Mark Caserta: Closed Primary; Open Question?

2 Oct

West Virginia’s Republican primary was closed. The question now is what happens next. With nearly three in ten West Virginia voters outside the two major parties, November may offer the first real indication of how unaffiliated voters respond after being excluded from the GOP primary.

We’re just weeks away from the West Virginia general election. It will be the first general election in nearly three decades to follow a closed Republican primary — and it may tell us a great deal about how unaffiliated voters respond after being excluded from participating in the GOP nomination process.

Did those voters forget about May—or will their November choices show that closing the primary had consequences?

For months, supporters of a closed Republican primary in West Virginia have raised a familiar concern: voters who are not Republicans could enter the Republican primary and attempt to influence which candidates the party nominates.

But if we are going to make policy based on that concern, we should examine the evidence without being distracted by emotion. It is easy to say — and perhaps even easy to believe — that Democrats, in large numbers, are using their primary vote to influence the eventual GOP nominee. The emotion resulting from even the thought of such voter malpractice is understandable and easily propagated.

But so far, I have found no documented evidence showing that large numbers of registered Democrats were crossing over into West Virginia Republican primaries for the purpose of manipulating Republican election outcomes.

Even before the GOP closed its primary, registered Democrats were not allowed simply to request a Republican ballot while remaining registered Democrats. They had to officially change their party affiliation to do so.

West Virginia’s Secretary of State says that voters registered with a recognized political party could vote only that party’s primary ballot. The voters who could request another participating party’s ballot were voters registered with no recognized party or unaffiliated status.

West Virginia law also allows each party to decide whether unaffiliated voters or voters of other non-recognized parties may participate in that party’s primary. That is different from allowing someone registered as a Democrat to vote a Republican ballot.

That distinction matters.

West Virginia election law permits voters to change their political-party registration. A voter may change parties by completing a new voter-registration application, and if that change is made at least 21 days before the election, the new affiliation applies to that primary.

What can be shown factually is that from January 2024 through April 2026, 16,910 registered Democrats switched their registration to Republican, while another 20,003 unaffiliated voters became Republicans. During that same period, only 2,399 Republicans switched to Democrat, according to the West Virginia Secretary of State’s Office.

So, closing the Republican primary does not prevent someone who was previously registered as a Democrat from becoming a registered Republican and voting in the Republican primary.

What it does prevent is a constitutional conservative or independent-minded voter who remains unaffiliated from participating in that primary. And that affects a very large bloc of West Virginia voters.

According to West Virginia Secretary of State registration data dated July 31, 2026, the state had 304,775 voters registered with no party affiliation and another 48,665 voters registered with other political parties, for a total of 353,440 West Virginia voters outside the two major parties.

That is 29.35 percent of the state’s electorate — nearly three out of every ten voters.

And there is another number that cannot simply be ignored.

When the 2026 Republican legislative primary is compared with the last non-presidential midterm primary in 2022, Republican vote totals across comparable House and Senate contests were a combined 46,795 votes lower.

That included 28,812 fewer votes in House races and 17,983 fewer votes in Senate races.

No one can say with certainty that all — or even most — of those missing votes came from unaffiliated voters who were no longer permitted to participate in the Republican primary. The election data do not allow us to make that claim.

But a decline of 46,795 votes is still a significant data point, and it deserves to be considered when evaluating the effects of closing the Republican primary.

That fact should be part of any serious discussion about the future of the Republican primary. Many of these voters have simply chosen principle over party.

Those numbers alone do not prove that closing the Republican primary caused lower turnout, but the fact remains that May primary turnout was just over 21 percent, which is concerning to say the least. What one may reasonably derive from such low turnout is that a significant number of West Virginians may not be enthusiastic about what they are getting from state government or from the political process generally.

Republicans must reach out to unaffiliated voters — not exclude them.

Closing the primary does not create an ideological test. It simply creates a registration test.

So, if the purpose of closing a primary is to prevent strategic voting, how effectively can it accomplish that when any eligible voter may change party registration before the deadline?

That includes registered Democrats.

The job of any political party is to establish a platform that voters can get behind, not limit participation only to those willing to walk 100 percent in lockstep with an ideology. Excluding hundreds of thousands of West Virginians who have chosen to remain outside the two major political parties may also reduce the incentive for Republican candidates to engage those voters during the primary process as potential constituents.

We must look at this issue pragmatically, set emotion aside, and consider the facts and evidence.

Unaffiliated voters must be considered part of West Virginia’s future and part of the future of constitutional conservatism.

Locking them out of the GOP primary doesn’t seem like a good way to start.

Tags: , , , , ,

Mark Caserta: America is Starving for Leadership

28 Sep

America is starving for something that should never have become unusual: leaders willing to pray, think clearly, exercise common sense and remember exactly whom they were elected to represent.

We don’t elect leaders to represent a political party or an ideology!

They are elected to represent “We the People”.

Yet increasingly, Americans are watching elected officials approach some of the most serious issues facing our country as though the first question is not, “What is right for my constituents?” but rather, “Which side is the other party on?” or “Is this a Donald Trump policy?”

That is not leadership. It’s gut-wrenching politics and sadly, the reason many people refuse to vote.

 I’ve come to believe that some political figures have become selfishly satisfied that more Americans don’t exercise their right to vote for fear if they did, they would be fired!

 Americans deserve better.  The problem, however, seems to be the same ineffective politicians keep getting elected and feel absolutely no indebtedness or responsibility to their constituency!

Since Donald Trump returned to the White House, virtually every major issue—from immigration and crime to drug trafficking, parental rights and enforcement of federal immigration law—has once again become part of an intense partisan struggle, with the American people suffering the consequences.

Consider what is happening at sea.

The Trump administration has used military force against vessels it says are connected to drug-trafficking organizations that it has designated as terrorist groups. Some Democratic lawmakers, human-rights organizations and a couple Republicans have challenged the legality of those strikes and questioned whether the administration has sufficiently demonstrated that every targeted vessel warranted lethal military force. The administration argues that drug cartels represent a grave national-security threat.

That is a legitimate debate for Congress to have. But Americans also have every right to ask their representatives a fundamental question of “what’s in their best interest?”  Each of us has, no doubt, lost a family member or friend to drugs and it’s gotten increasingly worse due to feckless politicians lacking leadership in addressing the issue.  All the while our people are dying.

This administration, while not without fault, has actually worked to prevent deadly narcotics and violent criminal organizations from harming American families?  Yet, every step President Trump takes to protect Americans is automatically deemed dangerous by the left, regardless of its effectiveness. 

Are these representatives representing their constituents or their party?  It seems, at times, that a vote is worth more than a human life.

We certainly see this in the illegal immigration debate.  While the Trump administration has done what no other president has been willing to do in securing our borders, liberal Democrats seem to choose a vote over a life.

The names Laken Riley, Rachel Morin and Jocelyn Nungaray have been reduced to political talking points. They were beautiful human beings wonderfully created in God’s Image and deserve better.

Laken Riley was murdered in Georgia by Jose Ibarra, a Venezuelan national who had entered the United States illegally; he was convicted and sentenced to life without parole. Rachel Morin, a Maryland mother of five, was raped and murdered by Victor Martinez-Hernandez, who had unlawfully entered the United States multiple times; he was convicted in 2025. Two Venezuelan nationals who had entered the country illegally were charged in the killing of 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray in Houston.

Those cases do not establish that immigrants generally are criminals, and that accusation from the left is frankly, insulting.  We are a nation of immigrants who were welcome to come to America legally and assimilate into our culture of freedom.

Yet, Democrats choose every avenue possible to allow illegals to stay in our country simply for election leverage at the polls by establishing a consistent, dependent voter base. 

Based on recent polling 81% favor requiring voter ID — backed by 79% of independents and 70% of Democrats.

Yet virtually every Democrat in Congress voted against the Save America Act!  How can one justify this vote if a representative’s role is to vote on behalf of their constituents?  It is a stain on our republic.

The debate over commercial driver’s licenses has also moved beyond representation. In February 2026, the U.S. Department of Transportation finalized tighter rules governing certain non-domiciled commercial drivers, arguing that deficiencies in screening and access to foreign driving records created safety concerns.

Again, Americans should be entitled to representation that places public safety first!  They don’t need representation that protects a politician’s voter base.  Dozens of lives in several states have been lost due to illegal immigrants truck drivers.  Where’s the common sense?  Where’s the representation?

Then there is the continuing national argument over children, parents and gender policy.

On December 17, 2025, the House passed H.R. 3492, the Protect Children’s Innocence Act, by a vote of 216–211. The legislation concerned medical gender-transition procedures involving minors.

More recently, on May 20, 2026, the House passed H.R. 2616, the PROTECT Kids Act, 217–198. The measure requires certain federally funded elementary and middle schools to obtain parental consent before changing a minor student’s gender markers, pronouns, preferred name or sex-based accommodations. The vote included 208 Republicans and eight Democrats in favor, while 198 Democrats voted against it.

Common sense voters simply see these as protections for children and parental authority.

Yet, the Democrats leverage this as a political talking point directed at garnering favor among the LGTBQ voter, regardless of the proven detriment to our children, our families and our communities.

These a only a handful of issues weighing against the American people.

I’ve often stated that most politicians have forgotten their sole job is to represent their constituents.  They stick their finger in the wind and spew whatever rhetoric will purchase them the most votes – and then they go to work representing their own ideology or political party.

It’s become quite sickening, actually.  Equally concerning is the fact they KEEP GETTING ELECTED! 

We must stop allowing politicians to tell you what they believe. Look at what they do.

  • Read the bill.
  • Read the roll call.
  • Examine the policy.
  • Ask who benefits.
  • Ask who bears the consequences.

And then hold every elected official—Republican, Democrat or Independent—to precisely the same standard.

Our republic cannot function properly when allegiance to a political party becomes more important than allegiance to truth. Nor can it survive indefinitely when every issue is reduced to personalities.

Donald Trump will not be president forever.

Members of Congress will come and go.

Political parties will rise and fall.

But the principles upon which this nation depends—equal justice, individual liberty, responsibility, the rule of law, protection of innocent life and government accountable to the people—must endure beyond every election cycle.

For people of faith, there is another dimension. Our founders understood that liberty cannot survive without virtue and that self-government requires people capable of governing themselves. It requires wisdom, discernment, courage and prayer.

But even all of that is useless unless Christians exercise their right and I submit, responsibility, to vote!

America does not need politicians who automatically oppose something because Donald Trump supports it—or even automatically support something merely because he proposes it.

America needs leaders. Leaders who remember that the words written at the beginning of our Constitution are not We the Republicans or We the Democrats.

They are, “We the People.”

Perhaps the question Americans should be asking their representatives today should be a little different. 

Rather than ask questions about the politicians; perhaps we should begin asking questions about ourselves.  Don’t complain about what you permit. 

We hire our representatives with our vote. Just as in business, we should monitor their work ethic and effectiveness.  And we decide if they should stay in office. Our representation is literally controlled by our votes.

Currently, it’s a political game many politicians are winning. They rely on our lack of engagement, and sadly, we are not disappointing them.

If we are ever to get back to winning for “We the People,” it must begin with our commitment to vote.

Not just when we are angry. Not just when our candidate excites us. Not just when the election feels convenient.

Every election. Every time.

Because when good people stay home, someone else makes the decision for them.

We can pray for better leaders. We can demand better government. We can complain about corruption, incompetence, and misplaced priorities. But if we refuse to vote, we surrender the very power the Constitution placed in our hands.

“We the People” only works when “We the People” show up.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Mark Caserta: “A Republic, if you can keep it”

19 Sep

A republic is a form of government in which political authority ultimately belongs to the people, but the people exercise that authority through elected representatives operating under a constitution and the rule of law.

Let’s talk about the American Republic for a moment.

The word republic doesn’t seem to be used much anymore, and I fear its true meaning has become blurred. But since the founding of our nation, I cannot recall a time when failure to adhere to its principles could be more detrimental to our future.

In John Wayne’s 1960 film The Alamo, his portrayal of Davy Crockett gives one of the movie’s most memorable descriptions of a republic:

“Republic. I like the sound of the word. It means people can live free, talk free, go or come, buy or sell…”

He goes on to describe people being free to choose how they live and says republic is one of those words that gives him a deep emotional feeling—something that “makes your heart warm.”

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, according to notes by Maryland delegate James McHenry, a Philadelphia woman asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”

Franklin famously replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Franklin’s response reminds us that the Constitution could establish a republic, but a document alone could not preserve it. Keeping it would require citizens and public officials alike to exercise judgment, restraint, civic responsibility and vigilance.

I believe we find ourselves at a historical crossroad in that regard, and both citizens and elected officials need to be reminded of their responsibilities.

A republic is a form of government in which political authority ultimately belongs to the people, but the people exercise that authority through elected representatives operating under a constitution and the rule of law.

The central idea is government by consent, but government restrained by law.

That distinguishes a constitutional republic from both a monarchy and pure direct democracy. In a monarchy, governing authority historically rested with a monarch or dynasty. In a direct democracy, citizens themselves vote directly on governmental decisions. Without constitutional protections and limitations, however, simple majority rule can allow the interests of a numerical majority to overwhelm the rights and interests of minorities and individuals.

In a republic, the people are sovereign—but the Constitution is the rulebook governing how their sovereignty may be exercised.

The Declaration of Independence in 1776 supplied much of the philosophical foundation. Its revolutionary proposition was that legitimate governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The Declaration also asserted that people possess rights that government does not create—including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

After independence, the United States initially operated under the Articles of Confederation. That government, however, proved too weak in several respects. Congress lacked authority to raise revenue, regulate interstate commerce, enforce many of its decisions or effectively address disputes and problems involving the states.

By 1787, American leaders concluded that the system needed reform.

The Constitutional Convention assembled in Philadelphia that summer. Although the delegates originally gathered to revise the Articles of Confederation, they ultimately produced an entirely new framework of government: the United States Constitution.

And here is where I believe we need to be reminded of our responsibilities.

The elected representative owes the citizen fidelity to the Constitution, integrity, accountability, sound judgment and service.

But the citizen also has responsibilities: becoming informed, participating in the process, voting thoughtfully, respecting the rights of others, holding government accountable, obeying legitimate laws, serving the community and preserving the institutions that make self-government possible.

A republic cannot survive merely because its Constitution is well written. It survives only when both the governed and those entrusted to govern understand and fulfil their respective responsibilities.

A republic requires something from everyone—from the person holding office, to the citizen casting a single ballot.

It seems that many elected officials have forgotten that their primary responsibility is to represent the people they were elected to serve—not to offer a multitude of promises to gain office, only to abandon those promises afterward in favor of personal ideology or unquestioning allegiance to party.

But responsibility does not rest solely with elected officials.

Many citizens are also neglecting their responsibilities by failing to stay informed, failing to respect the rights of others and, sadly, failing to vote.

Negative comments on social media do absolutely nothing to preserve the republic. Your voice should ultimately be your vote.

If we are to continue as the greatest nation on earth, it will depend upon elected representatives and citizens alike understanding and exercising their responsibilities.

That is how we keep our republic.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Mark Caserta: The 353,440 West Virginia Voters Republicans Shouldn’t Ignore. (Democrats certainly won’t)

18 Sep

For months, supporters of a closed Republican primary in West Virginia have raised a familiar concern: voters who are not Republicans could enter the Republican primary and attempt to influence which candidates the party nominates.

But if we are going to make policy based on that concern, we should examine the evidence without being distracted by emotion. It is easy to say — and perhaps even easy to believe — that Democrats, in large numbers, are using their primary vote to influence the eventual GOP nominee. The emotion resulting from even the thought of such voter malpractice is understandable and easily propagated.

But so far, I have found no documented evidence showing that large numbers of registered Democrats were crossing over into West Virginia Republican primaries for the purpose of manipulating Republican election outcomes.

Even before the GOP closed its primary, registered Democrats were not allowed simply to request a Republican ballot while remaining registered Democrats. They had to officially change their party affiliation to do so.

West Virginia’s Secretary of State says that voters registered with a recognized political party could vote only that party’s primary ballot. The voters who could request another participating party’s ballot were voters registered with no recognized party or unaffiliated status.

West Virginia law also allows each party to decide whether unaffiliated voters or voters of other non-recognized parties may participate in that party’s primary. That is different from allowing someone registered as a Democrat to vote a Republican ballot.

That distinction matters.

West Virginia election law permits voters to change their political-party registration. A voter may change parties by completing a new voter-registration application, and if that change is made at least 21 days before the election, the new affiliation applies to that primary.

What can be shown factually is that from January 2024 through April 2026, 16,910 registered Democrats switched their registration to Republican, while another 20,003 unaffiliated voters became Republicans. During that same period, only 2,399 Republicans switched to Democrat, according to the West Virginia Secretary of State’s Office.

So closing the Republican primary does not prevent someone who was previously registered as a Democrat from becoming a registered Republican and voting in the Republican primary.

What it does prevent is a constitutional conservative or independent-minded voter who remains unaffiliated from participating in that primary. And that affects a very large bloc of West Virginia voters.

According to West Virginia Secretary of State registration data dated July 31, 2026, the state had 304,775 voters registered with no party affiliation and another 48,665 voters registered with other political parties, for a total of 353,440 West Virginia voters outside the two major parties.

That is 29.35 percent of the state’s electorate — nearly three out of every ten voters.

And there is another number that cannot simply be ignored.

When the 2026 Republican legislative primary is compared with the last non-presidential midterm primary in 2022, Republican vote totals across comparable House and Senate contests were a combined 46,795 votes lower.

That included 28,812 fewer votes in House races and 17,983 fewer votes in Senate races.

No one can say with certainty that all — or even most — of those missing votes came from unaffiliated voters who were no longer permitted to participate in the Republican primary. The election data do not allow us to make that claim.

But a decline of 46,795 votes is still a significant data point, and it deserves to be considered when evaluating the effects of closing the Republican primary.

That fact should be part of any serious discussion about the future of the Republican primary. Many of these voters have simply chosen principle over party.

Those numbers alone do not prove that closing the Republican primary caused lower turnout, but the fact remains that May primary turnout was just over 21 percent, which is concerning to say the least. What one may reasonably derive from such low turnout is that a significant number of West Virginians may not be enthusiastic about what they are getting from state government or from the political process generally.

Republicans must reach out to unaffiliated voters — not exclude them.

Closing the primary does not create an ideological test. It simply creates a registration test.

So, if the purpose of closing a primary is to prevent strategic voting, how effectively can it accomplish that when any eligible voter may change party registration before the deadline?

That includes registered Democrats.

The job of any political party is to establish a platform that voters can get behind, not limit participation only to those willing to walk 100 percent in lockstep with an ideology. Excluding hundreds of thousands of West Virginians who have chosen to remain outside the two major political parties may also reduce the incentive for Republican candidates to engage those voters during the primary process as potential constituents.

We must look at this issue pragmatically, set emotion aside, and consider the facts and evidence.

Unaffiliated voters must be considered part of West Virginia’s future and part of the future of constitutional conservatism.

Locking them out of the GOP primary is not a good way to start.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Mark Caserta: Pew Research Poll Supports Case for Open Primaries

14 Sep

According to 2026 polling from the Pew Research Center, 58% of Americans have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party, while 59% have an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party.

Only about four in ten Americans view either party favorably.

Even more striking, 26% of Americans — more than one out of every four — hold unfavorable views of both political parties. That number has risen from 21% in 2020.

The poll also showed that people who formally identify with a political party generally still like their own party. No real surprise there.

Among Republican identifiers, 89% view the GOP favorably, while 84% of Democratic identifiers view the Democratic Party favorably.

But here is the takeaway.

Among independents who merely lean toward one of the two parties, enthusiasm drops dramatically.

Only 54% of Republican-leaning independents view the GOP favorably, while just 52% of Democratic-leaning independents view the Democratic Party favorably.

Pew’s September 8 analysis reinforces that disconnect.

Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents combined, 75% view their own party favorably and 24% unfavorably. Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, 70% view their party favorably and 30% unfavorably.

The underlying survey was conducted April 20–26 among 5,103 U.S. adults.

So, the simplest way to state Pew’s findings is this:

Republican Party: 58% unfavorable.

Democratic Party: 59% unfavorable.

Both parties unfavorable: 26%.

That last number should get the attention of political leaders in both parties.

More than one in four Americans now holds an unfavorable opinion of both major political parties.

Pew’s numbers do not establish why individual voters choose to register outside the two major parties. But they do demonstrate something unmistakable: dissatisfaction with America’s political parties is substantial.

And that brings us to West Virginia.

The political dynamics in our state are changing.

Increasing numbers of voters are choosing to remain outside the Republican and Democratic parties. Whatever their individual reasons, many clearly do not believe a party label is necessary to determine their principles or values.

The numbers don’t lie.

West Virginia voters registered outside the Republican and Democratic parties

  • 2021: 298,906 — 26.59%
  • 2026: 353,440 — 29.35%
  • Increase: 54,534 voters
  • Percentage increase: approximately 18.2%
  • Share of the electorate: up 2.76 percentage points

There is an important distinction here.

These figures do not mean that 29.35% of West Virginia voters are technically registered as “No Party.”

In 2021, the 298,906 voters outside the two major parties included 250,961 registered as No Party and another 47,945 registered Mountain, Libertarian or Other.

The same distinction applies today: the 29.35% represents all West Virginia voters registered outside the Republican and Democratic parties.

But that distinction does not diminish the significance of the trend.

Five years ago, 26.59% of West Virginia voters were registered outside the two major parties.

Today, that figure has risen to 29.35% nearly three out of every ten registered voters in West Virginia.

That should matter greatly to the West Virginia Republican Party as it considers the future of its primary.

The 2026 election was the first West Virginia primary in nearly three decades in which unaffiliated voters were prohibited from participating in the Republican primary. The Republican State Executive Committee made the decision to close the primary, while the Democratic Party continued to allow unaffiliated voters to participate in its primary.

If the Republican State Executive Committee maintains a closed primary in 2028, voters who are not registered Republicans will again be unable to participate in choosing Republican nominees unless they first change their registration.

That policy deserves serious reconsideration.

Supporters of closing the Republican primary have raised concerns that voters who are not Republicans could cross over and attempt to influence which Republican candidates are nominated.

That concern deserves to be heard.

But so does the other side of the equation.

West Virginia now has 353,440 registered voters outside the Republican and Democratic parties — 29.35% of the electorate.

The number has increased by more than 54,000 in just five years.

At the same time, national polling shows significant dissatisfaction with both major political parties, particularly among voters who identify as independents but lean toward one party or the other.

These trends should not be ignored.

Political parties can protect their identity and principles without assuming that every voter who refuses to wear the party label is hostile to those principles.

Many West Virginians may agree with Republican candidates on limited government, constitutional rights, fiscal responsibility, energy independence, religious liberty and other traditionally conservative principles while choosing not to register Republican.

Those voters should not simply be written off.

West Virginia’s political landscape is changing before our eyes.

Nearly three out of every ten registered voters now stand outside the two major political parties.

The Republican Party has a choice: require those voters to adopt the party label before allowing them a voice in its primary — or give them an opportunity to participate and make the case that Republican principles deserve their support.

For the future of West Virginia, I believe the better course is clear:

Re-open the Republican Primary in 2028.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Mark Caserta: Democratic Socialism vs. Capitalism — In Plain English

19 Aug

Democratic Socialism vs. Capitalism — In Plain English

We are living in an unprecedented time. Politicians used to hide their socialist tendencies; now they are running and winning campaigns on them!

Voters need to understand the issue and stop this in its tracks!

The difference really comes down to one basic question:

Who should have more control over the economy — individuals and businesses, or government and collective institutions?

  • Capitalism: You can own your business, property and investments.
  • Democratic Socialism: The government would own and control your property.
  • Capitalism: Businesses compete for customers, and consumers help decide what succeeds.
  • Democratic Socialism: Government decides how resources are used and the level of your success.
  • Capitalism: People can take risks, build businesses, invest money and profit if they succeed.
  • Democratic Socialism: The focus is spreading the wealth, regardless of “who built it”
  • Capitalism: Economic decisions are made by the people.
  • Democratic Socialism: Decisions are made through government or collective control.

The Democratic Socialists of America openly says its long-term goal is social ownership and democratic control of the economy, not simply making a few changes to capitalism.

That’s why educating our young people matters!

It isn’t just about government programs. It’s about who gets to own, control and make the decisions in America’s economy.

These nations have already failed or are failing under socialism/communism.  Yet, the Democrat Socialists of America, with many Democrats allowing it to happen, want it for America.

Yes, everyone is equal – equally poor.

  Soviet Union — Communist one-party state with a highly centralized economy; dissolved in 1991.

  East Germany — Communist planned economy; ultimately reunified with capitalist West Germany in 1990.

  Czechoslovakia — Communist planned economy until the Velvet Revolution; later transitioned toward a market economy.

  Romania — Communist dictatorship under Nicolae Ceaușescu; suffered severe shortages and austerity before the regime collapsed in 1989.

  Poland — Communist government and centrally planned economy until 1989; later adopted market reforms.

  Hungary — Communist state until 1989; subsequently transitioned to a market-based economy.

  Albania — One of Europe’s most rigid communist states; emerged from communism extremely poor and isolated.

  Yugoslavia — Socialist federation that eventually disintegrated amid economic, political and ethnic crises.

  Cuba — Remains a communist one-party state with extensive state control of the economy; its economic system has long faced shortages and weak productivity, though U.S. sanctions are also an important factor and should be acknowledged.

  North Korea — Communist authoritarian state with an overwhelmingly state-directed economy and chronic economic hardship.

  Venezuela — Under Chávez and Maduro, nationalizations, price controls and expanding state direction accompanied a massive economic and humanitarian crisis. Venezuela’s collapse also involved oil dependence, corruption, political dysfunction and sanctions, so socialism was not the sole cause. The country has experienced hyperinflation and mass emigration.

  Maoist China — The Great Leap Forward’s collectivization and central planning contributed to catastrophic famine. China later moved substantially toward markets, private enterprise and foreign investment while retaining Communist Party rule.

  Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge — An extreme communist experiment involving abolition of markets and private property, accompanied by mass starvation, forced labor and killing.

  Ethiopia under the Derg — Marxist-Leninist regime marked by nationalization, collectivization, famine and economic deterioration.

  Tanzania under Ujamaa socialism — Large-scale collectivization and state-directed development produced disappointing economic results and eventually gave way to reforms.

Don’t allow the United States to be added to this list!

If we fail to learn from history – we are doomed to repeat it.

Tags: , , , ,

Mark Caserta: Unwarranted government surveillance under the guise of protection is only the beginning.

20 Jul

History records the progressive movement will use this foothold to advance their agenda!

My entire adult life, I have observed, studied, and written about the progressive movement. What began as a movement that many viewed as advancing society has, over time, evolved into an effort to transform society itself.

In 1973, the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade recognized a constitutional right to abortion while also acknowledging limits intended to protect the health of the pregnant woman and what the Court described as “potential life.” Under the Court’s original framework, abortions after viability could generally be prohibited, except when necessary to protect the life or health of the mother.

Over the years, however, the national debate expanded dramatically. Controversial procedures, including what became known as “partial-birth abortion,” and even “live-birth abortions were performed, heinously murdering an innocent life.  The original decision was the catalyst for disaster.

The cultural shift did not stop there.

In the 1970s, network television was vastly different from what we see today. Sexual content was limited. Profanity was heavily restricted. Violence, while present, was generally restrained. Families could sit down together during prime time with a reasonable expectation that the programming would be suitable for everyone.

Today, I don’t need to describe how different things have become. What is now considered mainstream entertainment would have been unthinkable on network television in that era.

Likewise, legal and social debates surrounding LGBTQ issues have continued to evolve over the decades. Questions involving marriage, employment protections, military service, and gender identity have all developed on different timelines.

Today, we have biological males competing in women’s sports and having access to women’s locker rooms—issues that would have seemed unimaginable to many Americans just a generation ago.

The same pattern is emerging in another area that should concern every citizen: government surveillance.

The Fourth Amendment has protected Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures since 1791. Yet today, many progressives casually support warrantless camera systems, such as Flock cameras, that record and track the movements of law-abiding citizens without individualized suspicion.

Some argue that this type of surveillance is not specifically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. But the Framers anticipated that future generations might attempt to narrow the people’s liberties by exploiting technicalities. That is precisely why they included the Ninth Amendment.

The Ninth Amendment makes clear that just because a right is not specifically listed in the Constitution does not mean the people do not possess that right. It was intended to prevent the federal government from claiming authority over every aspect of our lives simply because a particular liberty was not expressly enumerated.

This is how progressivism often advances. Change rarely comes all at once. It begins with policies that appear modest, reasonable, or even beneficial. Then the boundaries continue to move. What was once described as an exception becomes the norm. What was once considered unacceptable gradually becomes expected.

It’s the desensitization of Americans.

The objective is not merely to reform society but to redefine it.

There comes a point when every generation must decide whether it will preserve the principles it inherited or surrender them one compromise at a time.

For me, that decision is clear.

It is time to exercise common sense. It is time to stand for the enduring principles found in the Holy Bible and the Constitution of the United States. If we fail to defend them today, we should not be surprised to find that future generations no longer enjoy the freedoms we inherited.

How to Fight Deployment of Flock and Other Mass Surveillance License Plate Readers in Your Community | American Civil Liberties Union

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Mark Caserta: The Price of Freedom

18 Jul

“Today, the threats to liberty do not come in the form of muskets and cannon fire, but they are very real.

They arrive quietly—through complacency, the steady erosion of constitutional freedoms, or the willingness to trade liberty for convenience, security, or political expediency.

Who are we to casually relinquish our freedoms brave men and women have died to protect?“

Young George Washington was suddenly awakened by the deafening roar of muskets and cannon fire. He had been unconscious, suffering from a severe case of dysentery, but the thunder of battle gave him the strength to rise and discover what was happening around him.

Having failed in his first military command against the French and their Native American allies, Washington had resigned his commission. Yet when the call came again, he volunteered to serve in any capacity he could, determined to do his part in defending the future of the New World.

Amid the thick powder smoke and chaos of battle, Washington mounted his horse to assess the situation.

“The battle is lost,” he was warned. “Turn back, Washington. Save yourself. It isn’t worth the risk.”

But George Washington knew his fellow soldiers were trapped on the front lines. He refused to abandon them. Instead, he spurred his horse toward the fiercest fighting, determined to lead from the front rather than seek safety in the rear.

History records that George Washington was remarkably protected that day. As bullets ripped through the air around him, he rode fearlessly across the battlefield, rallying frightened soldiers and helping as many as possible escape certain death. Though General Braddock’s army had been overwhelmed and the battle was ultimately lost, Washington’s courage prevented an even greater catastrophe.

With General Braddock mortally wounded and panic spreading through the ranks, Washington organized the retreat, encouraged his exhausted troops, and directed them to use the cover of the trees rather than continue fighting in the open. His calm leadership amid chaos saved countless lives and transformed what could have been a complete annihilation into an orderly withdrawal.

By the end of the battle, hundreds of brave men had sacrificed their lives at the Battle of the Monongahela, also known as Braddock’s Defeat. Yet George Washington emerged from the battlefield untouched, despite having two horses shot from beneath him and multiple bullet holes through his coat.

Many who witnessed the battle believed Divine Providence had preserved his life for a greater purpose—a purpose that would eventually lead him to command the Continental Army, guide a fledgling nation to independence, and become the first President of the United States.

Freedom has never been free. It never has been, and it never will be.

Our nation’s liberty was purchased with the courage, sacrifice, and blood of men and women who believed there were principles worth dying for. They understood that freedom is never guaranteed. It survives only when ordinary people are willing to stand against extraordinary odds.

George Washington could have turned his horse and ridden to safety. Instead, he rode into the battle.

That decision did more than save lives. It revealed the character of a man who would later lead a revolution and help establish the greatest experiment in self-government the world has ever known.

Every generation is called to defend freedom. Ours is no different. Who are we to casually relinquish our freedoms brave men and women have died to protect?

The question is not whether freedom will require sacrifice.

The question is whether we will have the courage to pay its price.

But given the right moves, even a pawn can take the King.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Mark Caserta: Democrat policies have heightened the appetite for Socialism/Communism

26 Jun

I remember a time when socialist-leaning politicians tried to hide their Marxist tendencies for fear of public rejection. Today, many are openly campaigning on those ideas — and in some places, they are winning.

How did this happen?

How could a nation that became the most economically powerful and prosperous country on earth through capitalism now have a growing segment of voters openly embracing socialism and even communism?

Here is what happened — and far too few people are willing to say it.

The chickens have come home to roost for the Democrat Party.

For decades, far-left Democrats have worked to build voting blocs, not by inspiring independence, opportunity, and achievement, but by creating dependency, division, and grievance. Rather than earning votes through policies that strengthen families, create jobs, and restore hope, they have too often attempted to purchase loyalty through government control and political promises.

They have appealed to women through abortion politics and cultural movements. They have sought the LGBTQ vote by elevating identity politics above common sense. They have fanned the flames of racial resentment while claiming to represent the very communities their policies have failed for generations. They have expanded a nanny-state that weakens industry, eliminates good-paying jobs, and leaves too many families dependent on the very government that helped create their struggle.

They have also opened the door to millions entering this country illegally under the banner of compassion, while offering free housing, healthcare, benefits, and services that many hardworking American citizens can barely afford.

This did not happen by accident.

The far-left ideology of today’s Democrat Party has helped create a voter base that has not fully experienced the promise and discipline of true capitalism. Too many have not been encouraged to work, build, fail, learn, grow, and achieve the American Dream. Instead, they have been told that government is the source of success.

They were told, “You didn’t build that.”

Government did.

Now that culture has come to full fruition in many blue states and cities. People look around and see decline, chaos, poverty, crime, broken families, and a growing lack of hope. And sadly, many of the people voting for socialist Democrats are not bad people. Many are simply trying to survive in the very system they were handed.

When hope disappears, people become willing to try almost anything — even failed ideas that history has warned us about again and again.

Winston Churchill is often credited with saying:

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

Whether one studies history, economics, or human nature, the lesson is clear: socialism does not lift people into prosperity. It spreads dependency, envy, and misery.

The failures of the Democrat Party have helped give birth to the very appetite for socialism they now pretend is compassion. Their policies have not produced strength. They have produced dependency. They have not produced unity. They have produced division. They have not produced hope. They have produced desperation.

I believe this movement will continue to grow unless it is confronted not merely with words, but with results. People do not just need speeches. They need jobs. They need safe communities. They need strong families. They need opportunity. They need leaders who are more interested in restoring hope than preserving political power.

Make no mistake: the appetite for socialism and communism in America did not appear overnight. It was cultivated through decades of failed policies, broken promises, and political dependency.

As this ideology spreads, I believe we will see the socio-economic gap grow even wider between states and cities that embrace freedom and those that embrace government control.

Perhaps it will take a massive failure — a real-time history lesson — for some voters to understand why America became the greatest nation on earth in the first place.

But I pray it does not come to that.

May God bless and protect this nation along the journey.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Mark Caserta: Millions of Americans relinquish their children’s future to total strangers.

18 Apr

Millions of Americans have become so frustrated with politics that they simply refuse to vote. That doesn’t make them bad people—they’re just fed up. Many have resigned themselves to sitting on the sidelines, letting the chips fall where they may, adopting a “whatever will be, will be” attitude.

But if our Founding Fathers had taken that same approach, where would we be today?

That kind of indifference diminishes the sacrifice of the brave men and women who gave their lives to secure your right to vote—your right to express your faith, your conscience, and your beliefs in this Republic.

This dereliction of duty—and that’s exactly what it is—has been enabled by something dangerous: taking for granted the freedoms we enjoy in what is still the greatest nation on earth.

Consider this:

In countries like Afghanistan, voters risk terrorist attacks as they walk miles across dangerous terrain just to cast a ballot. The purple ink on their fingers marks them not only as voters—but as targets. And still, they show up.

In the remote regions of India, voters travel for hours—even days—through mountains and rural terrain. Election workers hike, cross rivers, and even use elephants to ensure every voice is heard. In fact, India has been known to set up polling stations for a single voter.

In Nigeria, citizens face threats from terrorist groups like Boko Haram. They stand in long lines under intense heat, often amid violence and disruption—yet turnout remains strong.

The list goes on.

Despite danger, hardship, and sacrifice, these people vote—because they understand something we too often forget: voting is their voice.

When you refuse to vote, you are placing your children’s future—and their children’s future—into the hands of others who may not share your values or priorities.

When you refuse to vote, you dismiss over 250 years of sacrifice made by those who fought and died to preserve your freedom.

When you refuse to vote, you surrender the direction of this nation—and your family’s future—to the loudest voices in the room.

History reminds us where that can lead. The loudest voices once cried out in Pilate’s court, choosing Barabbas over Jesus.

Consider this sobering reality: less than 75% of Christians in America are even registered to vote, and nearly half of those who are registered do not vote at all. That means tens of millions of Christians are completely absent from the process.

Forgive me, but that is unacceptable.

We have a responsibility to advance the future, protect the opportunities, and safeguard the freedoms of those who come after us—just as those before us did for us.

Scripture tells us that when we know to do good and fail to do it, for us, it is sin.

What clearer good can there be than standing up for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

If you don’t typically vote, change that—now.

I would never want to be asked by one of my grandchildren, “Papaw, why didn’t you vote?”

The thought of that breaks my heart.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

← Older Entries