Tag Archives: mark caserta

Mark Caserta: Candidates should avoid brokered convention

11 Mar

me

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

  • 3.11.16

In addition to being plagued with mammoth egos and juvenile behavior, the Republican Party is certainly in a political pickle right now. And it could get much worse.

Now, I plan to support the GOP nominee and the constitutional process – period. Besides, in my estimation, any of the four remaining candidates are more qualified than either of their Democrat opponents.

convention

The problem is the voters may not be the ones choosing! The GOP could be facing their first “brokered convention” in nearly 70 years.

What is a brokered convention? Here’s how it works.

During the primary and caucus season, a candidate seeks to win enough votes to be awarded a simple majority of the available delegates during the first official vote of the party’s nominating convention. For the Republican Party, the magic delegate number is 1,237. Of the GOP’s 2,472 available delegates, the majority are “pledged” delegates, meaning they will be bound to vote for a particular candidate at the convention.

Here’s where it could get nasty.

If during the first vote at the upcoming Republican National Convention in Cleveland on July 18-21 the delegates are split among candidates and there is no clear majority, the convention is then considered “brokered.” The Republican National Committee will then press the proverbial “reset” button, releasing all delegates from their pledged candidate and enabling them to cast a vote for the individual of their choice.

A “no holds barred” nomination process then ensues with self-serving party leaders bartering back room deals to wangle a candidate they feel could garner the necessary delegates. Subsequent voting would then take place until one candidate receives a majority.

Now, here are some points to consider regarding this process.

First, it renders months of primary and caucus voting null and void, taking the American people completely out of the process, which could have huge ramifications.

Sen. Marco Rubio and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, for all intents and purposes, are out of the race. A brokered convention, controlled by the so-called GOP “establishment,” would be their only hope of winning the nomination.

And this same establishment hates businessman Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz. A brokered convention would most assuredly not result in either of these candidates receiving the Republican nomination.

Additionally, given the poor caliber of the Democrat candidates, I believe the jury is still out on their presumptive nominee. While Democrat leadership certainly doesn’t want to show its “down card” this early in the process, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry or former presidential candidate Al Gore could easily step up as party “benefactors” and become formidable candidates.

My political “Xanadu” rests with Rubio and Kasich dropping out after the March 15th primaries, reducing this to a two-man race. I believe the changing dynamics would result in a Cruz nomination before the GOP could orchestrate a brokered convention and sidestep voters.

Regardless, unless the equation changes, a brokered convention may be inevitable. And the American people would just watch from the sidelines.

Here’s hoping candidates simply do the right thing.

Mark Caserta is a Cabell County resident.

Tags: , , ,

Mark Caserta: What will you do with your freedom?

5 Mar

me

3.4.16

We all hear the word “freedom” bandied about often enough, but what does the word actually mean to you?

The principal author of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, may have said it best.

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”

While sitting in my “Men of Truth” class in church this past Sunday, I thoughtfully considered the greatest freedom of all – the ability to choose one’s path in life.

Now, the ability to choose our own belief system is a God-given right which no man should be able to abrogate. And the freedom to express or exercise our religious faith is certainly an integral derivative of the process. But simply believing isn’t enough!

Dr. Steve Nutter, our class teacher and mentor, used believing in God as an example of how we must each put our faith into action. “Believing isn’t enough,” Dr. Nutter paraphrased from the Bible, the Book of James. “Even the demons believe, and they tremble in terror.”

It’s how we put our Godly belief system into action that fosters God’s consummate freedom in our lives.

The freedom from bondage and addiction are, in essence, the temporal chains of this world. One could argue these worldly obstructions are meant to create a communication barrier between us and God, deafening us to potentially life-changing inspiration from our creator.

And then there’s the freedom to prosper and grow in an environment that nurtures and rewards hard work. Capitalism is certainly the quintessential example of this freedom in America, although under attack by the progressive movement.

A freedom which I consider to be the antithesis of all virtuous freedoms is the freedom from the rule of law and accountability. This nefarious, illicit freedom fosters suppression of principled, lawful ones. Probably the most prominent example of our day is the right to exercise your religious freedom.

Let’s be constitutionally honest, shall we? How can “freely exercising your religious beliefs, outside of any government interference,” be interpreted as “Congress making a law that shows respect to one religion over another?”

I’ll tell you how. We allowed it to happen.

The desire for freedom, while inherent in us all, may be driven by the wrong conviction. Ronald Reagan said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”

Someone always wants to take it away.

So, beginning today, what will you do with your freedom?

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger and a Cabell County resident.

Tags: ,

Mark Caserta: Christians’ votes can make the difference

26 Feb

me

Christians, are you happy with the state of our union? Are you comfortable that our nation’s leaders represent us and govern without Godly values and a servant’s heart?

Well, you must be.

Despite the fact that most Christians I know would agree our nation is severely lacking in terms of its reliance upon the biblical precepts and principles of its founding, millions of potential evangelical voters are content to live their lives on the sidelines and stay out of politics altogether.

According to a December 2015 Gallup Poll, about 75 percent of Americans identify with a Christian religion. The poll described the “Christian” category to include Catholics, Protestants, Mormons and non-denominational Christians.

The U.S. Census Bureau website shows that around the same time

period, our nation had just over 318 million citizens, with 77 percent over the age of 18. Without getting too bogged down in the math, that equates to just over 183 million potential Christian voters.

To put that number in perspective, Barack Hussein Obama won the 2012 presidential election with just under 66 million popular votes! It isn’t difficult to see what sort of impact Christians could have if they would simply get out the vote!

The Providence Forum, a nonprofit organization whose mission is to “preserve, defend and advance the faith and values consistent with those of our nation’s founding,” recently shared an online analysis of the Christian vote in America.

The edition, entitled “Your Vote Matters,” revealed that only 50 percent of Christians in America are even registered to vote. Of those, only 50 percent actually show up at the polls. This means that around 75 percent of all Christians aren’t doing their part to mold the future of our nation. That’s over 137 million voters!

The apparent apathy of Christian voters in executing their spiritual duty to God, their patriotic duty to their country and their kindred duty to their family is simply inexcusable. If Christians would fulfill their responsibility and vote, not only would we attract more candidates that share our belief system, we would win every presidency in a landslide!

In my lifetime, I can’t recall our country ever being as derailed from the temporal tracks of morality as it is now. The progressive movement is effectively spreading its liberal theology into every nook and cranny of our nation, to include our schools, government and even churches! And they’re tenaciously attacking every semblance of God and replacing it with their sliding scale of morality.

But this doesn’t have to happen. With a little studying of the issues, some fervent prayer and a 30-minute trip to the polling booth, you can make all the difference.

There is power in unity and the sideline is no place for a Christian. Remember, Jesus took only 12 men and shook the world. And He told us we will “do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.”

Your vote matters. Now, more than ever.

Because without the Christian vote in November, we lose – period.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger and a Cabell County resident.

Tags: , ,

Mark Caserta: America’s very future depends on court’s balance

19 Feb

 

Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has become a prized possession for the reigning political party. It’s balance, whether conservative or liberal leaning, denotes potentially decades of consequences for “We the People.”

 

Understand, a successful confirmation to the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. And while the very vital role these justices play in our judicial system involves interpreting, not transforming the law, the progressive evolution of the court’s discretionary character has unfortunately acquiesced to paltry judicial activism for their party.

scotus

In recent history the Supreme Court has given us Roe v. Wade, Obamacare and nationalized gay marriage. These progressive rulings alone have dramatically changed the face of America and left our children facing many unknown challenges.

No doubt, conservatism has seen its share of setbacks. But we may have just incurred one of our biggest.

 

Last Saturday, our nation’s leading conservative voice on the Supreme Court died at the age of 79. Multiple news agencies reported Justice Antonin Scalia died in his sleep during a visit to Texas. Unsurprisingly, his passing sparked a flurry of debate on the terms of filling the vacancy.

 

Should Obama or the next president and Senate be charged with nominating and confirming Scalia’s replacement? With Democrat leadership calling for the seat to be filled right away, President Obama vowed to nominate a replacement.

judge scalia

“There will be plenty of time for me to do so and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote,” Obama said. “These are responsibilities that I take seriously, as should everyone.”

 

Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., quickly called for the vacancy to be filled after the Obama presidency.

 

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” McConnell said in a statement.

 

Now, over the next few weeks, you’ll hear political pundits argue that Scalia’s absence imperils the 5-4 conservative majority on the court.

 

But I’m afraid the risk is much greater for conservatives.

 

There are really only two conservative justices left in the high court — Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. Justices Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts are, in my opinion, moderates. That leaves a court laden with the staunch liberal views of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Steven Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Another progressive addition to the court would secure disaster for conservatism as we know it. So for now, the Senate must stand firm on confirming the right nominee.

 

Incredulously, while the Constitution spells out multiple requirements for becoming president or even a member of Congress, it mentions no rules for joining the Supreme Court! A justice doesn’t even have to have judicial experience!

 

Placing such unmitigated power into the hands of potentially unqualified individuals makes no sense.

 

It’s time to alleviate the long-term political impact of an unbalanced court.

 

We must act now to add term limits for Supreme Court justices as well as establish clearly defined qualifications.

 

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

Tags: , ,

Mark Caserta: Be wary of tactics to influence voters

12 Feb

me

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

2.12.16

It may surprise you that Donald Trump’s massive presence in liberal media outlets such as MSNBC or CNN isn’t meant to educate the voter as to his qualifications to be president.

Understand neither Democrats nor the liberal media want the villainous Hillary Clinton having to face anyone but Republican real-estate mogul Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. In fact, he may be the only chance she’s got.

 

The recent Iowa caucuses were a perfect example.

Nearly every single poll (including the esteemed Des Moines Register and Bloomberg) had Trump up in entrance polling by as many as 5 points over Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. At one point leading up to the voting, some polls had Trump up by as many as 22 points!

But that doesn’t mean he ever was.

You see, there’s something about the human psyche that makes folks want to go with a “winner.” And the major media players count on that. They believe they can influence the outcome of an election with early polling “slanted” toward their candidate feigning a substantial lead – so don’t waste your vote!

It turns out, Cruz won by nearly 4.5 points, nearly a 9 point turnaround. In this case, the incredulous consideration of Donald Trump as the GOP candidate was just too surmounting to be overcome by any media ploy.

Now, don’t get me wrong. This tactic isn’t proprietary for the liberal media. Other major conservative channels like Fox News are just as guilty of tilting the voter’s focus one direction or another.

For example, it’s pretty obvious to me that initially the Fox News tailwinds were in the sails of Jeb Bush. After all, the Bush legacy has been kind to owner Rupert Murdoch. But after seeing the Jeb ship wasn’t seaworthy, the talking heads jumped on Mario Rubio’s speed boat. And clearly the questions and interview angles given Rubio are slow pitches compared to the knuckle balls thrown at Ted Cruz and other candidates.

It’s a pretty sad state of affairs, actually. We have the national liberal media promoting the weakest possible GOP candidate while providing Hillary an endless supply of “get out of jail free” cards. And we have the comparative conservative media attempting to influence their lion share of voters with sometimes fair and “unbalanced” reporting.

So, don’t fall prey to this nuanced reporting and skewed polls. If we’ve learned anything from recent history, it isn’t only the politicians who will lie to you – some media outlets will as well.

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

Tags: ,

Mark Caserta: Will the rule of law be applied to Hillary?

6 Feb

2013 0613 caserta 01

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

  • Updated Feb 5, 2016

 

Have some government officials risen so high in political power that they’ve indeed risen above the law? Do Americans still value the rule of law over the ruler?

Consider retired Gen. David H. Petraeus, arguably one of the finest minds in military history and certainly a man who played a major role in the U.S. success in the Iraq War.

Originally appointed by George W. Bush to head multinational forces in the 2007 surge in Iraq, Petraeus later served as commander-in-chief of Central Command, head of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and as the director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

But even Petraeus wasn’t above the law.

In April 2015, he pleaded guilty to providing classified information to his former mistress and biographer and was sentenced, in a plea deal, to two years of probation and ordered to pay a $100,000 fine by a North Carolina court, as reported by Reuters.

So if a decorated general, who no doubt helped save American lives, isn’t above the impropriety of compromising classified information, should an ex-secretary of state?

 

Fast-forward to last Friday, where an Associated Press Newsbreak, written by Bradley Klapper, reported the Obama administration had finally confirmed that Hillary Clinton’s home server contained closely guarded government secrets and at least 22 emails that contained material requiring one of the highest levels of classification, despite telling the American people that she had “never sent or received any material marked classified.”

MONICA 3bh1

The article went on to say the AP had learned of seven email chains containing “top secret” information so highly restricted that it would not be released even with redactions.

“The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain a category of top secret information,” State Department spokesman John Kirby told the AP, calling the withholding of documents in full “not unusual.” That means they won’t be published online with others being released, even with blacked-out boxes.

In what I believe was a calculated attempt to “feign” her innocence, Clinton campaign spokesman Brain Fallon issued a classic Clinton bluff.

“We firmly oppose the complete blocking of the release of these emails,” Fallon said. “Since first providing her emails to the State Department more than one year ago, Hillary Clinton has urged that they be made available to the public. We feel no differently today.”

Right! The Clinton camp knows these top secret emails can never be released, further compromising national security, hence the assuming dare to release them.

As a younger man, I viewed hours of the Watergate hearings with great wonder. Soon thereafter, I witnessed President Nixon tender his resignation, fearing impeachment from an espionage operation inside the offices of the Democratic National Committee. While tragic, the system worked and forever changed politics as we know it.

 

Now, over 40 years later, could we be witnessing Hillary’s escape from indictment for far greater crimes against these United States of America?

If so, Americans will never again be able to trust that the rule of law will apply indiscriminately in Washington.

 

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

Tags: , , ,

Mark Caserta: Iran nuclear deal could yield disaster

29 Jan

mark

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

1.29.16

Americans believe terrorism is our No. 1 problem, according to a recent Gallup Poll.

But could the U.S. actually be helping finance terrorist activity? Well, according to our nation’s top diplomat, it’s very likely.

iran nuclear 1

As reported by multiple news agencies, Secretary of State John Kerry admitted last week that a portion of the billions of dollars of U.S. sanctions relief from the Obama administration’s controversial nuclear deal with Iran will likely support terrorist groups. During an interview just outside the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Kerry confirmed the stunning information.

 

“I think that some of it will end up in the hands of the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists,” he acknowledged to CNBC. “You know, to some degree, I’m not going to sit here and tell you that every component of that can be prevented.”

 

These “labeled” terrorists could acquire a portion of roughly $100 billion in sanctions relief, according to the U.S. Treasury Department. The money, derived mainly from Iranian oil sales, has reportedly been tied up in international banks as a result of the sanctions. But now, these funds are being freed into the hands of people who really don’t care much for America.

 

So, let me see if I understand this scenario. Not only is the United States paving the way for a nuclear prolific Iran and a potential arms race in the Middle East, we’re actually going to help finance the terrorists who will eventually seek to use it toward our destruction?

 

Frankly, the elements of this agreement reach new levels of lunacy. Appeasement and compromise have always been deemed acts of weakness by our enemies and come as no surprise from this administration. But any proposition that actually helps fund our nation’s greatest fear seems to me to be nothing short of treason.

 

Iran has been recognized by the U.S. State Department as a state sponsor of terror for years and has never given America any reason to trust it – in fact, quite the opposite.

Iran has perpetually lied about its nuclear aspirations, claiming it was strictly for peaceful purposes.

 

A December 2015 report issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency indicated that Iran “had carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device” and that some activities may still be ongoing.

 

And Iran remains a sworn enemy of the U.S. and Israel. In March 2015, amid negotiations with the United States and its allies, a speech by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was interrupted by the chant “Death to America.” He reportedly smiled and responded, “Of course yes, death to America.”

 

Americans simply cannot feel safe with an administration that consistently proves it’s willing to gamble with lives for no other reason than to adorn this president’s legacy.

 

We need leadership in 2016 that will put an end to this deal and other “fruits” of this failed liberal experiment.

 

Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran just might be pivotal to disaster for the U.S.

 

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

Tags: , ,

Mark Caserta: Republicans must support their nominee

22 Jan

mark

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

1.22.16

As I watch members of the GOP cannibalize their own day after day, I can’t help but wonder if we might be witnessing the total collapse of the Republican Party as we’ve come to know it.

Following President Obama’s final State of the Union address last week, the Republican response was given by South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley. Now, typically, the response is used to offer the GOP perspective of the state of the union, often in stark contrast with the president’s. But this address was very different.

 

A significant portion of the governor’s speech took aim at Republican leaders and their rightful ownership of the dysfunction of Washington.

“We as Republicans need to own that truth,” she added. “We need to recognize our contributions to the erosion of the public trust in America’s leadership. We need to accept that we’ve played a role in how and why our government is broken.”

 

Well spoken, empress of the obvious. While confession is good for the soul, only substantive solutions will change the ebb and tide of this political storm.

 

But then, and possibly for the first time ever in a state of the union response, Haley and the GOP establishment she represented proceeded to challenge the Republican presidential front-runner, Donald Trump, and his hardcore stance on immigration.

 

“Immigrants have been coming to our shores for generations to live the dream that is America. They wanted better for their children than for themselves,” she said. While the immigration system must be repaired, she said, “During anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices. We must resist that temptation. No one who is willing to work hard, abide by our laws, and love our traditions should ever feel unwelcome in this country.”

 

While I’m no fan of “the Donald,” how can the GOP be so short-sighted! Heaven forbid that Trump would indeed win the Republican nomination, but stranger things have happened. What if he’s successful at carrying this torch to his final destination? What if Americans really feel they’ve exhausted all other options? Where will Republicans be then?

It’s very telling that not only are half of Americans willing to give a neurotic liar and a professed socialist a shot at the presidency in order to perpetuate their progressive, leftist regime, a significant portion of the right are considering a paradigm shift in their conservative mentality simply to get our nation back on track. Hence, the Trump factor.

 

The one condition most Americans can surely agree upon is the state of our nation is in no way being improved by the listless group of elected officials who have lied and bamboozled their way into office only to sell their constituencies down the river. And the GOP is falling exceedingly short in presenting a unified front with real solutions to our nation’s woes.

 

And if Republicans refuse to support their party’s nominee in 2016, it may indeed be the end of the Grand Ole’ Party in the U.S.

 

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

Tags: , ,

Mark Caserta: Our nation’s woes result from poor choices

17 Jan

mark

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

  • Jan 15, 2016

Have you ever noticed how liberals respond when a Christian suggests the precepts of God’s Word as a solution to our nation’s woes?

cross

 

In fact, commentary regarding Christianity and its value in our society seems to draw the most vehement confutation from progressives. Following any such “Godly” expression, one will surely be poorly lectured on the “separation of church and state” and the edicts of the First Amendment.

 

I never cease to be amazed at how liberals are so “proficient” at ensuring “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” but so inept at protecting “the free exercise thereof ”

It isn’t difficult to correlate the plight of our nation with the decline of our acceptance of God’s will for our country. Deuteronomy 11:26-28 clearly makes the connection.

“See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse – the blessing if you obey the commands of the Lord your God that I am giving you today; the curse if you disobey the commands of the Lord your God”

 

Each of us makes choices, directly or indirectly, based upon the values and principles we’ve adopted through our life’s learnings. But as a nation, we’ve made some devastatingly poor choices, many within our own judicial system. And as a nation, we’ve paid the price.

 

The decision by the Supreme Court in 1962 that allowing prayer in public schools amounted to government promotion of religion was a huge mistake and gave progressives the foothold they now leverage in attempting to remove any semblance of God from a public venue. It also paved the way for the 1963 decision to remove Bible reading and make the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer unconstitutional.

 

Abe Lincoln said, “The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” We are now reaping from those progressive seeds of the ’60s.

 

A decade later the court gave us the landmark decision in Roe v. Wade that protected a woman’s decision to have an abortion. The decision was meant to be balanced between protecting the women’s health and protecting the potentiality of human life and viability outside the womb.

 

Half a century later, it’s potentially easier to take the life of an innocent baby than it is to purchase cold medicine. And way too often, it’s not to protect the health of the mother – it’s simply a matter of “inconvenience.”

Our nation didn’t go astray overnight. Our country has been progressively desensitized to inhumanity. The clarity between good and evil has become blurred and it’s driven society to choose the temporal pleasures of life.

 

The Bible says, “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”

 

Have we come too far to ever comply with this condition for restoration? I’m not optimistic.

 

But we must begin at some point. Now is a good time.

 

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

Tags: , ,

Mark Caserta: Obama plans surge in executive orders

14 Jan

mark

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

  • Jan 8, 2016

President Obama has but one year to complete his fundamental transformation of America into a humble, apologetic nation satiated with socialist and progressive tendencies. And unfortunately, whether by design or fortuity, Congress has become so dysfunctional, he just may be able to complete his mission via executive order.

In what I expect to be a rampant executive surge by Obama that frankly could border on the edge of dictatorship, we could see our lives impacted by major policy decisions made without any congressional or judicial input.

immigration 1

 

In a New Year’s Day address, the president shared his 2016 resolution was to complete “unfinished business,” which included addressing gun violence, as reported by multiple news agencies. In his message Obama paraded his frustration over a feckless Congress and its inaction and said he planned to meet with Attorney General Loretta Lynch “to discuss ways of reducing gun violence unilaterally through measures that do not require congressional approval.”

Allow me to re-ask liberals a simple question I posed in a previous column on gun control. What stricter gun law would have prevented any of the recent mass shootings?

Interestingly, Glen Kessler, a Washington Post fact checker, recently decided to fact check a statement made by Sen. Marco Rubio during a “CBS This Morning” interview in which he said, “None of the major shootings that have occurred in this country over the last few months or years that have outraged us, would gun laws have prevented them.”

 

In his “fact checker” column, Kessler writes his decision to scrutinize Rubio’s remark was prompted by a colleague who suggested that “it was almost certainly incorrect” and “posed an interesting challenge.”

 

But after a thorough vetting, Rubio’s statement received “The Geppetto Checkmark,” which is given only to statements and claims that contain “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

 

The fact is, Obama and liberal Democrats cannot name a single gun law that would have prevented these shootings, yet they continue to shamelessly exploit these tragedies in order to advance their gun ideology.

 

So, what is the liberal motive here? In an era when the average citizen’s greatest concern is domestic terrorism, shouldn’t the conversation be about protecting Americans – not disarming them?

 

In fairness, Obama’s initial proposals, such as broadening background checks, are likely to be fairly easy sells to the American people.

But progressive methodology involves advancing the status quo one victory at a time. As with the tragedy of abortion over the years, expect the restrictions on gun owners to continue to evolve and increase, until the final objective is met. And remember, liberals believe the fewer the guns – the fewer the crimes, so you do the math.

 

Sadly, it will take both Democrats and Republicans to stop the Obama surge, and that isn’t likely.

 

It’s time for conservatives to take a “progressive” approach to regaining control of Washington and focus on accumulating our share of victories.

 

Returning our nation to greatness will be a marathon; not a sprint.

 

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

Tags: , , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →