Tag Archives: LIBERALISM

Mark Caserta: Are liberals pursuing Ahab’s great white whale?

8 Sep

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

Sep 8, 2017 

 

moby

 

 

The enormous amount of venomous enmity toward Donald J. Trump, by liberals, is unlike anything we’ve seen in modern-day politics. Their passion to destroy a U.S. president, frankly, makes taking them seriously difficult.

In fact, the magnitude of liberal fury toward President Trump reminds me of the obsessive behavior of Captain Ahab in his pursuit aboard the Pequod to destroy the great white whale known as Moby Dick.

A bizarre comparison, you say? Perhaps, but stay with me.

In Herman Melville’s epic novel, Ahab was a whaling captain enslaved by a maniacal passion for revenge against a white whale that had destroyed one of his legs. This theme aligns perfectly with the current progressive addiction to destroying Donald Trump in that Ahab sought not only to avenge his loss against a mere whale, but over a ruling authority which Ahab refuses to accept, the nature of which is left to the reader.

Nonetheless, the captain’s compulsion was clearly not “normal,” as illuminated in one of Ahab’s final lines in the story that reveals his warped determination to destroy his foe, the great white beast.

“To the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart, I stab at thee; for hate’s sake, I spit my last breath at thee.”

No, that wasn’t Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) speaking of Trump, but it isn’t far off the scandalous remarks she and other liberals have made about our president.

Let me be clear. Liberals have absolutely nothing to leverage against our president than their disdain for the fact Hillary lost the election in an electoral landslide.

They’ve even tried blaming Moscow.

But to date, there’s still no evidence Donald Trump ever colluded with Vladimir Putin to defeat Hillary Clinton. Why would Putin want Trump as president when he profited so well under a liberal administration? And the liberal hypocrisy by not addressing legitimate Russian collusion by the Obama administration is very telling.

Remember when President Obama got caught in a private conversation on a hot microphone in Seoul, Korea, telling outgoing Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that Vladimir Putin should give him more “space” and that “after my election I have more flexibility”?

Russian collusion supported by fact.

While ignored by the major liberal media, from 2009 to 2013, Russia began acquiring shares of Uranium One, a Canadian uranium company with holdings in the United States. Under the Obama administration, Russia gained control of nearly 20 percent of the uranium production capacity in the U.S.

Following the transaction, donations totaling $2.35 million dubiously made their way to the Clinton Foundation. Bill Clinton also received a “gratuitous” fee of $500,000 for a speech he made to the Kremlin.

Russian collusion supported by fact.

Is the progressive movement so paramount to the left they’re willing to follow this conservative “white whale” into treacherous waters, wildly seeking to annihilate this threat to their liberal passions?

Liberals would be wise to heed the moral of the story of Captain Ahab and the crew of the Pequod. The passion of their pursuit could eventually precipitate their demise.

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

 

 

 

Mark Caserta: America winning with Trump as president

2 Sep

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

  • Sep 1, 2017 

trump in wv

    After eight agonizing years of socialist, liberal policies nearly sending our country into a progressive death spiral, our nation finally has a president committed to winning with “America first” policies.

    Despite the obsessive liberal lamenting and the media magnification of every single misstep by this “politically incorrect” administration, President Trump has kept his eye on the prize when it comes to delivering on promises to the American people, even saddled with a crippling Congress.

    It’s very telling that progressives are determined to focus on everything but the significant strides the Trump presidency has made in eight short months.

    A huge portion of Trump’s campaign centered on addressing illegal immigration. Per a May column in The Washington Times, by Stephen Dinan and Andrea Nobel, illegal immigration is down an amazing 76 percent since President Trump was elected. Based on reports from the Department of Homeland Security, the flow of illegals continues to drop as changes in enforcement policy deter people from attempting to illegally cross the border.

    President Trump also ran on creating jobs. Per a July column in CNN Money, employers added 863,000 new jobs during Donald Trump’s first five full months in office. While the president acknowledges too many people are still out of the labor force and not properly factored, unemployment is declining. Business owners simply feel more confident about expanding their workforce under employer-friendly policies.

    The president also talked tough on trade during his campaign. His executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade deal was a major step in delivering on his promise to level the playing field.

    “We’re going to stop the ridiculous trade deals that have taken everybody out of our country and taken companies out of our country and it’s going to be reversed,” Trump told a group of labor leaders in January. “Companies that left are going to come back to our country, and they’re going to hire a lot of people.”

    In agreement with many experts who felt it was too costly and ineffective in addressing climate change, the president decisively pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement. The deal would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs, harm American manufacturing and destroy $2.5 trillion in gross domestic product by the year 2035, per The Heritage Foundation.

    Trump’s list of wins is lengthy and irrefutable. The stock market is at a record high. Our military is regaining its power and resolve. We have another conservative on the Supreme Court, with possibly more to come. And President Trump will be relentless in delivering on the repeal and replacement of Obamacare and a wall along the southern border.

    Perhaps the most important win is that patriots once again feel good about the direction of our nation. Anyone paying attention can see beyond the misdirection of the polls and the hypocrisy of the left. We see wins!

    So, Mr. President, please stay focused on delivering on your promises to the American people.  Do not succumb to the liberal distractions.

    Continued winning on behalf of Americans will make the liberal crusade to destroy you irrelevant.

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

    Doug Smith: When is a liberal not a liberal

    21 Aug

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

    doug and mark 1

    Doug Smith: Free State Patriot history and society editor

    August 21, 2017

     

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    Mark Caserta: Readers respond to columnist’s question

    5 Aug

    me

    Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

    Aug 4, 2017

     

    capitol

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

    Of course they are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Future voters eagerly await your response.

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

     

     

     

     

    Doug Smith: A “Better Deal” with whom?

    26 Jul

    doug-for-fsp

    Doug Smith:  Free State Patriot history and society editor

    July 26, 2017

     

     

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

    Hmm. Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

     

     

    Mark Caserta: Liberal hypocrisy over Russia is telling

    9 Jun

    me

    Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot editor

    russian-flag

    Jun 9, 2017

     

    Liberal activism has been taken to an entirely new level in 2017 in terms of what progressives are willing to compromise to protect their movement. And it’s quite disturbing to observe where our nation and its citizens fall on their list of priorities.

    Liberal hypocrisy, for example, leaves nothing to the imagination when it comes to U.S. relations with Russia. But for perspective, let’s look at a couple of examples.

    In March 2012, when Barack Obama was running for re-election, a live microphone picked up his private conversation with then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev during a gathering in Seoul, South Korea.

    President Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.”

    President Medvedev: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you ”

    President Obama: “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”

    President Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you.”

    Can you imagine how liberals and the major news outlets would have lambasted President Trump if he had been covertly recorded making such a remark? We would likely have millions of liberals marching in Washington calling for the president’s immediate impeachment for obvious and shameless Russian collusion.

    In March 2009, during a trip to Geneva, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presented Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov a small red button meant to represent a “Russian reset” of sorts between the U.S. and the Kremlin. While visiting Moscow in March 2010, Hillary explained the “reset’s” purpose: “Our goal is to help strengthen Russia,” as reported in an April 7 column by Deroy Murdock in National Review.

    While the reset was a total failure for the U.S., many believe the ultimate Clinton/Russia relationship became profitable for the Clintons. In a deal known as “Uranium One,” Bill and Hillary may have sown some of their “entrepreneurial” oats for personal gain.

    In April 2015, a story by Jo Becker and Mike McIntire in The New York Times detailed tens of millions of dollars in donations made to the Clinton Foundation following the approval by then-Secretary of State Clinton of the Russian acquisition of a company holding 20 percent of America’s uranium.

    And Bill Clinton reportedly received a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian government-connected bank during this time, as written by Jerome Hudson of Breitbart in March 2017.

    Can anyone say liberal Russian collusion? Imagine, for a moment, the field day progressives would have if someone had even suggested Donald Trump or any one of his surrogates were involved in such deals!

    Yet, progressive “snowflakes,” as they’ve been called, run around crying “election foul” when they don’t have a single shred of evidence, all the while ignoring fact-laden events of potential collusion that don’t support their ideology.

    Frankly, this liberal hypocrisy and selective focus is very telling. One could surmise that progressives are only concerned with winning for their cause, regardless of the impact on our country.

    Is there anything less patriotic?

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

    Mark Caserta: Liberals attack the core principles of America

    19 May

    me

    Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

    • May 19, 2017

    Unlike progressives who hate Donald Trump, I do not hate liberals. I do, however, loathe liberalism. I truly believe it’s been attacking the core fundamentals of our society for years.

    I’m on a mission to expose the progressive movement and educate readers about the liberal desire to “unchain” America from the anchors of morality. You see, progressives don’t advocate the freedom to be Americans, they pursue freedom from our historically steadfast principles.

    As a contributor for The Blaze, Dr. Benjamin Wiker wrote a column in 2013, effectively explaining the liberal movement and the progressive mindset.

     “I offer a seemingly liberal explanation – they can’t help it,” Wiker wrote. “Liberals think being educated means becoming liberal, moving from darkness to light, and so whenever they undertake education reform, it means redefining education by the lights of liberalism.”

    “Conservative darkness” to “liberal light.” What a masterful interpretation of progressive ideology! It’s designed to be the antithesis of the evangelical movement, and its roots have been premeditatively nurtured in our classrooms for decades.

    Abe Lincoln said, “The philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation is the philosophy of government in the next.” Truer words were never spoken. The seed of progressivism was planted years in advance of the current harvest of turbulent tolerance.

    One example is The Pro-Choice Public Education Project (PEP). As defined on their website, PEP is a project “dedicated to engaging young women on their terms around the critical issue of reproductive justice, and is under the direction of a Young Women’s Leadership Council along with a team of dedicated staff.”

    PEP’s mission statement proclaims they “work to engage and inform organizations, young women, transgender and gender non-conforming young people, ages 16-25.”

    What is “reproductive justice” anyway? In this writer’s opinion, it’s an ambiguous term for “abortion on demand.”

    Targeting our youth has been integral in the liberal strategic attempt to redefine every preconceived societal attribute of America.

    Consider this hypothetical. Suppose a society of beings was placed on a planet and developed void of steadfast, guiding principles or boundaries. What would their societal evolution resemble? Any intellectually honest person would surmise they would exist in total chaos.

    Our Christian conservative roots and the Biblical principles established by God’s Word, have anchored our country and allowed us to prosper within the parameters of man’s and God’s Law. We’re a nation, blessed of God, and called upon to be a light unto the world.

    But in recent years, we’ve done well to help ourselves. And the further we get from the shores of substratum, the deeper the waters of iniquity become.

    I’m reminded of the refrain in the praise hymn “The Anchor Holds,” sung by Ray Boltz:

     

    “And it holds, my anchor holds:

    Blow your wildest, then, O gale,

    On my bark so small and frail;

    By His grace I shall not fail,

    My anchor holds”.

    America’s anchor has been God, not man. Liberals disagree.

    But if we forsake that anchor, we will perish, as a nation and a people.

    Cling to the anchor.

     

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

    %d bloggers like this: