Tag Archives: mark caserta

Huntington Alloy Plant “shuts out” workers – community, already struggling, is stunned.

11 Aug

Where are our elected officials?  Contact information below!!  Call now!

special metals

Special Metals in Huntington, WV. 

 

Watch this compelling video!

My brother, Scott, a man with compassion, supported by integrity and principle, tells the story.

A community in shock, a plant not negotiating, local politicians missing.

Where are you elected officials?

He’s calling you out, as are all of the residents of the Tri-State area.

If you knew ahead of time about this situation – shame on you.

If you didn’t know ahead of time – shame on you.

Part of your job is keeping your fingers on the pulse of your constituency and business.

Supporting these workers, is supporting business, the economy and our city’s future.

This is why you were hired. Time to earn your money.

Rest assured, Free State Patriot will not be shy in recognizing your support, nor will be be shy in naming names of those who don’t support these workers.

By supporting these workers, you support the business and economy in our area.
Time to get to work.

We’re waiting…

Free State Patriot

 

Contact your representatives here:

Sen. Joe Manchin

900 Pennsylvania Ave., Ste. 629
Charleston, WV 25302
P: 304-342-5855
F: 304-343-7144

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito

500 Virginia Street East
Suite 950
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: 304-347-5372

Call the President!!!

PHONE NUMBERS
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414

Mayor Steve Williams
800 Fifth Avenue
P.O. Box 1659
Huntington, WV 25701

304.696.5540 (office)
304.696.4493 (fax)

sen contact

Mark Caserta: Nation’s political discourse impacts local columnist.

5 Aug

Has Huntington, WV’s only newspaper joined forces with the liberal media?

 

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

8.5.2018


 

Our nation’s number one threat may no longer emanate from a foreign entity, a rogue leader or even threat of war.

Our nation’s single, most urgent peril may stem from within – the liberal media.

I believe the liberal media has successfully propagated a vehement, political discourse that’s become nothing short of a debilitating disease, spreading its effect throughout every bone and sinew of our nation, crippling our Republic and dividing the American people.

And I’m very saddened to report, I firmly believe the Tri-State area has now been infected by this “journalistic disorder.”

For the past 14 years, I’ve been arguably, the primary, if not only, regular local, “conservative” contributor to the Herald-Dispatch (HD) in Huntington, WV.  I’ve never taken that responsibility lightly. I’ve been honored to be the voice of thousands of people who, otherwise, would not have their opinions shared in such a venue.

Together, my readers and I have had some successes.  In the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump, the conservative candidate, won West Virginia with a whopping 68.5% of the vote per BallotPedia.  I happen to believe my readers and I, along with FreeStatePatriot.com, had some impact on the outcome of our state’s choice.

Following Hillary Clinton’s embarrassing loss to political outsider, Donald Trump, liberals simply lost their grasp of reality.  I believe they’ve proven they hate President Trump more than they love their country and I’ve endeavored to substantiate it with what I believe to be undeniable truths.  My columns have produced supportive evidence showing that no matter what “wins” President Trump has for the American people, liberals are more concerned with delegitimizing his presidency and his supporters than they are with fostering America’s peace and prosperity.

From the miraculous rebound of our economy, to record-low unemployment, increasing labor participation rate, more viable healthcare options, lower taxes, a stronger military and improved foreign relations, President Trump has amassed victories like nothing in my lifetime!  Yet, all the liberal media can do, including local columnists in the HD, is trash Trump based on his tweets, relationships and political incorrectness!

And as with President Trump, my readers have supported my writing through the years because I’ve always done my best to present the truth with integrity and the best interest of the people in mind.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, providing information in the “best interest of the people” is a diminishing aspiration for the HD.  In fact, HD leadership, for all intents and purposes, said just that.

In the interest of absolute clarity and transparency, here is the text from the actual email I received from the HD editorial page editor notifying me my columns would no longer be acceptable for publication in the newspaper.

“Hi Mark: I didn’t find pieces of your column submitted this week acceptable, in terms of your attacks on other columnists. Therefore, I am not publishing it.

 I have also decided that the H-D will no longer publish any more of your columns, partly due to this most recent submission, but also for a couple of other reasons. One is that you seldom write about any subject that is more local in nature; the other is that most of your columns repeat the same theme from week to week.”

Just so you’ll know that this isn’t about conservative vs. liberal, we are also discontinuing publication of Milt Hankins columns. He, too, veered off into a more direct response to your columns in a recent piece that I also chose not to publish, and also poses the same issues regarding local content and repetition.

 I appreciate the many columns you have contributed over the years, but I’m afraid this is no longer working in the newspaper’s best interests.”

I haven’t the words to share with my readers the shock I felt after receiving this, rather “matter of fact” email from my editor after 14 years of service.  Yes, I was paid for my columns, but I assure you, it was a gratuitous amount. I would have written for free.

If you’ve followed the Herald Dispatch for any length of time, you’ve noticed the guest column lineup throughout the week.  It’s not unusual to see back to back opinion pieces from the other liberal, local contributors lambasting Donald Trump and/or conservative values.

I was obviously the “token” conservative columnist!

On Fridays, which has been typically the day my column was published, many readers shared it was a “breath of fresh air” being able to read someone who truly represents who I believe are most readers in this area, with an opinion piece, usually written in support of a conservative agenda.

The “unacceptable” column to which the editor refers contained some direct call outs on local columnists for their hypocritical attacks on President Trump.  It’s available in its entirety on my blog’s website.  It’s “in your face” accuracy in identifying local hypocrisy, while not revealing columnist’s names, was apparently more than the HD leadership could fathom!

Let’s be clear.  Removing me as a local contributor to the newspaper had little to do with my final column.  The column was simply the “opportunity” for which the HD had been hoping, enabling them to rid themselves of this “rogue conservative” staining the editorial page and giving them headaches every Friday.

Allow me to offer these points in presenting my case that my dismissal was “politically expedient” for the HD.

Through the years, I’ve had a good working relationship with my editors. I’ve respected their position and learned from their experience. There have been a handful of instances where my editor refused to publish a column as it was originally submitted. Perhaps it was a bit “over-the-top” with regard to my conservative position, or the editor felt the column may have compromised my “credibility” as a writer.

However, in every single instance, the editor would reach out to me asking for a re-write, or at least give me an opportunity to write another piece. In the interest of being a paid, regular contributor, I would always comply.

This email arrived less than 24 hours prior to publication of what was to be my final column, hence no opportunity for a re-write.

Additionally, the HD editor felt the need to share that he was also discontinuing publication of another “liberal” columnist to show this had nothing to do with “liberal vs. conservative.”

How thoughtful.

While I strongly disagree with this liberal columnist’s dismissal, I believe he became an unfortunate casualty in an effort for the HD to save face.  Milt Hankins, the aforementioned columnist, in my opinion, had already lost credibility with readers by fostering outlandish liberal positions, I believe even local liberals stopped reading his material.  I believe the HD felt he wasn’t adding value and was simply expendable.

Regarding the “repetition” of my columns, I encourage readers to check out the exact same form of repetition from even the most “tenured” columnists still writing for the HD in their attacks on President Trump and his supporters.

The bottom-line, in this humble writer’s opinion, is the leadership and ownership of the Herald Dispatch had simply gotten tired of losing ground to this deplorable, right-wing, Trump supporter.  For no matter how many liberal columns the HD published – by Friday morning, they were rendered null and void.

As my friend Tom Roten, host of the popular, “Tom Roten Morning Show”, on 800 WVHU would say, “A lie is still a lie, no matter how many times you say it!”

My columns, for 14 years, offered truth and integrity.  While I sincerely appreciate the HD publishing my material, I did not write in the “interest of the newspaper.”  I wrote in the interest of the people.

And I shall continue to write!  Following my conversation with Tom on his morning show the day after my release from the HD, my blog, FreeStatePatriot.com, received a record number of hits, most likely more than the HD sold papers!  Tom also shared the podcast of the interview went “viral” in terms of normal site visits.  Praise God!

When liberals cannot substantiate their lies and animosity toward President Trump or any conservative, the only way they can “win” an argument is to quiet the voice of the opposition.

Unfortunately, for the HD, they haven’t quieted my voice, they’ve wakened a sleeping giant!  Doug Smith, co-editor of Free State Patriot, and I will continue our work “exposing the progressive movement” in our nation and in our area.

Part of that mission now includes exposing the Herald Dispatch for what I believe to be enabling the progressive movement in the Tri-State.

And folks, we should be taking that personally.  When a town’s local newspaper begins filtering the message being delivered to the reader, they’re negating the very amendment of the Constitution which provides them the opportunity.  That, my friend, is the epitome of hypocrisy.

I look forward to partnering with each of you in helping “Keep America Great” and making the Tri-State great again!

God bless America and God Bless the Tri-State!  May He continue to deliver us from progressives who would silence His Word!

Stay tuned and armed with knowledge by visiting Freestatepatriot.com and HuntingtonNews.net.

Thank you for your prayers and support.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mark Caserta: Conservative columnist canned after 14 years! Listen to an interview with 800 WVHU’s Radio Talk Show Host, “the Straight Shooter”, Tom Roten

27 Jul

https://800wvhu.iheart.com/featured/the-tom-roten-morning-show/content/2018-07-27-mark-caserta-no-longer-an-hd-columnist/#.W1tvDbrD2WE.twitter

Click the above link to hear 800 WVHU Radio Talk Show Host, Tom Roten’s conversation with conservative columnist, Mark Caserta.

Listen to The Tom Roten Morning Show, Monday through Friday, 6-9 am.

800 WVHU on iHeartRadio

me

 

TOM ROTEN

Mark Caserta: Liberal attacks on President Trump hypocritical at best

26 Jul

trump in wv

President Trump greets supporters at one of his huge rallies

 

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

7.26.2018


 

According to liberal commentators, we’re “smack dab” in the middle of Mar-a-Lago Zombie land and the Trump apocalypse is upon us.  I suppose we should all head to a safe zone.

It’s really become pathetic that rather than legitimately working for the prosperity of their country, liberals insist in “wallowing” in progressive hypocrisy, hoping for a chance to delegitimize the Trump presidency – at any cost.

Understand, these people incredulously want to return our country to the days of fewer jobs, lower workforce participation rates, higher taxes and open borders!  Their laughable positions make them less credible and more irrelevant every day.

One thing’s for sure, Americans know President Trump loves his country, likely more than his deluded detractors.

Let’s look at some of the more obvious hypocritical positions taken against our president.

In a recent newspaper column, someone called the president a “pro” when it comes to lying.  Perhaps the pharmacy made an error providing this person’s Prevagen medication because this individual apparently suffers, not only with Trump Derangement Syndrome, but with progressive memory loss.

Where was this “champion of virtue” during Barack Obama’s 2013 PolitiFact “Lie of the Year” which disrupted twenty percent of our nation’s economy and caused insurance rates to skyrocket for millions of Americans!  Not only did Obama lie when he told Americans they could “keep their doctor” or “healthcare” if they liked, he lied about lying about it!

Another columnist in a local paper called the Trump administration “diabolical” for separating children from parents breaking our nation’s laws and attempting to enter our country illegally.

Where was this “family rights arbiter” when prior administrations, including President Obama’s, did the exact same thing! And why does this individual express concern about illegal immigrant children being separated from their parents by the courts and not for American children separated from their parents who commit crime within our country?  Are the rights of illegals more valued than Americans?

Then there was the “far left” columnist who declared, “scandals abound in the Trump administration”, and then failed to list even a single scandal in his piece.  Where was Inspector Clouseau during the Clinton years?

Bill and Hillary are the modern-day “Bonnie and Clyde” of scandals!  This newspaper’s pages couldn’t hold the number of scandals the Clintons have racked up over the last 25 years, beginning with the 1992 Gennifer Flowers sex scandal when Bill was governor of Arkansas, to the Monica Lewinsky scandal when he was president.

Hillary gave us everything from “Whitewater to Benghazi”!  As Secretary of State, she was able to “scandalously” have her own private server during her tenure at the State Department, risking our national security.  And the Clinton Foundation is suspected of laundering millions under the guise of “good will,” for quid pro quo dealings with foreign entities.

I agree with another local column which argued Trump’s policies have polarized our country, but not as the writer opines.

Barack Obama had the unique opportunity to unite Americans as never before, as the first Black president.  He chose rather to drive a progressive wedge between Americans.  And while his presidency will be remembered as one of the most impotent in history, he was very successful at being the “divider-in-chief.”

He was so successful, in fact, he led us painfully down this liberal path, directly to the fork in the ideological road.

If progressives want to blame our nation’s woes on lies, diabolical methods or scandals, don’t blame Trump.  Blame your failed liberal experiment – Barack Obama and his supporters.

Patriots fight on behalf of their country, not in opposition of it.  Fighting in opposition is called treason.

Somehow liberals have that backwards.

 

 

Mark Caserta: Court may address abortion during Trump presidency

24 Jul

pro life

Roe v Wade is not settled law

 

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

Jul 20, 2018

 

God’s Word leaves no doubt when life begins.

Luke 1:41-42 shares the delightful account of Elizabeth (six months pregnant with her son, later to be known as John the Baptist), being visited in the hill country of Judea by her friend Mary (who had just been told by an angel she’d found favor with God and would give birth to our Savior, Jesus.)

“And it came to pass, that, when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost. And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, ‘Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.'”

This year marks the 45th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Roe v. Wade. In January, people from across our nation gathered in our nation’s capital for the annual March for Life.

It was heartening that among the estimated 100,000 plus participants, teenagers and young adults recognizing the impact the 1973 court decision has had on their generation carried signs reading, “One-third of my generation is missing,” referencing more than 1 million babies, on average, aborted each year in the U.S., per The Baptist Press.

What makes this particularly encouraging is that people younger than my generation of baby boomers are taking notice of the infanticide plaguing our nation for decades because of a progressive movement that incessantly challenges the standards of morality and principles of life God desires for our nation.

The acceptance of abortion in society is an example of liberals successfully achieving a foothold in an emotional issue and tenaciously working to challenge the argument’s viability. This is done by gradually improving the general standard of acceptability through attrition of the opposition’s resolve and desensitization to the moral consequences.

The court’s primary decision in Roe v. Wade held that a person may choose to have an abortion until a fetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment.

The court then applied a controversial trimester time line designed to guide judges and lawmakers in balancing the mother’s health against the viability of the fetus.

In the first trimester, the woman had the exclusive right to pursue an abortion, not subject to state intervention. In the second trimester, the state couldn’t intervene unless the mother’s health was at risk.

Once the pregnancy enters the third trimester, the state could restrict the right to an abortion but must always include an exception if the health of the mother is at risk.

Let’s be clear. Choosing abortion simply to negate another poor choice in life is not a “health care” choice, as some argue. Since 1973, compromise and outright pandering has resulted in abortion available on demand and in many instances, merely for convenience.

Twice, in history, a decision to destroy children before they could fulfill their life’s mission was employed. Both followed the emergence of a “deliverer.”

During the birth of Jesus, King Herod, fearing for his kingdom, sought to destroy the Christ child. Unable to engage the Magi in locating the child, he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem who were 2 years old and younger.

In retaliation for plagues Egypt endured following Pharaoh’s refusal to let the Israelites go at the prompting of God’s chosen deliverer, Moses, Pharaoh ordered every Hebrew boy to be “thrown into the Nile.” Sadly, Egypt suffered from his decree.

The return of our Deliverer is approaching. Righting this inherently wrong decision to destroy life is not an option we can ignore if given the opportunity.

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

 

 

Mark Caserta: President Trump working to control our borders and protect Americans

13 Jul

president-trump

As Commander-in-Chief, Trump boldly places America first

 

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

July 13, 2018

 

Since winning the presidency, Donald J. Trump has successfully exposed the liberal bias in our nation, not only among the mainstream media, but in the nooks and crannies of “dark state” America. Even individuals heretofore considered “moderates” are “coming out” and revealing their ardent disdain for conservatism.

Exposing the progressive movement in this country has long been a mission of mine. As millions of Americans awaken every day to an unprecedented number of non-sensical attacks on this presidency, the mission has accelerated exponentially.

I believe many of the so-called “never Trumpers” would rather our nation’s unemployment rate and taxes be higher, the labor participation rate lower, and our brave military men and women facing down ISIS in large numbers, just so they can defile the Trump presidency.

And it’s the epitome of hypocrisy that they do it under the guise of protecting our “republic” from the “worst president in U.S. history,” a moniker for which they’ve no concrete foundation, other than his demeanor and success makes them look irrelevant.

The most recent attempt by the left to assault President Trump resulted from his promise to the American people to enforce border security and protect our nation.

Trump’s wins for America are compiling so rapidly that liberals have no argument that engaged Americans are willing to support. Ineffective as they are, they must find a way to make an emotional connection with the masses if they ever hope to regain the White House.

The attempt to make a connection between Russia and Trump failed miserably. Liberals are now reduced to throwing anything possible against the wall and hoping it sticks – hence their clamor on illegal immigration.

I wish I had a Buffalo nickel for every time I heard a “never Trumper” make the case against Trump’s border policies by asserting “we’re a nation of immigrants.”

Agreed. The U.S. has always been inviting for individuals desiring to come to our country – but legally. Anyone saying otherwise is woefully ignorant of American history.

And yes, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free.” But don’t begin your assimilation by ignoring our laws and entering our country illegally. We are a nation of laws. When we ignore them, we’ll resemble the nations from whence these individuals desire to escape.

The Statue of Liberty was gifted to the United States by France to commemorate our alliance during the American Revolution and to honor our perseverance for freedom and democracy. The sonnet mounted on the statue, written by Emma Lazarus in 1883, was written to help raise funds for the statue base.

It’s not a “Bada book, Bada boom” invitation!

America’s military is far too mighty for our sovereignty to be challenged by another country. But I can think of no quicker way to concede our sovereignty than to eliminate our border. That’s essentially what liberals are proposing in dealing with illegal immigration.

My great-grandfather traveled from Italy and disembarked at Ellis Island over 100 years ago. He arrived legally, assimilated into our American culture and worked hard to become a contributing citizen to society. He earned his citizenship and learned to love his country. That sort of patriotism can’t be imparted to someone unwilling to respect our laws.

When our nation becomes inundated with illegal residents, who haven’t pledged their allegiance to our country and flag, we’ll become weak from within, susceptible to civil unrest and discord.

Sound familiar? The liberal position on border security will make it devastatingly worse.

That’s why President Trump and millions of supporters realize our borders must be controlled.

It’s time liberals put America first.

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

 

Mark Caserta: Trump to decide balance of the Supreme Court

6 Jul

supreme court building

The Supreme Court of the United States of America:  The highest court in the land.

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

July 6, 2018

 

 

Let me be perfectly clear. The reason liberals are incessantly attacking Donald J. Trump, is they know they’re losing ground in “fundamentally changing America.” During the Obama administration, priorities were turned upside down, and we were rapidly becoming a nation of insignificance to the world.

But let not your heart be troubled. The more wins this president gains for America, the more obnoxious and out of touch with reality progressives become. We should begin worrying when liberals stop attacking Trump!

For example, last week, in the wake of Trump’s enforcement of his “zero-tolerance” policy on illegal immigration and decision to adhere to the law, liberals irresponsibly began calling for the abolishment of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.

Can you imagine the impact if ICE were dissolved? Our borders would be massively overtaken by illegals, including those desiring to do us harm. Isn’t it telling liberals seem to fight harder for the rights of illegal immigrants than they do for the protection of their fellow Americans?

The notion we should be willing to compromise our safety is another reason liberals can’t be taken seriously where the prosperity and safety of our nation is concerned.

Thankfully, considering recent events, liberals may as well get used to losing.

checks and balances

The pending balance of the Supreme Court was right at the top of the list for conservatives voting for Trump in 2016. We’ve witnessed the deleterious impact a liberal-leaning court can have on our nation. Millions of innocent babies have been murdered because of a Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade. Conservatives were committed to electing a president who would help mold a court incapable of such calamitous decisions for future generations.

Less than six months into his presidency, Trump successfully nominated and achieved confirmation of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Gorsuch replaced the late Antonin Scalia and backfilled his conservative stance on the bench.

Last week, I thought liberals were going to lose their minds when Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement from the Supreme Court. A Ronald Reagan appointee, Kennedy took the bench in 1988 and was often the moderate “swing vote” between liberal and conservative-leaning justices. His key votes were influential in rulings for same sex-marriage and abortion access.

Kennedy’s decision to step down could transform the Supreme Court and impact the progressive movement for generations. A justice is bound by an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and a berth on the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment.

Should Trump be successful in replacing Kennedy on the court with another conservative, the balance of the court is likely to lean to the right, possibly resulting in not only more conservative rulings, but past liberal judgments overturned upon challenge.

Liberals are enraged because he’s negated many of Obama’s socialist policies. They’ll be incensed beyond measure if Trump successfully tilts the balance of the Supreme Court to the right for decades.

Currently in this political tennis match, it’s advantage Trump. If progressives decide to double-down in the weeks to come on their attacks on the president, Trump is sure to break his opponents’ serve.

But if the Supreme Court picks up one or two more conservative justices, it might just be game, set and match for conservatives.

Mark Caserta is a Cabell County resident.

 

Mark Caserta: Liberal Democrats unfairly attack Trump on emotional issue

1 Jul

sanct

Jun 29, 2018

 

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

 

 

Liberal Democrats were wrong to portray President Trump as apathetic to children being taken from parents as they illegally attempted to cross our southern borders. The president was simply doing his job: protecting American citizens, by enforcing the law.

Trump ultimately showed his compassion by signing an executive order allowing children to stay with their parents after crossing the border illegally, which exceeded the actions of his predecessors.

But while sad, it isn’t Trump’s fault these parents made the choice to put their children at risk.

In the wake of the president’s decision to enforce a “zero tolerance policy” on illegal immigration, liberal Democrats and the mainstream media once again thought they had Trump “trapped” when they began to feign moral outrage over the Trump administration’s decision that required children to be separated from parents illegally attempting to cross the border into our country.

Where were these virtuous defenders during prior administrations’ “crimes against humanity?” It’s unfortunate Democrats aspire to exploit the sympathies of marginally engaged Americans and portray themselves as the party of compassion, while positioning themselves for another vote.

What liberals intentionally failed to tell you is the policy to separate children from their parents during the prosecutorial process has been in place for multiple administrations, including the Obama administration, which prosecuted half a million illegal immigrants and similarly separated families, per a June column in The Daily Caller by Saagar Enjeti. This time allows an immigration judge to review “the initial deportability and custody determinations,” per a Supreme Court ruling in Reno v. Flores (1993).

Enjeti’s column featured stories and photos of such separations from not only the Obama administration, but the Bush administration as well. Liberals simply saw this as another opportunity to strike a low blow at this president.

No doubt the left thought they could ride this issue to the November mid-terms and regain control of Congress.

Following the president’s decision to sign the executive order, I observed CNN’s news reporting was tagged with a headline that read, “Trump flips” on family separation.

There was no “flip.” Trump chose to follow the law while calling on legislators to fix a problem they’ve ignored for generations. When he discerned their deceitful attempt to politicize innocent children, he made the decision to fix it himself and move forward on immigration reform.

Although very sad, families are routinely separated in communities across our nation when parents who break the law are incarcerated. There is no difference. But let’s talk about the tragic, permanent separation of parents and children.

How about 32-year-old Kate Steinle, who was shot and killed in 2015 by an illegal alien who’d been deported five times and had returned to our country and given sanctuary in the city of San Francisco.

How about 16-year-old Tessa Tranchant, who was killed in 2007 in Virginia Beach. Tessa and her friend were sitting at a stoplight when an intoxicated illegal alien rear-ended their car. The illegal had a history of prior convictions, but Virginia Beach’s sanctuary policies protected him from detention.

Liberals were wrong to use children and an emotional issue to take down Trump.

We’re fortunate we have a president who is determined to honor the rule of law and keep his promises to the American people, even in the winds of discontent.

Mark Caserta is a Cabell County resident.

 

TRUMP VICTORY! Supreme Court upholds travel ban!!

26 Jun

This is why the Supreme Court is so important…

scourt

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — A sharply divided Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Donald Trump’s ban on travel from several mostly Muslim countries, rejecting a challenge that it discriminated against Muslims or exceeded his authority. A dissenting justice said the outcome was a historic mistake.

The 5-4 decision Tuesday is a big victory for Trump on an issue that is central to his presidency, and the court’s first substantive ruling on a Trump administration policy. The president quickly tweeted his reaction: “Wow!”

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion for the five conservative justices, including Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch.

Roberts wrote that presidents have substantial power to regulate immigration. He also rejected the challengers’ claim of anti-Muslim bias.

But he was careful not to endorse either Trump’s provocative statements about immigration in general or Muslims in particular, including Trump’s campaign pledge to keep Muslims from entering the country.

“We express no view on the soundness of the policy,” Roberts wrote.

The travel ban has been fully in place since December, when the justices put the brakes on lower court rulings that had ruled the policy out of bounds and blocked part of it from being enforced.

In a dissent she summarized in court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, “History will not look kindly on the court’s misguided decision today, nor should it.” Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan also dissented.

Sotomayor wrote that based on the evidence in the case “a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.” She said her colleagues in the majority arrived at the opposite result by “ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens.”

She likened the case to the discredited Korematsu V. U.S. decision that upheld the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Roberts responded in his opinion that “Korematsu has nothing to do with this case” and “was gravely wrong the day it was decided.”

The travel ban was among the court’s biggest cases this term and the latest in a string of 5-4 decisions in which the conservative side of the court, bolstered by the addition of Gorsuch last year, prevailed. Gorsuch was nominated by Trump after Republicans in the Senate refused to grant a hearing to federal appeals Judge Merrick Garland, who was appointed by Barack Obama with more than 10 months remaining in Obama’s term.

The Trump policy applies to travelers from five countries with overwhelmingly Muslim populations — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. It also affects two non-Muslim countries, blocking travelers from North Korea and some Venezuelan government officials and their families. A sixth majority Muslim country, Chad, was removed from the list in April after improving “its identity-management and information sharing practices,” Trump said in a proclamation.

The administration had pointed to the Chad decision to show that the restrictions are premised only on national security concerns.

The challengers, though, argued that the court could not just ignore all that has happened, beginning with Trump’s campaign tweets to prevent the entry of Muslims into the United States.

The travel ban has long been central to Trump’s presidency.

He proposed a broad, all-encompassing Muslim ban during the presidential campaign in 2015, drawing swift rebukes from Republicans as well as Democrats. And within a week of taking office, the first travel ban was announced with little notice, sparking chaos at airports and protests across the nation.

While the ban has changed shape since then, it has remained a key part of Trump’s “America First” vision, with the president believing that the restriction, taken in tandem with his promised wall at the southern border, would make the Unites States safer from potentially hostile foreigners.

In a statement he released Tuesday morning, Trump hailed the decision as “a moment of profound vindication” following “months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country.”

Strongly disagreeing, Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota said, “This decision will someday serve as a marker of shame.” Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, and Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, who was born in Japan, both compared the ban and the ruling to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

Critics of Trump’s ban had urged the justices to affirm the decisions in lower courts that generally concluded that the changes made to the travel policy did not erase the ban’s legal problems.

The current version dates from last September and it followed what the administration has called a thorough review by several federal agencies, although no such review has been shared with courts or the public.

Federal trial judges in Hawaii and Maryland had blocked the travel ban from taking effect, finding that the new version looked too much like its predecessors. Those rulings that were largely upheld by federal appeals courts in Richmond, Virginia, and San Francisco.

But the Supreme Court came to a different conclusion Tuesday. The policy has “a legitimate grounding in national security concerns,” and it has several moderating features, including a waiver program that would allow some people from the affected countries to enter the U.S., Roberts said. The administration has said that 809 people have received waivers since the ban took full effect in December.

Roberts wrote that presidents have frequently used their power to talk to the nation “to espouse the principles of religious freedom and tolerance on which this Nation was founded.” But he added that presidents and the country have not always lived up “to those inspiring words.”

The challengers to the ban asserted that Trump’s statements crossed a constitutional line, Roberts said.

“But the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements. It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility,” he said

___

Associated Press writers Ashraf Khalil and Jonathan Lemire contributed to this report.

 

Mark Caserta: Want to be a millionaire? Become a member of Congress!

23 Jun

At a beginning salary of $174,000, how do so many members of Congress become multi-millionaires?  Yet, some of them want more of your hard-earned tax dollars!

We must simply vote out hypocrisy, greed and feckless behavior this November!

 

millionaires

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

June 23, 2018